-Caveat Lector-
Denounced as a Railroad Tool.
On February 7, 1881, the following telegram was received in Washington:
To the Judiciary Coninlittee of the United States Senate,
The Ron. A. G. Thurman, Chairman.
In behalf of 800 business firms of the New York Board of Trade and
Transportation, we respectfully but earnestly protest against the
confirmation of the Hon. Stanley Matthews as judge of the Supreme Court of
the United States for the following reasons:
" We are informed and believe that the great railroad corporations of the
country are endeavoring to obtain control of this Court of last resort, which
has heretofore been the most important bulwark in defending the public
interests against the encroachments of corporations; that Mr. Matthews has
been educated as a railroad attorney, and views railroad questions from a
railroad standpoint; that his actions while in the United States Senate prove
this ' and in this important respect render him unfit for a justice of the
Supreme Court.
�AMBROSE SNOW, President,
DARWIN R. JAMES, Secretary. �[47]
The explanation of this protest lay in this fact: The middle-class business
men were infuriated at the dominance of such lordly railroad magnates as
Vanderbilt, Gould, Sage, Huntington and Stanford.
Through their control of transportation facilities the railroad nabobs were
extorting whatever freight rates they pleased and employing discriminative
methods against the ordinary shipper. Largely by this alliance the first
great Trust�the Standard Oil Company�had already become a great power,
foreboding the time when trusts of all kinds would force out competition and
efface the small factory owner and the small distributor. To fight this
developing power, the middle class formed such organizations as the
Anti-Monopoly League; as the middle class, in aggregate, then possessed
immense resources and strength, man), of the leading newspapers supported its
agitation. It desired judges representing middle-class interests; the
essential objection to Matthews was that he was an instrument of the great
railroad magnates.
Hence it was that such newspapers as the New York Times, the New York Sun and
others bitterly denounced the appointment of Matthews. The New York Times, in
an editorial entitled, "His Majesty, Jay Gould,� [48] described how Gould's
control was constantly extending over railroads, the Associated Press and
Congress. " There would still remain the Supreme Court," went on the
editorial, " but no one can suppose that he will long permit it to retain its
independence. Even if lie cannot secure the confirmation of Mr. Stanley
Matthews he will sooner or later contrive to have any vacancies that may
occur filled in such a way as to provide against the contingency of decisions
hostile to his interests. . . . The New York Sun declared that if Matthews
nomination were confirmed it would be equivalent to putting Jay Gould upon
the Supreme Court Bench. Other newspapers contained similar editorials,
demanding that the nomination be withdrawn.
The Contest Over His Appointment.
Associate justice Field, Senator Lamar, Senator Plumb and others were moving
every possible influence to obtain a confirmation. But public criticism was
either too severe just then or Senators representing antagonistic railroad
groups were opposed to Matthews, as being too much the creature of Jay
Gould.[49] Whatever were the actuating reasons, the Senate did not confirm.
When, however, President Garfield succeeded Hayes, Matthews (who was a
relative of Garfield) was renominated, and the contest again begun. Lamar, as
a member of the judiciary Committee, renewed his efforts for Matthews;
Senators George F. Edmunds and David Davis led in opposing the confirmation.
Edmunds, long the chairman of the judiciary Committee, was himself a railroad
lawyer, representing the Michigan Central Railroad and other railways. Why
did he oppose Matthews? The conflict of the magnates with one another in the
economic field bad its reflex in the political; certain magnates sought, to
the exclusion of other magnates with whom they were at war, to control the
courts. Senators representing different magnates thus took opposite sides in
favoring or opposing this or that measure or appointment.
The Senate judiciary Committee, on May 9, 1881, rejected Matthews'
appointment. On May 12, 1881, the report of this committee was taken tip in
executive session; and after a long, acrimonious and stubborn debate, the
Senate by a vote Of 24 to 23 � a majority of one vote � confirmed the
appointment.[50] The information leaked out that in the secret ' session,
Senators invidiously pointed out that measures which Matthews had favored or
opposed, as a Senator, would come up before the Supreme Court for
adjudication.
Justices Gray and Blatchford.
The next appointment, made in December, 1881, was that of Horace Gray, to
succeed justice Clifford. Gray was the grandson of William Gray, one of the
largest shipowners in New England, and the richest man in Boston in 1810. Of
the activities of William Gray in getting bank charters we have given an
account in an earlier chapter. Horace Gray belonged to the class in Boston
styling themselves the old aristocracy; lie was accused of being obtrusively
snobbish; judging from the anecdotes related of him, lie was, no doubt, a
'thorough snob and a formalist of the most pronounced and provoking type."
Graduated from Harvard, Gray traveled extensively in Europe, and was once
presented in approved form at the court of King Louis Phillipe. Admitted to
the bar in 1851, he became, in 1854, a reporter of decisions of the
Massachusetts Supreme judicial Court. In 1864, he was appointed Associate
justice of that court, and in 1873 became its Chief Justice. He was extremely
tall-not less than six feet six inches, and never personally popular. The
circumstances of his receiving a large addition to his already considerable
fortune by virtue of a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
while he was a member of that Court, are related in a subsequent chapter.
