2
The CbiriiMotierV
.iVOEUME 6, NUMBER 2S
f
ft
h
K
?
removed as one could well be from the ideal
public servant and his influence on the president
I.? likely to be as harmful as was the influence
of Morton.
There is another objection to his appoint
ment. He is not only the constitutional successor
le the president in case of the latter's death, but
his appointment gives him a boom for presidential
nomination. Being the appointee of the president,
the president's friends can not well oppose him
and the corporations ought to be entirely satis
fied with him. As secretary of state he does not
have to show his hand on economic or corporate
questions and therefore can avoid exciting the
wrath of the people.
All things considered the appointment of
Mr. Root is not a good sign. If Mr. Roosevelt
really means to be a reform president he ought
to surround himself with those who are in sym
pathy with his work. He will find the path
rugged enough at best; ho cannot afford to fill
his official household with those who have grown
rich by furnishing legal advice to exploiters
of the public. Mr Root has not exhibited the
"civic conscience" about which the president
speaks so frequently.
JJJ
THE PASS AS A BRIBE
I
K A
The Kansas City Journal, a republican pa
per, is authority for the statement that the man
agers of an eastern railroad have refused all re
quests for free transportation coming from the
congressmen who supported the Esch-Townsend
bill. The Journal says that the president of this
road has written to certain members .of congress
a letter saying that since favors do not induce
on the part of the recipient "even a fair consid
eration of the railroad's rights," his company
will grant no more of these free passes. In the
same letter this railroad president says:
I never was in favor of granting political
transportation, and now I have a good op
portunity to cut off some of those objection
able deadheads. I am not handling them with
gloves, either. Transportation has been given
them in tho past upon the theory that they
were friends, but when we needed friends
they were not there.
Several years ago a member of the Illinois
legislature applied (o the -president of the Santa
Fe railroad for a pass. In reply the legislator
'cceived the following:
Your letter of Ue 22nd to President
Ripley requesting an annual 'over the rail
road of this company has been referred to
me. A couple of years ago, after you had
been furnished with an annual over this line,
you voted against a bill which you knew
this company was directly interested in. Do
you know of any 'particular reason, therefore,
why we should favor you with an annual this
year?
. These two letters state as plainly as language
can that a railroad gives passes to legislators
and to public officials as a matter of business ex
pecting to receive a favorable consideration in
return. They show further that the legislator
who refuses to recognize the pass as a bribe
must not expect to get any more passes.
Perhaps the most striking illustration of the
evils of the pass system, and also a demonstra
tion of the fact that the evil is recognized in
law, "is to be found in the very general' practice
among our courts. If it was known that a juror
in a case to which a railroad company was a
party held a pass over that railroad company's
. lines, the presentation of that fact to the court
would bar that juror from" participation in the
case. Recently such an objection was raised in
a western court. It was shown that a juror had
received a trip pass over the lines of the railroad
company which happened to be defendant in
that particular case. The attorney for the plain
tiff made objection on this ground, and the judge
promptly told the juror to stand aside. At the
same time, however, the judge who made that
ruling had in his pocket an annual pass over the
lines of that same railroad company.
It is true that the man who had accepted a
trip pass was not qualified to serve as juror in
that case. Who will deny the truth of the state
ment that the man who had accepted an annual
pass from that same lino was not qualified to
act ns judge in that case?
The whole pass system is an abomination.
When a pass is given to a private citizen it is
unjust to the travelling public generally, and
when It is given to tho public official it Is given
with the expectation that the company will re
ceive considerably more In the way of official
favors in the matter of things done which should
not be done and things left' undone which should
be done than could be derived from the payment
by that official of cash fares.
In refusing passes Secretary Bonaparte
showed that he understood that the pass is in the
nature of a bribe. But other members of Mr.
Roosevelt's cabinet have not yet followed Secre
tary Bonaparte's good example.
JJJ
TRIAL BY JURY
Why should any one be surprised because
Secretary of War Taft made bold in his Yale ad
dress to question the sacredness of "trial by
jury?"" Mr. Taft has eminent republican authority
for his position.
Have we forgotten that when a republican
president sent his instructions to the Philippine
commissioners he used the language of the sixth
amendment to the constitution, barring a very
important clause? While in the language of the
sixth amendment he directed that "in all criminal
prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right
of speedy and public trial" he omitted the bal
ance of the sentence, .to wit: "by an impartial
jury of the state and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall
have been previously ascertained by law."
When Senator Lodge offered an amendment to
the Philippine bill extending to the inhabitants
of the islands a bill of rights, it was noticeable
that he had excepted the clause granting jury
trial and the right to bear arms.
That eminent republican newspaper, the
New York Tribune, referring to Senator Lodge's
proposition, asked "what more can the Filipinos
ask and what more can anybody ask for them?"
The Tribune explained that trial by jury was
denied to the Filipinos because, as it said: "It is
obvious that jury trials among a people even the
most advanced of whom have not the slightest
conception of Anglo Saxon jurisprudence would
be a complete failure. Instead of being a guar
anty of justice it would amount to a denial of
justice. We guarantee the substance of the Anglo
Saxon liberty freed from forms unsuited to
. Philippine conditions."
On June 1, 1904, the United States supreme
court rendered an opinion in which the right
of trial by jury figured. The case under consid
eration was a libel suit in which the editors of
a Manila paper had been convicted after being
refused a trial by jury. It was another "five to
four" opinion. The majority of the court, speak
ing through Justice Day, said that the government
of the Philippines has been expressly left by
the Treaty of Paris in the hands of congress, and
that congress because of the incapacity of the
people of the islands, had purposely withheld the
right of trial by jury. The court confirmed the
conviction of the editors in the Manila court, and
held that the refusal of the jury trial was correct.
