Ti(WTTW
The Commoner
VOL. 16,' NO. '5
8?
H -n? "
V
w
fc
tU
" ,
The Yellow Ticket
From tho Philadelphia North-American,
Philadelphia, Thursday, April 20, 101C
Tho browing business In Pennsylvania has an
feggrogalo capitalization of nearly $100,000,0.00,
and its products aro valuod at about $50,000,000
annually. It operates under tho protection of
foderal and state laws. Among tho officers of
tho various companies and associations aro men
widely and favorably known in their home com
munities; many of them aro directors in bank
ing institutions, public utility corporations and
transportation companies.
Tho massivo architecture of some of the
plants in itsolf produces a powerful suggestion
of legitimacy and pormanency, and this is em
phasized by the tried financial strength of the
industry and tho solid business repute of its
promoters. Its gilded signs aro so numerous
and B'j prominently displayed that I hoy seem a
natural feature of tho urban landscape. Its
ponderous wagons and motortrucks roll through
in every city and suburban highway and aro fa
miliar sights to every child. Tho business is
woven inlo tho fabric of our daily life. I" has
tho outward dignity of an established and reput
ablo institution.
Thin, whi'o denunciation of the product of
tho brewery is widely supported, if its assail
ants had based their opposition upon the charge
that tho industry itself was operated in a crim
inal manner, they would not havo expressed the
convictions of a majority of the anti-liquor
forces. Irrefutable proof that Iho business has
boon conducted criminally comes, therefore, as
a startling surpriso to most citizo:is especially
as tho ovidenco is supplied by its most dis
tinguished representatives.
Tho disclosures came about in a curious way.
Tho internal rovenuo department of tho govern
ment, dissatisfied -with income tax returns filed
by tho breweries, examined thoir books, and
found that tho companies had deductod from
taxable income huge payments made to various
brewers' associat'ons for political purposes. One
aeries of ontrio3 alone showed that upwards of
$400,000 had been paid in this manner just be
fore the cloolion of 19H, when Penrose was a
candidate for tho senate and congressmen and
members of tho state legislature were to bo
chosen. Those contributions violated a federal
law making it a felony for corporations to con
tribute to political funds at elections at which
presidential electors, Unitod States senators or
congressmen aro on tho ballot.
Tho government through the federal district
attorney in Pittsburgh, began a grand jury in
vestigation into tho practice. Ir was in the
course of those proceedings that the brewers'
officers and representatives put in tho remark
able plea that tho inquiry was improper because
their procedure had been "incriminating."
But tho not result was that against seventy
Jtwo browing companies, eighteen of them
Philadelphia concerns together with tho
United States Brewers' Association, thero were
fcoturnod 101 indictments. The companies aro
charged, as members either of tho United
States or tho Pennsylvania Brewers' Associa
tion, with conspiracy to violate tho corrunt
practices act above mentioned.
In their inquiry the federal district attorney
and tho grand jury questioned twelve noted
leaders in tho brewing industry, tho vital oblect
being to bring to light the bank passbooks, can
celed checks and other records which would
how tho disposition of tho political payments
But from those eminent witnesses tho author
ities received no help whatever. On the con
trary, they confronted a unanimity of evasion
hardly less remarkable than tho method em
ployed in expressing it. Tho clearest idea of
S0XnnAnati0nM,riU b0 Eiven by settine down
omo of tho questions and answers
Edward A Schmidt, president of tile C SchmirH
.'ft Sons Brewing Company and the Sf
western National Bank of Philadelphia fn
' ?T?lt f th United States BSwerVS
elation and now treasurer of the PennsylvaSa
Brewers' Association, was asked: "Whew IrS
tho canceled checks of tho Pennsylvania o, I
i Brewers' Association for WlHm ift?
H914U11915? Ho replied: ' 1913'
"I decline to answer, on the crnnnri n,n
, km may tend to tail.Un.tond'Sf Z
of the persons accused in this proceeding I In
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects me against being compelled to testify
against myself."
John Gardiner, of Philadelphia, president of
tho stato brewers' association, was asked what
his duties were, whether there was a record of
tho members and when he had last seen
Charles F. Bttla, tho secretary. To each of
these queries ho replied:
"I decline to answer, on tho ground that my
answer may tend to incriminato me; and as one
of the persons accused in this proceeding I in
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects me against being compelled to testify
against myself."
Gustav W. Lembeck, of Jersey City, treas
urer of tho United States Brewers' Association,
was asked where were tho canceled checks of
that body for tho years 1911-1915, and whether
iho bodies wero kept in Jersey City or New
York. Ho said In each case:
dec iiio to answer, on the ground that my
rfnswer may tend to incriminate me; and as one
of the persons accused in this proceeding I in
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects me against being compelled to testify
against myself."
Charle-j P. Ettla, of Philadelphia, secretary
of the Pennsylvania Brewers' Ass:ciation, when
questioned as to tho duties and records of that
office, told tho grand jury:
"I declino to answer, on tho ground that ray
answer may tend to incriminate me; and as one
of the persons accused in this proceeding I in
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects mo against being compelled to testify
against myself."
