F
''
y
r Vu-
i' r
T U
ia
k
&S
fe
Eh
a-
6
Testimony Before
Investigating
Tho . following . are. .Associated Press dis
patches: Washington, D. C., Dec. 17. William
II. Hearst produced before. tho sonato investigat
ing committee today Beveral now letters bear
ing upon the alleged political activities of John
D. Archbold and tho Standard Oil company.
Mr. Hearst testified that ho knew nothing
as to the incidents related in the letters or tho
circumstances under which Mr. Archbold might
have sent money to former Senator Foraker of
Ohio and former Representative Joseph C.
Sibley of Pennsylvania, to whom some of tho
letters woro addressed.
The publisher was the chief witness at tho
committeo's short session today. Two of the
letters he produced had been made public in
1908, ho said, in a speech at Columbus, O. They
were from John D. Archbold and referred to a
projected loan of $50,000 to Senator Foraker,
to bo repaid by instalments. Mr. Hearst told
tho committee he had been informed that the
money was repaid.
With tho testimony of Mr. Hearst and John
Kennedy, the latter a witness called at the re
quest of Senator Oliver to tell of Senator Pen
rose's connection with the industrial commis
sion, tho committee adjourned to meet when
recalled by Chairman Clapp.
Chairman Clapp asked Mr. Hearst if he ever
saw the original of the letters published in his
magazine. He said he was not certain, but he
believed he had only seen the photographic fac
simile copies.
"Of whom did you get them?" asked Senator
Clapp.
Mr. Hearst hesitated a moment.
"I am anxious," he began, "to testify very
. fully to everything that I am personally con
cerned in and everything of interest to this in
quiry. Do you feel that this is essential to tho
inquiry?"
Senator Clapp replied that the authenticity of
some of the letters had been questionod. After
members of the committee had insisted upon
tho information, Mr. Hearst responded that-he
got the copies of John Eddy of London, author
of four of the articles published in a magazine.
He testified he did not know of whom Eddy
procured the letters.
Mr. Hearst suggested Mr. Eddy probably
would be willing to appear to tell how the let
ters were taken from tho Standard Oil com
pany's files.
Senator Pomerene asked about the sugges
tion that the letters were forgeries.
"I know nothing about that," said Mr. Hearst.
"The explanation made in response to tho for
gery charge was that some of the letters pub
lished in the magazine had to be reproduced in
typewriting in order to be discernible when
printed."
Pressed further to tell about getting the let
ters, Mr. Hearst said that Mr. Eddy was in his
employ as a magazine writer at the time he
brought him the letters, but that Eddy had paid
nothing to obtain possession of them.
MORGAN A WITNESS
J. Pierpont Morgan appeared before the
tnoney trust investigating -committee December
18. The Associated Press report says: -Mr.
Untermeyer conducted the examination of Mr.
Morgan, asking a rapid series of questions to
bring out the general standing of the firm of
J. P. Morgan & Co., its branch connections in
this country, and abroad, and its affiliation with
many other financial institutions.
Tho preliminary examination brought out no
clashes, Mr. Morgan responding promptly to the
various queries or calling for data' from some
of tho representatives of the firm which would
be responsive to the questions propounded.
" The chief point made in today's examination
of Mr. Morgan was that ho favored allowing
Interstate corporations to deposit their funds in
the hands of private bankers without restrict
ing them to institutions under government su
pervision. He said this was a matter to be left
to the discretion of the boards of directors of
the corporations in question. Mr. Untermeyer
asked long questions developing this side, to
which the financier replied briefly in tho affirma
tive as to allowing the interstate corporations
to deposit their f undB with private banking in
stitutions. Mr. Morgan confirmfcd data prepared by mom-
The Commoner.
the Money Trust
Committee
six accounts with tho Morgan firm in January
last had deposits of $08,113,000 and that seventy-eight
accounts on November 1 -had deposits
of $81,968,000. The total capital, surplus and
funded debt of those deposits, Mr. Untermeyer
stated, 'was $9,765,000,000. Mr. Morgan agreed
to this.
Prior to Mr. Morgan's examination the com- .
mitteo heard testimony bearing on the so-called
concentration of money and credits.
This was presented in the form of charts pre
pared by Philip J. Scudder, which was placed in
the records. This explanation showed tliat the
charts dealt with tho affiliation of 180 direc
tors in eighteen banks and trust companies in
Now York, Chicago and Boston. It showed that
"these 180 men held in all 746 directorships in
134 banks and trust companies, transportation
and industrial corporations having total re
sources of capitalization of $25,325,000,000. It
also gave in detail affiliations of J. P. Morgan
& Co. and other leading financial institutions
in New York, Boston and Chicago.
When Scudder finished Mr. Underwood called
out:
"Mr. Morgan, will you take the stand?"
The financier walked to the chair at the end
of the committee table and was sworn by Chair
man Pujo. In response to the usual qualify
ing questions he said he was a banker in New
York city.
"Are you a momber of a Philadelphia firm?"
asked Mr. Untermeyer.
"Well, that's the same firm," 'answered Mr.
Morgan. "The firm is in New York, with
branches in Philadelphia, Paris and London."
"Who are the members of tho firm?"
Mr. Morgan furnished the following list: J.
P. Morgan, H. P. Davison, W. P. Hamilton, T.
W. Lamont, H. F. Lloyd, J. P. Morgan, jr., D.
A. Newbold, William H. Porter, Charles Steele,
F. T. Stotesbury and Temple Bowdoin. '
After Mr. Morgan had furnished his list of
partners he said the same men were in all tho
houses.
"Only my desire to have Mr. Drexel's name
in the Philadelphia house prevents all the houses
having the same name," said Mr. Morgan.
