Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-26

Tee VI tHTee-SeHdtoIS
being the other two members-who CON
sidered that bill In the interstate COM
merce committee of the Senate, ana
after making such amendments as In our
judgment made 1t more effective, reported
ii favorably to the committee ana then 10
the Senate where it was passed Onoer
this Elkins law, for the first time IN
interstate commerce legislation. the snip
pers were made liable as violators OF Ia"
and subjected to heavy penalties for &C
, ce1niuy or soliciting rebates or discrimf-
nations. Until that time only the car
riers were liable for such oHenSes. Inc
bill was especially aimed at the large
corporations because they were sup
posed by reason of their large shipments,
to be able to command and enforce re-
bates and determinations which could not
be secured by their weaker competitors
That statute has been put to the Sc
verest tests and they have shown that
1t is worth more in the regulation of in
terstate commerce than all the other
statutes that have been enacted 1t
makes effective all the other provisions
of law against rebates and dlscrlmlna-
tons, and nobody has suffered more I'M
der 1t than the Standard Oil Company.
against which indictments have been
found by scores, containing counts ana
charges amounting to thousands In num-
Der.
character of this statute. but 1t is unnec-
essary for present purposes.
/ refer to it and speak of its general
character only to show that this leglsla-
ton which / helped to frame and to en-
act aimed directly at the Standard Oil
Company and the other great corporations,
is. or ought to be, convincing evidence
that I was not employed by the company
at that time and that 1 was not inf1u-
enced in the discharge of my public du-
ties by reason of the employment that
had ended long before.
Employment Refused.
But if that fact is not sufficient the
following correspondence is not only ad-
ditional proof but conclusive in it's char
acter to the same effect:
900 Broadway. New York, May I. 1905.
my Dear Senator: In the possibility
of an action being brought against us in
Ohio. are you in a position to accept a
retainer from us in connection with such
a matter?
your early response will oblige.
yours very truly,
JOHN D. ARCHBOLD.'
''To Hon. Joseph B. Foraker. 1900 18th
Street NV, Washington"
To which l answered as follows:
WASHINGTON. D. c., May 9, 1905.
John d. Archbold, ESQ.,, 26 Broadway.
New York.
my Dear Sir: My duties in the Senate
have so multiplied that l found it neces-
SdTy 10 1eIlTe eHtNely lTOIH Tic pIdCllCc
of the law. I have not taken any new
employment for more than two years
past.
ION this account, as we'll as because of
my relations to the public service, l can
not accept retainer in the contingency
named, as / would be very glad to do if
1t were otherwise.
Assuring you of my proper apprecia-
ton for the compliment involved in the
inquiry you make l remain,
fr,,l
u. B. FORAKER"
For weeks prior to the date of these
letters the newspapers were filled with
announcements threatening the company
with very serious litigation and with
criminal prosecutions in the courts of
Ohio. 1t was in view of these threatened
proceedings that the company again
sought to employ me; surely an idle and
unnecessary performance If already en-
ployed, and these letters further show
other reasons because 1 could not accept
the same consistently with my relations
to the public service.
The conditions had greatly changed
since my former employment, largely be-
cause of the prosecutions against the
company under the Elkins law, which 1
had helped frame; furthermore the en-
ployment proposed was different in It's
character from that which / had pre-
viously accepted. That is to say, instead
employment was. to aid the company In
complying with the orders of the courts
and the statutes of the state, 1t was to
be an employment to resist suits and
prosecutions instituted by the state.
/ submit that these proofs should be
sufficient to show to any fair and unprej-
udiced mind that / was never employed
except prior to 1901 and that my employ
ment then had. no relation to anything
that was in conflict with my public du-
ties, but had reference solely to the reor-
ganization Of the company and its Ohio
affairs. with which Congress had nothing
whatever to do.
Unrelated Letters Joined.
Mr.. Hearst, to create different belief,
read at St. Louis the following letter:
''26 Broadway,
NEW YORK, February %, 1902.
ITO Hon. ]. B. Foraker, Washington,
Dear Senator: Again. my dear SEN
ator, I venture to write you a word re-
garding the bill introduced by Senator
Jones of Arkansas. known as S. &c. in
tended to amend the act to protect trade
and commerce against unlawful restraints
and monopolies. etc, introduced by him
December f. 1t really seems as though
this bill is very unnecessarily severe and
even vicious. Is 1t not much better to
test the application of the Sherman law
instead of resorting to a measure Of this
KIND! L nope you Will feel SO about 1t.
and l will be greatly pleased to have a
word from you on the subject. The bill
is, l Believe, still in committee.
with evidence of regards.
Very truly yours.
JOHN D. ARCHBOLD."
1 have no recollection of having ever re-
ceived such letter and most diligent
search fails to disclose any such letter on
my files or any copy of any answer to
any such letter in my letter book. but
waving all that, the letter shows on it's
face that Mr.. Archbold did not pretend to
have any right to address me on any
such subject, except as any citizen might
have done
Such requests are of daily occurrence in
the experience of every senator. If /
ever received such letter my inability
to find it or to find any answer to it is
doubtless due to the fact that / simply
referred II to the Judiciary committee for
consideration in connection with the bill.
Such is the usual practice-particularly Is
it the usual practice of senator to make
such reference to such letters to commit
tees of which he is not member. and |
know of no reason why should not have
followed such practice in this instance;
neither do / know of any other way to
explain my inability to find the letter or
answer to il. If l ever received it.
The record shows that the bill was
never acted upon in the committee. Sen
ator Hoar was at that time chairman of
the judiciary committee He had with