Shortly after Gray's appointment, Samuel Blatchford, of New York, was
appointed to succeed Justice Hunt.[52]
Blatchford was the son of Richard Blatchford, a lawyer of note in New York
City who, in 1826, became the financial agent and counsel for the Bank of
England. He later acted in the same capacity for the Bank of the United
States, and adjusted the final settlement between these two banks, when the
charter of the Bank of the United States expired in 1836. His financial
dealings were large for his day. One of these dealt with the North American
Trust and Banking Company. Although having several millions of dollars in
stocks and bonds, this company, soon after its formation, became embarrassed
for want of sufficient funds, and resorted to various expedients " some," as
judge Roosevelt decided, "at least, of a questionable character." Two
mortgages for a total of $1,500,000 were then made out to Richard Blatcbford
and others. A suit, of a very involved nature, was brought to have these
mortgages declared invalid on the ground of their being fraudulent.[53]
Blatchford's Interests and Associations.
Samuel Blatchford became private secretary to Governor William H. Seward,
serving until 1841, and in 1845 associated himself as a law partner with
Seward and Christopher Morgan. As a State Senator, Seward, on January 31,
1832, had made an elaborate defense of the Bank of the United States in reply
to a legislative resolution declaring that its charter ought not be
renewed.[54] Seward was counsel for Erastus Corning, a large capitalist of
Albany who was the head of the projectors of the Minnesota and Northwestern
Railroad Company which, in 1854, by fraud and corruption obtained from
Congress an extensive land grant of 900,000 acres.[55] Christopher Morgan was
the brother of Edward Barber Morgan, a founder of the Wells-Fargo Express
Company and of the United States Express Company., A multimillionaire,
Christopher Morgan was president of the Wells-Fargo Company, and a director
for many years of the United States Express Company."
In 1854, Samuel Blatchford returned to New York City, and formed a
partnership with Clarence A. Seward, son of William H.Seward, and with Burr
Griswold. Their prac-tice was largely one for railroad and express
companies.[57]
Another son of William H. Seward, an(] named after him, became a director
of the Southern Central Railroad of New York. Blatchford was made a United
States Circuit Court judge; at the time of his appointment to the Supreme
Court of the United States, the President of the United States Express
Company was Thomas C. Platt, for more than twenty years the Republican boss
of New York, and twice United States Senator from that State. The campaign
contributions made by every variety of corporation during the long period of
Platt's dictatorship were so enormous and long continuing that it is out of
the question to enter here into a narrative of them. Official investigations,
to which we shall have need of referring, disclose the particulars,
especially in the case of the great insurance companies which, in turn, have
been controlled by the railroad magnates.[58]
The express companies, starting with little capital, had expanded to enormous
proportions and were making immense profits. Dissatisfied, the shippers were
continually complaining; litigation was more and more increasing; and the
express companies, like other corporations, sought to insure themselves
against adverse legislation and court decisions.
Between the express monopoly and the railroads was an intimate alliance,
comprehending, in many cases, the same capitalists. Thus, Leland Stanford, D.
O. Mills and Charles Crocker were directors of the Wells-Fargo Express
company at the time of Blatchford's appointment to the Supreme Court of the
United States. Blatchford owned stock in the Illinois Central Railroad and
many other corporations. in the Tennessee Bond Cases, involving claims to
unpaid bonds claimed by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad and numerous
other railroads Blatchford and justice Stanley Matthews were disqualified
from sitting because of their interest.[59] To such an extent did the
railroad and express company interest become merged that the principal
ownership of the express monopoly gradually became vested in J. P. Morgan,
the Vanderbilts, the Goulds, the Standard Oil Company, the Harriman estate,
Lewis Cass Ledyard (a grandson of Lewis Cass) and in other railroad magnates.
So well did the express companies succeed in warding off hostile legislative
and court action, that the recent petition of the Merchants' Association of
New York and of the Chambers of Commerce of Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston,
Detroit, St. Louis, Denver and other cities to the Interstate Commerce
Commission sets forth that the annual profits of the express companies have
been 150 per cent. in addition to which great cash reserves are held.
Validation of the Vast Maxwell Land Claim.
Of the large body of decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United
States during the last years of Waite's Chief Justiceship, nearly all were
uniformly favorable to railroad and other corporations.