Justices Harlan, Peckham, Brewer and Fuller
dissented. In the dissenting opinion Justice
Harlan declared that the decision of the majority
amounted to an' amendment of the constitution.
He considered that a most dangerous step, de
claring that the right of trial by jury was fun
damental and necessarily extends to any place
controlled by the United States and gives a
privilege which cannot be taken away by any
power of congress.
If the right of trial by jury Is so far from
being a sacred right that we can safely deny it
to the Filipinos then why need we be surprised
When the right is seriously assailed when applied
among the people in our own immediate land'
According to the old fashioned view it was a
sacred right. Mr. Jefferson considered it "the
only anchor ever yet imagined by man by which
a government can be held to the principles of
its constitution;" and among the complaints
enumerated in the Declaration of Independence
is that King George was "guilty of depriving us
in many cases of the benefits of trial by jury "
JJJ
A COMMON MISTAKE
Mr. William Travers Jerome, while on his
western tour, made a mistake all too commoVon
the part of eminent New York gentlemen IS
imagine that all wisdom is conflneOto a SnnteS
rtheTesf bv0nthlUeAi?a8i by th0 AUantic and
on tne west by the Alleghaney mountains His
attempt to make Kansans believe tlmt the trusts
have bettered and cheapened everything thev
have touched was a dismal failure for SI verv
simple reason' that the Kansans know by hE
experience that the very reverse ictvnl
ing all of his western speeches and ntervSws"
Mr. Jerome talked like a man who labored uS
the impression that he was aridr! ,
pontic, bt tho truth ,". S5 tXlKafries
are full of men i?ho know more about AmerU
can history, more about American politics ind
more about economics than Mr. Jerome can ever
hope to know, and they know it because thev
have learned it in the school of experience
It is true that the populist party, which had
its greatest strength in the west, did not elect
many senators and congressmen, but thoughtful
men will not dispute the fact that as a political
educator the populist movement never had a su
perior in the history of this country. It taught
men the practical lessons of economics, it set
men to studying problems of government', and it
started economic reforms inside of other parties.
Men like Mr. Jerome may sneer at some of the
visionary plans and policies of the early populist
leaders, and they may extract great amusement
from the futile efforts of inexperienced but honest
men who endeavored to rescue the country from
present ills, but the efforts of the early populist
leaders have resulted in giving a great deal of
trouble' to the eminent financiers who fondly
imagined that this republic" was an oyster to bo
opened for their 'particular delectation. Mr. Je
rome taught westerners nothing new while on his
much advertised tour because he was addressing
people who knew more about his subject than ho
did. And if Mr. Jerome learned nothing new it
was his own fault The opportunities were plen
tifuL
JJJ
WHAT DOES IT SIGNIFY?
A newspaper dispatch says "demands are
made that Chauncey M. Depew resign as director
.of the Equitable Life Assurance society. It is
also said that the demand will be made that Mr.
Depew resign as trustee of Yale university
and that recent disclosures may affect the sen
ator's relations with other institutions."
Has anyone heard of a' demand being made
for Mr. Depew's resignation as United States
senator?
Is it not strange that a man who has been
guilty of such offenses that his resignation as
director of an insurance society, as well as his
resignation as a trustee of a college, is demanded,
should be permitted to continue as a member of
the United States senate without even a protest
from the people whom he is presumed to repre
sent? Senator Burton of Kansas was tried and con
victed', yet it was never seriously suggested that
he resign his position in the senate.
Senator Mitchell of Oregon was tried and
convicted, yet, no demand tor his resignation as
a senator has' been made.
Senator Dietrich was indicted and escaped
on a technicality, yet Mr. Dietrich's resignation
as a senator was not demanded.
Some members of the lower house have been
arraigned in court charged with serious offenses,
while important disclosures concerning many
others have been made, and yet there is no de
mand that any of these men surrender the com
mission they hold from the people.
What does this signify? Does it show that
we are so careful of our business institutions
and our colleges that we insist that any one
connected with those institutions shall resign in
the face of charges affecting his integrity while
we do not have the same concern for the public
service?
Can the people afford to have a lower stand
ard for the public official than they have for tho
business director or the college trustee?
X - JJJ
CABINET SALARIES
The Chicago Tribune announces through its
Washington correspondent that an effort is to
be made in the next congress to raise the sala
ries of cabinet officers. The complaint is niaao
that the secretaries can not live in the styio
they should on the money they now receive.
Well, that is a matter of opinion. If our country
is going, to ape the monarchies of the old woria
and attempt to awe the masses with gorgeous
social display then it will be necessary to i aise
salaries all around. But if government officials
are willing to observe the simplicity that beiu
a republic the present salaries are sufficient, i"
congressmen and senators who live withm tne
salaries are the best officials in those bodies an
it would not be difficult to find competent cabi
net officers who could live on cabinet salaries.
Instead of trying to imitate the extravagancy
of European officialdom it would be refresnn j,
to see our country set an example in the ca
use of public money. Every increase in 0I11y
salaries tends to lessen the number from wiuw
selection can bj made. There is a growing t
dency to measure men by their incomes l""
who give all their time to money making e,ufc
u
.f"- n,.
j?
t ,. n w,, Jftti lr itttitrj..
' !