|×* .*-* * … * * ------****-- -- -t-ae::：*（-ae，！-Čīșae*** X:º：±）', *'...º.- ∞----！！！！！！！！!№~ſae∞：§§§§§§ěžț¢،.* * * * · * *·|-************* ！！！！！！ • •* … --№---… .…. ~~ ~ ~~*-¿¿?，，，，，，，。、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、、。-·§§§¶√≠≤≥±:::::- - -¿?-¿¿?ș șaesaeae$（），2），ſaeſaeae±，±，±,±，±,±,±¿: ¿№ae，ſae§§、ș:::::::：:::::::·>???）; ·<！-- - - - - ~§§× ≤ ≥ ± • • •|- ·。.ğëſēžğëĞ######$£§§&#ĒĒĖĖĘĘĢĢ################āËää############ ±*************§§§§§::ſae§5-§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§），· * # ！- |--≡≡********.|-§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§£§:ſſae;;;;;§§§©®£®£§č&&#№vaeaeae§§§§§§§§§ £3：№ſſae:Eſae§§;{{{:{{:{{#¡ ¿§§§§§∞§;，&#;&#șĘaeae:-、、。--?¿?:%;§§§§§§§），…§##########№|№ae， §§،§§§§~&&&&&-&#####2!！!;&##§§¿;§§§· ∞'è：。-*--~~~ -.**** №tº§§:āÈ%§§§§§§§§$£§¿??¿！，：， …：...，- -§§ș&& -， ' • • • • •==№tes:· · · · · * * * · · --~ -…-…--~~~~*~*~*~~~~ ·ſaeaeaeae§§§§§§§§-·3§§ 22¿§§§§#ffff;&#######;*,*-: *）（.***·§§§§§§§）， §§§§©®£; £; £>*- ∞∞∞№∞№·№ſſae，-####################-ºº：::::：:::：::::############## ##-§ī£; £****）:§§§-。、::::::::：::：：::::§§§§§ £§！!??！！！§§ī£§§§¿?;#šī£§§§-ae§.“:---- -►-·§§§§§ €3€$£§§§§-·· × -- -?:.*）-::::=≡::：::::::**-≡≡≡≡、、。·::::::::：::：:::: №=3∞∞∞--ğË@₪、- -- * - - - --- *:·¿:::::::::：:::：::·~#№ ËëĚěĒĢĒ、、。¿----<--…-R'-….*ță·¿- … ------±±:;3 ſº-~-±,±，±，±:、。 、¿**、。、、、、、、。。！“， ºg -----¿。sæ,-ſae ---Ë№ſſae §§¿&aeģğ]§.į，≡es-№rg§§§§§§§§§· -§§§§¿§§×。、|-wae -¿#șcae！¿á→№。 ¿、§§§§∞ğ¿;----¿}§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§;&###3}:&\，，~--~--~--~ ··•-，：§@₪•§§§§ſae¿-&3 ¿№…·§¶√æ√≥√¶r√¶√≠√∞ √∞∞∞§§§§§§§$%&&&&&&&ģğţğțğğț。§ğķğ##### - -∞-*::::::：:::、、、、、）* …….--~·：ș<ſ≤≤≤·→·· ·，≤）·∞ººaeg：∞șaeaeaeae¿。£§§¿ae●~： ∞№g$$$$$$$$§#- -§§§¿?ģģ§§§§§---- --¿·-§¶√∞š?';&&··§§äĚĖĒĖĘĚĖĢģĶķĻĢģĶī£§. §§2）ae- ¿··zºſtae3.ģ、*… --º--、- ، ،§©®****） -）~-- t.∞*******ºº º§?§@₪:·§§§§ §§§§§、。ģ- ≡≡≡≡№gaeſſae，§§§§§§§§::::::::-¿?****）§§§§§§§§ţț¢ğ∞ ק§§§§§§ſaeg: ∞§§§§§-·→3）--::：：::≤ ≥ ≡≡≡≡·-----§§§§§§§§$$$$$$$$§§§-§§§§ §§ș{gšķķ:：：:：：::：:：:::::·&-&=&§¶•ğ-+;*.ººº..ººº..ººº·§§§§§§§§§§£§§§&& §§§|-§§§§*:*ț¢ £§§--~~ ------★ →e→ → → … ;---&--§%）;*、、、、）-§ſae::：:::&3&& |-~ *#######ğ-§§ż№ſ:- ✉§§§§§§§§§§§）;·→ *，--*------kºs_ſº，·|-§§§§§§§§§§·-: ------§§3;&#Ęae; ſae;-----* *- ſ！！- -3;&£）， ºj…！！!,，，*º º №w.$$ ********ştae，- ، ، ،çſ:§§:ſsae; 、、、、、、、、。 *********** √æ√° * ž№ſ:**-* * * * .* ************ ¿ №！ caerº §§§§§§;* º ¿š 、。***_***wā， ¿é¿-§§§§ ±，±,±，±，±，±，±），:：:::：:::::ģ𧧧:№ffſĒĒĖĖĘ~-∞: **********|-§§§§§::-¿? #: # -！ »→±，±，±）， ·*****-：-） --- »----- --±±eae ~~ --~ -§§§）.šī£§§·-* '*' ！ …*…，---- ſae i *I -，-，-，*,<< ::：:：::：:::::::::：:::::：·¿?:æg！！！ * -[*###|×*** --~~~~ .*，，+.*k，≡≡≡≡ș##$$$$$$£&########-|-ſſſſſſſſſ· -->*********ț¢&ışșș șķķå）！}，##########¿¿.*¿$$$$$sae;§§§§EĢE！:::::::::：:::::：:·£§§§§######## ğģğģğ################################################¿șğ&########ğ####.*$'########################### Ēģ#####-·žī£§§§§§§§§R:§ĒĒĖĘĚĖ·±§§§§§3;ſ;****{<ș;-«•ş &&&&&&&&&&&#§§-¿::::::::Sae;Ķī£®£; £-·:::::::::：: |-¿¿ $¢ £§§§§§§§7;ō）， șae）. 3:ſſae:·ĒģğțË###########ğ ·ºrgºș. ،、。¿;¿?################••--- - - - - ----~、、、。& ！º±*-~ §§23$+#####################ğ:::::：:#############§§§- - §§ --ĒĒĒĒĒĒĒĒers，§§§§）; -•ț¢، ، ، ،§§§§§§*§§§####·țÈ|-.*¿¿.* -######±############ -**************șae•*.*…**::::::：:::$$$$$§§§§-§§§§§§§§§§§§§§:-- -ğ#ķż::::::::::：:::§§ →***** • ** * · * *::::::::::::::::::##########ĒĢğģ#ffffffffffff;$$$$$$$¿#########;******** & * & *,，+.* # №sae，ğ|-&，&&; ſ（tzşºae;º ș;&&|-- *~- -sae # *------ ~- - -***«¿ »,ęź w 33*å * º ***， **）， §.） ſą: <<、。|- →≡**********£§§§§§§§§§ -�<º.·-»«Æ, øș ș** ***=s，ș•șºšās， šš，* *-----★ →·********¿??¿??¿¿.*¿¿.·-•■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ &șae-- ********* £§！țiš¿&&;**********®.-#########################*§§§§§§§§ž###### §§§==**********ș，...， į ±ä******¿¿ž→xx:)-£&******, ** * & *******& ***-：· 、、、、、、、、*********«-åā &&-：|- Ç 。 |× ģķ §§ ģ ¿¿?ſaeț¢ķ}; ſae §§ { Ēģ ķ ∞§§§§，，· §§§§§§§$$$$$ ， ， ， ， , , ， , ， ， ）！ * ， , , , ، ، ،. . . . . . . . . .“, š, *§§;;;;;;;;;;ſ ،§§§ 、 }} ģ - ¿|（83;）;。}}}ģ§§ $$$$$$$$$$țšķ ¿ſae §§ §§ §§ §§ſae、。 ķī£§§- $、 ķ$$$%، §§§§， ，''， #3$žģķ- §§ſaeſ?،Ë&º. ¿¿×··● ：####};¿§§§¿ 0§§→ - ：∞ķģ：§šķ، §§§§：§§§§ģķģ |-§§Ģģ ţ ¿-§§§§§ §§Ģ|－§§ ¿}} §§ -§3 } W §§§&&∞ §§،،Ëſ §3Ķķ…º.$$$$· • ~。