-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
--[9]--
CHAPTER IX
Fairbanks, Hale, and Frye
FAIRBANKS, the presiding genius of the Aldrich-Bailey Senate, is,
technically, not a member of it. But no account of the leadership in the
citadel of "the interests" would be adequate if it neglected him. The story
of his rise from a young Indianapolis lawyer with rich, influential
relatives, in 1874, to senatorial multimillionaire, vice-president, and
Harriman candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, is a typical
Senate biography. Soon after he began to practice law, his uncle,
General-Superintendent Smith of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway, got him the
job of attorney to the receiver of the Indiana, Bloomington & Western
Railroad. For fourteen years thereafter he devoted his talents to the service
of railway wreckers and reorganizers and stock and bond waterers. He laid the
broad foundation of his great fortune early. The I. B. & W. was popularly
regarded as much poorer than it really was. A pool was formed by the inside
ring and the heavily discounted wage-checks of
the road's badly paid employees were bought up; the checks were paid in
full-and the young lawyer became a financier, a bulwark of conservatism and
probity!
It was his clever railway work that got him Morgan's favor and the coveted
position of Morgan's Middle-Western lieutenant. To indicate the man as a
public factor we need not linger on the jobbery of Indianapolis, Bloomington
& Western, the Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton, the Cleveland, Cincinnati,
Chicago & Indianapolis, the Pere Marquette, etc. Fairbanks grew richer and
richer, bought Indiana Republican heelers, financed Indiana Republican and
independent newspapers, including the chief Republican papers of the state,
the "Indianapolis Journal" and the "Indianapolis News"; he made addresses to
religious bodies, backed the machine with his money bags, became a statesman,
a senator in 1897, and vice-president through the popularity of Roosevelt in
1905. While he was "representing" the people of Indiana as a senator in 1901,
he and his protector, Morgan, quarreled over the famous, or rather infamous,
Joss railway bill drawn by Morgan's chief lawyer, Stetson. Fairbanks promised
Morgan that Governor Durbin would sign the bill. Durbin either would not or
dared not. Though the Fairbanks machine punished Durbin's "treachery" by
retiring him from public life, Morgan remained "sore." This and some C. H. &
D. matters caused Fairbanks to find it expedient to transfer himself to the
service of Harriman. It is with the Harriman branch of "the interests" that
he is now identified, and under its auspices delegates—chiefly colored
delegates from the South—are in the way of purchase as Fairbanks's support
for the Republican presidential nomination.
As senator, Fairbanks was always quick to rally with the faithful round
Aldrich, against the people. As presiding officer of the Senate, his
opportunities for direct service are necessarily limited. He is still a Wall
Street speculator, for his political expenses are a heavy drain. His most
ardent senatorial supporters in his presidential ambition are Hemenway of
Indiana and young Brandegee of Connecticutwhich is, of itself, enough to
"locate" them.
Will "the-interests" nominate him as the Republican presidential candidate in
1908? The present plan of the Aldrich-Ryan con-trol of the merged machines of
the two parties seems to be to nominate at the Democratic convention the most
easily beaten of the Democratic presidential possibilities, and to put up as
the Republican candidate some "safe and sane" man who belongs to them, or at
least will not impede them. Possibly he will be Fairbanks. But the
possibility scems remote. Indeed, by 1908, the people may become awake to the
truth about the merged machinery of the parties.
Hale and Frye—to complete our survey of the Senate's leaders—have been for
twenty-five years the senators from Maine. Sharp and painful is the contrast
between Hale, opponent of militarism and made-in-England imperialism, and
Hale, helper of "the interests," our only dangerous enemy. Indifference to
the people and contempt for their rights as against the riches and social and
political power of "the interests" saturate the atmosphere of the Senate. The
rare occasional senator who proposes some timid measure of justice, or
protests—with due regard for "senatorial courtesy "against some measure of
more than usual injustice, feels like an uncouth fellow thrusting coarse
dress and harsh accents upon an elegant company of gentlemen. And many
senators are, through long custom and gradual degeneration, as uncon$cious of
the moral quality of their actions as are the great rascals of Wall Street
when they make heavier the burdens of the masses, make deeper the sighs of
poverty, by issuing floods of stocks and bonds that inflate prices and
constrict wages.