"Do you do a general banking business in
New York?"
"Wo try to."
Mr. Morgan explained that his firm did not
belong to tho clearing house, but cleared its own
checks over its counter.
Mr. Untermeyer asked Mr. Morgan whether
his house carried deposits of "interstate corpora
tions." Mr. Morgan said he did not quite under
stand what the attorney meant, and Mr. Unter
meyer explained.
Mr. Morgan said his firm accepted the ac
counts of any corporation it thought reliable.
"Have you accounts from interstate corpora
tions?" "With any corporation we think is good," '
said Morgan.
Mr. Untermeyer read into the record a state
ment that in January there were sixty-six ac
counts with the Morgan firm, with deposits of
$66,113,000, and on November 1 there were
seventy accounts having on deposit $71,968,000.
"Do you think that these great corporations
that have their securities scattered broadcast
ought to be permitted to make their deposits
with a private banker?" asked Mr. Untermeyer.
"I do," said Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Untermeyer said he referred to no par
ticular instance, but asked whether Mr. Mor
gan thought that, as a matter of public policy,
corporations really owned by the public ought
to be allowed to deposit with private bankers
notes subject to federal inspection.
"I do," again said Mr. Morgan.
He added that tho facts ought to depend on
the character of tho banker and the extent to
which the board of directors of the corpora
tions might formally authorize such deposits.
Mr. Morgan said the question was one which
he believed should be left to the board of
directors.
Mr. Untermeyer asked what interstate cor
porations tho Morgan firm acted as fiscal agents.
Mr. Morgan did not know, but he accepted
a list furnished by his office to tho committee.
The list included the Chicago & Western In
diana railroad, tho Chicago, Indianapolis & St.
Louis railroad, tho Pere Marquette, the New
hers of tho Morgan house showing that sixty-
VOLUME 12, NUMBER 51
York, Now Haven & Hartford and the Now
York Central. NGW
Mr. Untermeyer asked as to the terms of the
agreement under which Morgan & Co. acted as
financial agents. "You have the right to issue
all their securities, haven't you?" asked Mr
Untermeyer.
"If wo can agree on terms," replied Morgan
Mr. Untermeyer persisted in the question as
to whether the Morgan firm did not have entire
control of the securities of the Now York Cen
tral. "Only If we can agree on terms," replied Mor
gan again.
He agreed to furnish a copy of the agreement
between tho New York Central and his firm.
MORGAN'S SECOND DAY
Washington, Dec. 19. J. Pierpont Morgan
today told the mdney trust investigation com
mittee of the house that "all the money in
Christendom and all the banks in Christendom"
could not form a monopoly that would control
money. Mr. Morgan disclaimed any knowledge
that he wielded a vast power in modern finance
and declared emphatically that he sought no
such power. For nearly five hours the chief
witness called by the committee in its investiga
tion of the intracacies of modern finance stood
a running fire of questions that covered every
phase of financial operation. In some respects
It was one of the most remarkable hearings
about the halls of congress in recent years, with
Mr. Morgan as the type and embodiment of phy
sical operations on a colossal- scale, and the com
mittee's counsel, Samuel Untermeyer, the repre
sentative of the elements which seek to probe
to the innermost recesses the conditions under
which vast financial operations are conducted.
Mr. Morgan gave at length his' views on com
petition, combination, co-operation and control
in industry and finance, particularly the latter.
He declared he "did not mind competition," but
that he preferred "combination" in his opera
tions. He was emphatic in his declaration that
"there is no way one man can get a monopoly
on money."
Throughout the long examination, to which
Mr. Morgan submitted with an evident willing
ness to answer, there was not a moment when
interest lagged. Short, -sharp questions and
answers camo with striking rapidity. While
the colloquys were at times emphatic there was
no serious clash between Mr. Morgan and Mr
Untermeyer. Mr. Morgan gave a ready response
to questions, although there was often a battle
of wits as to tho meaning and effect of various
financial conditions and operations.
The question of competition and combination
brought about a lively exchange between the
noted financier and Mr. Untermeyer, the latter
opening the tilt with the suggestion that Mr.
Morgan was opposed to competition. The wit
ness denied this, but said he favored "co-operation,"
adding that ho "liked a little compe
tition." He disagreed with the views of Mr. Unter
meyer on the question of interlocking directo
rates, which forms tho basis for a large part
of the statistical evidence that makes up tho
record of the money trust Investigation up to
date.
Without actual control Mr. Morgan claimed
there is no control, although some directors
may bo common to several corporations.
"You and Mr. Baker (George F. Baker) domi
nate the anthracite coal road situation, do you
not?" asked Mfr. Untermeyer at one point in
the examination.
"I do not think we do," said Mr. Morgan.
"At least, if we do I do not know it."
"Your power in tiny direction is entirely un
conscious to you', is it not?"
"It Is, sir, if that is the case," said Mr.
- Morgan.
"You do not think you have any power in any
uojjui uuoui ui iiiuuuity lit mm uuuuli;, uu jw".
"Not tho slightest."
"And you are not looking for any?"
"I am not seeking it, either."
"This consolidation and amalgamation of
systems and industries and banks does not look
to any concentration, does it?" asked Mr. Unter
. meyer, tvith a smile. .
"No, sir," answered the witness.
"It is for the purpose of concentrating the
interests that you do not amalgamate, is it not?
"It is. If it is good business for the interests
of the country to do it, I do it".
"But, Mr. Morgan, is not a man likely,
asked the lawyer, "quite subconsciously to
imagine that things are for the Interests of the
country when they are for good business?
"No sir."
"You think that you are able to justly and im-
i
i, '
-I. . A. a.Vjt.t . . .j,uJVl,.,