ģ---- ¿ §§§§§§§șae ķ¿ ·§§§§§§}} #ffff;&##### PREFACE. For the information of some of my fellow citizens, and also to furnish facts to future writers of history; I am writing a series of historical sketches of the adminis- tration of President Taft. That series will consist of a number of parts, of which the following pages of this pamphlet comprise the first. Those pages attend to the three most noteworthy transactions, of the President, during the first ten months of his administration; ending with his message of January 6, 1910, to the Senate of the United States, relevant to the Glavis case. The second pamphlet of the series, will be published early in Septem- ber, and will be devoted to what President Taft has done, and what he has omitted to do, relevant to enforcing the Sherman Law against industrial combinations. The third number of the series will be published late in September, and will attend to the acts and omissions of the Presi- dent, in respect of enforcing and not enforcing the laws of the United States against inter-state Railroad Com- panies. And early in October, the fourth part of the entire historical sketch will be published, and will attend to the Taft bill of 1911, to regulate commerce with Can- ada; and which bill was promoted by him under the name of “reciprocity.” - A. H. W. Park Row Building, Manhattan, New York. August 20, 1912. 334,376 THE CANDIDACY of WILLIAM. H. TAFT. The Republican National Convention of 1912, as col- lected and organized under the presidency of Hon. Elihu Root, then a United States Senator, nominated William H. Taft, then president of the United States, to be the Republican candidate for a second election to that office. That nomination was not the result of any action or even of any desire of a majority of the members of the Republican party; for the primary elections which were held for delegates to the Convention in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, California and other states, were nearly unanimous in showing that only a small minority of the Republicans in those states favored the nomination of Mr. Taft; and that substantial uniformity of result in those widely scattered states, fairly indicated the opinion of Republicans in states where no such primary elections were held. Moreover, the narrow majority of delegates in the Republican Convention who did confer the nomination upon Mr. Taft, did not generally reach their seats by means of the spontaneous action of the state conventions who nominally elected them. Quite otherwise than this, those delegates were sent to Chi- cago in pursuance of the personal and strenuous efforts of Mr. Taft himself. Those efforts included some hun- dreds of stump speeches delivered by him in Massachu- setts, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio and other states, and included the securing of the election of favorable delegates from other states, by memories of past and hope of future appointments to Federal offices. Never before in the history of the United States, did any president so strenuously struggle to secure a renomination; and never before did any president sus- pend his official work and travel into any state to make stump speeches for that purpose. These unprecedented O *d facts make it particularly proper to write and publish a thorough examination of the presidential merits and de- merits of Mr. Taft, for he has thereby challenged the criticism of his contemporaries and of history. THE PRIOR LIFE OF PRESIDENT TAFT. On March 4, 1909, when William H. Taft was in- augurated president of the United States, fortune had favored him with better opportunities for acquiring equipment for that office, than were ever given to any of the twenty-five presidents who had preceded him. He was then nearly fifty-two years old, and from his birth, as the son of his eminent father, Judge Alphonzo Taft, his environment had been almost ideally adapted to equip him for the presidency. The education of his childhood and boyhood was conducted under the direc- tion of his distinguished father, and ended with his grad- uation from the Woodward High School in Cincinnati, at the age of sixteen. That graduation was followed by four years of collegiate education in Yale University, from which he graduated as class orator in 1878. Two years later he graduated with high honors from the Cincinnati Law School, and was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1880. The next year was spent by him as law reporter; and in 1881, at the age of twenty-four, he was appointed to his first office; and he continued to be an office holder with hardly any interval of private life, for twenty-eight years, until he was inaugurated president in March 1909. During those twenty-eight years, he held nine different offices, which he successively resigned preparatory to accepting the next one in the list. Those offices were assistant prosecuting attorney of Hamilton County, Ohio; collector of internal revenue for the first district of Ohio; assistant county solicitor of Hamilton County, Ohio; judge of the Superior Court of Cincinnati, Ohio; Solicitor General of the United States; United 