It was under Waite that the Supreme Court validated the enormous Maxwell
private-land grant. This claim had originally been asserted by Charles
Beaubien and Guadalupe Miranda, claiming title under a grant said to have
been made by the Mexican Governor Armijo in 1841. On September 15, 1857, the
United States Surveyor General of New Mexico had reported the grant as
embracing 96,000 acres. One L. B. Maxwell bought the claim, and contended
that it comprised nearly 2,000,000 acres. Holding that the old Mexican laws
had limited the area granted to any one individual to 48,000 acres, the
Commissioner of the General Land Office, upheld by the Secretary of the
Interior, refused, in 1869, to certify more than 96,000 acres.[60]
One of the principal owners of the claim was Stephen B. Elkins, a conspicuous
Republican politician, and a delegate in Congress. Elkins' efforts at
Washington bore fruit. A new survey was ordered by the Land Office; one of
the surveyors was Elkins' brother, John T. Elkins. The surveyors reported the
grant as embracing, in all, 1,714,764-94 acres in New Mexico and extending
into Colorado. On May 19, 18791 the General Land Office gave a quit claim for
the whole of this area. It was then mortgaged to a syndicate of Holland
capitalists for the sum Of 1700,000 in sterling money and Dutch currency.[61]
On August 25, 1882, the Government brought suit to have the grant declared
void. Suing the Maxwell Land Grant Company, the Pueblo and Arkansas Valley
Railroad Company and the Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company, the
Government in five specifications declared that the grant, under the laws of
Mexico, could not have been for more than 96,000 acres of land, and that the
patent for its enormous enlargement had been obtained by a conspiracy of
fraud and deceit practiced upon the Land Office.[62]
But on April 18, 1887, the Supreme Court of the United States validated the
whole claim for 1,714,764-94 acres, basing its decision upon a disingenuous
act sneaked through Congress in 1860. That act, joined with another act
passed in the same year, allowed surveys to be made at the expense of
�settlers," and provided that the amounts deposited by 11 settlers " should
be received as part payments for the lands. These acts bore no reference
whatever to the Maxwell grant; successive Land Commissioners had pointed out
that their only object was to authorize fraudulent surveys; but the Supreme
Court seems to have discovered that they allowed a grant of 96,000 acres to
be extended to cover nearly 2,000,000 acres.[63]
The decision was much denounced. Stephen B. Elkins, the chief beneficiary,
married a daughter of United States Senator Henry G. Davis of West Virginia
and financed the construction of a number of railroads. He had built for him
a palace-like castle in the town bearing his name in West Virginia; he became
a United States Senator, in 1895; and he died a multimillionaire.
Justice Field Protects Leland Stanford.
At about the time when this decision was handed down, Associate Justice Field
was subjected to insinuating criticisms for his actions in several matters.
The Pacific Railway Commission was investigating the consecutive frauds and
thefts of the promoters and manipulators of the Pacific railroads. On July
26, 1887, the Commission, when in San Francisco, issued an order requiring
Leland Stanford to testify. The particular questions the Commission pointedly
had put to Stanford were these:
What part of a certain voucher for $171,000 that had been made out by him
(Stanford) had been used for the purpose of influencing legislation? (This
$171,000�or to be exact, $171,781.89�had been paid out by Stanford in cash,
on December 31, 1875.)
What lawyers had been in the habit of attending the Legislature with him
(Stanford)
Did he (Stanford) ever give away any portion of certain exhibited vouchers to
S. T. Gage to influence legislation ? (Gage was one of the directors of the
Southern Pacific Railway Company.)
Did he (Stanford) ever give any money to W. B. Carr for the purpose of
influencing legislation in the California Legislature?
Upon Stanford's refusal to answer these questions, the Pacific Railway
Commission applied to the United States Circuit Court for an order compelling
him to testify.
Field was then in San Francisco, presiding over the Circuit Court, for until
the act creating the United States Circuit Court of Appeals was passed, each
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was assigned, for
a part of the time, to a certain circuit. The United States Circuit Court at
San Francisco was composed of Field, and Judges Lorenzo Sawyer, Sabin and
Hoffman. Field, as we have seen, had been appointed to the Supreme Court upon
the personal solicitation of Stanford. Judges Sawyer and Sabin owed their
seats to Stanford and Huntington. In fact, Huntington testified before the
Pacific Railway Commission that he and his associates made it a system to
control the judicial, as well as the legislative and executive, departments
of government. Judge Hoffman had been on the bench before Stanford and
Huntington had acquired power; his decisions in the private land-claim cases
had revealed him as an honest judge.
On August 29, 1887, the Circuit Court gave its decision, written by Justice
Field and judge Sawyer, denying the application of the Commission, on the
ground that the act creating the Commission did not authorize compulsory
testimony. Judge Hoffman dissented. "The decision of the Circuit Court of the
United States in California," reported the Pacific Railway Commission, "made
it impossible for this Commssion to obtain answers to the questions which
Congress had directed to be put." [64] As to the extent of the corruption
car-ried on by Huntington and Stanford, the Commission re-ported, "There is
no room for doubt that a large portion of $4,818,535 was used for the purpose
of influencing legisla-tion, and preventing the passage of measures deemed
hostile to the interests of the company, and for the purpose of in-fluencing
elections." [65]
During all of these years, Field was intimate with Stanford and frequently,
when Stanford was a United States Senator, dined at his house in Washington.
In the writings of Justice Bradley there is published a letter, dated March
23, 1891, from justice Field to Senator James G. Fair, a California
millionaire, stating that he (Field) had dined the previous evening at
General Schofield's, and that among those present were the President, Chief
Justice Fuller, Senators Stanford. Sherman and many other high functionaries.
[66]
While on the subject of the corrupt methods of Stanford it will be pertinent
to refer here to the report of the San Francisco Grand jury, of August, 1891.
This body called the "Wallace Grand jury, " was impaneled under judge Wallace
to investigate municipal corruption, particularly the debauching of politics
by the Southern Pacific Railway. Gage refused to testify, as did other
railway directors, and Buckley, the political boss of San Francisco, fled
from the Grand jury's jurisdiction. When Stanford was summoned to testify,
the Supreme Court of California was instantly ap-pealed to by the railroad's
lawyers. That court, by a vote of four to three, held that the Grand jury was
improperly con-stituted, because of an irregularity in the appointment of
tile elisor."[67]
A Virulent Attack by Justice Field.
