y
HP5T
"W
Hjwiw'tr
ry
The. Commoner
HEPTEMBBR , -1 IOT
ter verbatim Is as follows, omitting caption and
dale.
Communication from Gayley
"Hon. John Dalzell, Washington, D. C.f
Dear Sir: In answer to a letter from Hon. Wil
liam C. Lovering setting out what scorns to jtiim
the favorable provisions of his bill, No. 15,368,
and asking mo if I coincided in his views, to
write you asking you your assistance in secur
ing the enacting of the bill, I have written as
per enclosed copy. Yours truly,
"W. T. GRAHAM, President."
The inclosed copy was Mr. Graham's letter
to you, which have quoted from.
I have recently been furnished a copy of
Mr. Graham's letter to Mr. Gayley (referred to
In Mr. Graham's letter to you). Graham's let
ter to Gayley is in substance identical wltlr his
letter to you. It simply points out the legal
objections to your bill. Whether Mr Graham's
assumption that his letter to Mr. Gayley was
forwarded to me was correct, I am not able 'to
say. I find no such letter on my flies.
But suppose it was; let us so concede, for
the purpose of argument.
1 That letter does not furnish any evi
dence that "certain industrial combinations o
great influence were secretly using their
power to defeat legislation." On the contrary
the letter was offered to you, the author of the
proposed legislation, for your inspection. There
was no pretense of concealment about it. Nor
'Is it possible legitimately to infer any wrong
doing, intentional or otherwise, from the fact
that the letter was written by an "industrial
combination of great influence."
The right of any party, individual or com
bination to express their views upon proposed
legislation affecting their interests can not be
called in question; you yourself invoked the in
terposition of this influence in aid of your legis
lation. What was legitimate in aid of your
cause was certainly equally so against it, 'if by
conviction the party opposing believed your
cause to be wrong.
Legislation Unnecessary
2 That letter does not justify, the state
ment that it "directed him (me) to stop any
further discussion of the bill."
. 3 It contained not a line or letter that
was not proper in a communication from a con
stituent to his representative in congress about
proposed legislation in which the constituent's
interests were involved. It simply submitted
an argument on the merits of the proposed legis
lation and made no request one way or another.
4 It did not justify the Insinuation of
illegitimate Influence so far as the writer was
concerned and dishonest compliance so far as I
was concerned, as a representative in congress.
No one but a cheap and unscrupulous demagogue
would seek to use it for that purpose.
Neither Mr. Graham's letter to me, which
simply enclosed a copy of his reply to your let
ter, nor Mr. Graham's letter to Mr. Gayley, had
anything to do with the refusal of the committee
on ways and means, consisting of eighteen mem
bers, favorably to report any of your drawback
bills. You introduced a number of such bills
but they were identical in principle. It is not
necessary" to look beyond your bills themselves
to And a reason for their non-enactment. They
propose legislation which was regarded by the
committee as unnecessary and utterly impracti
cable of execution without" opening the door to
Immense frauds on the treasury, and that that
Is their character I now affirm.
Now as to Whitney's question, "Why can
not even a hearing be had on a proposition so
reasonable as Mr. Lovering's?"
Whitney's Veracity Questioned
The committee on ways and means invited
you to call "witnesses in support of your bill.
The committee listened patiently in the months
of April and May, 1902; and January. 1903, to
the testimony that you presented. The report
of the hearings cqyer 339 closely printed pages.
The committee heard you again -and again, times
without number They heard witnesses by the
dozen. These witnesses represented every in
dustry in thia country which used imported ma
terials in its manufactures. They included
treasury officials and customs officers, practical
men who understand the existing law and your
proposed amendment and yet in the face of
these facts all matter of public notoriety and
record a man pretending to be decent standi
up. before .an intelligent audience and seeks to
make his fearers believe that you had been de
nied a hearing. It. i possible that the Boston
. Herald In ,ita report- misrepresented Mr. Whit
ney. . I sincerely hope that it did. - -It may have
misquoted his language. I sincerely hopo that
it did. Because in its report it pats Mr. Whit
ney in the attitude of lying about me and of
lying about the record and of appealing to you
for his witness.
It is the connection of your namo with tho
affair, and that only, that justifies me in paying
any attention to Mr. Whitnoy or his speech.
What he says about me, or about any one elso
for that matter, Is not. In my judgment, of tho
loast consequence. If nothing more were in
volved than Whitney's reputation for, voracity,
it would be a Bin to waste time in the discussion.
When, however, for his misrepresentations and
perversions ho calls upon you as his authority
it seems to mo that it is duo both you and my
self that this letter should bo written. Yours
truly, JOHN DALZELL.
Lovering Replies to Dalzell
Representative Lovering has prepared an
exhaustive reply to Mr. Dalzell's letter, setting
forth his contentions regarding Mr. Whitney's
speech, and also including some very Interesting
correspondence with First Vice President James
Gayley of the United States Steel corporation.
Mr. Gayley's' letter demonstrates tho hostile at
titude of the Bteel trust to Mr. Lovering's draw
back bill. Mr. Lovering's letter to Mr. Dalzell
and the enclosures follow:
The Hon. John Dalzell, Pittsburg, Pa.
My Dear Mr. Dalzell:
At the outset I wish to explain that Mr.
Whitney's statement to tho effect that a letter
was written to you by the United States Steel
corporation directing you to stop any further
discussion of tho subject of drawback reform,
was evidently based on a misunderstanding of
the Information given to him regarding the na
ture of the letters written you by officials of
that corporation. I have never directly, or in
directly, made any statements in regard to these
letters that would bear this construction.
A second statement made by Mr. Whitney,
in regard to which there seems to be some mis
understanding on your part, is his reference to
the failure to get a hearing on the matter 6f
drawback law reform. He could not have meant
a hearing before the committee on ways and
means, since he had In his possession reports of
the various hearings held from time to time.