When A. W. Brockmeyer, private secretary to
Edward A. Schmidt, was examined as to his
knowledge of the treasurer's payments, h2 made
this rejoinder:
"I decline to answer, on the ground that my
answer may tend to incriminato me; and as one
of tho persons accused in this proceeding I in
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects mo against being compelled to testify
against myself."
James P. Mulvihill, stato liquor boss and
Vico president of tho Independent Brewing Com
pany, of Pittsburgh, when questioned concern
ing tho records of that concern, read from a
typewritten memorandum on the front of one
of Us envelopes tho following statement:
"I decline to answer, on the ground that my
answer may tend to incriminato me; and as one
of the persons accused in this proceeding I in
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects mo against being compelled to testirv
against myself." '
John J. McDermott, manager of the organiza
tion bureau of the United States Brewers' Asso
ciation, met all questions with this reply
I declino to answer, on the ground that my
answer may tend to incriminate me; and as one
of the persons accused in this proceeding I in
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects mo against being compelled to testify
against myself." lesmy
"I decline to answer, on the ground that mv
answer may tend to Incriminate me; and as oe
of the persons accused in this proceeding i in
sist upon my constitutional privilege which
ZZlinst beIne "Saw's
JitTZo isaa vex
ng interests at labor gatherings, had nothing
yo say to tho grand jury except: nthlng
I decline to answer, on tho ground that mv
o?TnTy tGnd t0 Incrinate me; and as oe
of the persons accused in this proceedinc t
sist upon my constitutional privilege which
CCZTBt beinE ed ffi
Pennsylvania Brewers' Associationr ? t
sponsa to each question: . n re
"I decline to answer, on tho crounri Mm
answer may tend to incriminate me and u y
of the persons accused in this pZngYin!
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects mo against beirig compelled to testify
against myself."
Tho examinations outlined took place in Pitts
burgh; but two witnesses heard by the grand
jury in Erie gave equally valuable testimony.
To each question put to Neil Bonner, of Phila
delphia, president of the National Retail Liquol
Dealers' Association, and to Frank J. Keelan, of
Pittsburgh, secretary of the Allegheny associa
don, camo the reply:
"I decline to answer, on the ground that my
answer may tend to incriminate me; and as ono
of tho persons accused in this proceeding I in
sist upon my constitutional privilege, which
protects me against being compelled to testify
against myself."
It will be observed that some of the witnesses
represented the brewing interests of the sate,
but there were representatives also of national
associations, and their a-swers showed that the
came "incrimi aing" policy has been practiced
thr ugl out tho country.
A natural theory would bs that these business
men, frighte ed by being dragged into court
hastily devised th s remarkably ill-advised pro
cedu e. But as a fact the were acting under
the advice of eminent counsel Jamss Scarlet
of Danville, prosecutor in the capitol fraud
cases; S. P. Tull and D. B. Hibbard, of Phila
delphia, and David A. Reed, G.orge E. Shaw A
M. Neer-er and Charles A. Fagan, of Pittsburgh!
So impressive were the iawyer.' ins' ructions
that when the district attorney asked Neil Bon
ner casual y whether it was raining when he
came. into the courthouse, that gentleman be
gan, "I decline to answer, on the ground "
Unanimity on the part of the witnesses was not
left to chance, however. Each of them received
a yellow card, or ticket, with his strange answer
typewritten upon it, and read the words care
fully whenever he was questioned.
Federal prosecutions of law-defying corpora
tions are not uncommon, and a vigorous defense
is the expected thing. But this is the first- time
a great industry has acknowledged, through its
leading reprerentatives, that its routine activi-
JifJ6 f?f SUh a;nature that to explain or even
discuss them would be incriminating. More than
that, its highest officers have pleaded that for
the same reason they dare not testify concern
ing their acts and duties. concern
The brewing business has always laid creat
stress upon its legality, its absolute legitimacy
its honesty of purpose and respect for law
Sfe ?' !t.,s.a remarble change when his in
st itu ion is impelled to flee from The law To
which it was wont to appeal and to take rlfuce
behind a plea which is morally a confession g
Surely, the mighty industry hafalien to low
JSa?r Ww bGtWeen " andViscredU,enbeVeen
-ev
f action is
years the repuWicanq S?fiM,hat,f0P a good many
new banking svatMn vL- ? .tariff' creaed a
sioners abZ,i fli maintains trade commis-
mari6ne ?f republic ruW revlve the merchant
join in the worka Ye7ethe PatIi0tI enough ro
editor fully believe t w average republican
ization that ca i b denen? iS thenly organ
legislativo actton depended uPn Practical
fnlTy in act on win" ,"?, when it gets
ness just whatho f fo,r commee and busi
tem hllaetltt reSVe bankIng B3'
Interstate commerce coZifH and 7hat the
portation. It will ti?i?? missIon des for trans-
Place where bSrtnS men Z a5rd a
hitherto they hav i ? 57 find out what
repbHcanaSomCio0eaforSUlda,f for the
the preparedness advocates in th,??iSld?,oy- "
ganization are prenareTl t T.ihf, rIubu r
ical and possessed of a keen nm.07UehIy i06"
will certainly cot brtilnS JHV.cal sense- the?
president and thus SI JjnnlMona maker for
Program-if th?tt " tneir
