The record-union., 1895-04-27
A TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT.


We venture the assertion that since the
passage of the interstate commerce law
one hundred thousand passes have been
issued across State lines by Presidents
and other officers of railroads. More
than this, we venture the assertion that
five hundred thousand passes have been so
issued, chiefly to the press, but in many
instances even to the Presidents of the
United States. Mr.. Harrison visited the
Pacific Coast in special train furnished
by the Pullman Car Company. We do
not believe that he paid car mileage on
his trip. He probably did not need a
pass. The Division Superintendents
were perhaps instructed by telegraph to
pass his train on. He was attended by a
member of his Cabinet, as well as by
members of his household. The Federal
Grand Juries of the various States and
Territories through which he passed did
not inquire into the question as to
whether in his case the interstate COM
1uSAS6 10" " a. FlO4hs0Ng dnN y OF ASA0 W oS
the Chief Executive Of the Nation in all
probability travelling free over all lines Of
the country.
At last, however, the majesty of the
law rises like an aroused lion, with name
erect, and glaring eyes, and sees that
Frank NJ. Stone, an attorney of San
Francisco, formerly partner of the late
Senator Sargent, holds an annual pass
signed by G. p. Huntington, President of
the Southern Pacific Company.
Mr.. Stone was a witness in the prosecu-
lion of the strikers who o5structed trains
in the violation of the interstate COM
merce law. The attorney for the defense
sought to impeach Stones testimony, or
the impartiality of the evidence he was
giving, by showing that he was the re-
cipient of fsyors at the hands of the
Southern Pacific Company. In defense
of the impartiality of his testimony, or
rather in vindioation OF the fact that the
testimony he would give was true and
unbiased, Mr.. Stone declared that he was
not the recipient of fsvors at the hands of
the Southern Pacific Company. He was
very emphatic in this denial. He de-
clared that he would as soon visit the
smallpox hospital as visit the general
offices of the Southern Pacific Company.
We see nothing in this beyond the some-
what irascible disposition of a witness
to defend the crsdibility of testi-
olares that his pass was absolutely with
out consideration, he was perhaps mis-
taken. Some consideration must under
lie every favor, great or small, granted
by one man to another. Mr.. Stones
own Interpretation, however, must be
accepted, that in this instance it was the
result merely of personal intimacy,
mutual good understanding and kindly
relation. In was in the nature of deed
of conveyance in consideration of love
and affection.
An esteemed contemporary intimates
that Mr.. Stone manifested a lack of graft
tude; that his testimony disclosed an
offense against the national law on the
part of his benefaotor; that common graft
tude would have prompted a conceal
ment of this fact We quite disagree
with this Interpretation of Mr.. Stones
duty. He was witness. He was on the
stand to testify. He was bound simply
to tell the truth, and his testimony bears
on its face the unmistakable evidence
that this was what he was trying to do.
He is lawyer with trained legal faculties,
extensive practice, and long experience
in dealing with witnesses. He certainly
understood the obligation of witness,
and if there is anything apparent in his
testimony beyond the simple desire to
answer unequivocally the direct questions
put to him by the counsel opposed to the
side in whose interest be had been called
to the stand, we fail to discover it. This
whole case is a veritable tempest in a tea
pot.
There are about 10000 miles of rail,
road in the United States, and we venture
the opinion that at least one passenger tc
each mile has held a pass in violation o.