-Caveat Lector- an excerpt from: The Treason of the Senate David Graham Phillips academic reprints p.o. box 3003 Stanford, California Cosmopolitian Magazine Vol. XL - March, 1906 - No.5 --[5]-- CHAPTER 5 Bailey, the ''Patriot'' WE have now read the records of the three chief men of the Senate�Aldrich, the master of the Republican machine; Gorman, the late leader of the Democratic machine; Spooner, Aldrich's chief lieutenant, the chief spokesman, chief legal adviser, and chief floor-manager of the great senatorial "merger" to license and protect "the interests" in levying greedily upon American labor and capital, especially upon America's annual twenty billions of interstate commerce. There is a fourth leader, younger than these three and newer to the Senate; but, because of his aggressive abilities and because of the death of Gorman, he is rapidly pushing to the front. If this young man, Joseph Weldon Bailey, is reelected by the Texas legislature next winter, and if the present so-called Republican but really Aldrich majority is replaced before 1913 by the Gorman kind of Democratic majority, he will be the leader of the Senate. We have found the Senate to be the citadel of the present unfair distribution of our national prosperity, the chief cause of the elevation of luxurious chicanery and of the depression of honest industry; therefore, it behooves us to scan Bailey's record carefully. Of course, in the House, in the Senate, and on the stump, Bailey has spoken as strenuously for people and country as any other politician. He is not surpassed in that respect by any of the rest of the band of expert raisers of dust over the Senate arena as a cover for the acts of treason. But words are not significant of the real man. If words meant character, Judas himself with his "Hail, Master!" would rank as a very Jonathan of fidelity. Let us disregard Bailey the talker. Let us ask only, What has Bailey done? He came to Washington, to the House, fourteen years ago last December, when but twenty-eight. His obstreperously unconventional dress and his frank physical, as well as mental, vanity made him something of a butt at first. But soon through his fast-peeling surface there appeared a strong and developing personality. So rapidly did he disclose power and shrewdness that his becoming House minority leader at thirty-four, and after only three terms, would not have seemed mysterious had he not been highly unpopular with his party colleagues, especially with those least in sympathy with "the interests" that were financing and dominating both party machines. Soon the feeling against him became open, led to frequent and fierce rows between him and his colleagues. Those were the days when the "merger" of the two party machines was not so apparent, nor indeed so complete, as now; the House had only just submitted to the yoke of its committee on rules, controlled by "the interests." If speech were conclusive, there would be no room for doubt of Bailey; for he discharged his picturesque vocabulary of vituperation upon his enemies in a philippic on April 15, 1897, in which he equaled Joe Cannon or Gorman or Spooner or Lodge at their best in proclaiming their own patriotism. How Standard Oil Got into Texas Was the distrust of Bailey just or unjust? For answer, let us in fairness go to his home state, where he was in the van of the leadership of the responsible party. Texas is overwhelmingly one-sided, politically, like overwhelmingly Republican Pennsylvania; so "the interests" have had no more difficulty in building a rotten machine there than in Pennsylvania. Occasionally there are popular revolts; but by one subterfuge and another the people are soon fooled or wearied back into submission. To get office in Texas, one had to have, and one must now have, "the interests" with him or at least not against him. In one of the popular spasms of revolt, the machine of which Bailey was then, and is now, the star statesman and spellbinder, was forced to put upon the statute-books a model antimonopoly statute. The whole country has heard of this statute and of vague wonders wrought under it. The fact is that it has never permanently nor for long excluded any monopoly from the state. Thanks to the power of "the interests" over the dominant machine�labeled Democratic just as the Pennsylvania machine is labeled Republican�the grand total of achievement has been several futile prosecutions, fourteen hundred dollars in fines and about five hundred dollars for refiling forfeited charters and revoked permits-and the monopolies are steadily gaining ground. The insolent extortions of the Standard Oil Company, disguised for its Southwestern activities as the Waters-Pierce Oil Company of Missouri, were the chief cause of this typical "sop to the mob"; and, naturally, the first effect of the law was the ejection of the Waters-Pierce Company from the state. The monopoly fought from court to court, up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and lost. Then� Let us give Bailey's and his friends' own version of