Hale is one of the Senate's twenty-five millionaires; is worth five or more
millions. Frye has a competence. But ~oth are alike infected with the
self-excusing idea that their friends of " the interests " are, to use
President Baer's famous phrase, " the men to whom God in his infinite wisdom
has given control of the property interests of the country." The
railroads-that is, the exploiters of railroad stockholders and users
-dominate New England politics. In Maine, as in New Hampshire and Vermont, it
is the Boston and Maine. Thus Hale and Frye have their senatorial seats from
legislatures ruled by "the interests," and would lose those seats if they
developed however shadowy symptoms of "demagoguery." Further, both have a not
unnatural passion to be "influential in the party "-and how be influential
there if out of harmony with the forces that finance and control its machine?
Only last spring (Cong. Record, May 14, pages 7011, 7012, etc.) Hale was
celebrating his twenty-fifth anniversary of "merger" service by acting as
suave, cynically polite floor-manager against La Follette's effort to get
sincerity and strength into the railway-rate bill. As for Frye, his chief
public occupation since igoi has been urging the ship-subsidy grab which
Hanna (Cong. Record, June 5, igoo, page 7119) promised an influential group
of "campaign contributors." As passed again by the "merged" Senate last
winter, Frye's measure proposed a grant of nine millions a year for twenty
years to already rich and prosperous ship-builders and ship-owners. We built
last year eleven hundred and two merchant vessels, which was more than any
other country built. The 1893 report of the commissioner of navigation shows
that ships are built cheaper on the Great Lakes than on the Clyde or the
Mersey. We sell to foreign consumers everything that goes into a ship. As
both Aldrich and Cannon did not dare vote this
one-hundred-and-eight-million-dollar grab on the eve of a doubtful election,
Aldrich had his Senate pass it to stimulate campaign contriblutions.
Neither Hale nor Frye is in the Senate for the people. In the vital matter,
the people versus the confiscators of their property, Hale sits for his
millions well invested with "the interests," and Frye for his dear friends in
politics and social life. Those rich friends, being comfortable and in
possession of more than their share, wonder at discontent, call confiscation
conservatism, and extol the virtue and piety of "standpatism."
Except Martin of Virginia, who is Ryan's chief senatorial political
lieutenant after Bailey of Texas, and who rivals Aldrich and Allison for
subtlety and stealth, none of the Southern senators owes his seat to direct
railway dictation; on the other hand, no Southern senator, not even Tillman,
nowadays defies "the interests," without a tremor-except as the politician of
the party out of power i& always permitted to pour out the "hot air" of
futile ravings against vague monopolies, to make "political capital." Such is
the result in the South—as in the North—of legislatures in large part, often
almost entirely, composed of petty lawyers, on, or eager to get on, the
pay-rolls of the "law departments" of the giant corporations, especially the
railways.
As to Virginia's, or rather Ryan's, Martin, here is a compact summary of the
truth about him, made by that sterling Virviyal and stanch Democrat, William
L. Royall, at Chester Hill, Virginia, on June 1, 1905:
" Gen. Fitzhugh Lee, the popular idol, whom ninety per cent. of the people of
Virginia expected to be sent to the United States Senate, was defeated by
Thomas S. Martin, a man whose name had never been heard by five thousand
people of Virginia. Soon there were whisperings of bribery and corruption.
The thing took definite shape in the form of charges in the press that the
railroad companies of the state had raised a corruption fund of forty-five
thousand dollars; that this had been sent into the negro counties, where the
elections were what the ballot-box stuffers pleased to make them, to have
representatives sent to the legislature who would elect a man to the Senate
to be a tool of the railroads."
Mr. Royall went on to relate how the legislature was finally forced to
appoint a committee to investigate; how that committee disregarded its
legislative mandate, which had been sweepingly worded to placate the people;
how it b~ formal resolution confined.its inquiry, to quote the resolution
itself, " strictly to the conduct ol the senatorial candidate"! Of course
Martin came off clear. And the report now is that Ryan purposes to have
himself elected to succeed Daniel, Martin's colleague. The state of
Washington and Jefferson!
Such are the leaders of the Senate. The character of a leadepship stamps the
character of the led. The character of the leaders and of the leadership of
the Senate obviously cannot change until the Senate is swept clean of the men
who select and follow those leaders.
