FEBRUARY 8, 190G
JSfie Nebraska. Independent
PAGE 3
tion. Commissioner Garfield said that the information he obtained
by examining the books and taking the testimony of the packers
would not be submitted to the department of justice. It was, how
ever, submitted to the department of justice, and as if the adminis
tration wished to leave no doubt on this point an official statement
was made of the fact. ,
All the power of the government was used to crush a newspaper
man who failed in his duty of reporting the news of the beef trust
case correctly. Will - all -the nowpr of thf ffftvornmpn t 1a used to -
J. o - m
punish a commissioner of corporations who has made the beef trust
ease a fiasco by promising immunity to the lawbreaking packers, or
will it be used, as in the case of Paul, Morton, to shield the offending
official from public scorn and indignation ?
Commissioner Garfield should resign. His failure has been
a thousand times more conspicuous and more harmful to the public
welfare than the failure of District Attorney Baxter of Omaha who
was ejected from office by a furious president.
t i t fc
GAME OF JUDICIAL FOOTBALL
"All the world wondered" how Judge Gildersleeve would get
out of it. Few believed that he .would make II. II. Rogers answer
or cite him for contempt.
Judge Gildersleeve has extricated himself cleverly, and in New
York cleverness is more than godliness. He lias decided that Mr.
Ilogers need not answer for the present. The questions asked by
Attorney General Hadley, he said, were' proper and material, but
Mr. Ilogers need not answer. Similar questions were asked in Mis
souri and the Missouri supreme court referred them to Judge An
thony, who decided that they were material and proper. If the
supreme court of the state of Missouri decides that this question
has not been certified to by Judge Anthony, or if it decides that the
position taken by Judge Anthony and Judge Gildersleeve in refer
ence to the materiality of' these questions is correct, then, under the
decision of Judge Gildersleeve, it will be necessary for Mr. Rogers
to answer the questions asked him.
Judge Gildersleeve has merrily shifted the burden to the .su
preme court of Missouri. He has washed his hands of the whole
affair for the present.1 It would bo highly discourteous, says the
judge, to decide the issue in advance of the supreme court of Mis
souri. Is it possible that the supreme court of Missouri will be so
highly discourteous as to shift the burden back to clever Judge Gilder
sleeve? Judge Gildersleeve played a mean trick on the Missouri
supreme court, but he is no doubt laughing in his "gildcrsleeves."
Here is a good illustration of what is commonly known as "mak
ing a football of justice." Judge Gildersleeve, the clever quarter
back of the judicial eleven, has slipped the ball to Judge Anthony
in the hope that, guarded by thejlissouri justices, he will be able to
run around the end and lose the ball in the tall grass on the side
lines. Meantime Attorney General Hadley will tackle, and every
effort will be made to disable him by slugging and kicking. .
to& t? t$ t& i J I 1 i .
PRESIDENT SHOULD EXPLAIN
' Edward F. Swift, vice president and director of Swift & Co.,
testifying in the beef trust case at Chicago, said:
"Mr. Garheld declared that lie spoke lor rresident lloosevelt
and -said that it was the policy of the administration to protect the
packers."
If Mr. Swift told the truth President lloosevelt could not con
sistently ask Commissioner Garfield to resign. The president would
be as culpable as-Mr. Garfield. The Independent is loth to believe
that President lloosevelt informed Commissioner Garfield that it
was the administration's policy to protect the packers. If this were
a fact, President Roosevelt would be exposed before the world as a
sham. His "square deal" would be the cant of a hypocrite, and his
attempts at "trust-busting" would be shown to have been as insincere
as they have been unsuccessful. ' '
Quite as remarkable as Mr. Swift's statement was a statement
by District Attorney Morrison, who said :
"The theory of the government is that there was an understanding
that the matter should not be published until the packers were satisfied
with the report. We will show that Mr. Garfield came back with a type
written copy of his report, which had not yet been printed, and that the
packers were ready and anxious to have this report go to the publishers."
