WPlWPJpmiulllilJ II. J W UHll
DECEMBER 1, 1905
..'.
The Commoner.
3
WHY NOT "RESPECT SANCTITY OF THE COURT"
It has recently developed that for twenty-one
years Rufus W. Peckham, one of the justices of
the United States supreme court, has been a
trustee of McCurdy's Mutual Life Insurance com
pany. Some of the eastern newspapers who mako
it a point to fight special interests between elec
tion days, whileaon election day they throw their
powerful influence to the support of the preferred
candidates of these special interests, are just
now having considerable to say with respect
to Mr. Justice Peckham's connection with the
uuial Life. We are told by these newspapers
that during Mr. Justice Peckham's trusteeship
the McCurdys took $4,918,607 of the trust funds
which properly belonged to the policyholders,
and which was practically in the keeping of Mr.
Justice Peckham and his fellow trustees. We
are told by theso newspapers that the McCurdys
made much of the fact that a justice of the Uni
ted States supreme court serves as a trustee of
their concern. Wo are told that while trustees
are supposed tobe responsible for the acts of the
administrative officers, and are presumed to rep
resent the policyholders, these trustees elected
McCurdy president, and have not, so far, made
an effort to remove him. We are told that during
all the years of the McCurdy iniquities the name
of Mr. Justice Peckham has been used as "a
cloak and that Mr. Justice Peckham's sanction of
the use of his name has been "in itsolf a certi
at?, oCTllone8ty and a guarantee of respectabil
ity. Wo are told that it is "all the more a
mystery why, after full exposure and confession,
Mr. Justice Peckham has permitted tho abuse
of his name and his ofiico to continue." Wo
are told that although the McCurdys have con
fessed, no one has heard from Mr. Justice Peck
ham either a demand that the McCurdys resign
or a request that his name be disassociated from
all connection with the concern.
All theso things call to mind tho fact that
in 189G when democrats made bold to criticise
some of the acts of mere men holding positions
on tho bench they were told by these same news
papers that the judge could do no wrong, and that
it was little short of treason for any individual
or political party to criticise or to call in ques
tion the acts of a judicial officer.
With what reason, then, do theso newspapers
question the propriety of an associate justice
of the United States supreme court holding an
office in connection with a commercial concern?
With what reason do these newspapers criticise
an associate justice of tho United States supremo
court because, whllo sorving an a triiitoo chargod
with tho responsibility for policyholders' money,
ho made no cfTort to protect tho funds of tho
people whoso fortunes wore ontrustod to him?
With what reason do thoso newspapers sock to
drag tho ermine into the dust? Why not "let
well enough alone?" Why not have some con
cern for the "sanctity of tho courts?" Why not
"stand up for the dignity and honor of tho Judi
ciary?" Why should any newspaper oditor "lay
foul hand upon sacrod precincts?"
Concluding an editorial personally addrossod
to Rufus W. Peckham, justlco of tho supremo
court of tho Unitod States, tho Now York World
says: "Tho McCurdys havo confessed. Thoy
plead guilty. Out with them!"
Well, what about Mr. Justlco Peckham? Ac
cording to tho World, during all tho Umo tljat
McCurdy was president Mr. Justice Peckham was
trustee. Tho McCurdys have confessed, it is
true, but it seems that during all of his trustee
ship Mr. Justice Peckham nover raised a hand
for tho protection of the policyholders, and slnco
tho McCurdys havo confessed, Mr. Justice Peck
ham has not registered a protest.
Out with the McCurdys, of course! But why
not out with tho Peckhams?
AN AMBASSADOR'S FALSE CERTIFICATE
David E. Thompson is the American ambas
sador to Brazil. Newspaper dispatches say that
Ambassador Thompson has recently issued over
his official signature a letter which he says Is
in reply to questions that have been asked him
by New York Life Insurance policyholders, and
all "indicating an uneasy frame of mind."
The London Times is authority for the state
ment that Mr. Thompson's letter Is signed by
him as American ambassador. In that letter
Mr. Thompson said that the New York Life In
surance company "is one of the great institu
tions of the world, and is conducted by good
men." 'He said: "The company is of such magni
tude that irregularities might occur within its
limits, as so unfortunately do occur in the lives
of most great concerns, without the knowledge
of more Can a sub-chief, and perhaps without
the knowledge of any one of the chiefs in con
trol." He added that such irregularity "could
not be more than insignificant," and concluded:
"There may be dishonest employes of the gov
ernment, but the government is sound, and tho
same is true of the New York Life company."
It is to be hoped that Mr. Roosevelt will
cause to be sent to his ambassador at Brazil a
reminder that it is not the province of an Ameri
can diplomat to rush to the defense of insurance
magnates who, in the parlance of the street, have
WHY NOT MUTUALIZE?
In an article written for Harpers, Grover
Cleveland says: "Our business men seem la
mentably willing, if not anxious, to accept trus
teeships and directorships, more to add to their
prominence and importance among their fellows
than to do actual, conscientious duties in protect
ing the interests confided to their care.
The passing of the term 'dummy director' with
tlie conditions which gave it life is certainly a
consummation devoutly to be wished."
Has any one observed a mutualization of the
Lquitable Assurance society since Mr. Ryan
chose Mr. Cleveland as one of the "trustees?"
Is Mr. Cleveland, in truth, any more than a
dummy" trustee under the Ryan management?