Certainly, never was the Senate so beset as at its last session by the forces
that make for publicity and therefore for patriotism. What was the actual
result, as distinguished from the assertions of party organs and organs and
agents of "the interests"? Did the senators, the leaders and the led, about
face and serve the people? Did the leopard change his spots, the Ethiopian
his skin?
How Good Bills are Nullified
As we have discovered, the main tests of treason are two: tariff legislation
and railway legislation, because chiefly in those ways do "the interests"
fatten upon us. The present tariff law has for the past six years been
attacked fully as vigorously by Republicans as by Democrats. Mr. McKinley,
the most extreme of protectionists, in the speech he made just before he was
shot down, five years ago last September, exclaimed, " The time for
exclusiveness has passed," and called for reciprocity treaties. Was anything
done last winter and spring toward securing reciprocity treaties, or toward
revising robbery out of the tariff ? Not a thing. The word from "the
interests" was "stand pat." "It will disturb our business," said they; and,
as "our business" is robbery, it undoubtedly would. So Aldrich held the
Senate—and Cannon the House—in line for "the interests."
Early in the session Senator Tillman introduced a bill to "prohibit
corporations from making money contributions in connection with political
campaigns" (Senate bill No. 4563). The campaign contribution formed and
fosters the conditions under which the will of " the interests " has become
"the policy of the party," conditions under which Aldrich, manager of the
Republican national machine, and Ryan, chief financier of the Democratic
national machine, can meet in a room in the Fifth Avenue Hotel or in the
Hotel Gotham, New York city, on Sunday afternoons while Congress is in
session, and—if they are not merely talking about the weather—decide what
Congress shall not do; for that is the chief concern of " the interests," now
that they have the best of the public lands and satisfactory tariff schedules.
What became of this bill to emancipate, partially at least, our politics from
"the interests"? It was referred to the Senate's committee on privileges and
elections, thence to a sub-committee composed of Knox, Bailey, Foraker! When
Tillman had shown that he did not propose to let the trio smother the bill,
and when it became evident that the public was watching to see what became of
it, Foraker reported it to the Senate; and on June 9th it passed by unanimous
consent. A victory for the people! A complete vindication of the virtue of
the Senate! But—not so fast! The "merger" applies to the House, remember—and
in all vital matters Joe Cannon is the House, just as Aldrich is the Senate.
The bill went to Joe Cannon. He put it in that one of his pockets which is
labeled "House committee on the election of president, vice-president, and
representatives in Congress." The people appealed and protested; but there it
stayed. Joe and his, House were "too busy" to assail the corruption that
fills Senate and House with smooth agents and cowed or squirming subjects of
"the interests" disguised as "the party."
But that is not all. There was the "Beveridge" meat-inspection bill. It
passed the Senate practically as Beveridge wrote it. Apparently the master of
the "merger" was going to permit Congress to do a little "pandering to public
sentiment," at the expense of the beef barons, who of all the united yet
divided family of "the interests" are the least beloved by their brethren.
But each branch of "the interests" has its own special senators or
congressmen or both. The beef trust's special friends are Senator Cullom and
Joe Cannon and Jimmie Wadsworth, chairman of Joe Cannon's committee on
agriculture. Cullom, as usual, worked underground. Cannon and Wadsworth, of
necessity, worked, in large part, in the open. It is useless and would be
tedious to trace the betrayal of the people step by step. The bill in its
original form was inadequate but honest. As finally passed, Aldrich
"reluctantly" accepting Cannon's amendments, it was an act of treachery to
the people. Why? Let us see.
