The Birmingham age-herald., 1918-02-27


 public inquiry. indicating that the Louis Vile and Nashville for many years pre- ceding 1915 played part in influencing political elections in southern states by contributing to campaign funds and dis
 trlbuting passes in wholesale quantities
 to legislators, judges and other public of ficials
 TENNESSEE EXPENDITURES
 In Tennessee alone, the inquiry showed, many legislators received $S000 worth of railway passes in a single year. The nature of expenditures made for these purposes always was carefully concealed in the railroads records. They were charged to operating expenses and in some cases were covered by lump sum vouchers in favor of certain banks Tn two cases recited in MT. Smiths dep- osition, vouchers for s20715 and sl5.O0O were drawn in favor of the Columbia Trust company and the National Bank of Commerce, respectively, both of Louis- vile, Ky, one for payments to political agents and the other for aid of the newspaper.
 ACQUIRED SMALL ROADS The commissions review probably will cite testimony by which the commissions 8 counsel sought to show that the Louis- vile and Nashville had acquired scores of small roads in the south. and either CuI ldlltQ lfleT 6kIGnSlOH OT NLFludliN killed them in the interest of the Louis vile and Nashville. Another outstand- ing feature of the testimony was the disclosure that officials of the Louisville and Nashville and the Southern railway number of years ago, entered into an understanding to divide the south be- tween the two roads, neither extending lines or buying roads in the territory of the other.
 This was the socaled Pizzaro- -Cortez agreement, MT. Smith in his testimony admitting that facetiously he was consid- cred Pizzaro, while the late Samuel Spencer, former president of the South ern, represented Cortez. The two met at Kenesaw Mount, Ga. and like the dis coverers of old. agreed to divide the con- tnent between them, according to tes- timony at the inquiry.
 Interstate Commissioner Meyer, who presided over the hearings at Nashville and Washington in 1916, probably will prepare the commissions report to Con- gress.
 TESTIMONY IN DETAIL In MT. Smiths deposition. which was made February 4, at Louisville, MT. Folk asked:
 Tt is not" replied MT. Smith, "but Nashville Railroad company to make po- | litical campaign contributions?' "INt IS not replied Mr. Smith. but | in the past the company occasionally made contributions to defeat a candidate who was running on platform of an- | tangonism and injury this company. 1 In such cases the interests of the com pany seemed in the judgment of it's of l ficers at that time to require this as | a matter of protection, These practices, however while customary and conven- tional with corporations generally in the past, are contrary to the public opinion I of today and have been discontinued by our company.
 l 50 far as this present proceeding is concerned, think it proper to add that | we appreciate the public nature Of the | service to be rendered by the mossis-
 sion and recognize the duty to cooperate 1 in every way hereafter to the end that there shall be no more cause for com
 plaint of such contributions" | MT. Folk began by asking MT Smith | if he knew of any funds of the Louis vile and Nashville expended in Ter
 nessee for political campaign purposes during 1915. and charged upon the DOCKS
 as operating expenses.
 | q know of none whatever" MT. smith replied.
 AMOUNTS SPENT IN ALABAMA 1 "Can you tell us what funds of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad con- pany were expended in Alabama during the years 1912, 1913 and 1914 for political | campaign purposes and charged on the books to operating expenses, or the con l struction account?" asked Mir Folk.
 50 far as I know, or have any ln- formation" said MT. Smith, there were no such expenditures in Alabama in l9ll
 or in 1915, but $30.0o0 was so expended there in 1914, and this was charged te loperating expenses. No such expendi- lures were ever charged to construction account"
 MT. Folks next question was
 "Can you tell us of your own knowl edge whether these expenditures or tne funds of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad company for political pur- poses were charged in the operating expense account or construction ac- l count of either the Louisville ano Nashville Railroad company or the Ma ashville, Chattanooga and St. Lotus railway? Can you tell us whether these expenditures were charged on the books of the Louisville and Nashvillf railroad to legal expenses?"
 | OPERATING EXPENSES
 '.They were charged to operating eX- l o,,d not tn construction account