3 States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Judicial Circuit; president of the United States commission to the Philip- pine Islands; civil Governor of the Philippine Islands and Secretary of War. Of these offices, seven were executive and two were judicial; and their occupancy by Mr. Taft during more than a quarter of a century, con- stituted a unique and varied experience, entirely un- matched by that of any other man who ever attained the presidency of the United States. Moreover, in each of those nine offices, Mr. Taft was undoubtedly an unqualified success. I first met him in 1896, when he was United States circuit judge for the Sixth Judicial Circuit. I conversed with him in his of - ficial chambers at that time, and shortly afterward argued a couple of patent cases to him, both of which he afterwards decided in favor of my clients. I remember that on that occasion he told me that though he had then been hearing and deciding patent cases for four years, he had actually read the whole of the record in each of those cases, however voluminous that record might be. I know of no ground upon which his career as a United States judge could be criticized, unless some such criticism could be based upon the fact that in order to increase his income, he taught law in the law depart- ment of the University of Cincinnati for four years, while he was Federal Judge, and upon the probable theory that that extra work caused him to delay the rendering of his judgments, in some of the cases which it was his duty to decide. Nevertheless, I who have critically ex- amined a large number of the decisions which he ren- dered during his eight years upon the Federal Bench, am able and am glad to testify that he was one of the very best of the Federal judges of his time. His services of four years in the Philippine Islands, from 1900 to 1904, and his services as Secretary of War, from 1904 to 1908, have been unanimously praised by 4 those best acquainted with them, and particularly by President Roosevelt, who undoubtedly knew more about them than anybody else. When delegates were being elected to the Republican Convention of 1908, seven candidates for the Republi- can nomination for president were brought forward. These were Governor Hughes of New York, Senator Rinox of Pennsylvania, Senator Foraker of Ohio, Sen- ator LaFollette of Wisconsin, Vice-president Fairbanks, Speaker Cannon and Mr. Taft. I had long been person- ally acquainted with all of these candidates except the vice-president and the speaker; and though my admira- tion for several of them was very great, I believed that Mr. Taft was even better equipped than any of the others for the presidency. President Roosevelt who had known them all for many years, selected Mr. Taft as the one to be advocated by him for the nomination. Several of the others were so strong before the people that Mr. Taft publicly acknowledged, and everybody realized, that without the active support of President Roosevelt the nomination would not have been conferred upon Mr. Taft. But that nomination was obtained for Mr. Taft through the active and extraordinary advocacy of Presi- dent Roosevelt; and it was his advocacy that was much the most powerful of all the influences which resulted in Mr. Taft’s election in November 1908. During the canvass which preceded that election, I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Taft candidacy. That support was expressed in a number of public speeches which I made for him, and in a number of articles which I communicated to the press, and in a number of letters which I wrote to him, and which con- tained information known to me, and not known to him, such as was suitable for his own speeches, and which he did incorporate in some of them. And thus it came about that when Mr. Taft was chosen by the people in o November 1908 to be president of the United States, that event was a source of exceptional political satis- faction to myself, as it was to most of the millions of members of the Republican party. It was then that William H. Taft attained the highest level which his reputation has ever attained. “But character is not something cut in marble. It is something living and changing and may become diseas- ed, as our bodies do.” THE SELECTION OF THE TAFT CABINET. The first function which was imposed upon Mr. Taft after his election to the presidency, consisted in select- ing nine men to be heads of the executive departments during his forthcoming administration. The first selec- tion which he made in that behalf was made in astonish- ing disregard of the Constitution and statutes of the |United States. w Paragraph 2 of Section 6 of Article