The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-06-11

What were the results under this
law? This commission advertised that
they would receive proposals for the
settlement of the claims of the gov
eminent against the Sioux City & Pa
cific Railroad company. Wide pub
licity was given in the columns of
the newspapers of the country. Only
one proposal was submitted in pur-
suance of this advertisement; this was
from the Chicago & Northwe>-
Railroad company which for long
time had been operating this line.
The proposal was accepted by the
commission. 1t was to pay $1,S72, 900
In cash and permit the government to
retain $250.S41.24 which was in the
treasury as part of the charges
transportation over the lines of this
road. These two amounts aggregated
$2.122,S41.24, which the government
received on its claim against this
railroad company. This was S494,-
621.24 more than the principal of it's
debt. The Sioux City & Pacific rail-
road line was not as valuable a prop
erty as the Kansas Pacific, the in
debtedness of which was settled in
court, but in the case of the Kansas
Pacific the government. by court
proceedings, received only the princi-
pal on its debt, but no interest there
on, while in the settlement of the
Sioux City & Pacific debt the gov
eminent received $494,521.24 more
than the principal of it's debt. This
settlement was submitted to President
Mckinley and was approved by him,
and was carried out in accordance
with law, and every one considers
that an excellent settlement of these
claims has been made. There was no
effort to avoid publicity and settle on
the quiet. The law simply continued
the commission that had settled the
Central Western Pacific
Indebtedness to the government and
the result was as satisfactory as the
former action of the commission.
This is a fair sample of the kind
of charges that have been made and
OF their utter unreliability and want
of correctness. 1t was an executive
act, and in my opinion President Nc
Kinley could be fully trusted to APP
prove or disapprove the acts of the
commission.
Oleomargarinc.
There are three charges in the
article relating to my votes on the
oleomargarne legislation. They are
as follows:
In paragraph I this is found:
ION page 52SS. part 6. volume 33 of
the Record. Long is found voting with
the packing trust and against the
farmers and dairymen on a PROPOSE
ton to table a resolution asking for
Information as to what the packers
were putting into oleomargarine; il
was a case of Wall street again
the existing order, however wicked
the order might be; Wall street
wanted votes to hold it's plumber and
Long voted with Wall street"
In paragraph II of the article
this charge is made:
In the Fifty-sixth congress. when
the farmers and dairymen and peo-
pie desiring pure food were united or
the Grout bill, Representative Wads-
worth, who was defeated recently fo1
his connection with the packers in
the pure food bill, came forward ir
congress with a Gripping amendment
to the honest bill. Long voted with
Wadsworth. on pages 1875 and 1856
volume "a. part 1 of the Congress
sional Record. and then voted against
the original BILL
Again, in paragraph IA. Mr.. White
says: =
On page 1858 of the Record. vol
ume 30, part. 2. Long is found voting
to weaken another oleomargarine bill
Again on page 1860 he is found voting
for Joker" that Wall street wanted
and still again on page 1884 of the
same volume he is found voting for a
gripping amendment. Sometimes
when votes occurred on questions OF
final passage Long had to save his
face and voted against the interests,
put only AFTER ne had tried under
handingly to serve them"
The first of these three charges
above referred to was in relation to a
resolution which was referred to the
committee on ways and means, which
committee reported recommending
that the resolution be laid on the ia
BILE. This action of the commit &c
was based on the theory that the in
formation called for from the secre-
tary of the treasury could not be fur
nished by him without violating q
section of the revised statutes. Mr.
Richardson. the Democratic leader
explained the situation as follows
(vol. 33, page 5288):
I'm one minute I can only say thai
the committee on ways and means
have very carefully considered thi.
resolution. They are almost unani
mously of the opinion that the matter
involved was & purely legal question
The section of the revised statutes
quoted by the gentleman from Penn
sylVania forbfds the commissioner O.
internal revenue and the officers O.
the treasury department from giving
to congress the Information which il
sought in this resolution Every law
yer on the committee on ways anC
means. with two exceptions, were o
the opinion that the resolution which
is simply a house resolution which w,
have before us cannot repeal tn,
How, then. in conclusion, all tn,
members of the committee kept tn,
gentleman from Minnesota and thu
gentleman from Iowa-every othe
members of the committee except tn,
member of the minority. without ex
ception-thought that this resolution
ought to be laid on the table"
In the discussion of this resolution
II was admitted that it was the pur
pose to make public all secret pro
cesses of oleomargarine making
voted to lay the resolution on the ia
BILE This was not done and the reso
luton was passed by the house TIL
secretary of the treasury in his repor
on the resolution, sent condense,
statement in reference to the manu-
facture of oleomargarine. showing tn