PAGE 2
Cfo JobraoIxG Independent
SEPTEMBER 21, 1905
Money Distributed to Buy
Three National Elections
The secret is out at last. The truth was concealed and denied
as long as possible, but now is revealed in a way that will impress
it with terrible force upon the public mind. George W. Perkins,
member of the firm of J. P. Morgan & Co., and first vice president
of the New York Life Insurance company, was asked to explain an
entry of $48,702 in a ledger marked: "Ordered paid by the
' president."
Mr. Perkins, under oath, frankly stated that it was a contribu
tion to the republican campaign fund in 189G and he added that
money had also been contributed in 1000 and 1904. He revived the
base and hypocritical cry of 189G when he said that the money was
paid because "he felt the assets of the New York Life company
would be jeopardized by democratic success." And then the pious
Perkins said: "It must not be considered an ordinary contribution
to the campaign fund."
No honest man who loves his country and who hates fraud will
look upon such a contribution as anything but most extraordinary.
And yet the New York Life officials did not consider the contribu
tion unusual, for in 1900 and even in 1904 they contributed to tho
republican campaign fund.
In 189 G the money was paid to Cornelius N. Bliss, of the repub
lican campaign committee. This man was one of the readiest mouth
ers of tho cries, "anarchists, repudiationists, thieves, brood of hell,"
flung with apopletic rage into the faces of populists and democrats
.in 1896. Ranked with Bliss were Chauncey M. Depew of Equitable
Life shame; Marcus A. Hanna, the boss fraud of them all; Andrews,
of. Detroit, who said that the democratic candidate in 1896 was
"the dishonest leader of dishonest men," and who himself afterward
became an embezzler to. the extent of $1,600,000; Bigelow, the
thieving bank president of Milwaukee, who pleaded in the name of
tho business interests that the republican ticket be elected. Even the
man who is now president, Theodore Roosevelt, refused to shake
hands with Governor Altgeld "because," he said, "I might some day
have to meet him on the field of battle." Such was the temper of
those days, and it was reeking through and through with this sort
of infamous cant. " v
The hypocrits of 1896, after they had' bouglit the elec
tion with the money of the people, continued to wear the halos they
had pinned on their brows during the campaign. ; Some of them
still wear those halos and will wear them until exposure comes, as
it has come for many, in this good year of 1905. One by one, how
ever, these men. are being crucified on their own cross of gold. In
Kansas City a few weeks ago District Attorney Jerome, of New
York denounced Thomas W: Lawson, to whom chief credit for these
exposures must be given. Beware, Mr. Jerome, lest you, who de
fended Wall street on that occasion, be classed with Depew, Bliss,
Perkins, Rogers, Rockefeller and Morgan in their shame if not in
their wealth. Time was when a politician could defend such a crew
and be respected. Time was when those who attacked these men
were condemned as anarchists. But that time has passed away.
Their gilded wings have been singed and their flight is downward
toward the abyss. Those who defend them in the press or on the
platform are now regarded as hirelings.
The pious Perkins thought that the assests of the New York .
Life would be jeopardized by democratic success, and, therefore, he
used the money of populists and democrats, as well as of republi
cans, to elect McKinley and defeat Bryan. Men who were voting
for the democratic ticket were paying to elect the republican candi
date and did not know it. Perkins thought that the assets of the
insurance company would be imperilled if the republican candidate
failed of election. And what does Perkins think of the peril now?
Does he think that populists and democrats will continue to take
out policies in any of the big companies ? These companies will all
be regarded in the same light, and true men of all political faiths
will spurn them. Is it possible that Perkins does not see that his
confession will do more harm to the assets of the big insurance com
panies than the contributions of 1896, 1900 and 1904 can ever do
them good ? - v. " - ; -; -
How insincere the witness was when he said that the insurance
officials feared the assets would be" jeopardized is attested by the
fact that these officials were appropriating these assets to their own
uses by private speculation and by drawing salaries they had not
earned. It is evident, therefore, that' the object of the contribution
was to win favor for the insurance officials so that the law should not
interfere with them in their dishonest practices.