I of the Consti- tution of the United States, provides that “No Sena- tor or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.” For many years prior to July 1, 1907, the salary of the Secretary of State, accord- ing to the United States statutes, was eight thousand dollars. That salary was increased to twelve thousand dollars by a statute which was approved February 26, 1907. Hon. P. C. Knox was a Senator from Pennsylvania from 1904 to 1909, and he even voted for that increase. Congressional Record of January 23, 1907, page 1552. The time for which he was last elected Senator was the term of six years, beginning March 4, 1905, and ending March 4, 1911. The fact that the salary of Secretary of State 6 Was increased during that six years, by the statute of Feb- ruary 26, 1907, was well known to Mr. Taft; for the same statute increased his own salary as Secretary of War from eight thousand dollars to twelve thousand dollars. And Mr. Taft being presumably acquainted with the Constitution of the United States, must have known that the fact that the salary of Secretary of State had been increased during the time for which Senator Rinox had been last elected, to take effect nearly four years before the expiration of that time, would make his appointment to be Secretary of State, nearly two years before the expiration of that time, plainly violative of the Constitution. Nevertheless, he did publicly announce his intention to appoint Senator Knox Secretary of State; and that an- nouncement stood unwithdrawn for weeks, until a private citizen caused to be published in the newspapers the statement that the announced appointment would plainly violate the Constitution. This public statement was first made known to Mr. Taft, when he landed in New Orleans on his return from a visit to Panama. Thereupon he promoted a plan to evade the Constitution, instead of faithfully obeying it or plainly violating it. That plan consisted in procuring the insertion in the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Appropriation Bill for the year beginning July 1, 1909, of a provision that the compensation of the Secretary of State should be reduced from twelve thousand dollars to eight thousand dollars on March 4, 1909. That reduction having been made, Mr. Taft appointed Senator Knox Secretary of State, and he held that office at the salary of eight thous- and dollars, from March 4, 1909 to March 4, 1911, on the theory that though the salary of Secretary of State was increased in 1907, during the six years for which he was last elected Senator, it had been decreased back to the old rate in 1909, and before he was appointed Secretary of State. 7 But even this transparent attempt to evade the Constitution was discredited early in 1911, by means of a provision in the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Appropriation Act of that year, which statute a second time increased the salary of the Secretary of State from eight thousand dollars to twelve thousand dollars, and made that second increase before the end of the time for which Mr. Knox was last elected to the Senate. Con- gressional Record Vol. 46, pp. 1471, 1480, 3720, 3750 and 4336. And Mr. Knox has now been drawing, for more than a year, a salary of twelve thousand dollars as Sec- retary of State. * The second in rank of the heads of departments to be selected by Mr. Taft, was the Secretary of the Treas- ury. Instead of selecting for that important office some financier, banker, political economist, statesman or other properly equipped man, he selected Mr. Franklin Mac- Veagh, a gentleman nearly seventy years old, who had never held any public office, and whose business since early manhood, during forty-three years, consisted in running a wholesale grocery store in Chicago. The un- suitability of that selection has been lately proved to the public by elaborate statements of one of Mr. Mac- Veagh’s subordinates in the Treasury Department, which statements consist in detailed specifications of the unique inefficiency of Mr. MacVeagh. The third in rank of the heads of departments selected by Mr. Taft, was the Secretary of War. Instead of conferring that office upon some man acquainted with military matters, or at least having some experience in governmental affairs, he appointed Mr. Jacob M. Dick- inson, who then was, and for many years had been, the leading lawyer employed by the Illinois Central Railroad Company. The fourth in rank of the heads of departments to be selected by Mr. Taft, was the Attorney General of 8 the United States. For that office he selected Mr. George W. Wickersham, a New York lawyer who happened to be the partner of his brother, Henry