Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Sept. 6, 1907)
wK iT" iwVi f4 fejjw Mfrti iB - Mf '' 'Ml h .-. -- . .VJ Commoner. -,i -v.r-..;' V . iifttJv.. , VOLUME- 7y NUMBER 34 K ( I I -lilh I'liiJ?? Ml ,1 f Bit1 II i ,Xv Vft 3 I.4 F i T?. n'U 1 1 M , H . j . p Vlf ) ! fW ; i 'j i"' ' .s ft 1 I -)t i. fc- ! )' Q I ft i : il :,'i HM!MP (Ik MM . in .. - l w r j I. ffldw the ,., -.ft ", Trust Herald printed recently, jui Ih-r , ory from the pert of Ernost'tG. , ' ; The Bostoh terostlng tariff story Walker, together with several Interesting " le.J-r. tors from tho pens of certain republican conr gresgmori. " ' "" ' "'"Mr Walker's article follows: , The great trust captains shake their mailed fists In tho ways and means committee room at "Washington and the leaders of tho standpatism sower. They overawe the standpat speaker, whoso place as presiding ofllcor is supposed to bo the seat of power. They slam the doors against measures that would relievo the country of tariff burdens. It boots little to protest. , , Such, in brief, is tho arraignment which Representative William C. Loverlng of Taunton, a, .stalwart republican, mdkes. Four years and jmoro he endured the secret opposition of trusts to his drawback bills. Now ho has spoken out In a Jotter to Representative John Dalzell of Pittsburg, next to Speaker Cannon, the arch standpatter. He takes up the charge which Mr. Henry M. Whitney made before the Boston City club that tho seel trust directed the Pennsyl vania congressman to check consideration of the drawback measure. While Mr. Dalzell has writ ten with much tergiversation, denying that such was tho case, Mr. Loverlng drives back at him .with sentences which can not be misinterpreted. "You will doubtless recall our meeting on 'ithe steps of the New Willard hotel in tho spring of 1903' Mr. Loverlng writes, "when I asked you why it was that I could not get a report on my drawback bills by tho committee on ways and meanp You replied that if I could get the United States Steel corporation to withdraw its opposition to the bills, you would cease" to op- pose a report on them." . . . ; . Mr. Lovering's bllla had been 'reposing in committee pigeon-holes. He was striving; for action by which some of them would come be- lore the house for a hearing and a vote. He only asked for an expression of opinion from that legislative branch. On that hint from, ih-2f '---- . .. - . .v M guardian of steel trust inter ests in tho federal city, Mr.. Loverlng entered upon a now campaign. He sought by explaining his proposed enactments to allay the trust op position. He wrote letters to and had personal interviews with trust magnates. Loverlng Bills Covered with Concessional Cobwebs He found them like adamant. They cared nothing about the development of export trade J!VD!nley' law Provision admitting steel for r . iT i u "" " uuumyiiitf cmuse tnat annulled it seemed very satlsfvlnc tn tii'win dollar corporation. The opposition, which Mr ( . WiA v nuici vvuiu.ru Btens' must be removed beforo he would consent to a favor- W' n 11 lluvou ""yarning, and Mr. Lovers ... llVi wvcieu wnn uie dust and cobwebs of two more congresses. ouvorai letters about the "throttling of the drawback bills have passed between Taunton and the Pittsburg congressmen since Mr. Whitnev made his Boston City club -speech. There has also been a formal exchange "between Messrs. Whitney and Dalzell. Drawback Bills Not in Interest of Steel Company Mr. Whitney spoke of a letter, which he had reasons for believing had been "written bv one of the vice presidents of the United States Steel company to Mr, Dalzell of the ways and ineans committee, advising him that it watf not In th,e interest of the steel company that the drawback bill should pass, and directing him to stop any further discussion of the bill.'' ,, ? pr,oc.eiG(lin5 to his comments Mr. Whit ey stated that ho was "not prepared to say that t was in consequence of this letter that the bill was not allowed to pass," but In news paper reports the following morning tho 4o?d not" was omitted inadvertently, .and Mr. Dal &U made much of the statement that Mr." Whit ney was "prepared to say," etc, Mr; Whitnev. ()ias shown the error therein aid afso written to Mr, Dalzell that when he (hitney) iS? "Why could not even a hearing be had on a proposition: