New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-07
ROOSETELT AvD STEEL.

If the purpose Of the Stanley investi-
eating committee is 10 make political
capital out of ex-President Roosevelts
part in the absorption Of the Tennessee
Coal and Iron Company 1t is certain TO
he disappointed Members Of the COM
mittee I'm their questioning of the ex-
President made much use of the words
stock jobbing" and gambling" and
sought 10 give the impression TINT the
object Of the visit Of Judge Gary and
Mr.. Frick to Mr.. Roosevelt was merely
10 save firm Of stockholders. But the
purpose Of the ex-President in doing
what he did was perfectly plain. He
was Indifferent 10 the fate Of the single
house of stockholders, except as IL would
involve financial institutions and con-
tribute to the panic then existing.
His responsibilities were enormous.
The country was in the midst of one of
the worst panics in its history. 1t was
represented 70 him by men whom he re-
garded as trustworthy and fully in
formed that the absorption of the Ten
nesSee Coal and Iron Company by the
United States Steel Corporation was nee
essary 10 prevent a great crash that
would send further shivers of fear
through the financial world. He did not
have the time which the Stanley COM
mittee has TO send for every one con
nected with the Tennessee Coal and
Iron syndicate and with the United
States Steel Corporation TO obtain all
their views upon the situation. ire
mendous danger existed which had to he
met promptly. There was nothing for
Mr. Roosevelt 10 do hut TO act at once
o. 70 avoid the responsibilities Of action.
lrresOlution is not one Of the Colonels
traits. He acquiesced in the absorption
of the property for the patriotic pur
pose of doing what he could 10 check the
spread Of business disaster. and he did
so in the honest conviction that what he
did was both necessary and right He
still believes that what he did served TO
allay the financial trouble. and it Is TO
be noted that a great many well in
formed persons agree with him.
The criticism commonly made Of
Colonel Roosevelt's action is that. how
ever laudable it's intention. he acquiesced
in the violation Of the law and virtually
promised its violators immunity from
punishment. But is it fact that he
regarded the purchase of the Tennessee
company by its big rival as a violation
Of the law? In his testimony before the
Stanley committee be assumed all re-
spOnsibility for what was done. but he
made il plain that he consulted the At
torney General and that in the latters
opinion the transaction was legal, And
what proof is there that the Attorney
never pronounced the purchase Of the
Tennessee property Illegal. They may
even sustain II. Just what is legal and
what is not under the Sherman act has
rot yet been made wholly clear. although
recent decisions have made il much clear
er than il was at the time Colonel Roose-
welt was called upon 10 act in regard 10
the Tennessee Coal and Iron transaction.
~ that time il was generally believed
that the Sherman act did not apply to
the amalgamation Of manufacturing
companies. The Knight case was be-
lieved by Colonel Roosevelt and his legal
Eadviser 70 he controlling. and under il
the absorption Of this property by the
big steel corporation appeared to he legal
and proper. Colonel Roosevelt therefore
had little reason TO doubt the legality Of
the action 10 which he consented. and
the common good seemed imperatiyely 10
require it. He may have been misin-
formed or misled. but he acted with
characteristic resolution and patriotism.