The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-06-23
WAS IT DOODLE?
Sensational Charges Affecting
theikansas Legislature.
Claimed Harvester Trust Spent
$4,000 to Defeat Legislation.
SUIT is In CHICAGO.
Money Sent to Firm Of Topeka
Attorneys.
Answer Is That Money Was Used
for Lawyers Fees.
History of the Harvester Trust
~ Measures in Kansas.


Sensational charges of bribery have !
been made at Chicago against the In /
ternationaI Harvester company-the /
harvester trust-involving the Kansas
legislature of 1903 and the Topeka law
Arm Of ROssington, Smith & Histed.
1t is claimed that $4,000 was sent
to Topeka in 1908 for the purpose of
beating the bill introduced in the house
by Representative J. II. Hill of Russell
county. prohibiting the harvester trust
from making exclusive agencies or
sale contracts with Kansas firms. Hill
got the bill safely through the house. I
but it was killed in the senate.
A resolution for an investigation of
the harvester trust was passed by both !
houses, and a committee composed of
Representatives Hill, Godschalk and
jerks and Senators Ward and Allen /
brought in a report which was a COM
plete whitewash for the trust.
The exact connection of Rossington, I
Smith & Histed, q. S. West has now
succeeded Mr.. Histed in the fru) is
not made clear by the papers which
have BEEN filed in the case. It would
appear that the $4,000 alleged to have
been used IN the legislature was sent
to the attorneys for the International
Harvester company, Rossington, Smith
& Histed.
Mrs. Margaret G. Swift. wife of Rod
ney 3. Swift, an official of the Inter
national Harvester company, who is
accused of working confidence
games" on his employers, is the one
who has started the trouble for the
harvester trust. Apparently she is
getting her Information from inside
sources. and is using it to punish the
trust rOr It's treatment OF her husband.
Mrs Swift has fled a bill in chan
Gerry, through Judge Hiram It. Gilbert,
her husbands attorney, in which she
has corrupted legislatures IN three
states. has evaded taxation has prac-
uced fraud in securing control of -eorrl-
peting companies, has made enormous
profits by its prices charged for agf3-
cultural implements. has paid bribes
to labor leaders to prevent strikes. and
has done other unlawful acts The
case is set forth in 119 typewriter
pages, and closes with a list of 243
questions aimed at the directors of the
trust, against whom the bill is filed.
1T is in this list of questions that the
reference to the firm of Rossington,
Smith & Histed occurs.
Mrs. Swift owns 5000 worth of stock
in the Harvester company and ii. is as
shareholder thae she brings the
charges. alleging that the present meth
Ods Of operation will iujure the pro-
perty, bring the company into disre~
pute and eventually destroy the value
of the property.
Mr.. Swift has been head of the pat
ent department of the harvester com
a patent on corn shredder and then
sold the patent to the company at a
profit Of $25, 600. The company sued him
for the recovery Of the S250O0 and the
case is still pending.
The attorneys for the company say
that Mrs. Swift was willing to aban-
don her proposed action against the
trust provided the trust would drop
the case against her husband. The
trust attorneys say they refused to be
bluned, and that they viii fight the
charges.
Mrs. SWIFT charges that in addition
to spending $4,000 to defeat obnoxious
legislation in Kansas, the harvester
trust bought up the legislatures of Illf-
nois and South Dakota to prevent the
establishment Of state binding twine
plants in those states, similar to the
one in operation in Kansas.
say Swift is Responsible.
The trust representatives do not deny
that the $4,000 was used in the Kansas
legislature Of 1903; they simply say
that Mr.. Swift is the only man who
could be in full possession of the facts
because he was the man sent to work
with the legislature on that occasion,
and that if anything dishOnorabIe was
done. he is responsible for it. They
assert that the only bills which were
made in connection with the affair
were attorney bills and witness fees,
all OF which were legitimate.
The question which relates to the
connection Of ROssingtOn, Smith &
Histed to the transaction is as follows:
Are you acquainted with a firm of
lawyers in Kansas named ROssington,
Smith & Histed, and did you pay to
any Of them $4,000 or other sum for
any purpose. and if So what?"
Col. Rosslngton Talks.
When Col. w H. Rossington of the
hIm of Rossington, Smith & West was
informed this morning of the charges
made by Mrs. Swift. He said:
In the session of 1903, 1 put in about
a month or six weeks appearing before
q legislative committee appointed to
investigate the status of the Interna-
tional Harvester company, for the pur-
post of determining whether the com
pany was legally organized to do busi-
ness i'm the state. The hearing was one
of great importance to the company.
because upon its outcome depended
possible legislative or judicial action I
am free to admit that I got a good
sized fee for my services in that case,
but did not spend one cent to inf1u-
ence any member Of the legislature.
The agitation started with some of
the agricultural implement men. of
whom there were about a dozen in that
legislature. They wanted to have con-
ditfcus restored to what they were prior
TO the organization of this new com
pany. which has bought up a number
OF other concerns. They had been ac-
customed to getting little rebates, etc,
and the International assured every
body of the same treatment and a
square deal. We succeeded in showing
to this committee beyond any question
of a doubt that the company was not
an aggregation of smaller companies, I
but that it is legally organized. We
also showed that the new company
Was selling its wares under more IA /