The other occasion on which justice Field's course aroused critical comment
was in the case of all eleven-league tract in California held by the San
Jacinto Tin Company, the Riverside Canal Company and the Riverside Land and
Irrigation Company.
This tract was confirmed to de Aguirre by the Board of Land Commissioners and
the District Court in 1867. In 1883 the Attorney General of the United States
brought suit to have the patent declared void. The Government alleged "that
throughout the whole transaction, from the beginning of the effort to have
this survey made until its final completion and the issue of the patent, all
of the proceedings were dictated by fraud and. all of the officers of the
government below the Secretary of the Interior who had anything to do with it
were parties to that fraud and to be benefited by it." The Government set
forth that Surveyor-General Upson; his chief clerk, Conway; Thompson, the
deputy surveyor for California, and Joseph H. Wilson, the Commissioner of the
General Land Office, knew that the tract contained tin ore, and that they "
were all interested and part owners of the claim at the time this survey was
made, and at the very time they acted in reference to its final confirmation."
Yet the Supreme Court of the United States (justice Miller writing its
decision) accepted the depositions and reports of the very officials who had
thus been implicated! Wilson had made a " full report," the Supreme Court
said, in 1867, and this report it assumed to receive as authentic,
notwithstanding the fact that the Government now showed Wilson to have been
interested. The Supreme Court pretended not to go behind the formal, official
acts of the Government officers disclosed as promoters and beneficiaries of
the fraud. It thus consistently followed the long line of precedents begun by
Marshall in ignoring motives and acts of fraud and corruption. Although
conceding that Conway had bought the claim, and had organized a corporation
to mine tin ore, the Supreme Court, nevertheless, held that the fraud was not
proved, and on March 19, 1888, decided against the Government.[68]
Justice Field, however, was not content with concurring in this decision. He
went out of his way to indulge in a savage attack upon the Attorney-General,
accusing him of bringing the suit at the instigation of a third party and of
using the Government machinery for ulterior reasons.[69] It was remarked that
if the Supreme Court took the position that it was not at liberty to inquire
into motives of legislature or official, no matter what fraud or corruption
lay behind, what right had a Supreme Court justice to take advantage of his
power to assail the motives of the Attorney-General?
Lamar Succeeds Matthews.
The last appointment to the Supreme Court made during the period when Waite
was Chief justice seemed to provoke almost as much criticism as that of
Stanley Matthews. As Woods' successor as Associate justice, President
Cleveland in 1888, appointed Lucius Q. C. Lamar of Mississippi. Born in 1825,
Lamar had been in Congress in 1857-1861, had served in the Confederate
military and diplomatic service, was a member of Congress after the Civil
War, and was elected a United States Senator in 1873. In the Senate he was
chairman of the Standing Committee on the Pacific railroads; and he had, as
we have related, been the principal supporter of Matthews' bill in favor of
the Texas Pacific Railroad. 'Even his eulogistic biographer describes his
zeal in working for the interests of that railroad.[70.] In addition to being
the chief and indefatigable pusher of Texas Pacific Railroad measures, Lamar
was an extensive railroad stockholder and a director of the Mississippi
Central Railroad.[71]
The Prevailing Corruption.
A sufficient indication of the corruption used by both the promoters and the
antagonists of the Texas Pacific Railroad bill was supplied by the subsequent
publication of the celebrated Colton letters written by Collis P. Huntington
to his confidant and one of his partners, General David D. Colton. Scott, of
the Pennsylvania Railroad, then controlled the Texas Pacific Railroad
project, while Huntington was one of the Central and the Southern Pacific
railroads group. These two sets of capitalists came into collision over the
division of the spoils of the Southwest. Both caused bills to be introduced
and each sought to corrupt Congress.
"Scott," wrote Huntington, on January 29, 1876, "is making a terrible effort
to pass his bill, and lie has many advantages With his railroad running out
from Washington in almost every direction, on which he gives Free Passes to
everyone who can help him ever so little. It has cost money to fix things, so
I know his bill would not pass. I believe With $200,000 we can pass our
bill." On 'March 6, 1876, Huntington wrote that "the Railroad Committee of
the House was set up for Scott, and it has been a very difficult matter to
switch a majority of the Committee from him, but I think it has been done."
To one of his associates Huntington wrote further, on November 11, 1876, " I
am glad to learn that you will send to this office $2,000,000 by the first of
January." Huntington in one of this series of letters, dated December 17,
1877, wrote: "Jay Gould went to Washington about two weeks since and I know
saw Mitchell, Senator from Oregon. Since which time money has been used very
freely in Washington. . . . Gould has large amounts in cash, and he pays it
without stint to carry his points." On May 3, 1878, Huntington informed his
partners: "The T. and P. (Texas Pacific) folks are working hard on their
bill, and say they are sure to pass it,, but I do not believe it. They
offered one member of Congress $1,000 cash down, $5,000 when the bill was
passed, and $10,000 of the bonds when they got them if he would vote for the
bill."[72] In the end both groups obtained the legislation sought; and that
the Texas Pacific capitalists eventually succeeded was due greatly to the
efforts of Senators Matthews and Lamar.