the story. Bailey said, in newspaper interviews, before the Democratic state convention at Waco in the summer of 1900, and before the Texas legislative investigating committee in January, 1901, that his friend, Dave Francis, ex-governor of Missouri and a rich advocate of the "safe and sane," introduced him in St. Louis in the spring of 1900 to H. Clay Pierce, president of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, and vouched for Pierce's character. Bailey explained that Pierce told him how repentant the company was, how it was not part of the Standard Oil Company, how it would reform, anyhow, and behave itself. Bailey'; friends say that for no compensation, not even for a "fee" (Bailey is a lawyer and could therefore call it "fee" or "retainer"), he went back to Texas to see what could be done for the friend of his friend. This, though the "friend" had been expelled for crimes, thus described and proved before state and federal courts: "That the (Waters-Pierce) oil company has abused its franchises and privileges; has monopolized the oil trade of the state; has carried on a system of threats and intimidation and bribery to prevent parties from buying or selling competing oil, to the great injury of the people of the state." When D. H. Hardy, then secretary of state of Texas, an associate of Bailey's in the machine and one of his adherents, was asked for the facts last March, he said that Bailey came to see him at his office in Austin about the readmission of the Waters-Pierce Company. But said Hardy, "Bailey's talk to me was as exalted and patriotic as any talk, speech, or statement ever made by any Texas man in behalf of the welfare of Texas." The company might be readmitted only if it would obey the laws, and he (Bailey) "believed that their solemn obligation was genuine and sincere," and he thought "it would be for the benefit of Texas, because Texas needed all the honest money and honest industries that could be brought into the state." What Bailev Might Have Done Hardy related how he talked with Attorney-General Smith about Bailey's corporate friend and how they decided that under the law the oil company must reorganize before it could enter the state again. Presently, according to Hardy, Pierce reappeared at Austin. Says Hardy: "What was I to do? The law required that all the secretary of state had to do was to make the head of a foreign corporation applying for a permit swear to an affidavit that his company was not a monopoly and was not connected with a monopoly. This affidavit was signed and sworn to by H. Clay Pierce, president of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company. I issued the permit on May 31, 1900. Hardy�and Bailey�might have done several things before readmitting the Standard Oil Company to prey upon the people of Texas. For instance, they might have inquired of Missouri whether the WatersPierce Company had really reorganized. Had they done so, Henry Troll, clerk of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, would no doubt have sent them, as he sent another inquirer, an official statement that "no corporation known as the Waters-Pierce Oil Company has ever made application for dissolution," and that "no judgment of dissolution of any corporation by the name of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company has ever been rendered." Obviously, if the company did not dissolve, it could not reorganize under the same name. Further, Hardy and Bailey might have insisted on a public hearing, and so have anticipated AttorneyGeneral Hadley of Missouri, who, at hearings in St. Louis last March, got official admissions from Standard Oil witnesses that "all of the shares of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company standing on its books in the name of M. M. Van Buren" (son-in-law of Vice-President Archbold of the Standard Oil Company) "are held for the Standard Oil Company." There were 2747 of these shares, 746 more than a majority of the whole capital stock. Further, they might have got proof, as did Hadley, that the Waters-Pierce Company had, from its beginning, been owned and controlled by the Standard. Further, when the Standard or Waters-Pierce duplicity was legally established last March, Bailey might have demanded that it be straightway ejected from Texas, where it reigns supreme over oil. But Bailey has not uttered so much as a murmur. Bailey says he believed Pierce, the friend of friend Francis. Yet Pierce, as Bailey knew, was president of the Waters-Pierce Company, which had been, as Bailey knew, tried, condemned, and ejected for criminal acts against the people of Texas whose interests were supposed to be Bailey's chief concern. Did Bailey believe? Then how explain Bailey's silence and inaction since last March? Distrust of the Texans Bailey got the Standard back into Texas on May 31, 1900�the date of Hardy's permit. On June 25th of the same year, Bailey bought the splendid "Grapevine Ranch" of six thousand acres near Dallas. Said Gibbs, owner of the ranch, in an innocently indiscreet