n'
The Commoner.
AUGUST I, 1907
I
Lr
w
Knapp Btm contends that "It Is not for tho
commission to determine whether Mr. Harriman
haa violated the criminal law." But strange as
It may seem, in almost the same breath he comes
out flatly and acquits Mr. Harriman of crime
in the method ho used and thereby determining
that it is the business of tho commission to And
that Mr. Harriman did not violate the law. This
1b not mere inconsistency.
Let us quote further from Mr. Knapp's state
ment: "Whether any of these transactions wero
in violation of tho criminal provisions of tho
anti-trust law, it Is doubtless true that Mr. Har
riman secured Immunity by being called as a
witness. This question was carefully consid
ered by the commission and it seems plain that
It was more important to develop and expose
the actual facts, and there appeared no other
way to get to the bottom of some of these trans
actions except by putting Mr. Harriman on tho
stand."
So tho interstate commerce commission, do
spito their protestations that prosecution of Har
riman was none of their business, did actually
determine that question. They "carefully consid
ered," without consulting the attorney general,
who by law is supposed to advise them, thafj
Mr. Harriman should be put outside" the power
of the department of justice, for whom the com
mission pretends to have so much respect, to
bring him to the bar of justice.
Mr. Knapp's attempt to excuse the commis
sion's action by saying that "there appeared to
be no way to get to the bottom of these trans
actions except by putting Mr. Harriman on
the stand" se.ems rather lame. Mr. Knapp prob
ably never heard of the United States grand
jury, and if he is right in his surmise that "Mr.
Harriman has secured immunity from prosecu
tion by being called as a witness by the inter
state commerco commission" then the whole
Harriman investigation Is worse than a farce.
For what in that event will this investiga
tion have accomplished? Ix?ting has been add- .
ed to the information concerning Harriman's
methods, not already known. The commission's
report in fact could hardly succeed in making
Harriman and his practices more odious than
Harriman himself has made them. Probably
much less of value has been extracted by the
polite,, inquiry of the commission than would
have been developed before a federal grand jury.
Certainly the Investigation has not checked Mr.
Harriman's illegal operations. On the contrary
it seems to have only succeeded in giving Mr.
Harriman such an immunity bath that he Is now'
in a position where justice can not reach him.
It certainly is Harriman's turn to laugh.
The immunity bath given him by the inter
state commerce commission is not the only thing
that Mr. Harriman can laugh about. It now
transpires that the President Roosevelt who was
so outraged by Harriman's unholy Alton deal,
is the same Theodore Roosevelt who, as gov
ernor of the state of New York, did his part to
make that same unholy transaction possible.
President Roosevelt can put individuals Into the
Ananias club with impunity, but he can hardly
go behind tho record. In February, 1900, a
special act, known as the McEwan bill, passed
the assembly and two weeks later the state sen
ate. It was signed by Governor Roosevelt on
February 26. Both in the assembly and in the
senate the bill was attacked as a gross piece of
favoritism, as it made the three per cent bonds
of the Chicago and Alton Railroad company a
legal investment for savings banks in New York
state. These are the bonds which, in 1899, were
sold to those who control the stock of this road
(Mr. Harriman and a few others) at sixty-five
cents on the dollar, and later after Governor
Roosevelt signed the act, legalizing these bonds
as a savings bank investment, they were sold
out at a large profit. Thus did Governor Roose
velt play a conspicuous part in what is politely
termed the Alton re-organization and rightly
called the Alton swindle. Of course at the time
that - Governor Roosevelt signed this measure,
he and Harriman were close friends. Since then
Theodore Roosevelt's opinion of Mr. Harriman
has changed, and of course, it is only natural
that his views aTxut the Alton deal should also
have changed. Consistency, thou art, after all, a
jewel.