The original bill insured thorough inspection by providing that the
inspectors be paid by the packers, at so much a head or carcass. Thus the
Department of Agriculture, in getting a force of inspectors, would not have
to rely upon a Congressional appropriation that might be inadequate, or might
be withheld or cut down when the excitement died away and the people were
lulled into security by the belief that Congress had safeguarded their
interests. But upon the pretext that the people ought to pay, as they were
the beneficiaries—this, when the beef trust would make millions out of the
government guarantee Cannon and Wadsworth made the thoroughness of the
inspection dependent upon the adequacy of a fixed appropriation of three
million dollars. The former appropriation, for the inspection which had
permitted the beef trust to become a wholesale poisoner of the people, had
been seven hundred and fifty thousand. With the former list of one hundred
and fifty establishments to inspect thoroughly instead of carelessly; with an
added list of one hundred widely scattered establishments to be looked after;
with the lowest estimate of the cost of adequate inspection about six
millions a year, the House—that is, Cannon—at first stood out for an
appropriation of only one million dollars; stood again at two million
dollars; and finally conceded to Mr. Roosevelt and Senator Beveridge three
million dollars as the limit. And, obviously, less than adequate inspection
is no inspection at all; is a lure to false security on the part of consumers.
Again, under the former law, our patriotic Congress had instituted, at the
request of the beef trust seeking a foreign market, an inspection of meat for
export; but it had excluded meat for American consumption! Under the original
Beveridge bill, the inspection labels had to be dated, so that the beef trust
could not relabel three- and four- and five-year-old cans and furbish and
"freshen" decaying meat and work it off as good, new meat. With not an
attempt to excuse or explain a treason of release of the people to beef-trust
rapacity, the "merger" voted down the dating of the inspection labels. Why
did Mr. Roosevelt and Senator Beveridge finally yield? For the same reasons
that so often lead honest but firmly partisan politicians to accept
"compromises"—faint-hearted belief that it is the " compromise" with
corruption or nothing, and desire for credit with the people of "doing
something."
The so-called Beveridge bill leaves the beef trust just there it was, except
that it now has a government endorsement on all its products. The inspection
cannot be thorough; there is not a sufficient appropriation. It will be
somewhat less farcical, for a time, than it has been-and that is all. The Jim
Hill branch of "the interests" holds the beef-trust branch in particular
hatred, because it has made Jim Hill crawl at its feet for business at its
own rates. Thus it was that Jim Hill's Nelson voiced the truth. Said he
(Cong. Record, June 29th):
"The ordinary American consumers and the ordinary American farmers have been
left out of the question. Three objects have been sought to be accomplished:
first, to placate the packers; next, to placate the men who raise the range
cattle; and, third, to get a good market for the packers abroad. The beef
trust can now force us to eat the canned goods, whether they were made
yesterday or are as old as Methuselah. I hope that in the future we may be
able to correct this legislation, but the senator (Beveridge) will be a much
grayer man than I am before he gets the upper hand of the packers or the
range cattlemen."
Such is the truth about the "glorious victory of the people" over the beef
trust. The new law is long and its impressive phrases sound formidable. But
its essence is in the size of the appropriation and the omission of date upon
inspection labels.
But that is not all. For seventeen years the people had been trying to get a
law that would check the operations of what is commonly known as the "poison
trust." For seventeen years the Senate had refused to permit the "industry"
to be molested. Finally, however, through official reports of the Department
of Agriculture, the fact that more than fifty per cent. of the drugs and
manufactured goods in cans and packages was adulterated became too notorious;
deaths and violent illnesses from the products of the poison trust became too
numerous. A campaign was coming on, and the people were in an ugly mood.
When the pure-food bill first entered last winter's Congress, it was an
honest measure, modeled upon the laws that have long been efficient in
Europe. The vital points for efficient regulation are two:
First. That the government shall be able to seize the poisonous or fraudulent
goods wherever found, and to get at the person offering them for sale as well
as their maker, so that the dealer will have an interest in protecting his
customers.
Second. That all manufactured food and drug products shall conform to a
definite standard of excellence, fixed by a permanent expert board. The
manufacturers cannot then plead that they did not know they were
adulterating, cannot bring hired chemists to swear that the adulterations in
their goods are harmless.
What of the so-called pure-food law? What are its provisions at these vital
points? As to dealers in poisonous foods and drugs, it says:
"No dealer shall be prosecuted when he can establish a guaranty signed by the
wholesale jobber, manufacturer, or other party residing in the United States,
from whom he purchases such articles, to the effect that the same are not
adulterated or misbranded."
That is, the dealer need not concern himself at all about the goods he is
handling. All he need do to protect himself is to get from somebody or
other—any dummy put forward by manufacturer or jobber will do—a certificate
that the goods are all right. The certificate does not even need the
signature of a legally responsible person. Dealers in stolen goods are not
protected in this way; why should dealers in fraudulent and poisonous food be
so protected?