so reasonable as Mr. Loverinc's5"' he meant a hearing before the house t ' repre sentatlves Mr. Dalzell dwelt upon t& fact ThaT before the committee. Mr. Whitney quoted from a colloquy between Mr. Lind of Minnesota Captains Control Congress -fand Mr. Loverlng, when the latter was addres sing the house, in which the importance of get- ; ting 'the bill into the house, so as to. bring members to a thorough understanding of it, was discussed. "How did it happen" asked Mr. Lind, then an ex-governor of Minnesota, "that we can not got .the bill into the house for consideration, so that an opportunity may be afforded to get that understanding?" "In the district which I have the honor to represent," replied Mr. Loverlng, "industries with an annual product of over $100,000,000 in value would be substantially and permanently benefited by the passage of this bill, or a bill containing its principal provisions, and still it Is impossible to get a hearing for it." "Remarkable Piece of Mendacity and . "Demagogy With the exception of these explanations, Mr. Whitney has left the controversy alone. Mr. Dalzell's letter was severely critical, allud ing to Mr. Whitney's remarks as "this, remark able piece of mendacity and demagogy," and in a subsequent paragraph adding: "What he (Whitney) says about me, or about any one else for that matter, is not, in my judgment, of the least consequence. If nothing more were involved than Whitney's reputation for veracity, it would be a sin to waste time in the discus sion." "Mr. Dalzell has forwarded "to me," said Mr. Whitney yesterday, "a copy of the letter that he wrote Mr. Loverlng, doubtless for the purpose of informing me of the favorable opin ion he, entertains of me. I did not regard that as a matter of any great consequence, and hence in my' reply paid no attention to that part of the correspondence. ' M "But it did occur to me it was just possible the general public might not care quite so nyicji about Mr. Dalzell's opinion of me as he seems to tiiinlc they would. "I am more interested to hear from the steel company whether the statement. I mads ..in that same speech abouttheir sales &xi"tt& sircceBimnrroiitritmcrtmrrTnintod out that their gross sales and earningsas shown in the report for 1905, were $585000,000, whereas at a liberal calculation of the market prices for which they disposed of their products the sales that year were really $200,000,000 less;" ' , Mr. Dalzell accuses Mr. Loverlng of giving Mr. Whitney the information on which lie based the statement that has stirred up such a hor net's nest. He makes some statements about fthe history of the proposed legislation, which M,r, Loverlng denies. He declare's that a letter from W,. T. Graham, vjce. president of the Amer ican Tin "Plate company, cohtained no orders to him to stop the consideration of the drawback bill, and argues that no such letter was written. t Letter Written By Dalzjell " . The full text of Air. Dalzell's letter to Mr. Loverlng is given herewith. It was written sev eral weeks after the congressman had exchanged preliminary communications and was as follows The Hon. William C. Lovering, Taunton, Mass iJ- Dear Mr. Lovering: For a variety of rea sons I have been unable sooner to reply to your letter of April 8, which was a reply to mine of April 2.. Among other reasons I have been trav eling between here and Pittsburg, have been ill a portion of the time, and have been delayed in Hunting up the facts about the letter which is the subject of this correspondence. To begin at the beginning, the Boston Her ald of March 29 last, contains what purports to be a report of a speech, made by H. M. Whitnev before the Boston. City club. The headlines fin the Herald contain, among others, the followim? "Tells City Club of Letter to Dalzell, Ordering Discussion on, Lovering's Drawback Bill Stopped.'' : . . . v What justification there was for such head- lines "will appear further along. n In Mr: Wliitney's speech, reported in the Herald he quotes from a speech made .'by you in congress upon certain bills introduced bv you to amend the drawback provision of tho existing tariff law, as follows;, . "The first fact that I discovered was 'etc' and the second fact ' was that certain industrial' combinations of great influence not content with the full measure of protection ac- corded them at home, were secretly using their power to defeat legislation which was merely intended to carry into practical effect the de clared purpose of the republican party, that tho tariff should not hamper our export rade." Drawback Bill Did Not Pass Mr. Whitney says: "What does Mr. Lov ering mean by these words (just quoted)? 