It was natural that the packers should-be ready and anxious to
have the report go to the publisher, for they considered it a complete
exoneration on all the charges brought against them. The public
regarded the report in the same light, but suspected that something
jvas wrong, and now the public is told by the United States district
attorney that there was an agreement letwecn the government and
the packers that no report should be published that failed to satisfy
the packers.
Why did the government think it necessary to deceive tho
people? "And if the government deceived the people in that instance,
is it not probable that the government is deceiving the people with
reference to control of railways and trusts and that the present prose
cution of the hoof packers is merely a new deception ?
-TTow iA it possiblo-to choose, a . charitable point of ' view ? Can
it be argued that the government wished the packers' to see the report
Iwforc it was published so that nothing should be published which
would bo untrue and which the packers could prove by their records
to be untrue? If such a claim were made it would be untenable.
The government's report contained much that was untrue. Evidence
was withheld that proves the report to have been a lying document.
The evidence is now being used in the case against the packers. If
this evidence is true the Garfield report was a lie. The evidence
was collected by Garfield. Why was it not in the report? If it is
untrue, why is it being used as a basis for prosecution? Is it pos
sible that it is true and is being used with the knowledge that it will
be rendered impotent because of Commissioner Garfield's promise of
immunity ?
. It is almost incomprehensible that the government should permit
this disgusting state of affairs to become known.
President lloosevelt should explain. " '
iS fc? '
"OUR HIGHEST AND TRUEST"
"Tongressman Sibley, of Pennsylvania, attacking the Hepburn
bill, pointed out some real weaknesses, but he made it altogether too
clear that he is opposed to any legislation that will alter the status
quo in the railway world. The words "anarchists" and "socialists"
flowed easily to his lips, showing him-to be "a defender of the
national honor," a rather discredited company of gentlemen whoso
chief distinction is notoriety. Indeed, the average American would
now prefer to be called an anarchist rather than "a defender of-tho
national honor." Not so Congressman Sibley, whose ideal public
men arc Piatt and Depew, if-we are permitted to judge by inference.
In his speech Mr. Sibley urged that the salaries of the inter
state commerce commissioners be fixed at $25,000 "so that tho presi
dent may have it in his power to select from among the highest and
truest of American citizenship those qualified by experience, wisdom
and integrity to discharge the burdensome duties." Apparently Mr.
Sibley means such men as Hyde, McCurdy and McCall, who drew
splendid salaries , and were among the highest and truest for many
years on account of their experience, wisdom and integrity. But
seriously, Mr. Sibley would so establish the new interstate commerce
commission that it would be a goal for high-priced grafters, men
who could be lured from . the marti of speculation only by the cer
tainty of richer loot.
'"Why should the government not fix the price of bread?" asked
Mr. Sibley, to whom we' might retort with the query, "why should
the railways fix the price of bread?" Perhaps this point of view
would gain relevancy by the further query, "why does the government
now fix the price of bread by means of the tariff?" Pursuing tho
idea still farther, why should Wall street speculators bo permitted
to increase railway tariff taxation by increasing the issues of watered
stock? Put the real answer is that the government has the right to
fix tolls upon the public highways. It should never have surrendered
this right to private corporations, and the time is coming when by
public ownership all tolls will bo fixed by the government. In this
instance, however, Congressman Sibley has been guilty of giving
utterance to a misrepresentation popular among railway apologists.
The government is not seeking to fix all rates. Unfortunately, that
is not the issue at this time. The Hepburn bill and all other, bills
of a like character are designed to give the interstate commerce com
mission power to fix rates only after complaint and investigation.
Every week or so the administration makes new concessions
to the Chinese, who then kill a few more xmericans by way of
gratitude.
Count Boni de Castellane got millions and the countess will
get a divorce. Doubtless the count thinks he has had tho best of the
bargain. ,
Tho envoys to tho Moroccan conference attended a bull fight
to whet their appetites 4for peace.