newspaper interview at the time: "The deal represents a land trade of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. I sold to Bailey at fifty thousand dollars less than the property is worth." This "land trade of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars," less than a month after the Standard resumed sway over Texan oil, aroused public interest of a kind which Bailey could not ignore. His hundred-thousand-dollar share in the trade astounded those Texans who had been assuming that the struggling young lawyer and politician's congressional salary was his chief income. It was charged that Joe Sibley, an ex-congressman from Pennsylvania, an oil magnate, enormously rich, and a great friend of Bailey's, was behind him. Bailey replied in a newspaper interview: "Mr. Sibley offered to stand behind me financially to any amount I might need or desire. But affairs shaped themselves so that I did not need the proffered assistance. ExGov. D. R. Francis of Missouri is alone in the trade with me. I can unload on him if I wish or can keep the property and have forty years' time, if I desire, to settle with him." Bailey further said that he gave for the ranch eighty thousand dollars in cash, and land in the Pecos valley worth twenty thousand dollars. He explained to the Texas legislature's investigating committee that he had borrowed the eighty thousand dollars of banks and others by giving "notes secured by a deed of trust and mortgage." He said the land belonged to friend Francis, who was to get from him five per cent. interest on its value until the debt was settled. And still envy of Bailey's luck in being able to assemble eighty thousand dollars and in having such rich and ready friends, has not been shamed into silence! When the legislature met, six months after the "land trade," with Bailey as the machine candidate for United States senator, Representative D. A. McFall of Travis County, a public man of high character and repute, offered, on January 11, 1901, a resolution to investigate the readmission of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company and candidate Bailey's connection therewith. Speaker Prince, of the machine, appointed the committee-and in violation of fundamental parliamentary procedure left McFall off it. The committee met, and in a large, general way called upon any member or any citizen to appear and prosecute the charges. Of course, no one appeared. The machine in Texas is so powerful and so aggressive that, for fear of financial ruin and even of physical violence, Texans of independent mind hesitate to speak out, except in those futile generalities such ashonest but timid senators now and then vent against the Aldrich-Gorman "merger." The McFall Affidavit McFall, however, on January 17th, submitted an affidavit to the committee. He rehearsed the facts of the Waters-Pierce ejectment from the state and charged: "That by reason of Bailey's influence and personal and political popularity and prestige, they (the Waters-Pierce Company) were enabled by a mere sham of dissolution and reincorporation to continue in business in Texas. "That the said Joseph W. Bailey did, on or about May 2, 1900, accompany H. C. Pierce, president of the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, to Waco for the purpose of holding a consultation with the county attorney of McLennan County, with a view of compromising said suits (the suits were for one hundred and five thousand dollars in fines); that the proposition of compromise by said Pierce was ten thousand dollars to the state in full of her claims and the payment of three thousand five hundred dollars to the county attorney as an extra fee for advising the compromise; and that the said Bailey endorsed said proposition and urged its acceptance." Bailey was present when this affidavit was read to the committee. He arose and denied that he had made any proposition to give the county attorney of McLennan County (Cullen F. Thomas) anything in addition to his legal fee. We have already given the Bailey version of the other charges. Cullen F. Thomas, a machine and a Bailey man, testified that Bailey had come to Waco in May, 1900, and had said to him that he, Bailey, wanted to talk to him regarding the Waters-Pierce Oil Company; that he, Bailey, had promised his friend, Dave Francis, to see if something could not be done to settle the matter; that Bailey said he had become interested in the case at the instance of his friend Francis, for whom he could vouch and who said he (Francis) could vouch for Mr. Pierce. The civil cases, Thomas testified, were later dismissed. Thomas said he knew nothing to lead him to believe in Bailey's dishonesty. On the same day, January 17th, the committee fully exonerated Bailey and the state officials! On January 21st there was a heated debate in the Texas House over the committee's report. Several speakers declared that Bailey had packed the committee; that every witness before it was a friend of Bailey's; that the proceeding was a farce, conducted strictly in