Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1908-04-10

ration to suffer snch annoyance as may
be occasioned by state legislation, than
that the individual shall be denied the
protection that comes from state legls-
lation. The president would remove
the control from the state government,
which is near the people to the federal
government, which is farther from the
people, and..he would do this nOtwith-
standing the fact sthat the senate has
shown itselfssubservient to the preda-
tory interests. The democrats insist
that the federal government has now
power sufficient for all necessary fed
eral regulation, and that federal regu-
lationishould. be added to state regula-
tiOn, and not substituted for it. In
other words, the democrat would give
to the individual all the protection that
can come from federal legislation, and
still reserve to.him all the protection
that can come from stateilegistation.
Let me take another party man
Governor Hughes. If you will read
his speeches, you will find that they
are very generallwhen they come to the
discussion of medial.legislation, and
very earnestIwhen they:refer to possible
injustice to the corporations. He is just
now finding fault with fines; whether
he has in mind the 500, ,0OO 600 fine, or
other fines l don't know. He speaks
of the injustice to the stockholders; and
yet, what has he said about Ithe injus-
tice that the stockholders have permit
ted the corporations to work against
the general public for generation :?
Where are his speeches denouncing the
Standard Oil trust, and the steel trust,
and the other trusts ? The stOckhold-
ers are not the only innocent parties.
If they do not want to run the risk of
paying fines, they can sell.stheir stock
in the law breaking corportions; but
the consumer, who is the victim of the
trusts, what about..him The fact that
Governor Hughes is much more anx-
ious to prevent injustice to few stock
holders than to much larger number
of consumers, indicates the point OF
view from which he looks at public
questions. His veto of the two cent
fare bill is another illustration. He
gave the benefit of the doubt to the
railroads instead of giving it to the peo-
pie, although he knew that the rail
roads could protect themselves from in
justice in the courts, even after he
signed the bill, whereas the people had
no recourse TO courts when he vetoed
het bill
Let me give you third illustration.
Take the attitude of Secretary Taft on
the subject of corporations. What has
he done, or is he doing to protect the
public from the misuse of corporate
power? What specific legislation does
he demand for the discrimination of the
trusts? None. On the contrary, he
found fault with my statement that the
private monopoly should be eliminated
He insisted that it should not be elimi
mated but simply controlled; and yei
he must know sthat there are severa
trusts, any one of which could afford tt
contribute ten times as large cam
paign fund as could be collected from
all individul contributors to campaign
fund.
When he comes to the discussion O
the tariff question, he is much NOR
concerned about.a republican victory
than he is about tariff reform, because
he is not willing to jeopardize repub
lican victory by immediate tariff re
form. Notwithstanding the gross in
Justice which he must know to exist
he is not willing that single schedul
shall be disturbed at present, and h
knows that the republicans have prom
ed before each election to make what
ever reform was necessary, only to sa
after election that no reform was nee
cssary.
But | desire to present what l regar
as conclusive evidence OF Secretar
Taft's unfitness to deal with the ques
ton of corporations. You will find thi
evidence in a government report. l.
1905 there was issued from the govern
ment printing office at Washington
document known as "Committee RI
ports, Hearings and Acts of Congres
Corresponding Thereto" 1t include
the hearings before the committee {
the house of representatives on insuls
affairs in the Fifty-eighth congress
Secretary Taft was witness before til
!; committee and on page 1O3 will
| found the language which l am goin
to quote. There was in the charter {
! the Manila railway provision that ;
0 the end of one hundred years the raj
4 way should revert to the Spanish go
n ernment. The company had claim
against the United States for occup
n ton of the railroad for nine month
l. Secretary Taft explains that he a
# tempted to settle this claim by givil
8 to the railroad perpetual franchis
# He says:
t, "When l was out there as governc
Il l talked with the manager of the COZ
= pany and suggested compromise
it which we should give them perpetu
l. francise like the franchise alreat
re granted tor the construction of railwa
y without guarantees, and that we shou
is agree to allow them on the franch
le already granted the duties on the II
N terials put into the new franchises
the one hand, and that they should
f. lease all claims against the Unit
m States on the other hand"
he In another part of his testimony
p stated that the railroad paid three
ii four hundred thousand dollars y
Ie net. This would make the rental