As to the second point-the fixing of a standard-the law makes no provision
whatever for standards of purity for foods and drugs beyond vague phrases
which can be picked to pieces by lawyers and by experts in the employ of the
poison trust and testifying in behalf of members of the trust who have got
into trouble. The report of the House committee on interstate commerce which
accompanied the original bill and explained its provisions says (page 4):
"It is, however, essential to the success and operation of any pure-food
measure that standards of food products shall be arrived at, for the guidance
of the officials charged with the administration of the law and often for the
information of the courts."
And the report goes on to say that it is "therefore" provided in the bill
that "the secretary of agriculture shall have a board of five experts," etc.,
etc. But the law as it stands does not contain this "essential"; the Senate
struck it out. And so the administrators of the law and the courts have no
guide. Under criminal statutes of long standing, it was impossible to indict
as a common criminal a purveyor of disguised poisons. The new, the boasted,
"pure food" law adds nothing to these statutes. In fact, it takes from them;
the poisoner for profit is now subject merely to the light fines and possible
light prison sentences provided by this law.
Legislation that Doesn't Legislate
Why did Representative Mann and the others honestly desiring a real
pure-food law accept this trick law, worse than no law at all? Partly because
it does contain some good, though not important, provi-sions as to
misbranding; chiefly for the same reasons that made Mr. Roosevelt and Mr.
Beveridge call their meat-inspection defeat a victory—impetuous optimism, the
desire to feel that they had "done some-thing," the desire to get credit with
the people for accomplishment, the oncoming Congressional campaign. The
pure-food men did the shouting, but the poison trust got the victory, even to
refusing to permit Congress to compel the canning branch of the trust to use
cans of honest sizes. It is unfortunate that space limits prevent the
reprinting here of the entire pure-food debate in both Senate and House. The
people would be instructed-and shocked-by the astounding callousness of so
many of their 94 representatives." Not a single amendment of the original
honest Nil, beyond trivial corrections of grammar and clumsy phrase, was made
with any other intent than to increase the license and immunity of the cheats
and poisoners and to decrease the efficiency of the law. The "safe and sane"
legislators were anxious only that the line be drawn, as far as they dared
draw it, on the side of the swindlers and poisoners for dividends; for the
pockets of the plunderers, not the pockets of the people; for the safety of
criminals, not the safety of American citizens and their families.
But that is not all. Senate bill No. 5133 forbade railways to keep train
handlers at work more than sixteen hours at a stretch, and compelled at least
ten hours for getting home, sleeping, and getting back to work. Since the
long hours of railway workers are admittedly the chief reason why our
railways kill more than ten thousand persons a year, injure more than
eighty-four thousand, and put hundreds of thousands in jeopardy of narrowly
averted accidents, such a proposal becomes simply a forbidding of wholesale
murder. On June 26th Senator La Follette began his battle to compel the
senators to go on record as for or against this bill. The obstruction tactics
began with a motion by McCumber, of the "Jim Hill bunch," that the bill go
over. There were no less than sixteen time-wasting roll-calls before the
Senate, which was "too busy" to consider the safety of three-quarters of a
billion annual American railway passengers, finally yielded to La Follette's
persistence and took up the bill. The only "merger" men who fought openly
were McCumber, Kean, Foraker, Gallinger, Carter, and Warren. The only
arguments were the expense to the railways, and that Congress had no right to
interfere with a man who might wish to work more than sixteen hours a day.
The "merger" escaped an aye and no record vote by agreeing to vote finally
upon the bill on Thursday, January 30th, next, at 3 p.m., "unless sooner
disposed of." Senator La Follette let "senatorial courtesy" persuade him to
consent to this. We shall see next January what happens to this bill, with
the election over and the fate of the "merger" senators whose seats are at
stake decided, and another election two long, crowded years away.
But that is not all; there was the railwayrate legislation. Laws long on the
statutebooks, though just recently begun to be enforced, amply cover
discriminations and rebates. The real demand of the people as to railways,
the demand the "merger" Senate and House tried to deceive and quiet with a
trick railway-rate law, centers about this fact:
The people are robbed by means of the railways through having to pay freight
and passenger tolls based on extortionate dividends to subsidiary
corporations organized for "milking" purposes, and on an overcapitalization
of the railways themselves, amounting to about sixteen billion dollarsactual
value, four billions; stocks and bonds, twenty billions.
