The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1908-10-02

of tho ablcst LAWYERS that money could
secure The evidence developed In THIS
suit has since been used rs the basis OF
suits against the ~Stnpdard oil Trust by
i've States, and by the National Govern
mont and the arrogant and insolcnt dis.
regard OF the Laws ~ the Nation and OF
the States and the rights Of competitors
and the public which once charoctrriIcd
the actions Of this corporation have now
become largely matters of ancient history.
by this result there has also come Ter the
American people n realization ~ the fact
that no combination Of money and OF
power is above the law and that none
viii be permitted to violate the law with
impunity. II is n narrow partisan indeed
who will refuse to be satisfied with re-
suits such as these
INSURANCE TRUST.
want to tell you the result of the pro-
ceedings that | conducted against another
combination of corporate interests doing
business IN this State. In 1899 my prede-
cessor, Mr.. f. c. Crow. began n suit
against a number Of insurance companies
on the charge that they We're violating the
anti laws of this State. The SUI
preme Court sustained his action and as
sessed a fine of 81 900 against each OF the
corporations charged, But during the
last two years. by reason of complaints as
TO the rates of insurance, / began an In
vestigation from which l became satisfied
that the former suit conducted by Mr..
Crow had not resulted in a correction OF
the abuses incident to the fire insurance
business here; that fire insurance rates
had not been reduced and were arbitrarily
fixed and maintained with but slight. II
any. reference to the hazard OF the risk.
And so l began proceedings against some
10 of these companies, charging them with
the violation of our antitrust laws. But
before the testimony was completed the
representatives of the insurance compa-
MES opened negotiations looking to an
Il. \. 40 --l --~ ~
reform their business so as to comply with
the laws Of the State and to treat the
people fairly in the matter of rates II the
prosecution against them was not con-
tinued. / informed them that II they
would re-rate all of the property of the
State on a scientific basis. giving to each
b'ildirg the benefit of any protection from
fire that 1t might enjoy, / would hold In
allegiance the suit that I had begun. This
proposition was accepted and the work OF
reimbursement of insurance rates in this
State is now in progress, and will prob
ably be completed within the course OF
County Of st. Louis. I am informed that
there has been, since the beginning of this
suit, a reduction in rates on business
property of from 80 to 40 per cent, and
from the reports received Of the new rates
established in some fifteen or twenty
towns in different parts of the State, 1t
can be confidently stated that the average
reduction in insurance rates thus secured
Will De between ~ ana 10 per cent. As
the annual amount paid in premiums by
the people of Missouri to fire insurance
companies, other than mutuals, is approx
matcly IS, COO, 900 a year, this reduction
will amount to a saving to the people di-
rect of. at least $500, 900 a year for an
indefinite period. Where is the man not
blinded by partisan prejudice who would
hesitate to admit that this Is a better plan
OF procedure than to secure the imposi-
ton of a fine which the defendants could
in a few months recoup by an advance in
charges.
OTHER ANTITRUST PROSECUTIONS.
In d 1ition to these suits brought under
the provisions OF the antitrust avs OF the
State, ! nave also conducted a suit against
the Traders Live Stock Exchange Of Kan
sas City, which was sustained by tile Su-
preme Court OF the State: a suit against
the Lumber Trust, in which l secured an
Injunction against the further consolida-
ton of that combination; a suit against
the Harvester Trust, in which the testi-
mony- will soon be completed and sub
mitted to the court for decision. In this
last case II is worthy Of note that the de-
fendant offered to pay a fine in order to
escape the notoriety and trouble of litiga-
ton. l informed the attorneys. who sub
mitted this proposition that the question
Of punishment was a question for the
courts, and not for the Attorney General
to determine; that no company could pay
a fine to escape the trouble Of litigation
and continue what l believed to be prac-
tees in violation Of the laws of the State
that II it was not guilty of violating our
laws, it should pay nothing, and IL 1t was
guilty, 1t should make way for others whC
would comply with our laws. And 1t 1:
also worthy Of note that during the takins
Of testimony in this case Cyrus II. McCor.
mick. the president Of this 1920. 900, 00(
corporation. a relative by marriage of Johr
d. Rockefeller, came to Jefferson City al
my request and freely answered all ques.
lions that I asked him as to the plan Of
organization and the business methods oil
the international Harvester Company
This same officer recently refused to pay
any attention to similar processes ISSUED
against him by the Attorney General Of
our n~eighboring State of Kansas. It thus
appears that the orders and the DEGREES
Of the courts of the State of Missouri are
now respected by the trust magnates Of
the country. This is some advancement
at least, from the time when II. H. Roger.
and his associates were with arrogant In
solenee declining to answer the simplest
questions on advice Of counsel"
WHAT ! HAVE ENpEAvoRED TO Ac.
coMPLisH.
In these antitrust suits that which
have endeavored to accomplish Is to re.
lieve the people of the oppression and evil.
Of monopoly by giving them the benefit o.
free competition. My efforts have been t.
q correction or existing evil.
and abuse, rather than to infict punish
ment for past ~offenses and leave uncor.
rected the evils and abuses which consti,
tute those offenses. In this work I do no
claim to have been entirely successful.
do claim, however, to have accomplishet
something. And today the people OF Mis-
souri, have fairer conditions of trade ant
freer competition in practically every i'm
portant article of commerce than the,
had when ] was elected to Office. II
was the notorlety seeker which some O
my Democratic opponents assert. VIII,
cared nothing except for his own glorifca
ton and advancement. ] could easily hay,
settled the Standard Oil litigation thre,
years ago for an amount far in excess O
all the fines imposed against orporat ton
for theoviolation OF our law during tn
entire history OF the State. In my con
ception OF the duties Of my office, I al,
not think 1t right to license the STANDARD
OIL Trust or the Harvester Trust to lev!
tribute upon the people of Missouri an,