If, however, he meant a hearing in congress,
where the advocates of more liberal drawback
legislation could submit the question to the
judgment of their colleagues, ho was entirely
right, as a concerted effort was undoubtedly
made by the opponents of the drawback bills to
prevent their coming before congress for a de
cision. I am quite sure that If the subject could
have come up In the house of representatives
that a very large majority of the members would
jiave voted for the bills Introduced by me.
Replies to Comment
The remainder of your letter Is not con
cerned so much with Mr. Whitnoy, as with my
own responsibility for certain statements made
to me. Taking these up in the order submitted
by you, I wish to reply to your comment on my
assertion that "certain industrial combinations
of great influence were secretly using their
power to defeat legislation." You reply to this
that the letters written you by the president of
the American Tin Plate company do not furnish
any evidence as to the truth of this statement,
and that the correspondence on the subject of
my drawback bill was initiated by me. This is
a mistake. I first wrote to Mr. W. T. Graham,
president of the American Tin Plate company,
on February 10, but before this letter was writ
ten I was advised ths.t the American Tin Plate
company was secretly working to defeat ray
bill, and it was because of this Information that
my letter of February 10 was written. You
ignore the fact that Mr. Graham's first letter
on this subject was written on January 29, and
It was because I learned of this fact, through
friends of my bill In New York City that I ad
dressed Mr. Graham, explaining the purpose of
the legislation which I advocated, and asking
him, in event that pn further consideration he
saw no good reason why my bill should not
become law, to withdraw his opposition.
The facts, therefore, are that the corres
pondence was Initiated by the American Tin
Plate company, and though you seem to have
no recollection of having received their letter,
it .was. certainly set you by Mr. James Gayley,
iflrst vice president of the United States Steel
corporation. Thtr letter was not iled by you
5
with tho committco on ways and means, nor
was It made public in any way. Nor did tho
Araorican Tin Plato company, or tho United
State Steol corporation, appear through' their
representatives at any hearings on my bills.
They wore contenting thomsolves with, as I
stated In my speech In congress, secretly using
their power to defeat this legislation.
Steel Company OppoHilioia
You state that, supposing Mr. Graham's lot
tor of January 29 was forwardod to you by Mr.
Gayley, there was no pretense of concealment
about it. I must romind you that no information
in regard to this letter was given by you to mo.
the author of tho pending bills, and that if ,lt
had not been for tho accidental discovery df
tho action taken by Mr. Gayley, I should prob
ably never hnvo known of tho United States
Steel corporation's opposition. It is true that
Mr. Graham states in his letter of Fobruary 11
that he assumes that you would on request give
mo tho original letter written by him, or a copy,
but his action was only after ho had boon ad
visod that I was in possession of full Informa
tion as to his opposition to the bill. You did
not speak to mo in regard to this corporation's
hostility toward drawback law reform until
after X had written Mr. Graham and he had
written to you.
I have never intimated that thero was any
thing wrongful in the fact of tho United States
Steol corporation, or any othor person, firm of
company, submitting their vlows to congress in
regard to any legislation. What I did object,
to was tho fact that tho Influence of the greatest
corporation In tho world should be secretly used
to defeat a measure In tho public interost.
You suggest that I invoked tho aid of tho
United States Steol corporation in support of my
bills. This is incorrect, I had been advised
that this powerful corporation was secretly using
Its influonco to dofcat my bills, rM believing
that their action was taken through a misunder
standing of tho purposes of those bills, I en
deavored to have them withdraw their opposi
tion. There is a marked difference between
soliciting the support of a corporation, and ask
ing them to withdraw opposition.
Referring to point number three of your
letter, I would state that I entirely agree with
you that tho letters from Mr. Graham contained
nothing that was not proper In a communication
from a constituent to his representative in con
gress in regard to pending legislation. I havo
never stated anything to the contrary.
Illegitimate Influence
In paragraph four of your letter you repel
tho insinuation of illegitimate influence having
been used by tho United States Steel corpora
tion. I have never insinuated anything of tho
kind, and am not responsible for constructions
placed by others on the letters to you from that
corporation. But there is no question In my
mind that it was the Influence of that corpora
tion that prevented action by the committee on
ways and means on my drawback bills.
You will doubtless recall our meeting on.
the steps of the New WlHard hotel In the spring
of 1903, when I asked you why it was that I
could not get a report on ray drawback bills by
the committee on ways and means. You re
plied that if X could get the United States Steel
corporation to withdraw its opposition to tho
bills, you would cease to opposa a report on
them. Acting on this assurance by you I went
to New York and called on Mr. Gayley, first
vice president of that corporation, and, had an
extended interview with him. I showed him
that the legislation which I was advocating
would greatly benefit many Important manufac
turing industries, and exporters of American
products; that it was entirely practicable; would
involve no loss of Tevenue, and would afford
no more opportunity for fraud than exists under
the -present drawback law. I found, however,
that the only point of view from which he re
garded the matter was that of tho self-interest
of the United States Steel corporation, and that
the influence of that company would continue
to be exerted to prevent favorable consideration
of tne drawback bills.
.However, the point at issue m this contro
versy. Insofar as I am personally concerned,.
Is whether these drawback bills, if enacted into
law would have proved to be sound legislation,
and consistent with the tariff policy of the re
publican party. You have deemed it wise In
your letter to make the following comment on,
these bills:
"They propose legislation which was re
garded by the committee as unnecessary, and
utterly impracticable of execution without open-.
-, (Continued-on-Page 12.) - ; ; ;.
m
tBjLriftJJuW-'liii frnfflVjV:
k.itt -A t Jm&JrVMidA.Suttt nt
." .
i 1 ii w ai .