1 have reasons for believing that he referred to a letter written by one of the vice presidents of the United States Steel company to Mr. Dal zell of the ways and means committee advising him that it was not in the interest of the steel company that the drawback bill should pass, and directing him to stop any further discussion of the bill. I am not prepared to say that it was in consequence of this letter that the bill was not allowed to pass, but as a matter of fact it did not pass, and nothing since has been heard of it. I believe Mr. Lovering's statement had reference to this letter, I did not receive my information from him (this is a mere evasion of the truth; in your letter to me you say ho got his information from you "indirectly"), but I believe that he will not deny that such a let ter was written and sent to Mr. Dalzell, and that he saw the letter, and thereafter all hope of a drawback bill, so desirable for our people and tho people of many other states, was absolutely dead. Ask Mr. Lovering If such a letter was not written, and if it did not produce the re sults I have mentioned. I challenge Mr. Dal zell and the vice president of the steel company to deny it." From the foregoing-it appears: 1 You asserted : "that certain industrial combinatio.ns of great influence were secretly using their power to defeat legislation (your bill). 2 Mr. Whitney asserts that this secret in fluence, was a letter written by the vice president Of the -United States Steel company to me advis ing mejthat jonr-JiUK. sa&nrt, Vrn interests of $hQr,8i.3r company and directing me to slov any farther discussion of the bill. .-.,. ;t , - 3TrMr Wnitney calls you as a witness to prove the truth of his assertions, and challenges me and the vice president to deny that such a letter was written and that it produced the al leged results. Letter from W. T.v Graham 4 In the form of a question Mr. Whitney asserts to his audience that your bilj could not even have a hearing. "Why," he says, "could not even a hearing be had on a proposition so reasonable as Mr. Lovering's?" When I read this remarkable piece of men dacity and demagogy I had entirely forgotten that r had ever received any letter from any ono connected with the United States Steel company onthis subject,. I searched my .flies without effect, and forthwith addressed you asking you if you knew of any such letter, if so, by whom it was. written 'and to whom? In reiily you said you knew - such a letter had been written and said;, ':,.' : i '.'Perhaps you have forgotten that you showed me a letter from W. T, Graham, vice president of -the American Tin Plate company, a constituent company of the United States Steel fi011' obectine to the consideration of the bill to amend the drawback law.'' You aro not altogether accurate. Mr. Graham was not the vice president, but was the president of the American Tin Ptyte company. I never so far as I know saWi I believe, nor did you either, any letter Objecting to a Consideration of the bill to amend the drawback law. The tacts in the premises are these. The CrroRondence on the sub:iect of your bill (No. 15,368) was initiated by you. On' February 10, 1903, you addressed a letter to W. T. Graham, president of the tin plate company, "containing an argument in favor of your bill, and asking him to write to me to assist you in securing its enactment. On .February 11 Mr. Graham re plied to you. He said: "My objections to your bill, No. 15,3 G 8, were stated in some detail in a letter addressed to Mr. James Gayley, first vice president of-'the United States Steel corporation, on January 29, and I assume that this letter was forwarded to Hon. John Dalzell -and that he has, or will on request, give yoh the original or a.qopy, if you care for it. Briefly the ob jections were, and then follows Shrank state ment of legal objections to r your bill. Under the sjame date Mr. Graham wrote me. His let K f Mttlf V ad . ' . Vv : l', " T' .-2ft&, K t -t" t- , "V"