Bailey's interest by Bailey and his friends. But Bailey's adherents indignantly denounced these attacks and lauded his patriotism and statesmanship; and the report was adopted by a vote of seventy to forty-one. Bailey was elected United States senator on the same day. In view of the facts, and making every allowance which justice commands or charity begs, had the people or "the interests" gained a senator? In September, 1902, Bailey bought stock in the Kentucky Horse Breeders' Association. In August, 1902, he had twenty trotters in training at Lexington, Kentucky. It was reported in May, 1904, that he had disposed of his interests in the association and removed his trotters to Texas. Bailey was quoted as saying that "the newspaper reports made the pleasure of breeding horses a burden." He disposed of the Grapevine Ranch, and so far as is known he has not complained of loss. He is established at Washington in a style befitting his wealth and rank; he entertains generously, patronizes a private school, and no longer distresses fashionable society with unconventional evening dress. And of the many warm friends who welcome him when he visits Wall Street, none is warmer than Thomas F. Ryan, insurance, gas, trolley, tobacco, and railway financier and chief backer of the "safe and sane." In the course of the inquiry into the sources of Bailey's affluence, application for information was made at the office of that stanch friend of Bailey's, the "Houston Post." "See Kirby," was the answer. "Bailey is Kirby's attorney, and Kirby will tell you that he got it in legitimate fees." Big Fees for Bailey Who is Kirby? John H. Kirby is one of the "big men" in Texas, a dominant factor in finance and in politics. A resident of Houston, he controls lumber, crude-oil and other companies. He built a railroad in Texas and sold it to the Santa Fe branch of the railway department of "the interests." One of the county attorneys of Texas brought suit against him in 1904, charging him with organizing a lumber trust; but the machine attorney-general refused to join. When asked about Bailey, and whether he had contributed to enriching him, Mr. Kirby replied, with the direct frankness characteristic of his type of "the business man in politics": "Yes, I paid Bailey more than two hundred thousand dollars in fees, first and last. I employed him in the fall of 1902. I controlled more than a million acres of timber land in East Texas. That land was supposed to be underlaid with oil. Two companies were organized, the Kirby Lumber Company and the Houston Oil Company." Mr. Kirby described at length intricate deals with New York and other Eastern financiers. He was then, October, 1902, in New York. He telegraphed Senator Bailey to come on. Senator Bailey came. Continued Kirby: "Bailey took hold as my attorney and also as attorney for the Kirby Lumber Company. After several months of effort he recovered for me more than a million dollars in securities and aided me otherwise. During this period he also assisted in raising money for the Kirby Lumber Company, of which it stood in great need. From whom did be raise it? Well, he sold for the account of the company $1,600,000 of the company's preferred stock to the 'Frisco railroad system. Thus he saved us from bankruptcy. He procured loans to the company aggregating more than $1,500,000 in additional cash from the Rock Island Railroad, from Kountze Bros., Brown Bros., Third National Bank of St. Louis, American Loan and Trust Co. of Boston, the Riggs National Bank of Washington, Ladenburg, Thalman & Co., North American Trust Company of New York, H. B. Hollins & Company, and other concerns. In addition, he sold treasury stock for about $1,000,000 and Houston Oil preferred stock for $733,000. For all this service the Kirby Lumber Company paid Senator Bailey $200,000. I paid him for services to me individually an additional sum of $25,000 and still owe him something." The readmission of the Standard Oil Company into Texas in May, 1900; the purchase of the Grapevine Ranch in June, 1900; the election by the machine legislature to the Senate in January, 1901; the entry into the breeding of trotters in 1902; the large and lucrative employment by boss Kirby beginning, as Kirby himself says, with 1902; the negotiations with such notorious exploiters of prosperity and politics as the controllers of the 'Frisco and Rock Island systems; the hawking of securities and notes among the high financiers of Wall Street and their Western and Southern dependencies�all these things together compose an arresting picture of sudden, dazzling prosperity, and delicate, intimate commerce with interests not suspected either of warm friendship for the people or of warm interest in pure politics and honest, equal progress. Does this composite picture, of Bailey's own painting, suggest in any of its lineaments the "tribune of the people," the fit leader of opposition to the traitor "merger," encitadeled in the traitor Senate? The destined successor of Gorman in the actual, if not in the nominal, leadership