As we have seen, Senator Lamar was Matthews' most vigorous and supple d
efender during the opposition to Matthews' confirmation as Associate justice.
First selecting Lamar as Secretary of the Interior,� the very office having
jurisdiction
over railroad land patents �President Cleveland had then nominated him to
succeed Matthews. Cleveland himself had been a railroad lawyer. Three main
objections to the con-firmation of Lamar's nomination were agitated: his long
disuse of legal practice, his want of judicial experience, and his notorious
activity as a railroad legislator. It is needless to say that his nomination
was confirmed.
The Railroad Power in Control.
All except two of the Justices now constituting the Supreme Court of the
United States had been active railroad attorneys or railroad stockholders,
directors or legislative railroad lobbyists. The Supreme Court as absolutely
reflected the dominant section of the capitalist class as it did during the
eras of the control by the landed interests and the slave power.
>From 1879 to 1884 the stupendous amount of $3,360,000,000 of new railroad
securities had been listed. Edward Atkinson, a conservative political
economist, testified before the United States Senate ("Cullom") Committee in
1886, that the railroads formed about one-fifth of the total wealth of the
country. As. early as 1870 the railroad magnates had begun to form pools for
the partition of traffic and to maintain rates at a certain point. The
organization by the railroad power of the Southwestern Railway Rate
Association and, in 1884, of the Western Freight Association called forth the
charge by the middle-class business elements that they were conspiracies to
restrain trade and to fix extortionate rates. This was true; but the essence
of the situation was that the capitalist system was in a state of transition
from the old competitive stage to a newer state of centralized control and
operation. Nevertheless, the still powerful middle class succeeded in getting
anti-pool and anti-trust laws passed by Congress. In this great due] between
the two classes everything then depended upon the construction that the
Supreme Court of the United States would put upon those laws.
Dying, Waite is Rushed to the Court Room.
For a considerable time Chief Justice Waite had suffered from ailments
arising from the liver and spleen, complicated with a painful stomach
trouble. In March 1888, he was obviously in a sinking condition. But certain
cases concerning a great contest over the priority and legality of the Bell
Telephone patent were to be decided; and in order that Waite's vote should
not be lost the extraordinary step was taken of rushing a dying man to the
Supreme Court chambers.
The principal competitor of the Bell Telephone was the Pan-Electric Telephone
Company. This company charged its opponents, the Bell Telephone Company, with
having resorted to a campaign of bribery by means of money or gifts of stock,
in order to get its patent claims, laws, franchises and decisions. On the
other band, the testimony before a Congressional Committee showed that to get
the Government officials to move in the courts for the vacating of the Bell
patents, large blocks of stock were distributed by the Pan-Electric Telephone
Company to influential Representatives and Senators, some of whom became
directors of the company. It was also charged that United States
Attorney-General Garland, who had the practical power of deciding whether or
not suits to vacate the Bell patent should be brought, held $10,000,000 of
Pan-Electric stock for which he bad not paid a dollar." In fact, a contract
was produced before the Congressional Committee proving that on August 4,
1875, the Pan-Electric Company and the National Improved Telephone Company of
Louisiana had agreed in writing that they would begin suit against the
American Bell Telephone Company, provided they could obtain the assent of the
Attorney- General of the United States."
The Telephone Cases Decided.
There were five actions against the American Bell Telephone Company,
revolving around the point whether BelI or Dollbear was the inventor of the
telephone. When the decision favorable to the Bell patent was reached, only
eight justices were on the bench, Lamar not having taken his seat when the
long and complicated arguments had been made. Of the eight, Justice Gray
refrained from taking part because of interest. This left seven justices, of
whom Waite, Miller, Blatchford and Matthews concurred in a majority opinion
favorable to Bell. Bradley, Field and Harlan dissented from some of the
conclusions reached by the majority."
" The telephone decision," says a contemporary account, had been written by
the Chief justice, but he was too ill to read it from the Bench, and that
duty was, therefore, performed by Justice Blatchford. Special care was taken
that no evidence of the Chief Justice's illness should appear, and none of
the throng that heard the decision read suspected the real reason why it was
announced by Justice Blatchford. As soon as possible after the reading,
Justice Waite left the Bench, and was hurriedly driven home. . . . He went to
bed and since then has been a very sick man."
The Chief justice died on the very day on which this account was published
March 23, 1888. He had lived in rather aristocratic style in Washington.
After his death the newspapers reported that his estate was so small that
members of the Washington Bar and others deemed it advisable to raise a fund
for his widow.
pps. 528-577
=====
1. Rhodes' "History of the United States, 1850-1877," Vol. VII: 27.
2. Merriam's "Life and Times of Samuel Bowles," Vol. 11: 231.
3. Cushing was then appointed Minister to Spain, serving from 1874 to 1877.
He, Williams and Waite had been counsel for the United States before the
Geneva tribunal of arbitration, in 1871-72.
