The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-10-13
Ex-Secretary of State Gives His
Views on Coal Fight.
Holds Republican Party Respon-
sible for the Trouble.
COMMENDS ROOSEVELT
Snub by Coal Barons, However.
May Injure Us.
Lose Certain Prestige With
Foreign Nations.

Boston, Oct. 13.-One of the features
of the present state campaign was the
dinner Saturday night which the Dem
ecratic club of Massachusetts gave for
Col William A. CASTOR. the party can
didate for governor. More than 700
party followers listened to speeches by
Richard Olney, ex-secretary of state;
Charles H. HaInlin. Josiah Quincy, John
district; Henry p. Hollis. Democratic
candidate for Governor in New EIamp-
shire, and Colonel CASTOR.
The speech of the evening. was that
delivered by Mr.. Olney, who was cheered
for some minutes when he arose. Many
greeted him as the next president. Mr..
Olney said in part:
4 welcome the opportunity to declare
my belief not only that the Democratic
party is now heading in the right di-
rection and is tolerably sure of Ultimate
~ recovering its old time ascendancy,
but that that result is essential to the
welfare of the American people. There
is one aspect of the present situation
to which I desire especially to call to
your attention.
THE signs of the times are that under
the regime of the Republican party and,
through the national government, forty
years of partnership with the protected
industries. we have come to pass
where public officials as we'll as private
citizens deem themselves above the law
Witness the jealous haste with which
the treasury rushes to the relief of Wall
street spectators by a novel and forced
construction of the national banking
law. Witness the astonishing proceed
ings of the same department in its in
structSons to subordinate officers re-
sDecting the duties to be collected on
cGal. The. generally law1esS atmosphere
in which protected Republican reign has
enveloDed us IS even more strikingly
illustrated by the recent presidential
demonstration upon the coal strike
There are those who say that as the
president disolaimed any official duty OF
relation to the matter. he should not
have interfered. There is something to
be said for that view. Although his
Office is charged with great functions
and invested with great powers, the
president is constitutional officer
whose sphere of action is strictly linn
tied by law.
within that sphere the president is
well nigh absolute Without he is legal
ly imDotent When, therefore, he goes
without it, the danger is that he may
fail and be defied. and that his great
Office may lose prestige and power, and
thus be less capable of performing its
legitimate duties.
THE president. for example, is our
representative with foreign powers. Viii
it strengthen his hands that some half
dozen private citizens are found
swapping their fingers in his face2 The
presidents overture to the coal ooer-
ators was prompted by the best mo-
tives and should have been treated with
respectful cOnStderat lon-s 1t must have
been declined courteously even il
firmly.
*'But the opportunity. to administer q
snub to the president. was too tempt :
ing. Accordingly, he was not only
treated as rash intermeddler. he was
also lectured upon the law and facts
of the case. and, to, crown all, was no
titled that the cause Of the troubles was
/ lawlessness, which he was sarcast ically
/ invited to suppress
For sheer audacity this attitude of
the coal operators could hardly be
matched, and nothing could more
strongly emphasize the disrepute into
which the law of the land has been
brought by long continued Republican
domination. Yet who are they who were
so insistent upon the suppression of
lawlessness in the mining regions? The
most unblushing and persistent OF law
breakers For years they have defied
the law of Pennsylvania, which forbids
common carriers engaging in the bust
ness of mining. For years they have
Disseminated between customers in the
/ freight charges on their railroads il
Violation of the interstate commerce law.
4 For years they have unIawfully monop-
olized interstate commerce in defiance
Of the Sherman antitrust law. Indeed
! the very best excuse and explanation
for their audacious attitude at Wash
ington is they had violated so many
laws for so long. they might rightfully
think they were wholly immune from
either punishment or reprOach"