of the Democratic branch of the "merger" hails from Gainesville, within forty miles of the border of Indian Territory. He has lived in that part of Texas, has been in politics there, since 1885. "The interests" have been for twenty years industriously absorbing the vast natural resources of Indian Territory, preparing for that time, not far distant now, when its coal, iron, oil, lumber, and agricultural products will be the necessities of twenty or more million Americans. And these preparations have been in defiance or evasion of law and public policy, a menace to the future of the entire Southwest. Bailey, from just over the border, is one of the men whose direct duty it was and is to oppose and expose the Indian Territory monopolizings and exploitations by "the interests." Yet, never has he opened his lips in protest; never has he introduced a measure looking to stopping or checking or curbing the rascality. The Indian Territory Grab Last April, when a huge Indian Territory coal, timber, and oil grab was on its stealthy way through the traitor Senate, under the auspices of the "merger," and under cover of fake railway-rate-bill excitement, it was La Follette, a new senator from far-away Wisconsin, who exposed it. Mr. La Follette offered several amendments to the Indian appropriation bill, to protect the people's remaining rights there. He urged, on April 27th, in behalf of one amendment, that it was recommended by Mr. Hitchcock, secretary of the interior, who is an honest and efficient official. Up rose Bailey, for the "merger," to say, "When the senator understands more fully the situation in Indian Territory, he will pay less attention to what the secretary of the interior says." And the amendment, which made it possible for home-seekers to buy Indian lands, but impossible for corrupt corporations to grab them, was killed on a point of order-raised by Spooner! Bailey's chief concern last spring was the railway-rate bill. If that bill had been an honest measure, still Bailey's "popular" activities would not be significant. He is seeking a reelection next winter; also, the "merger" has voices and votes to spare at present. But Republican Senator La Follette and Democratic Senator Rayner of Maryland, both experts in railway matters and both "unmerged," have revealed to the public the fundamental futility of that bill; have revealed it as a companion fraud to the deliberately futile Cullom interstate-commerce act of 1887; so all intelligent Americans know that the entire railway-rate debate was simply another Senate sham battle, another fake to fool the people with a stone painted to look like a loaf of bread. Bailey was playing the game of "the interests" by posing in railway-rate debate as a "learned constitutionalist "�this, when constitutional questions are decided, not in the Senate, but in the Supreme Court, and there by votes of five to four, with no man able to forecast on which side will be the five, and on which the four. On the other hand, the "Congressional Record," so full of surprises for the careful reader, reveals that Bailey has been, in his fourteen years at Washington, one of the chief introducers of Indian Territory railway and land bills�bills granting rights of way to railways, bills renewing, extending, and broadening charters. He introduced Gainesville, McAlester & St. Louis bills, the Gainesville, Oklahoma & Gulf bill, the Denison, Bonham & Gulf bill, part of the Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf legislation. And in 1904 he, become a senator, introduced a bill which permitted the Kiowa, Chickasaw & Fort Smith to sell out to the Eastern Oklahoma Company, and permitted this company to sell to the Santa Fe system. His interest in and information about these matters are suggested by a colloquy in the House on February 26, 1900, over a Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf bill, which Sherman of New York, high in the so-called Republican branch of the "merger," was pushing. Representative Sulzer asked a question; up popped Bailey to help Sherman out. Said he: "Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will permit me, I never heard of this bill until it was read, but I know the circumstances of the corporation." And he proceeded to explain how innocent the measure was; he and Sherman together quieted Sulzer's doubts. In a speech on March 28th last, Senator La Follette brought out that this corporation, whose "circumstances" Bailey professed full knowledge of, has been notoriously and from its start a corrupt exploiter of Indian Territory. All the measures introduced by Bailey looked well enough; no doubt many of them were harmless enough in and of themselves; no doubt many of them might have been most beneficent, if properly investigated and freed of all sly looting schemes. But in his Indian Territory work he has shown the uninquisitive and credulous nature so conspicuous in the Standard Oil transaction. And when we consider the cumulative effect of all the Indian Territory legislation by the "merged" Senate