Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-04-22
AN ALLEGED COMBINE
Evidence Against the Coal
Carrying Roads.
MR.. HEARS T HEARD
ARGUES BEFORE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY coMMITTEEE.
Wants Report Of the District Attorney
for the Southern District
of New York.
| MR.. HEARST HEARD

1.-THE Attorney General has been brood1ng
over that evidence like an old hen on
door knob for eighteen months. he mas
not acted in any way and won't let any
body take it away from him..
Representative VIM. r. Hearst mace th's
statement before the House committee y"
the judiciary today in arguing for 1aVor-
able report on his resolution calling on tEe
A Attorney General for the evidence against
the anthracite coal-carrylng rallroaos'
which includes the report OF the Ohieeo
States district attorney for the southern
district of New York.
Mr.. Hearst occupied the attention of the
committee for an hour in the first arSu-
nent he has made in his capacity as
member of the House. He reviewed in de-
tail the proceedings instituted by himseit
against the railroads. and demanded that
action should be taken either py the Al
torney General or that the House Snoulu
appoint a committee of seven or It's mem
bers to compile anew the evidence IN the
possession of the Attorney General with
view to securing action against these roaos
under the Sherman antitrust act.
Alleged Violation Of Law.
The precise manner in which the anti
t,ust law was being violated as claimed
by Mr. Hearst was when it became
known to the six coal-carrying roads that
the independent coal mine operators con-
templated building a road of their own 10
tidewater To prevent this the roacs
bought the property of Simpson q Watkliis,
owning eleven coilieries, the largest OF the
independent operators. They also pought
the Temple Iron Company, capitalized LOT
$24O, 600 and recapitalized it at $loOoo,'Do'
guaranteeing per cent annual interest," ",
tali
New York was then raised 90 cents ton,
netting an increased annual earning OF
500. 100000.
This. according to Mr. Hearst, consti-
tuted a violation of the Sherman antitrust
law, and he declared he had placed reliable
evidence in the form of affidavits to sub
stantiate the same in the hands of the DIS
trict 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 had been made out.
Questions Necessity.
Republican members of the committee
questioned the necessity of calling upon
the Attorney General for the evidence. in
asmuch as Mr.. Hearst had furnished it to
the district attorney in the first instance,
and could as well furnish it to the commit
tee.
Representative De Almond of Missouri
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
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 was
entirely unofficial, but he believed trust
worthy. 1t had been obtained from a per-
son connected with the district attorneys
office, but he declined to state from whom,
because 1t might embarrass the person in
question.
Representative Palmer (Pa) asked If the
present price of coal was an unreasonable
one, and If the increase in the price had
not come shortly after the commission ap-
pointed by the President had increased the
wages of the miners 10 per cent.
This latter fact Mr.. Hearst conceded to
be the case. He held that the combination,
however, was realizing $40 000O 600 a year
out of the preservation of its monopoly,
ana that the 1O per cent increase to the
miners did not amount to an aggregate of
more than 100000 to s., 900 GOO 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
interstate commerce commission, and was
SAti1Sly matter tDdn the prOS6cu.
ton of the coal roads for violating the
Sherman antitrust law.
What Mr.. Hearst Wants.
What l want" concluded Mr.. Hearst,
rs to have this evidence come before Con-
gress, and if the Attorney General does not
report it, as am very sure he won't. as he
has refused to do anything of the kind, /
then wish, or hope, that committee of
seven representatives will be appointed
the House and this committee, in reporting
favorably the resolution, really wants to
get the evidence; 1t is not merely going
through the form of asking for it, but
wants to get it,.
L suppose the purpose is to show whether
the Attorney General has done his duty"
suggested Representative Powers of Mas
sachusetts.
Perhaps the House is capable of judging
whether it uyht to know the facts itself
without leaving it to the Attorney Gem
eral, answered Mr.. Hearst.
Representative Henry (Texas) wanted to
krow If Mr.. Hearst ever had applied per-
scnally or otherwise to the Attorney GEN
eral to get the report of the district attor-
ney. He had not.
Mr., Powers wanted to know If Mr.. Hearst
could not furnish the committee with all
the information, inasmuch as he furnished
the district attorney with the facts In the
first instance
'.An individual can do almost all these
things" responded Mr.. Hearst. but the
Attorney General is there to do something"
The committee referred the Hearst resolu-
ton to a subcommittee consisting of Rep
reseEtatfves Powers of Massachusetts,
Thomas of Iowa and Smith of Kentucky
for further consideration.