North Carolina is not the only state that is
having trouble with the wonderful discovery of
the Roosevelt administration that the general
government "is vested with inherent powers, in
addition to its expressed and Implied powers;"
It would seem that the recent un'animous d'e-
ifcision of the United States supreme court in
aosas vs. Colorado (a decision, by the way,
--fcSTJTSi nmiiT imorlonn dttrmlri rAfirH wmilri hft
eiwSgh to relegate that colossal legal blunder
to innocuous desuetude. And tho attorney gen
eral like tho pride of Goldsmith's Deserted Vil
lage "oven though vanquished can argue still."
If North Carolina has its Prltchard, Glen" Echo
has Its Bonaparte. And if this bo treason, iuako
tho most of It.
Now Glen Echo Is a littlo town In Mary
land near tho district line. Glen Echo has ordi
nances and Maryland .has laws limiting tho
speed of automobiles. Glen Echo also has a
mayor and a town marshal who daro commit
the unpardonable offense of obeying their oaths
and enforcing the laws. Several speeding diplo
mats on recreation bent wore arrested.
Who over heard of such impudence? Just
and about tho same spirit that a notorious
Bowery politician wanted to know "what was
tho constitution between friends," the state de
partment hero wanted to know of Mayor Garrett
and Marshal Collins of Glen Echo what were
the speed laws to diplomats. The secretary of
state in fact, seemed to care more about ploas
lng his disgruntled diplomatic friends, than tho
safety of American pedestrians at Glen Echo.
He immediately took a hand in ordor to pre
vent Garrott and Collins from enforcing tho law
they had sworn to execute. Diplomacy falling,
the ever ready department of justice was draft
ed for the war on Glen Echo. The able attorney
general at once handed down one of his ready
made opinions to tho effect that Glenn Echo
had no jurisdiction over the conduit road upon
which reckless autoists wero daily violating tho
law.
In order to sustain his contention the at
torney general cited an act of tho Maryland
legislature passed over fifty years ago, which
he claimed ceded the land upon which tho road
was built to the national government. Every
body took it for granted that the attorney gen
eral was an able lawyer, and knew what ho
was talking about. All the diplomats and speed
ing autoists at once congratulated him upon his
legal find. Then the unexpected happened. A
Washington lawyer, Edmund B. Brlggs, got It
into his head that the opinion of tho attorney
general was a veiled attack upon tho police
powers of the states. Ho took the trouble to
look up the law which the attorney general had
cited. And hero is what he found:
"Section 1. Be it enacted by the gen
eral assembly of Maryland, that If the plan
adopted by the president of the United
States for supplying the city of Washington
with water should require said water to bo
drawn from any source from within the
limits of this state, consent is hereby given
to the United States to purchase such land
and to construct such dams, reservoirs,
buildings, and other works, and to exercise
" concurrently with tho state of Maryland
such jurisdiction over the same as may be
necessary for the said purpose."
Surely here is no grant of land that gives
the federal government jurisdiction of the po
lice powers of' the state over the soil upon which
the conduit road is built "for the said purpose"
seems to limit the jurisdiction of tho national
government to matters involving tho water sup
ply of the city. And even as to those purposes
Its jurisdiction is merely concurrent with that
of the state of Maryland.
Can it be possible that the attorney general
is mistaken? Surely he is a pretty good lawyer
or President Roosevelt would not have made
him attorney general. But just where the water
supply of Washington Is involved in the speed
limit of autos is not quite apparent. It would
indeed be interesting to know at what particu
lar rate touring cars should be operated by
diplomats in order to produce. In the opinion
of the attorney general, the most desirable effect
on the water.
The attorney general may be a great law
yer, but like the secretary of state he may only
be a great "corporation" lawyer. And here is
a distinction with a difference. The attorney
general certainly has had little success after all
in finding a statute with which to prevent Gar
rett and Collins from enforcing a good law.
With a little less labor he could have consider
able success in finding a criminal statute with
which to prevent Rockefeller and Harriman from
violating the law. If the attorney general will
only do this, the public will soon forgive and
forget his Glen Echo blunder, but will he?
