The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1904-09-30

\ MIA q civil proceeding against the. said
Federal Salt company for maintaining a
combination and monopoly in restraint of
interstate trade and commerce.
VS.. Baird and Others.-This proceeding
| grew out of an investigation which the
| interstate commerce commission was
making into the business and methods
| of the so-called coal-carrying railroads,
namely: The Philadelphia & Reading
railway company; Lehigh Valley rail-
road company. Delaware, Lackawanna q
| Western railroad company; Central Rail
road Company of New Jersey; New York,
| SuSquehanna 81 Western railroad COM
pany; Erie railroad company; New York
| Ontario & Western railway company;
| Delaware & Hudson company: Penn
sylvania railroad company, and Balti-
more & Ohio railroad company. me in
| vestigation having been Interrupted by
| the refusal of certain officers of the rail-
| road companies to give testimony and
| produce books and papers which the COM
| to the inquiry, a petition was fled under
! the direction of the attorney general in
the United States circuit court for the
| southern district of New York, pursuant
| to section II of the act to regulate COM
| merce, for the purpose of compelling the
| recalcitrant witnesses to give the teStl-
| mony and produce the books and papers
| in question.
| az. Interstate Commerce Commission
| VS.. Nashville, Chattanooga & st. Louis
Railway Company ct al.-This was pc
tition filed by the Interstate Commerce
| Commission in the circuit court of the
| United States for the southern district of
| Florida, under section 16 of the act to
regulate commerce, to restrain the de-
PENDANT railroads from charging rates on
| shipments between certain points in
! Florida, Tennessee and Missouri, which
| the commission allege to be unlawful in
the following respects: (a Excessive
| and unreasonable; (b) discriminating; and
| (c) higher for short hauls than for long
| hauls
| go rJo1, ava ct,ror, classification Casa
| Interstate Commerce Commission VS..
| The Lake Shore & Michigan Southern
| Railway Company.)-This is proceeding
in equity in the United States circuit
! court for the northern district of Ohio.
brought by the Interstate Commerce
Commission, under the direction of the
sions Of the the act to regulate commerce
| Its object Is to prevent and restrain the
| defendant railroads from continuing what
the commission alleges to be an unjust
classification of hay and straw and un-
| just and unreasonable charges for their
| transportation from the Mississippi river
to the Atlantic seaboard.
80. Cotton Traffic Pool Cases. Omitted
States VS.. Western & Atlantic Railway
| Company ct al, in the United States dis
| trict court for the northern district OF
Georgia, and United States VS.. Illinois
| Central Railroad Company ct al, in the
| United States district court for the west
| ern district of Tennessee.) -These are
prosecutions in which it is charged that
|
| combination to control the routing OF
cotton, which resulted in traffic pool.
| Immediately after the institution of the
| proceedings in these cases the alleged
combination dissolved, and shippers were
| left free to route their shipments as they
| chose.
There have been a humber of proceed
| ings of minor character brought under
the acts to regulate commerce, for eX-
| ample, proceedings to compel interstate
carriers to make annual reports to the
| the like; but it is thought that it is not
the desire of the house to have detailed
account of that litigation"
In his supplemental report OF Feb. 10,
1904. the attorney general states:
| 81 inadvertently omitted from my re-
port of Jan. Ii, 1904, the case OF the In
terstate Commerce CommlssioH1 vs.. inc
| Haven & Hartford railroad companies
pending in the United States circuit court
for the western district OF Virginia at
| Lynchburg. This was petition in equity,
| filed July 49, 1903 for the purpose of en-
! joining the defendant companies from
violating the act to regulate commerce,
which prohibits interstate carriers from
making unjust determinations or giving
undue preference in rates.
The government contended that the law
was being violated in that coal com
| pany controlled by the Chesapeake d
] Ohio company sold coal to the New York,
! New Haven & Hartford company for less
than the cost of mining plus the pub
lished tariff of the Chesapeake e Ohio
| for TRANSPORTING the coal to it's destina-
| ton, and that this amounted to the
| Chesapeake & Ohio transporting the coal
| in question at less than it's published
rates"
Democrats Did Nothing.
Some of the most important of these
| cases have already been decided in FAVOR
of the contention of the government by
| Compare the apathy which prevailed dur
ing CIeveland's last administration, in the
matter of protecting the American people
against the inroads of combinations IN
restraint of trade, with the energy that
| has prevailed in that behalf during the
| administration of President Roosevelt,
| both in the legislative and executive de-
| partments of the government. The ke-
| publican party has in this matter, as In
| everything else that concerns the welfare
| of the American people, been party not
Of PROMISES but of action, while the Dem
| ocratic party has confined itself to mere
| platform anathemaS and platform tulml-
nations. Neither the record the prom
ises nor the candidate of the Democratic
| party, if duly scanned and weighed, give
| any valid ground for anticipating any
substantial legislative or administrative
| relief against the trust evil through that
| source The only affirmative remedy the
party suggests would not reach the worst
| features of the evil and would be utterly
| destructive to our industrial life, and
would put labor on the struggling and
hard level of labor in the Old World.
The Philippines.
1
The Democratic party is still shouting
| Imperialism, still finding fault with our
| acquisition of the Philippine islands, and
| with our government of the same. If i'm
| perialism consists in the fact that the
| Filipinos have not yet secured all the
| political rights that are given to the peo-
| pie of the organized territories of the
United States-and this seems to be the
sense in which the Democracy use the
| term-then a worse form Of Imperialism
| prevails in some of the southern states
| than anywhere else under our flag.
| wherever" says the Democratic plat
| form, there may exist a people incapable
| of being governed under American laws,
| in consonance with the American Consti-
| tuition, the territory of that people ought
not to be a part of the American do
minion" There are some states in this
country where a majority of the people
are deemed by the Democracy to be in
| this condition, and are so treated. by
| this Democratic token and rule these
| states ought not to be part of the
American domain: o. Democracy.
Judge not that We be not judged"
We have never made a territorial ac-
/ quisition, in all our history as a nation,
| on higher and nobler grounds than in the
case of the Philippine islands. At the
close of the Spanish war-a just war, and
one in which all our people had their
| hearts-we found ourselves in possession
of the Philippine islands. The people of
| those islands had been for more than
| three centuries under the despotic and
| tyrannical rule of Spain, landless, unedu-
| Gated poems, Invested of all political
| rights, and without any knowledge or
experience in self-government. Polit-
| ically and industrially they were as help
| less as children. They had helped us to
| the best of their ability against Spain,
| and they dreaded, above all things, to be
| left in the clutches of that power. Three
l xUQ 1a,1f OF