4. VI Wallace's Reports, 742, 750, 751, etc. Russell Sage was president of
the Milwaukee and Minnesota Railroad. For the specific account of the
enormous frauds committed by the men controlling those railroads in issuing
fraudulent bonds to themselves and in profiting from fraudulent foreclosure
sales, see, " History of the Great American Fortunes," Vol. III, Chapter 1,
citing from legislative and court records. Sage was allied with Jay Gould in
many railroad and telegraph company operations. At the time that Russell Sage
was president of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company, in 1872-1873, that
company had bribed (as we have already narrated, through Congress, by means
of $1,000,000 in bribes, an act giving it an additional mail subsidy of
$500,000 a year for ten years.
5. See, I Ohio State Reports, 628; VIII Ibid., 468; XII Ibid., 605, etc.
6. See, Case of Platt vs. Eggleston, XX Ohio State Reports, 417.
7. See, X Ohio State Reports, 272; Ibid., 163; XXII Ibid., 575; XXV Michigan
Reports, 329, etc., etc.
8. Case of Charles Butler vs. City of Toledo, V Ohio State Reports, 225.
9. Sutliff vs. Cleveland and Mahoning Railroad Company, XXIV Ohio State
Reports, 147-150. Sutliff was long a close personal friend of Chief justice
Chase; they. corresponded regularly and intimately, Schuckers says.
10 See, Case of Mulil, Administrator, vs. Southern Michigan Railroad Company,
X Ohio State Reports, 272-277.
11 Case of Toledo Bank vs. John R. Bond (Treasurer of the City of Toledo), I
Ohio State Reports, 622-703. But we have described in Chapter XI how the
Supreme Court of the United States in 1855, declared the Ohio act of 185,
unconstitutional, and how, in' a dissenting opinion, Justice Campbell
denounced the decision, and described how the corporate money interest was
dominant in Ohio. Chief Justice Bartley seems to have been exempt from that
domination.
12 Bliss et at. vs. Kraus, XVI Ohio State Reports, 58.
13. Hubbard vs. City of Toledo, XXI Ohio State Reports, 379-401.
14. "Poor's Railroad Manual," 1868--1869: 163, and Ibid., 1869-70: pp. 184
and 362.
15. After Payne was elected to the United States Senate, in 1884, a
subsequent Ohio Legislature petitioned the United States Senate for an
investigation. Upon completing an examination of sixty-four witnesses, the
Ohio House of Representatives declared that Payne's seat in the United States
Senate " was purchased by the corrupt use of money," and the Ohio Senate
likewise resolved. The specific testimony showed that the Legislature had
been debauched with corrupt funds.See, Report No. 1490 U. S. Senate,
Forty-ninth Congress, 1886 and see a complete account from the records in
Lloyd's " Wealth vs. Commonwealth," PP. 373-382
16. " Poor's Railroad Manual " for 1869-1870: P. A
17. The full correspondence between General and Mrs. Grant and William H.
Vanderbilt is published in Appendix F in Croffut's "The Vanderbilts," 294-297.
18. Case of Township of Pine Grove vs. Talcott, XIX Wallace's Reports, 678.
The note on the record reads: " The Chief Justice did not sit in this case,
and took no part in its decision" (p. 679). Justices Miller and Davis
dissented.
19 Reference has been already made to the report of a Select Committee of
Congress appointed to investigate alleged corrupt combinations of members of
Congress, and how that committee recommended the expulsion of four prominent
Congressmen as having been at the head of corrupt combinations to influence
legislation. (Reports of Committees, 1856-1857, Vol. III, Report No. 245.)
Thirty distinct land-grant acts were passed by Congress in the year 1856.
20. This $800,000 in bribes, according to the report of the joint Legislative
Committee of 1858, had been thus distributed: A total of $175,000 in bonds
had been given to thirteen specified State Senators; $355,000 in bonds was
used to buy seventy specified Assemblymen; $50,000 in bonds had been given to
Governor Coles Bashford; $16,000 to other State officials, and $246,000 to
certain specified editors and other persons.
21 it may be observed here that Justice Field's brother, David Dudley Field,
was at this time representing the Central Railroad of Georgia and other
railroads in cases before the Supreme Court of the United States.- See, 92 U.
S. Reports, 666, etc. But a few years before, David Dudley Field bad been the
chief attorney pleading for the fraudulent transactions of Jay Gould and
James Fisk, Jr.
22 XXI Wallace's Reports, 44. One of the railroad's attorneys was John C.
Spooner, for a long period United States Senator from Wisconsin, and one of
the most adroit and conspicuous members of that body.
23 See details later in this chapter.
24 Reports of Committees, Credit Mobilier Reports,, Forty-second Congress,
Third Session, 872-73, Doc. No. 78: xiv-xx.
25. See, Doc. No. 78. Credit Mobilier Investigation, xvii.
26. IT. S. vs. Union Pacific Railroad, 98 U. S. Reports, 620.
27 Union Pacific Railroad vs. U. S., 99 U. S. Reports, 402.
28 Report of Pacific Railway Cornmission, Vol. 1: 192.
29 Ibid.
30 Report of the Pacific Railway Commission, Vol. 1: 147.
31 Ibid.
32 99 U. S. Reports, 733.