Nothing more amazing has ever proceeded
..from a federal court than the' decisions rendered
within the last week by Judge Prltchard of tho
federal court of North Carolina. The state of
North Carolina, through its legislature, enacted
a law fixing the rates that railroads should
charge for-passenger service within the state,
It further established penalties for tho viola
tion of tho law. Employes of tho Southorn
Railway, which happens to be owned by one
Thomas F. Ryan, violated tho law nnd tho pen
alties wero imposed by tho local courts. On ap
poal to Judge Prltchard tho action of tho courts
in North Carolina woro sot aside. Ho declared
that tho penalties prescribed by tho state law
would amount to confiscation. Tho authority
of tho federal judgo who was appointed by
President Roosovolt, oxtonds also into Virginia.
There, too, ho has handed down a decision in
opposition to what millions of tho people of this
country Imagine Is tho president's policy. And
In Virginia ho has gone far enough to insist
not meroly that the action of the stato legisla
ture In fixing tho railroad rates Is unconstitu
tional and void, but he has issued anothor order
restraining ovory nowspapor in Virginia from
publishing the order of two cents a mile by tho
stato railroad commission or any other ordor of
that sort made by that commission.
WILLIS J. ABBOTT.
. $ .
Thread
And now It Is thread upon which tho trusl
system has laid its unholy hand. Tho Chicago
Tribune (republican) prints this editorial:
"If street car fares were to be jumped to
sevon cents and thou to ton cents the entiro
community would bo up in arms. If tho prico of
tho glass of beer wero to bo advanced thus tliero
would bo wild Indignation among tho boor drink
ers. To tho woman five cuts is aa much tho
natural price of a spool of cotton thread as to
a man five cents is of a glass of beer. Tho prlco
of thread, raised a short time ago to seven cents
a spool, has been put up to ten cents. Will tho
women of the country submit uncomplainingly,
or will thoy call upon the men to join with thorn
in demanding a return to tho old price?
"There are women who will protest against
tho advance In price not because thoy will feel
it but "as a matter of principle." There are
other women who will bo hard hit. Tho gar
ment workers who buy their own thread will
earn a few cents less a week. That will bo no
trivial matter, for their earnings aro scanty
enough at best. With them every corit count.
When tho coin which used to buy two spools
of thread buys only ono they feol it keenly.
'Their flnancos aro disarranged.
"Raw cotton costs more than It did a few
years ago. There have been recent advances In
tho wages of the cotton spinners. But as an
offset there have been improved processes of
manufacture and a rapid increase in the volurno
of sales. Whatever net increase there may havo
been in the cost of production is not enough to
justify a 100 per cent advance in price. Thoro
would bo no such advance if there were any
real -competition in tho manufacture of cotton
thread. The industry is practically monopolized
by one great concern, and It Is utilizing its mon
opoly for tho oppression of poverty stricken sew
ing women.
"The women of the country do not take a
deep interest in tho prosecution of railroads
which pay rebates or of such Industrial concerns
as the tobacco trust. If tho government wero
to attack the cotton thread monopoly they would
all sing the praises of the department of justice.
"Perhaps they will be gratified. It wag
reported recently that the law officers of the
government had started a preliminary inquiry
into tho affairs of the American Thread company
with an oye to beginning legal proceedings. It
is generally believed that while the company
bears an American name it is controlled by for
eigners. The Coatses and Clarks, who are Brit
ish manufacturers of cotton thread, are under
stood to dominate the affairs of tho English
Sewing Cotton company, which In turn controls
the American Thread company. It Is not pleas
ing to be dictated to by a domestic trust. It is
even less so when an alien trust exploits Amer
ican consumers. ...... u
"There is nothing to justify the recent sharp
advances in the price of spool cotton. They aro
made only on the principle of charging all that
the traffic will bear. The trust believes the con
sumers can pay ten cents a spool and the Inten
tion is to make them pay it."
ANOTHER REASON
Senator Foraker gives three of the four
reasons why he opposed the rate bill. The threo
given are: "Thought it unwise; thought it un
constitutional; thought it unnecessary." Tho
fourth reason, which Senator Foraker did not
give, is this: The interests responsible for his
election and retention in the senate are violent
ly opposed to being regulated.
i
.