W. Taft. Mr. Wick- ersham turned out to be an able man. During his ad- ministration of the Department of Justice, I have met him often, exchanged letters with him several times, and have been careful to keep track of his work, as far as propriety and opportunity would permit. He has cer- tainly done much to enforce the statutes of the United States against violators thereof; but it is my opinion that he could and should have brought many more suits to enforce the Sherman Law than he has, and that he could and should have prosecuted with more vigor and effectiveness, those which he has conducted. The fifth in rank of the heads of departments in Pres- ident Taft’s administration, is the Postmaster General. He conferred that office upon Frank H. Hitchcock, a young man of forty-one, who had been chief clerk in the Department of Commerce & Labor, and afterward as- sistant Postmaster General, and still later had been the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and as such had managed Mr. Taft’s presidential campaign Of 1908. The sixth in rank of the heads of departments is the Secretary of the Navy. To this office Mr. Taft ap- pointed Mr. George Von. T. Meyer, a good man who had been Postmaster General in the cabinet of President Roosevelt for two years. The seventh in rank of the heads of departments is the Secretary of the Interior. During the last two years of the administration of President Roosevelt, this office had been occupied with great efficiency by James R. Gar- field, a son of James A. Garfield. He was willing to continue in that office during the administration of Presi- dent Taft, and ex-President Roosevelt favored such a continuation. But Mr. Taft instead of availing himself 9 of the services of Mr. Garfield, appointed in his place Mr. Richard A. Ballinger, a lawyer of Seattle, Washing- ton. That appointment turned out to be a bad one, by resulting in a notorious scandal, which placed an indel- ible stain upon President Taft’s administration, and which naturally resulted in the separation of Mr. Ballin- ger from his office, in March, 1911. For the head of the eighth in rank of the executive departments, Mr. Taft continued Mr. James Wilson in office as Secretary of Agriculture. That gentleman was, or at least had formerly been, particularly well equipped for the duties of that office, which he had already occu- pied for twelve years, through the administrations of Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt. The ninth and newest of the executive departments is the Department of Commerce & Labor. The Secre- tary of that department during President Taft’s ad- ministration has been Mr. Charles Nagel, a St. Louis lawyer, who during his life of nearly sixty years prior to his appointment, was not generally known to take any particular interest in any of the problems with which a Secretary of Commerce and Labor has to deal. THE TARIFF LAW OF 1909. President Taft, having launched his administration with the foregoing nine heads of departments, took the next important step by calling an extra session of the Sixty-first Congress. That session was begun on March 15, 1909, and continued till August 5, 1909, to ex- clusively attend to the work of amending the tariff laws. Paragraph 1 of Section 7 of Article I of the Con- stitution provides that: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills”. Very soon after March 15, a Čáññittee 10 on Ways and Means was appointed for the House, and a Committee on Finance was elected for the Senate by the Senators. The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means was Mr. Payne of New York; while the chairman of the Committee on Finance was Sen- ator Aldrich of Rhode Island. Mr. Payne and his com- mittee on March 18, 1909, reported a bill to amend the tariff laws from beginning to end; and that bill was passed by the House on April 9, 1909. On the next day it was received by the Senate, and there referred to its Committee on Finance. That committee had however, framed a bill of its own, while the Payne bill was being framed by the Committee on Ways and Means of the House. Without paying any detailed attention to the Payne bill, Mr. Aldrich reported it back to the Senate in two days, accompanied by the Aldrich bill, which had been framed under his direction by the Committee on Finance, and he accompanied that report by a recom- mendation that the Aldrich bill be substituted for the Payne bill. Thereupon no detailed attention was given to the Payne bill in the Senate; but the Aldrich bill was elaborately considered and debated in that body until it was passed on July 8, 1909. During that long de- bate, a group of ten Republican Senators, comprising