The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1908-07-17

| their Wall street employers TO deser
Curtis and go to Long. If that was 6
clean vote, why did Curtis say that the
railroads paid Long for it in influence!
The next charge reads:
| Long is found voting with the packing
| trust and against the farmers and dairy
| men on proposition to table resolution
asking for information as to what the
packers were putting into oleomargerine
1t was the case of Wall street against the
people, and Long voted with Wall street.
Long makes the defense of all his
oleomargerine votes together and ii
may be said that the passage of the
pure food law later directly disproves
that he was right. What is more, on
these oleomargerine votes Long is
found voting against the honest votes
of the rest of the Kansas delegation
except one-and moreover, Long voted
in the minority, against members of
his own party. 1t was not legal ques-
ton, as he claims, for some of the best
lawyers in the house voted against
him. 1t was a question of the beef
trust against the people, and Long
lined up, as he always does, with the
special interests.
The next charge reads:
On page 6499, volume 33, Long Is found
voting against allowing the President of
the United States to suspend tariff duties
on any article found to be controlled by n
trust 1t would affect securities in Wall
street. 1t would act as "big stick over
Wall street but the trusts needed vote,
and Long gave them one. The people had
to whistle.
His defense of his vote of no con-
fidence in the President was that it
was Democratic measure. 1t would
certainly seem as though, if the Demo.
Gratis had confidence in the President.
a man who is always Dragging of his
lining up with the President might
have confidence enough in him to let
him suspend duties on trust-made ar.
ticles, unless, of course, Long favored
the trusts. But a Democratic meas.
ure. favoring the people is different
from endorsing a Democratic rail
road attorney for United States circuit
judge. In that case the Democrat
had railroad endorsement and was a
railroad attorney. In the case of his
vote of no confidence in the Preside nt
the Democratic measure was opposed
by the trusts.
The next charge reads:
Long Is recorded as voting against
bill on page 6501, to require corpora tons
doing an interstate business, to file state
ments of their financial condition with
the government. The bill was along the
line of publicity advocated by Theodore
Roosevelt at the time. but Wall street is
against publicity, and so Long voted with
Wall street
His defense is that the measure was
overwhelmingly defeated. Yet Long
was not afraid to stand with the mi
nority and against his party to vote
with the beef trust, and he was not
afraid to be one of eight who voted
against the provision of a proposed
antitrust bill which would have ex-
empted farmers and labor unions from
the provisions of the bill. (See page
6501 of the Record of the Goth con-
gress) He is willing to stand with
the minority against holding big
stick over the trust, against making
the packers stop poisoning the people
(See page 1856, volume "a, part l, of
the Record; also 1874, volume 80, part
81, and against organized labor, but
he is not willing to stand with the
to make the trusts tell the
secrets of their robberies. He is for
the robberies. He thinks they are sa-
cred.
The next charge reads:
The grab of the Pennsylvania railroad
in building the Washington station is one
of the most notorious in the country.
Scores of honest men in congress protest
ed, but Long did not protest. On page
266O, volume SO, part 8. of the Record.
81, 900. 900 to the railroad. 1t was place
where Wall street needed vote and Long
was dependable.
His vote giving away million dol
lars more of the peoples money than
was demanded by others to the union
station steal is brazenly defended be-
cause ut has given the country
and Washington a magnificent union
station" The Pennsylvania railroad
was asking congress for s3,000.000 for
the railroads own land,
but public streets in Washington,
which the railroad never had paid for.
and agreed to use the stolen three
millions for a depot. Long voted to
give them four millions, and stands up
and says if | am thief Roosevelt who
signed the bill is also thief But he
does not say that in the bill other
things were carried, and that TO veto
the bad Roosevelt would have had to
veto much that was good. But he has
his machine to claque at this, so he
blackens the character of Roosevelt.
and they howl with delight.
The next charge reads:
On page 5133. volume 35, part 5, Long
IS found voting for a proposition which |
allowed an asphalt outfit to retain claims |
n the Uintah reservation that under the |
aw, belonged to the people, and repre-
;ented unestimated values. But it pre-
served things as they are. and so justice |
md equity were not considered.
His defense Is that he was merely |
carrying out contracts. The truth, as
shown by the Record on the page |
which records the matter, is that the |
contract expired when the lands were |
opened to settlement, and that the out |
1t wanted the contracts renewed, and |
4ong voted against giving the people
hat valuable land, because the mining |
had camped there, and be-
,ause the mining corporation repre-
ented some big political manipulators.
t was a steal, and Long voted for the
teal, and it doesn't matter who voted |
With him, nor who signed the bill. For
he bill was part of the Indian appro.
'riation bill, and to veto 1t the Presi-
lent would have had to paralyze the
indian service. The men who intro
unad tha hill Ala not Jora 20 Iaf % r. |