The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-23
". R. HEARST SANDERS
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Says He Has Been Brooding on
Evidence Like an Old Hen on
a Door Knob


y WASHINGTON, April 22.-"The attorney
general has been brooding over that evil
dence like an old hen on a door knob. for
eighteen months"
Representative William r. Hearst made
this statement before the House committee
on the judiciary to-day in arguing for
favorable report on his resolution calling
on the attorney general for the evidence
against the anthracite coal-carrying rail-
roads. which includes the report of the
United States district attorney of the
Southern district of New York Mr.. Hearst
occupied the attention of the committee for
an hour in the first argument he has made
in his capacity a member of the House.
He reviewed in detail the proceedings in
stituted by himself against the railways
and demanded that action should be taken
either by the attorney general or that the
House should appoint committee of seven
of its members to compile anew the evil
dence in the possession of the attorney
general with a view to securing action
against these roads under the Sherman
antitrust act
The precise manner in which the anti
trust law was being violated. as claimed by
Mr. Hearst, was when it became known
10 the six coal-carrying roads that the in
dependent coal mine operators contemplat-
ed building road of their own TO tide
water. To prevent this the roads bought
the property or Simpson and Watkins, own
ing eleven colleries, the largest of the indie
pendent operators. They also bought the
Temple Iron Company, capitalized for s24O-
600. and capitalized 1t at SIS OO0, 600 guaran-
teeing 6 per cent. annual interest on this
capitalization. The price of coal in New
York was then raised 50 cents ton, netting
an increased annual earning of S2O,00O0Oo.
This according to Mr.. Hearst, constitutes
a violation OF the Sherman antitrust law
and he declared he had placed reliable evil
tate the same in the hands of the district
attorney for the Southern district of New
York. This official had investigated the
evidence and Mr.. Hearst said he had been
informed, though not officially. that the
district attorney had reported the case to
the Department of Justice eighteen months
ago with the recommendation that a case
Representative members of the commit
tee questioned the necessity of calling upon
the attorney general for the evidence in
aSmuch as Mr.. Hearst had furnished il to
the district attorney in the first instance
and could as we'll furnish it to the commit
tee Representative De Almond, Of Mis-
souri, maintained that the country ought
to know why the attorney general did not
proceed In the matter.
Mr.. Hearst said 1t was impossible for him
to procure the report of the district attor-
eny who had investigated the evidence fur
nished by him. That would have to be OBJ
tanned from the Department of Justice.
The information, he said, in that report
was entirely unofficial, but he believed
trustworthy. 1t had been obtained from
person connected with the district at
torney's officers, but he declined to state
from whom, because it might embarrass
the person in question.
Representative Palmer, (Rep., Pennsyl-
vania), asked If the present price of coal
crease in the price had not occurred after
the commission appointed by the President
had increased the wages of the miners 10
FER cent. This latter fact Mr.. Hearst con-
coded to be the case. He held that the COM
bination. however, realizing $4,000 900
year out of preservation of their monop-
oily and that the 10 per cent Increase to
miners did not amount to more than 50 O00,-
600 to s.. 000O0 a year.
Mr.. Hearst explained that the recent de-
cision of the Supreme Court of the United
States was predicated on an action by the
1nterstate-commerce Commission and was
entirely another matter than the prosecu-
ton of the coal roads for violating the
Sherman antitrust law.
What want" concluded Mr.. Hearst, lis
to have this evidence before Congress. and
If the attorney general does not report it,
as | am very sure he won't as he has re-
fused to do anything of the kind 1 then
wish. or hope. that committee of seven
representatives will be appointed, with
power to take the evidence. | suppose the
House and this committee, on reporting ia
vOrably the resolution, really wanted to
get the evidence-it is not merely going
through the form of asking for it, but
wants to get it,
Il suppose the purpose is to show wheth-
er the attorney general has done his duty"
suggested Representative Powers.
Perhaps the House is capable of judging
whether IL ought to know the facts itself,
without leaving it to the attorney general -
answered Mr. Hearst.
Mr.. Henry wanted to know if Mr. Hearst
had ever applied personally or otherwise to
the attorney general to get the report of the
district attorney. He had not.
Mr. Powers wanted to know if Mr..
Hearst could not furnish the committee all
the information, inasmuch as he furnished
he t~tn 0ft fhn foo t. @,..-<
instance.
IAN individual can do almost all of these
| things" responded Mr.. Hearst, but the at
| torney general is there to do something
| luton to a subcommittee consisting of Rep
! resentatives Powers, of Massachusetts;
| Thomas. of Iowa, and Smith, of Kentucky,
for further consideration.