Jj he has real power, why does he not exercise
Jt for the advancement of genuine reforms? Mu
tualization is the thing for which the policy
holders of the Equitable have long sought, yet
under t,he Ryan management and the Cleveland
trusteeship, the policyholders the men whose
welfare should be the chief concern of their
trusteesare as far away as ever from a realiza
tion of r eir dream.
JJJ
RARE GENEROSITY
, Witn an air of exceeding generosity Pesl
aent McCurdy of the Mutual announces that here
auer he will accep't only one-half ' of his recent
wuary for his services to the Mutual. He "has
een drawing- mark the distinction between
been "caught with the goods."
Referring to the New York Life, Mr.
Thompson says: "The company is of such magni
tude that irregularities might occur within its
limits as so unfortunately do occur in the lives
of most great concerns without the knowledge of
more than a sub-chief and perhaps without the
knowledge of any one of tho chiefs in control.
There may bo dishonest employes of the govern
ment, but tho government is sound, and tho same
is true of the New York Life Insurance com
pany." But there would not bo great confidence Hn
the soundness of the government if it .ere shown
of the president of tho United States, as it has
been shown of the president of tho New York
Life Insurance company that he places no value
upon the principles of common honesty. If any
fact has been established with respect to tho dis
creditable transactions in the New York Life In
surance company's affairs, it is that the president
of that concern rather than any "sub-chiefs" had
a guilty knowledge of the most conspicuous of the
dishonest transactions.
Governor Culberson of Texas made a demand
upon President McCall personally that he give
the amount, if any, paid by or on behalf of his
insurance company for political purposes during
the presidential campaign of 189G. Responding to
Governor Culberson's demand, President McCall,
caused the cashier of his company to make affi
davit to tho effect that "no moneys wore directly
or indirectly paid by this company (tho New York
Life) to the republican campaign fund during
tho recent (189G) presidential election." Tho
cashier was doubtless honest In making this affi
davit, but according to Mr. McCall's own testi
mony before the Insurance committee ho know
that his cashier had certified to a misstatement.
The Commoner recently reproduced extracts
from a circular Issued by tho New York Llfo
Insurance company, and pointed out at least eigh
teen falsehoods told in that circular. No one
would for ono moment imagine that that circu
lar was issued without tho knowJedgo and con
sent of President McCall. It was there shown
in extracts from testimony introduced before tho
insurance committee that in every material state
ment made in that circular tho attompt was mado
to deceive not only tho policyholders but tho
agents of the New York Lifo Insurance com
pany. These falsehoods and these frauds arc not to
be charged to any sub-chief. They were made and
entered into evidently with the full knowledge
and consent of 'Mr. McCall and other men high In
authority; and when an American ambassador
seeks to use h's official position In tho effort to
deceive the public he Is guilty of an offense so
flagrant that the administration responsible for
his official career owes it to the people to con
.cel his commission.
drawing and earning a salary of $150,000 a year.
He now says he will accept but $75,000 a year.
President McCurdy acts as if he thought this
rare generosity on his part, and doubtless he be
lieves it. There are others, however, who will
think otherwise. They will consider It as mere
ly a partial acknowledgement that he has been
exploiting the policyholders.
The McCurdy family seems to have looked
upon the Mutual as an orange to be squeezed for
their own particular benefit, and President Mc
Curdy's action in trying to pose as a liberal man
merely because he has been forced to take his
mouth from the fruit will only add to the general
conviction that he should be compelled to give way
altogether.
JJJ
RAILROAD REGULATION
On page 7 of this issue Tho Commoner
prints an interview relating to the visit
to the White House of the delegation claiming
to represent railroad employes. Like former in
terviews, the one presented this week will be
interesting to all who are anxious to become well
informed upon the question which is just now at
tracting public attention.
The broad and fundamental dissimilarities
between private business enterprises and public
service corporations are distinctly and unmistak
ably defined in the quotations made. These dis
similarities have been universally recognized for
ages, and no Intelligent man of this day and ago
has any right to plead ignorance of those facts
in justification of such rash and absurd expres
sions as emanated from this delegation in pre
senting their objections, to President Roosevelt.
JJJ
A GREAT POWER
Referring to the great power o the rail
roads tho Denver News says: "In the con
sideration of the railway rate question it
must not be forgotten that continental Amer
ica contain 212,000 miles of railway, with
control centralized In the persons of eight or ten
great financiers, who keep dividends in view.
These arteries of trade represent a total of capi
tal stock and funded debt aggregating more than
$13,000,000,000. They carry over 700,000,000 pas
sengers and 1,300,000,000 tons of freight each
year, earning in a single twelve months $2,000,
000,000, an amount only a little less than the en
tire foreign commerce of the United States in
1902. Their net earnings are much In excess of
the ordinary receipts of tho United States govern
ment, while their employes number about 600,000,
a service larger than that of the federal system."
The News then gives this timely warn
ing: "Collectively they constitute a power
that may fairly be brought Into comparison
with that of the nation itself. If the
nation fails to regulate this power it is a ques
lon of very brief time when the power referred
to will regulate the nation."
intoKi,ai&tiim."n. .riir-r "ngnfrtiflriiiinii r
mm
tur-M i ii. j.iafa. . ,
-i-"--Mto .futilL.lii'iiH iifllfiilMiir I
