Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1899-09-28
Anti.Truth a. Well a. Anti. Trust.


Nothing is quite SO contemplate as
the publicist who will deliberately
mislead' the people. 10 bis speech
before the antitrust conference at
Chicago Mr.. W. J. Bryan was guilty
Of what appears premsditated deceit,
II, indeed, it may not be character
lied as a downright ialsehood. He
was arguing for a constitutional
amendment under which II would be
possible to prevent the watering OF
stocks by corporations, and said:
| I'VE had case in Nebraska where
we tried to regulate railroad rates
and one railroad in our state was cap
italized and booked for more than
| five times what II would cost to du.
plicate that road, and yet the judge
held that in fixing rates, we had to
consider the watered stock as well as
the actual value OF that road When
The case went to the supreme court a
decision was rendered which was, in
substance, that in determining what
was reasonable rate, we had to take
into consideration a number OF things
beside the present value Of that road,
measured by the stock Of reproduce
ton. and you will find that il the
watering Of stock is permitted, then
the cry Of the innocent purchaser is
raised and you will be told that you
must protect the man who bought
this stock. My judgment is that no
man can stand in the position Of an
innocent purchaser who buys stock in
a corporation, Il. that stock is not rep
resented by actual money invested,
because he can find out what the
stock stands for II he will only inves-
tigate."
The clear purpose Of this recital by
Mr.. Bryan was to convince his hear
ers that under the Interpretation
placed upon the United States consti-
tuition by the courts the stockholders
Of corporations have been sustained
in their right as against legislative
regulation, to earn interest on their
watered stock, no matter in what
sums 1t may have been issued. This
view is thoroughly false, and deceiv-
ing, for the supreme court in the very
case cited by Mr.. Bryan, held direct
ly, fully and absolutely to the con-
trary and Mr. Bryan must have been
informed OF this fact, for he was one
Of the attorneys in the case and ar
gued 1t before the court in Washing
ton.
1t will be noted that Mr.. Bryan
says a Judge in Nebraska held that in
fixing rates I'VE had to consider the
watered stock as well as the actual
value Of the road" This judge was
United States Circuit Judge David
Brewer, now associate Justice Of the
supreme court Of the United States
and Mr.. Bryan has mendaciously mis-
stated the decision Of that distin-
guished jurist. The decision Of
Judge Brewer was that legislature
had no right to deprive railroad Of
the power to earn fair return on Its
actual investment, and that in deter
mining fair valuation it was proper
to consider the market value--the
market value, mind you-of Its bonds
and stocks. But nowhere did he even
intimate that a road had the right to
earn interest returns on its watered
stock.
Coming to the supreme court de-
cision in the same case, we cannot
better expose the contemplate pur-
pose Of Mr.. Bryan to deceive than by
quoting freely from the opinion rem
dered by Associate Justice Harlan
and concurred in by every Judge on
the bench but two.
"In the discussion Of, this ques-
tion," says Justice Harlan, "a rail-
road company is entitled to exact
such charges for transportation as
will enable it, at all times, not only
to pay operating expenses, but also
to meet the interest regularly accru-
ing upon all its outstanding obliga-
tons, and justify dividends upon all
its stock In our opinion this prop
osition involves some misconceptions
Of the relations between the public
and a railroad corporation. 1t is I'M
sound in that it practically excludes
from consideration the fair value Of
the property used, omits altogether
any consideration for the right OF the