This means directly and indirectly a heavy tax on every American family; a
cut into your profits, your salary, your wages, your savings; poorer clothes
for your family, fewer comforts and luxuries, greater hardships in hard
times. To measure that tax, not merely the net earnings of the railways,
about three-quarters of a billion a year, but the gross earnings, about two
billion dollars, must be investigated. Also, like all indirect taxes, it
wastes fully as much as it takes. How did the "merger" Senate meet, or rather
dodge, that vital question? From February until June it discussed everything
and anything, chiefly the Constitution, hours on hours, days on days. It
spent less than five minutes, and that incidentally a colloquy between
Senators Beveridge and La Follette-in debate upon the real issue. It
discussed for weeks "broad" and "narrow" court reviews—a matter of concern to
shippers only. What was the object of those vast clouds of dust, raised by
Aldrich's and Cannon's orators, assisted by the Bailey and Williams "bunch"?
To distract the attention of the President and the country from the real
issue.
That real issue lies buried under the typical trick-law phrase of the new
statute which says that rates must be "just and reasonable." The "merged"
Senate, for the obvious reason of treachery to the people, refused to define
what "just and reasonable" means or to permit the Interstate Commerce
Commission to gather the information upon which the justice and
reasonableness of rates could be determined by it and by the courts. On May
14th, Senator La Follette introduced an amendment to repair this vital error
and to make the bill a real measure instead of a pretentious fraud. His
amendment was that
"The Commission shall investigate and ascertain the fair value of the
property of every railroad engaged in interstate commerce. . . . All final
valuations (after the railways have been heard before the Commission and
before the courts) shall be prima facie evidence of the fair value of the
railroad property (in fixing rates)."
The "merger" did not dare debate this proposal. Senator Hale, for the
"merger," moved to kill it. La Follette compelled a Call of the ayes and
noes. The vote for this motion to relicense again "the interests" as they
were relicensed by the Cullom interstate commerce act of 1887 to cheat and
quiet the last great uprising against robbery by railroad manipulators, comes
as near being a poll of the "merger" as can be got. Of course, the Democratic
members of the "merger" are missing, as they were not needed and so could be
let off to "make political capital" for the Democratic wing of the "merger."
Here are the fifty senators who rallied round Aldrich:
Alger, Allee, Ankeny, Brandegee, Bulkeley, Burnham, Carter, Clark of Wyoming,
Crane, Cullom, Dick, Dillingham, Dryden, Flint, Foraker, Frye, Fulton,
Gallinger, Hale, Hansborough, Hemenway, Hopkins, Kean, Kittredge, Knox,
Lodge, Long, McCumber, McEnery, Millard, Nelson, Nixon, Penrose, Perkins,
Piles, Platt, Scott, Sutherland, and Wetmore.
Paired senators for the "merger" were:
Allison, Spooner, Burton, Burrows, Clapp, Depew, Heyburn, Proctor, Smoot, and
Warren.
Several senators were absent impaired, so we have not here the full strength
even of the Republican wing; and "merger" Lieutenant Elkins, attacked and up
for reelection in West Virginia voted with La Follette. Still, the vote is a
valuable index, though the full strength of the "merger" is more than
seventy-five out of a possible ninety!
Does the law give the Commission any power at all in fixing rates? Charles A.
Prouty, Vermont Republican and interstate commerce commissioner, giving an
analysis of this law, lauded as a "glorious victory for the people," said
("Review of Reviews" for July, 19o6) that the original bill, as passed by the
House (the President's bill), gave the Commission the power to fix rates, but
the Senate intervened. He added:
"Whether the bill as finally agreed upon confers this power can only be
positively affirmed after the courts have passed upon that question. . . .
Upon the decision of this question depends in large degree the effectiveness
of the measure."