District Attorney J erome has announced fliat if the law has been
violated he will prosecute. This is important because prosecution
will determine whether such contributions can be prevented by exist
ing law. If they cannot be prevented then laws should be passed
that will make it illegal for insurance officials to contribute trust funds
for partisan purposes. Meantime, suit should be brought by tho
policy-holders to obtain restitution from the officials responsible for.
the contributions. t
It is significant that the wealth of the country was opposed to
Parker as well as to Bryan. When the democratic party betrayed
itself to gain capitalistic support it was betrayed in turn. ' As in
1896 and in 1900 so in 1904 the insurance companies were called up
on to contribute funds for the defeat of the democratic candidate and
for the election of the republican candidate, who, in this instance,
was Theodore Roosevelt These are facts which it is well to make
clear. Every intelligent man can draw his own conclusions and bo
guided accordingly in his future political action. But it must never
again be lost sight of that national elections have been bought in ihis
country and that they will be bought again, if Wall street and its
sanctimonious impostors can close the deal.
Private Syndicate Graft
Of the Insurance Officials
As a result of the New York investigation it is disclosed that
the big insurance companies have made it a practice to buy and sell
securities through banking and brokerage syndicates whose members
are officers in the insurance companies. These syndicates are of
a private character and their profits go to the members and not to
the insurance companies.
Frederick Cromwell, treasurer of the Mutual Life Insurance
company, was the only official clever enough to make a defense of the
insurance syndicate. He said that twenty and thirty years ago,
when the assests of the insurance companies were small, it was the
custom to . buy stocks and bonds through syndicates in no way con
nected with the insurance companies, that is to say through the ordi
nary brokerage firms: When, however, the assets increased to hun
dreds of millions the insurance companies found it more convenient
to form subsidiary organizations to transact this business. In every
instance the membership of these, organizations was recruited from
among the insurance officials. To show that it was absolutely neces
sary for the insurance company to buy through the syndicate rather
than direct, Mr. Cromwell said that on one occasion he tried to
buy some railway stocks of Hamilton Fish, president of the Illinois
Central, but Mr. Fish said that he '"could not aiford" to sell direct
to , the. Mutual Life. ; Mr. Cromwell failed, to explain why President
Fish could not, carry on a direct ; buying and selling deal with the
insurance company.. j j t . ; ;
But granting that the subsidiary companies were necessary,
which is by.no means clear, it is evident that they were operated
for purposes of private graft. In; all the deals the. money handled
belonged to .the i policy-holders of the insurance companies. The
officials of the companies were paid marvelous salaries to handle the
funds entrusted to their care. From a moral point of view,, there-'
fere, all profits above expenses should have gone to the policy-holders.
If it was necessary to operate subsidiary syndicates it was, of course,
necessary to pay the ordinary expenses of such syndicates, but it
was wrong for the hired officials of the insurance companies to take
the profits accruing from syndicate transactions. All such profits
should have been turned over to the insurance companies. Instead
they were pocketed by the syndicate members! Could there be a
clearer case of graft? To an outsider it seems as though Mr. Crom
well was neither conscientious nor accurate in his description of the
process that led to the formation of the private syndicates. When
.the assets of the insurance companies mounted into the hundred mil
lions and the officials saw what immense profits the brokerage firms
were making it struck them that inside rings might form syndicates
and take these profits. ' In a word, they saw a chance to graft and
they grafted. .. .
Modern business transactions have become, so complex that the av
erage business man, who has not been a close student of fundamental
principles in ethics, can easily get his conscience into a hopeless
tangle when he is making up his mind to graft. To steal or not to
steal is not the question. The question docs not present itself in such'
a clear light. A little quibbling, little sophistry, and your busi
ness man has convinced himself that he is merely using a scientific
modern business method of adding dollar to dollar. Why should he
not bo paid handsomely for conceiving the idea of a syndicate and
for devoting his time and talent to its operation. The policy-holders'