33 Ibid. The italics are mine.- G. M.
34 Ibid.
35 U. S. vs. Throckmorton et al., 98 U. S. Reports, 69.
36 U. S. vs. Teschmaker, Howard et al., XXII Howard's Reports, 395
37 U. S. vs. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. Reports, 61-71. (October, 1878.)
38 Case of Palmer vs. Low, 98 U. S. Reports, 1-19
39. In the Presidential election of 1876, the result as to whether Hayes or
Tilden was elected was uncertain. Each side charged fraud, and the vote of
certain reconstructed States was the deciding factor. An Electoral
Commission, composed of five Senators, five Representatives, and five
Associate justices-of the Supreme Court of the United States, was created to
decide the election.
The New York Sun, a supporter of Tilden, reiterated the charge that after
justice Bradley bad prepared a written opinion in favor of the Tilden
electors in Florida, he had changed his views during the night preceding the
vote in consequence of pressure brought to bear upon him by Republican
politicians and Pacific Railroad magnates whose carriages the Sun said,
surrounded his house during the evening. On September 2, 1877, Bradley wrote
to the Newark Advertiser denying "the whole thing as a falsehood." " Not a
single visitor called at my house that evening . . . . � The charge, Bradley
added, was " too absurd for refutation." (" Miscellaneous Writings of the
Late Joseph P. Bradley," etc., p. 221.) Evidently the Sun sought to convey
the idea that Hayes was backed by railroad grandees. So be was. But Tilden,
too, had the support of many of them; lie was one of the most prominent of
railroad attorneys, and an extensive holder of railroad stocks.
40. See, Stevens et al. vs. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company, LT. S.
Courts Reports, Sixth Circuit (Flippin), Vol. 11: 716, etc. This railroad
dominated politics in Kentucky and Tennessee.
41 Ibid., 673.
42 " Poor's Railroad Manual " for 1880: P. 492.
43 In a case concerning this railroad lie was disqualified from sitting,
having been of counsel in the case.- IV Supreme Court Reporter, 259.
44 XIX Ohio State Reports, 226, etc.
45. The Congressional Record, Vol. 7, Part 2, Forty-fifth Congress, Second
Session, 878: P. 1852.
46. Ibid.
47 This telegram was published in the New York Times and other newspapers at
the time.
48. Published February 23, 1881.
49. As illustrative of the railroad interests of a majority of the Senators,
the case of Senator William B. Mlison, of Iowa, may be men-tioned. When a
member of Congress, in 1867, Allison had been vice-president of the Sioux
City and Pacific Railroad, which had received a land grant of one hundred
sections, and $16,000 of Government bonds for each mile of railroad. In the
construction of this railroad, the sum Of $4,000,000 was fraudulently
appropriated. By an act lobbied through Congress, in 1900, when Allison was
still a powerful Senator, the Sioux City and Pacific Railroad Company was
virtually released from paying back more than one-tenth the sum it still owed
the. Government.-Ex. Documents Nos. 181 to 252, Second Session, Fortieth
Congress, 1867-68, Doe. NO. 203; Report of Pacific Railway Commission, Vol.
1: 193, etc.
50 Appleton's "Annual Cyclopedia" for 1881: P. 194. Considering that long
previously the Senate had established an unwritten rule that no objection
should be made to any appointee who bad been a member of the United States
Senate, and that his appointment should be promptly confirmed on the -round
of " Senatorial courtesy," this contest over Senator Matthews' appointment
was unprecedented and remarkable.
51 Such a stricture seems justified by these and other anecdotes related of
him when he was a judge and Chief justice of the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts:
"At the trial of a certain case judge Gray suddenly summoned a man to appear
at a particular stage of the proceedings. The man responded promptly and
appeared in the court room attired as at his work bench, in his shirt
sleeves. Judge Gray, after commenting severely upon such disrespect to the
court, waived the urgency of the pending cause, and directed the man to go
home and put himself in the proper garb for the humble part which he was to
take in the doings of the august tribunal." (New York Times, December 20, 188
1.)
"His tirades," said the Washington correspondence of the Philadelphia Press "
against trembling deputy-sheriffs and frightened witnesses have been 'told
over and over again. Only two lawyers in Boston have ever been able to turn
the tables on him. One was Henry E. Payne; the other Sidney Bartlett. 'If
your honor please-' said Payne one day, beginning a motion. Sit down, sir;
don't you see that I am talking with another Justice? �thundered the Chief
Magistrate. Mr. Payne took his hat and walked out of the courtroom. A
half-hour afterward a messenger reached his office with a note saying that
judge Gray was willing to hear him. ' I am not willing to be heard,' answered
the old lawyer, 'until judge Gray apologizes.� And apologize the judge had to.
" ' Mr. Bartlett,' said the Chief Justice one afternoon, throwing himself
back in his chair, 'that is not law and it never was law.' The veteran
smiled, and looking over the bench said ' It was law, your Honor until your
Honor just spoke.'"� Republished in the New York Times; issue of March 13,
1882.
52. President Arthur had first offered the appointment to United States
Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. Conkling was one of the counsel for the
New York Central Railroad. (See, XXII Wallace's Reports, 621, etc.) After
Conkling declined the appointment, Arthur offered it to Senator Edmunds, who,
as we have seen, was also a noted railroad attorney. Upon Edmunds'
declination, Blatchford was appointed and he accepted.
