New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-23
HEARST ASSAILS KNOX.
Argues for Favorable Report on HIS
Coal Trust Resolution.

Washington April 22.-Before the House Com
mittee the judiciary to-day, Representative
Hearst Of New-York. argGed for a favorable re-
port on his resolution calling the Attorney
General for the evidence against the anthracite
coal carrying railroads. which includes the report
Of the United States District Attorney for the
Southern District OF New-York- Mr. Hearst at
tackled Attorney General Knox in the course OF
his argument saying: The Attorney General has
been brooding over that evidence Ike old
hen on q doorknob for eighteen months He has
acted IN way. and won't let anybody take
it away from him"
Mr. Hearst occupied the attention OF tho COM
rnittee for an hour in the first argument he has
made In his capacity member Of the House.
He reviewed I'm detail the proceedings instituted
by himself against the railroads and demanded
that action should De taken by the Attorney Gem
eral or that the House should appoint committee
Of seven Of it's members TO compile anew the evil
dcnce ;n the possession OF the Attorney General,
with a view to securing action against the rail-
roads under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The precise manner in which the Antitrust law
was being violated. alleged by Mr.. Hearst. was
when II became known to the six coal carrying
roads that the Independent coal mine operators
contemplated building road OF their own TO tide
water To prevent this the roads bought the prop
erty OF Simpson & Watkins. who owned eleven
colleres the largest OF the independent operators
They also bought the Temple Iron Company capt.
tailed $4,000. and recapitalized II at $1o010"l
guaranteeing per cent annual interest on TINS
Capitalization The price OF coal IN NcH-1 oA n was
then raised 90 cents a ton. netting increased an
nual earning Of 100000. This according to Mr..
Hearst constituted violation OF the Sherman
Antitrust law and he declared he had placed evil
dence in the form OF aflidavlts in the hands OF
the District Attorney for the Southern District OF
New-York. This official had investigated the evi-
dence and Mr. Hearst said he had been informed.
though not officially. that the District Attorney
had reported the case the Department Of Justice
eighteen months ago. with recommendation that
a case had been made out.
Republican members OF the committee questioned
the necessity OF calling upon tho Attorney General
for the evidence, inesmuch Mr.. Hearst had fur
nshed It 10 the District Attorney in the first in
stance. and could well furnish it to the COM
mittee. Representative De Almond. Of Missouri
maintained that the country ought to know why
the Attorney General did not proceed I'm the matter
Mr.. Hearst said It was impossible for him to pro-
cure the report OF the District Attorney who had
investigated the evidence furnished by him; that
would have to be obtained from the Department OF
Justice. The information he had OF that report
entirely unofficial but. he believed, trust
worthy. II had been obtained from a person con-
nected with the District Attorneys Office. but he
declined state from whom. because it might
embarrass the person in qu, st.ou
Representative Palmer U}ep.. PENN asked II the
present price Of coal unreasonable one and
If the Increase in the price had not resulted shortly
after the commission appointed by the President
had increased the wages Of the miners 10 per cent
This latter fact Mr. Hearst conceded to be the
He held that the ombination, however real
izng S2oO0o0JO year of the preservation Of its
monopoly. and that the 10 per cent increase to the
miners did not amount TO more than 100000 or
$4,000 a year.
Mr.. Hearst explained that the recent decision
OF the Supreme Court of the United States was
predicated an action by the Interstate Com
Commission. and entirely another mat
than the prosecution Of the coal roads for
viola ting the Sherman Antitrust law.
What l want concluded Mr. Hearst. ''ls to
have this evidence before Congress and IL
the Attorney General does not report IL. /
very he won't, as he has refused to do any
thing OF the kind, I then wish that a committee OF
seven Representatives be appointed with power to
take the evidence. l suppose the House and this
committee IN reporting favorably the resolution
really want get the evidence; II IS not merely
going through The form Of asking for II, but want
to get it,"
Il suppose the purpose is to show whether the At
torney General has done his duty suggested Rep
resentative Powers (Rep.. Mass.).
Perhaps the House is capable OF judging whether
IL ought know the facts itself without leaving it
TO the Attorney General" answered Mr.. Hearst.
Representative Henry Oem.. Tex wanted to
know IL MI. Hearst ever had applied personally or
otherwise TO the Attorney General to get the re-
port Of the District Attorney. Mr.. Hearst said lie
had not
Mr.. Powers wanted TO know If Mr. Hearst could
not furnish the committee all the Information, in
asmuch he furnished the District Attorney the
facts in the first instance
AN individual can do almost all of these things