Senators Beveridge, Bristow, Brown, Burkett, Clapp, Crawford, Cummins, Dolliver, LaFollette and Nelson, strenuously strove to induce the Senate to reduce many of the duties provided by the Aldrich bill, on the unde- niable ground that those duties were much too high, even when measured by the protective principles of the Republican platform of 1908. Those Senators were sustained in their motions to amend, by the votes of all the Democratic Senators, except McEnery; but those two classes of Senators taken together were not quite numerous; enough to be a majority of the Senate. Thereföre it resulted that the excessive duties which 11 Mr. Aldrich advocated and embodied in the Aldrich bill, were nearly all adopted by the Senate, and incorpor- ated in the bill as it passed that body. Paragraph 2, of Section 7, of Article I of the Con- stitution of the United States, confers power upon the president to participate with Congress in the enact- ment of statutes. The power thus conferred is equal to the votes of one-sixth of the Representatives, plus the votes of one-sixth of the Senators in Congress. Ac- cording to that paragraph of the Constitution, that presidential power is exercised by signing, or by veto- ing, each bill which shall have been passed by a majority vote in each of the two Houses. But in order to guard against loss of time and labor, which might be ex- pended in framing and debating elaborate bills which the president might veto on account of some objection- able parts only; it is proper and has always been cus- tomary, for presidents to consult with leading members of Congress, while particular bills are under considera- tion in one or the other of the two Houses, for the pur- pose of helping to put those bills into such shapes as entitle them to the approval of the president. But during the three months, through which the Aldrich bill was pending in the Senate, President Taft refrained from taking any effective part in its construc- tion; though he was urged to do so by some of the ten Republican Senators who were striving to reduce its duties to proper levels. Instead of attending to that part of the duties of the presidential office, during those three months, President Taft occupied in pleasure seek- ing, many days which he might have devoted to that work. That pleasure seeking comprised playing golf at the Chevy Chase Golf Grounds in Maryland, attending base ball games in a number of different cities, frequent attendance at theatres, and riding around Washington 12 and other places in automobiles, at high and dangerous speeds, much beyond those allowed by the local laws. After the Aldrich bill was passed by the Senate, it was found to differ in some respects from the Payne bill, for which it was a proposed substitute. There- fore, the two bills had to be sent by the two houses to a Committee of Conference, of which Mr. Payne was the leading member on the part of the House, and Senator Aldrich was the leading member on the part of the Sen- ate. But that Committee of Conference had no juris- diction to do anything relevant to the two bills, except to make them agree where they differed from each other; and inasmuch as the excessive duties which the ten progressive Senators had striven to reduce, were all of them present in both bills, it was too late for any- body to do anything toward improving the proposed legislation, except in the respects in which one bill was even worse than the other. It was at this belated point of time, that President Taft intervened, and sought to induce the Committee of Conference to improve the proposed legislation in some of the particulars over which that committee had juris- diction. The committee yielded to his contentions on some points, but refused to yield on others, and there- upon agreed to report to the two houses a compromise bill. That compromise bill was a somewhat better bill than it would have been if President Taft had not at the last moment intervened to take part in its framing. But it was a much worse bill than it would have been if President Taft had intervened in that work, when the Aldrich bill was pending in the Senate, and had sup- ported those criticisms of the Payne-Aldrich Tariff law as finally enacted, which he himself has since repeatedly acknowledged in public speeches, to be unanswerable. The Payne Aldrich Bill, having been finally passed by the two houses early in August, 1909, was delivered to 13 the President August 5, 1909, and instantly signed by him. On the same day, he published a statement that though it was not a very good bill, it might have been worse than it was, and anyhow was the best bill that he could get Congress to