53. Case of Curtis vs. Leavitt, Barbour's Supreme Court Reports (N.Y.), Vol.
XXVII: 312-378.(Dec., 1853.)
54. Jenkins' " Political History of New York " (Edition of 1849) : pp.
378-380.
55 Reports of Committees, Thirty-third Congress, First Session, Vol. III:
Rep. NO. 352: 30. For full details from the official documents see History of
the Great American Fortunes," Vol. III: PP. 24-25, 44, etc.
56. Stimson's " Express History," 75, 462, etc.
57 Thus, to give four examples: Clarence A. Seward represented William B.
Dinsmore, president and treasurer of the Adams Express Company (XXXIV
Howard's Practice Reports [N. Y.], 1868: P. 421), and with Benjamin R.
Curtis, former Associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,
he represented the same corporation in Ellis vs. Boston, Hartford and Erie
Railroad (107 Mass, Reports, 15: 1869). Seward represented the Adams Express
Company in the suit of Caldwell against that company (XXI Wallace's Reports,
143) and he was counsel for the Southern Express Company in the action of
Vermilye and Company against that corporation (XXI Wallace's Reports, 265).
Many other instances could he given.
58. This item is one of many signifying the political debauchery by
corporations: The New York Legislative Insurance Committee, in its extensive
report in 1906, stated that for many years the Equitable Life Assurance
Society had been giving $30,000 annually to the New York State Republican
Corninittee (controlled by Platt) and that all of the other insurance
companies variously did the same, contributing to the campaign funds of both
the Republican and Democratic parties, State and National.-Vol. X: 10, 62,
etc., etc.
59. In the Chicago Lake Front case affecting the Illinois Central
Rail-road's title, Blatchford could not sit because he owned stock. For the
Tennessee Bond Cases, see, V Supreme Court Reporter, 995.
60 "Land Titles in New Mexico and Colorado," House Reports, First Sessiou,
Fifty-Second Congress, j,191-92, Vol. IV: Report No. 1253. (Committee Oil
Private Land Claims.)
61. House Reports, 1891-1892, Vol. IV. Report No' 1353: 7.
62 See the bill of particulars reciting the history of the frauds in VII
Supreme Court Reports, 1017, and 121 U. S. Reports, 327.
63. The full narrative of this grant, thus validated to comprise a colossal
area, is related in the "History of the Great American Fortunes," Vol. HI:
324-334.
64. Report of the Pacific Railway Commission (Ex. Doc. No. 51, Fiftieth
Congress, First Session), Vols. I and II: 121, and Vol. VII: 4215.
65. Ibid., Vol. 1: 84.
66. "Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Bradley," PP. 350-351. The purpose of
the letter was an enquiry concerning the effectiveness of hydraulic mining,
over which an academic discussion had taken place at the dinner.
67. Se, , Report of Wallace Grand jury, contained in " Report on the Causes
of Alunicipal Corruption in San Francisco," etc. Published by order of the
Board of Supervisors, etc., San Francisco, 1910: 1). 9. 111 this document,
comprising the full report of the Oliver Grand jury of 19o8, the presentment
of the Wallace Grand jury is reprinted.
68 125 U. S. Reports, 288.
69 Ibid., 307.
70 Mayes' "Lucius Q. C. Lamar, His Life, Times and Speeches, 1825- 1893* "
Alayes tells how Lamar supported the measures for the benefit of that
railroad and quotes a laudatory account, written by William Preston King in
1879, which went the rounds of the press � "Senator Lamar has been recognized
as the zealous friend of all measures for internal improvements in the South,
especially improvements of the levees of the Mississippi and for the Texas
Pacific Railroad. He has been a very effective and eloquent champion of this
last-named enterprise." P. 372.
An examination of the record shows that Lamar made the principal speech
for the Texas Pacific Railway. Pointing out that the Northern Pacific
Railroad had received about 47,000,000 acres of land, and the Union and the
Central Pacific roads 50,000,000 acres, he pleaded that the Texas Pacific
should be allowed to retain its land grant of 18,000,000 acres. �
Congressional Record, Vol. 71 Part 4, Forty-fifth Congress, Second Session,
1878: PP. 3653-3658.
71 " Poor's Railroad Manual," for 1869-70: P. 18.
72. The original name of the company was the Texas Pacific; later it was
changed to read Texas and Pacific Railway Company. There were a large number
of the Colton letters; they came to light in a lawsuit arising over the
plundering of Colton's estate by Huntington, Stanford and Crocker, and were
published in a pamphlet, "Driven From Sea to Sea," by C. C. Post. " it is
impossible, " reported the Pacific Railroad Commission (Vol. 1: 121) ), " to
read the evidence of C. P. Huntington and Leland Stanford and 'the Colton
letters without reaching the conclusion that very large sums of money have
been improperly used in connection with legislation."
73 See, House Miscellaneous Documents, Forty-ninth Congress, 1885-86, Vol.
XIX.-" Testimony taken by the Committee Relating to the Pan-Electric
Telephone Company."
74. Ibid., 574. Isham G. Harris, for many years a United States Senator from
Tennessee, was Vice-President of the Pan-Electric Telephone Company.
75 126 U. S. Reports, 531.
76. Washington despatch, New York Tinies, March 23, 1888.
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions 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, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
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