and House, the handing over of the resources of the people's great and rich domain to "the interests"; and when we consider that Bailey has been either mentally or morally paralyzed as to the people's rights there, how is it possible to be reassured by eulogies of his "constructive statesmanship" and it constitutional learning" from Spooner and other spokesmen of the "merger," and from the powerful press and the controlled news-services of "the interests"? Where Bailey Stood on the Pure-food Bill Bailey's speech against the pure-food bill gives concisely the plausible line of his leadership for the "merger" and "the interests." The orators of "the interests" are all sticklers for the Constitution. The Aldrich gang take the ground that, while the Constitution should be interpreted broadly, still, alack and alas! there is no way of interpreting it so as to protect the people from the depredations of "the interests." You can "constitutionally" pass any kind of legislation to "provide for the common defense" and to "promote the general welfare"�provided always such legislation helps, or does not hinder, "the interests" plundering the American laborer and independent capitalist. But, if any legislation threatens the "high finance" bandits who supply funds to both political parties and control nearly three-fourths of the senators and possess the machinery of the House and, through the Senate, have dominant influence in selecting federal judges and district attorneys-why, there stands the Constitution like a rock to prevent it. The Bailey, or the so-called Democratic, gang reaches the same end of protecting the plutocracy by the way so long used by and for the ante-bellum slavocracy: The Constitution must be strictly interpreted; the rights of the states must not be violated! Here is Bailey, denouncing, last March, the bill purporting to check the poison trust: "I believe that the man who would sell to the women and children of this country articles of food calculated to impair their health is a public enemy, and ought to be sent to prison. No senator here is more earnestly in favor of legislation against adulterated food and drink than I am." Fully as impassioned as Bailey's protest that he would "fight to the last ditch" against admitting to Texas a monopoly to prey upon his beloved constituents! But�Hear the "tribune of the people" further: "But I insist that such legislation belongs to the states and not to the general government. When something happens not exactly in accord with public sentiment, the people rush to Congress until it will happen after a while that Congress will have so much to do that it will do nothing well." No suggestion that Congress might find ample time for doing the people's work in the time it now devotes to smothering or emasculating legislation against "the interests" and to preparing and plausibly covering and enacting legislation for "the interests"! No suggestion that time, and other advantages, might be gained if leaders of Senate and House dabbled less in stocks or had less business for their private clients with the politico-financial powers of Wall Street. No suggestion that it would be fully as sensible and patriotic to propose, in time of foreign invasion, that the task of repelling the foe be left to the states severally, as to propose that Congress leave to the states the repelling of the raids of "the interests" operating on commerce which is but partially, where at all, subject to state laws! Could "the interests" ask anything better than this sly grant of immunity on the ground that to attack the national foe by national measures violates the national law? Bailey is rich with wealth acquired in the service of corporations and men whose doings and alliances have not always been, to say the least, for the public good. Bailey is a political leader whose record reveals no act of effective friendship for the people in the struggle between them and "the interests" that prey upon labor, honest capital, and honest investors. Bailey is a leader of the body that is covertly but literally the final arbiter of the distribution of our prosperity, is covertly but literally the final fixer of wages, salaries, incomes,. and prices. And his leadership consists in befogging issues by contributing to what he himself calls "the endless and confusing wrangles of the lawyers" about a Constitution which the Supreme Court, when the legislative and the executive departments have given it a chance, has rarely failed to interpret broadly for the people and in amusing disregard of the "learned constitutionalists" in Congress for "the interests." Aldrich is and Gorman was the master of the Republican and Democratic machines, the deciders what "the party" shall do and what it shall merely pretend to do. Spooner and Bailey are their chief spokesmen, the men who strike the "keynotes." With such leaders, what must be the leading? Is it strange that "the interests" grow and the people diminish? pps. 52-61 --[cont]-- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