pass. It may have been the best bill that he could get Congress to pass, when in July, 1909, he first endeavored to influence Congress relevant thereto. But it is absurd for him to claim that it was the best bill that he could have induced Congress to pass, if he had intervened in its framing in April, May and June, as he ought to have done. THE GLAVIS CASE. & On August 18, 1909, Louis R. Glavis, a very able young man of twenty-four, who was Chief of the Field Division of the General Land Office, with headquarters at Seattle, called on President Taft in person, and told him that in the course of his official duties, he had discovered certain facts which indicated the existence of a conspiracy to rob the United States of a large amount of very valuable coal lands in Alaska, by means of the Cunningham claims; and at the same time he delivered to President Taft a statement in writing to the same effect, together with many pieces of support- ing documentary evidence. (Senate Documents, Third Session, 61. Congress, Vol. 35, pages 1 to 62). That state- ment expressed, or at least implied, the theory that Rich- ard A. Ballinger, the Secretary of the Interior, was a party to such conspiracy. Thereupon President Taft called upon Secretary Ballinger to answer the Glavis paper, and also called for statements on the subject from some subordinate officers of the Interior Depart- ment. In pursuance of that call, on Monday, September 6, 1909, Secretary Ballinger delivered to President Taft, at his summer home in Beverly, Massachusetts, a 14 statement in writing, together with copies of numerous records and files of the Interior Department, relevant to the Glavis charges. And on Saturday, September 11, 1909, still another lot of written statements from the Interior Department, were delivered to the President. All the papers mentioned in this paragraph were after- ward printed as the first 717 pages of Volume 35 of Sen- ate Documents of the Third Session of the 61. Congress; and the number of words therein is nearly half a million. Reading matter of that kind can not be under- stood, when read at a higher speed than one hundred words a minute, and no pair of eyes and no brain can endure such dry and difficult reading more than ten hours a day, at the utmost. At that rate, it would take an able man, who had nothing else to do, about eight days to read and comprehend all that voluminous and compli- cated matter. On Monday, September 13, 1909, President Taft wrote a letter of about three thousand words from Bev- erly, to Secretary Ballinger in Washington, which was published in many papers throughout the United States on September 16, 1909. In that letter, the President re- ferred to all the papers, copies, records and files which had been delivered to him, and which we now know con- tained nearly half a million words; and without indicat- ing their real voluminousness he told Ballinger that he had examined them “most carefully’’ and had reached a very definite conclusion thereon. He thereupon pro- ceeded to express that conclusion, by applying a very thick coat of whitewash to Ballinger, and to everybody else in the Interior Department; except Glavis, whom he unsparingly condemned. And thereupon he express- ly authorized and impliedly directed Secretary Ballinger to dismiss Mr. Glavis from the public service, which Ballinger instantly did. * 15 On December 21, 1909, the United States Senate adopted a resolution which requested the President to transmit to Congress any reports, statements, papers or other documents, upon which he acted when he di- rected the dismissal of Mr. Glavis (Congressional Rec- ord of December 21, 1909, page 281). On January 6, 1910, President Taft responded to that request with a special message, in which he transmitted to Congress, as being the papers called for by the resolution, all of the above mentioned papers; and also another document, in two parts, which purported to be a “Report and Sum- mary” of all the others. That “Report and Summary” was dated September 11, 1909, and was signed by George W. Wickersham, Attorney General. It was composed of more than fifty thousand words, and is now printed as pages 718 to 805, of Volume 35, of Senate Documents, of the Third Session of the 61. Congress. On May 15, 1910, President Taft wrote a letter to Senator Nelson of Minnesota (Volume 41 of Senate Docu- ments of the Third Session of the 61. Congress, pages 4393-4394) in which he informed the Senator that the aforesaid “Report and Summary” of Attorney General Wickersham was written by the Attorney General at the direction of the President some time after Septem- ber 13, 1909, and was at his direction, ante-dated to