The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1909-11-19
DEFENDS BOTH
TAFT AND TEDDY
Continued from Page One.

facts in the sugar trust rebate cases
were previous to that date. The su-
gar trust prosecutions for rebates be-
gan during the debate of the Hepburn
Jaw and helped the government car
ry through the law which restored
the prison penalty.
"The campaign about the sugar re-
bates ended in December, 1906, and
it was November 20, 1907. that the
first Weighing fraud was discovered
Mr.. Roosevelt and his attorney gcu
cral, Mr.. Bonaparte, took an lmmedi.
ate and keen interest i'm the matter
and gave every possible assistance to
the prosecuting officers I'm charge of
the case. The trial of the penalty
Suit against the American Sugar com.
pany lasted from February 3 to
March 5, 1903. and resulted in n vcr-
dict against the company to which
the press paid little attention until
Mr.. Roosevelt took this question up
personally with the Outlook
1T is due largely to Mr.. RoOsC-
velts action and the article published
consequently in the Outlook that the
sugar trust offered to pay all sums
due for the sugar stolen.
'The settlement effected consisted
in the restitution of the two million
dollars which had been stolen and the
payment of n fine of $136.000. Some
people like to believe that the gov.
ernmcnt did not recover anything.
| But those who wish to have confirm
alton of the fact that the government
did recover everything have only to
go and consult the figures of the set
tlement which was made through the
secretary of the treasury based on the
rcliquldation by Collector Lcob of the
entries In connection with which the
fraud was claimed
"It Is important to remember in
connection with this point that while
the case was started under the Roose.
welt administration. the settlement
was approved by Mr.. Taft's secretary
of the treasury and Mr.. Tafts attor
ney general.
"It is impossible to separate the
two administrations in the matter
Messrs. Stmson and Dcnnison, who
had charge of the matter under the
Roosevelt administration We're con
tinucd by President Taft to wind 1t up
| end Mr.. W!ckersham aud Mrs. Mac.
Veagh have backed them up in every
way in continuing the policy of the
previous administration
much agitation has been raised re-
Gently by the Earle case and Mr. Bora
parties decision not to take it up. This
was suit under the Sherman anti
trust law. in which Earle. as receiver
of the Philadelphia Sugar Refining
company claimed that he was being
put out of business by violation of
the antitrust law. Earle is said to
have complained that he went to
Washington and tried to interest At
torney General Bonapartc In bringing
q government prosecution against the
American Sugar Refining company.
"The law allows an injured person
to bring a private suit and Earle
had pending such private suit Bon
aparte refused to take action, basing
his answer on the ground that he did
not want the government machinery
/" be used to aid a private suit and
that existing decisions We're such as
to construe the statute adversely 10
such u claim
"The principal precedent was the
case of the United States against the
h. G. Knight company Like the
Earle case the Knight case was
against the Sugar Refining company,
which had tried to put out of busi-
ess a sylvania company like the
one Earle was representing. The su
IRENE court held that this was not
violation of the law. The question
whether even Il civil suit could be
sustained was a very close one. In
the first instance Judge Holt held
Earle's complaint stated no ground
og action under the statute and al
though the circuit court of appeals
later reversed this decision the sut
preme court has not passed on tht
question.
"The decision of Judge Holt indi
cptes that Mr.. Bonaparte had at leas'
reasonable grounds from judicla,
standpoint for his attitude"