"No sudden or startling results of any kind will follow from this law," says
he. And he says well; it is as "safe and sane," as thoroughly "mergered," as
the Cullom actof1887. The grant of power to fix rates is doubtful; and no
basis is provided for fixing" just and reasonable rates." Such is the
"victory for the people," the "vindication of the statesmanship and
patriotism of the Senate." No wonder honest Senator Tillman could not be
wheedled into signing the final conference report on this bill. No wonder
President Baer of the Reading openly laughs at the law. What a travesty, to
call such a cheat law!
"Victories for the People"
But that is not all. The steel trust's Congressionally chartered canal
connecting Lake Erie with the Ohio and Mississippi River systems (H.R. 14396)
will be, as its chief senatorial spokesman, Knox, pointed out, of national
importance, connecting as it does the Great Lakes with the Gulf of Mexico
and, by way of the Panama Canal, with the Pacific. It was therefore of
supreme importance that low tolls be guaranteed—which they could not be if
the canal were burdened with water stocks and bonds. It was of equal
importance that Congress take advantage of the rare opportunity of a
nationally chartered corporation to lay down the principle of just
capitalization.
According to the company's own experts, the cost of the canal could not well
exceed fifty million dollars. Yet the AldrichCannon Congress granted a
charter permitting stocks and bonds of eight hundred thousand dollars a
mile—about one hundred and fifty million dollars! La Follette proposed that
the Interstate Commerce Commission be empowered to regulate the issues of
stocks and bonds and so prevent stock and bond watering. Nelson of Minnesota
conducted operations for the "merger." There was no debate-how could the
"merger" debate such a plain proposal of patriotism and justice? He curtly
moved to table the amendment. And it was tabled, and the people were betrayed
by a vote like the one recorded above, except that to that black list must be
added these names:
Benson, the new senator from Kansas, Burkett, Elkins, Warner.
On the final vote—on the bill itself—La Follette struck his flag and voted
for it. Why? "Senatorial courtesy!" We must give La Follette full credit for
courage and conscience in his gallant struggles in this and other vital
matters, for his genuine accomplishment in forcing the Senate to order an
investigation of the grain-elevator trust. Still, we must also note that in
his very first winter he, on two signal occasions, bent before "senatorial
courtesy," which is the "merger's" sleek contrivance for slathering treason
with cant and for flattering virtue into silence or submission.
Such, then, are the laws that are hailed as the "great victories for the
people." There were other similar acts of treachery to nation and people-acts
of commission and acts of omission. We may not now go into them. Let us pass
over them and the neutral laws-those routine measures of appropriations,
foreign relations, and the Eke, which in the broad mean nothing one way or
the other as to treason or patriotism. Let us close with a glance at the act
which the "merger" has so confidently thrown to the farmers as a sop, as a
proof that treason does not rule in the Capitol.
The impression has gone out-we can guess how-that the Standard Oil Company
was bitterly opposed to free, denatured alcohol, because it meant that every
farmer could make cheaply his own light, power, and fuel, and so would stop
buying the Standard's high-priced product. Further, the cry from
Washington—we can guess why—was that the final passing of the law was a great
defeat for the Standard. The facts are these:
First. The new law forbids the making of denatured alcohol anywhere but "in a
bonded warehouse specially designated or set aside for denaturing purposes
only" and "in the presence and under the direction of an authorized
government official."
Second. The Standard Oil Company cares nothing about the new fuel as a
competitor of its gasoline, because the manufacture of denatured alcohol is
difficult and as yet expensive, and it has a heat value one-third less than
gasoline ("Electrical World," July 7, 1906).
Third. The Standard is rapidly buying up the distilleries, the only places
where denatured alcohol can legally be made. There is a large but limited
demand for the alcohol in certain manufacturing processes. The Standard will
supply that demand in the Standard's familiar way.
So much for the one act at the last session of Congress which has been cited
as a clearcut, indisputable refutation of the charge that "the interests"
rule the two party machines, with the people deceived and defrauded.
Such is the stealthy and treacherous Senate as at present constituted. And
such it will continue to be until the people think, instead of shout, about
politics; until they judge public men by what they do and are, not by what
they say and pretend. However, the fact that the people are themselves
responsible for their own betrayal does not mitigate contempt for their
hypocritical and cowardly betrayers. A corrupt system explains a corrupt man;
it does not excuse him. The stupidity or negligence of the householder in
leaving the door unlocked does not lessen the crime of the thief.
(The End.)
pps. 93-100
--[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
