The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-11-19
Corporation Money In Elections


The New York correspondent of the
Philadelphia Press, in commenting on
the alleged conference between Sena-
tor Plat and William c. Whitney, says:
1T would not be a preposterous
wager if any one were disposed to bet
upon this matter that if the senator
did meet Mr.. Whitney it was not for the
purpose of b~etraying anybody or any
part of the fusion ticket, but solely for
the purpose of receiving the campaign
subscription due from Mr.. Whitney's
corporations.
There has been no doubt thai the
Whitney corporations, like all of the
corporations of city that may have
faVorS to seek or attacks to oppose,
either before the legislature or the city
government, have been in the habit Of
contributing to each party. Almost all
of them divide their contributions
equally. Mr.. Havemeyer of the sugar
trust testified when before the investi-
eating committee of the senate that his
corporation contributed to the cam
paign funds of each party and did it
for Self-protection.
Recently it has been said that the
corporations of New York city, or at
least the larger ones, favored the cleo
ton of the Tammany ticket, because
lIlSy saw III Oil dulilllllSlI dllOll VI lid
kind better chance for favorS, for op-
portunities, than in the election of Mr..
Low. But the men who are managing
the campaigns on each side knew that
this assertion was false, since the cor
porationS nav not departed from the
custom established some years 6 and
have contributed with impartiality to
the campaign purse Doth of the fusion
organization and Of Tammany Hall
and the Brooklyn democracy"
Here is something for those who
favor public control of public utilities
to consider. If this is true of New
York it is probably true of all large
cities, and it explains in large measure
the failure of municipal government in
the United States. What may we ex-
pect but corruption in such affairs
when corporations enjoying municipal
favorS are so cOmplacent under de-
mands for campaign subscriptions?
And what is more natural than for ma
chine politicians, with no stake in the
community, to band together for the
express purpose of holding up for their
own profit those who are willing to
buy their way along?
And III this is also found reason for
the failure so far experienced in the at
tempts to deal with the trust question
! on political lines. The trusts, like these
corporations, have no politics. They
are Oh democrats anu TcpuD-
licans who have joined hands simply
in a money-making arrangement. How
is it possible then for the democratic
shareholders to sympathiZe with any
formal outgivings of their party on the
subject, and how equally impossible
for republican shareholders to sympa-
thize with a republican declaration
against trusts! The democratic stumper
yawping about protection being the
mother Of trusts but makes h demo-
cratic trust magnate the fonder OF
hat mother if he accepts the stumpers
statement
There is no government problem 50
difficult to handle. On the one side are
the corporations, gasping for all that
| they can get for nothing from the peo-
| pie. and complaining when cornered
! hat their shady dealings with the peo-I
pies representatives are forced upon
them. On the other side are the peo-|
| pie. frequently neglecting their POLITICAL
duties, and permitting their public az
| fairs 70 fall into the hands of unscrup-I
ulous men, who make traffic OF their
| official votes and influence. Now and
then there comes a great explosion,
and a temporary remedy is applied
But is not the day for a permanent
remedy fast approaching. If it is not
indeed already here? And what shah