The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-08-23
FROM DUMONT SMITH.
Defends His Action on the Pipe Line
Bill.

Senator F. Dumont Smith has written
letter to William Allen White con-
| corning the pipe line law. 1t is as fol-
lows:
W. A White, Esq, Editor Emporia Ga
| zette.
Dear Sir:-I have just received a copy
! Of your editorial published over month
the pipe line law. I am too far away
to fifty defend myself. but not too far
away to be inexpressibly wounded by
its insinuations and innuendoes.
You called me a railroad attorney.
| There is no reproach attached to such
| a charge except as you use it and in
| tend it. This lie has been industriously
| circulated end is as far from the truth
as possible. 1 am not now and never
was railroad attorney. have tried as
many law suits against railroads as any
| lawyer in my part of the state and have
now pending four suits against the
Santa F'e aggFegating in amounts over
SIS, 900. So much for that.
| Now as to the pipe line law. pre-
| pared it and aided its passage on the
representation of those who ought to
| have known whether the right of emf
nent domain had been granted to oil
pipe lines as we'll as to gas pipe lines.
[ did not look the matter up because it
| was generally understood that the right
extended to oil pipe lines and was
| also told that the Standard had used
this right to secure a portion of its
right of way. If these things had been
true the law would have been valid
| Possibly, I ought to have looked it up
myself but / was working sixteen hours
a day, so oppressed with demands upon
my time that could give nothing very
/ careful preparation. and had to trust
to others more or less.
Shortly after the bill became a law
| Senator Fitzpatrick and | discovered
that the eminent domain law applied
only to gas lines. Attorney General
Monnett of Ohio. who was then in To-
peka, greed with us that in this view
OF the matter the law was probably in
valid. l Immediately prepared and in
| troduced bill to amend the charter act
! which Attorney General Monnett thought
with US, would at least partially accom-
| plish the object sought. have not the
| number of this bill, but it is contained
| in my letter to Attorney General Cole
man. We had the bill advanced and it
passed the senate. In presenting the
bill to the senate, I stated in open sen
ate that the pipe line law was prOba bly,
| invalid, and gave the reasons why. 1t
was then late in the session, and the
second bill died on the calendar OF the
house. There was no secret of the con-
dition of the pipe line law at any time
after we discovered the error.
| Sometime in April it was reported
that a suit was to be instituted in one
of the oil counties to enforce this law.
I Immediately wrote to Mr.. Fitzpatrick,
Mr.. West, and I think, Mr.. Parker,
urging them to prevent such a move as
| it would probably result in a victory
for the Standard which would tend to
disgrace further attempts at regulation
In May some clients of mine who
| were figuring on a fuel oil pipe line, de-
sired an opinion from the attorney gen
eral as to the validity of this law,
| which to some extent stood in the way
| of their raising money. 1 had given
them my own opinion and 1 asked At
/ torney General Coleman if he would ex-
anime the law and give an opinion. he
said that if L would put the request in
| writing in the usual way he would look
the matter up and give me an opinion
as soon as he got time. AS soon as
got home I made the request in writ
ing setting forth my own view OF 1t.
General Coleman was then very busy
on the refinery suit, and l did not re-
ceive his opinion before I left home.
| Such requests are made of the attor-
ney generals Office every week in the
year. Neither Attorney General Cole
man nor myself saw anything extraordi-
nary in the request nor would any fair
minded man see ANY Niger IN the
wood pile if he took the time to in
Vestigate the matter instead OF gong
This, as briefly as it can be stated, COW
ers the facts Now. Mr.. White. where is
there in this a sign of collision. fraud,
or corruption? If 1 had, as you suggest,
a secret understanding with the Stand
| ard would l have prepared and passed
through the senate. the second bill; would
I have stated in open senate that a mis-
take had bee-. made, confessed my error
publicly while there was still time to
correct it if the house had acted as
promptly as the senate, and finally would
I have tried to stop litigation which the
Standard was pretty sure to win?
Would I not rather have kept silent
till now, till in short the STANDARD might
have opportunity to spring its own
trap? Would 1 have sprung it in open
senate and maze the public avowal that
I did; would I have informed the oil men
of this condition and particularly Mon
nett? What do you think?
i I am writing you first because your
article is clearly more Ebelous than the
others and second because while you are
hasty 1 believe you desire to be just. Will
gave your editorial? Will you withdraw
the insinua ton that I had understand
ing all the time with the Standard and
was secretly plotting to betray cause
that I was openly supporting? You can
not undo the mischief you have done.
Many papers have copied your flaming
editorial that will never copy this if you
publish il. But in the long run somehow
the people get pretty closely to the truth.
The truth to my record is written TN
the records of the senate-the bills have
| Newspapers can not alter it though they
may distort and befog it temporarily, but
no man shall call me boodler either di-
rectly or by innuendo. I cheerfully accept
the other alternative, which you graceful
ly hand me, and admit that [ am
chump
1t is no disgrace to be a chump. Respect
fully yours, F. DUMONT SMITH.