September 11, 1909, in order to make it appear that his letter of September 13 was fortified thereby, when that letter was written. The President did not state in his letter to Senator Nelson how long after September 13, 1909, it was that Attorney General Wickersham wrote his fifty thousand word “Report and Summary.” But I, who for many years have been accustomed to do work of that general character, am of opinion that the At- torney General could not have analyzed the half mil- lion word record and composed his “Report and Sum- mary” thereof, in less than two weeks. The Attorney 16 General in the fall of 1909, was so pressed for time that he felt compelled in October, to ask the Supreme Court to postpone the hearing of the American Tobacco case; and the Supreme Court did thereupon postpone that hearing against the opposition of the attorneys for the defendants. It is very improbable that at any time during that fall, the Attorney General de- voted two weeks, or any other length of time, to composing his “Report and Summary” of the rec- ord in the Ballinger case, or that President Taft would ask him to undertake that work; for throughout that fall and during the first three weeks in December, President Taft’s letter of September 13 to Ballinger, was generally considered by the public as closing the inci- dent. There was therefore no prospect that President Taft would ever have any use for any such “Report and Summary,” until that prospect was made known to him by the Senate Resolution of December 21, 1909, which called upon him for any reports, statements, papers or documents upon which he acted when he directed the dis- missal of Mr. Glavis in his letter to Ballinger of Sep- tember 13, 1909. * But when that resolution reached the President (if we assume the then non-existence of the Wickersham “Report and Summary”), the half a million words of reports, statements, papers and documents which he had to send to Congress in response to the Senate resolution, must have appeared to the President to be much too complicated and extensive to justify his statement of September 13, 1909, that he himself analyzed and summarized them, during the few, otherwise mainly occupied days, in which they were in his pos- session before he wrote his letter to Ballinger, direct- ing the dismissal of Glavis. This circumstantial evi- dence indicates that that “Report and Summary” was written by Attorney General Wickersham during the 17 fifteen days which intervened between the passage of the Senate resolution of December 21, 1909, and President Taft’s response to that resolution on January 6, 1910. And this indication is corroborated by the fact that when the “Report and Summary” of Mr. Wickersham was subjected to critical examination, after it first saw the light on January 6, 1910, it was found to have inadvert- ently stated an event which did not occur until several months after the date, back to which President Taft stated in his letter to Senator Nelson he had directed the Attorney General to ante-date the same. The date of the Wickersham “Report and Summary” was as truly its essential feature as is the date of a Will which is presented for probate in contest with a conflict- ing Will of the same testator. Any man who would fraudulently misdate a Will so as to make it supersede another Will of a different date, would be guilty of forg- ery in the first degree. But the same degree of turpitude can not be ascribed to President Taft for uttering and sending to Congress the Wickersham “Report and Sum- mary” with a date which he had himself caused to be made fictitious; for that wrong doing did not directly effect any property right. However, his sending to Con- gress of the ante-dated Wickersham “Report and Sum- mary” did operate to injure the good name and general reputation of Louis R. Glavis, for it falsely purported to constitute a foundation for the statements which Presi- dent Taft had asserted in his letter of September 13 to Ballinger, and which statements were so severely con- demnatory of Mr. Glavis as to be very injurious to his reputation and his future. The sending to Congress of that falsely dated “Report and Summary,” if it can be distinguished from uttering a forgery, was non-ethical to say the least. But the sending to Congress on January 6, 1910, of the ante-dated Wickersham “Report and Summary” 18 was not the only error which President Taft committed in that message. For that message purported to trans- mit to Congress all the reports, statements, papers and documents upon which he acted when he directed the dismissal of Mr. Glavis. But President Taft carefully omitted from the papers which he transmitted, one pa- per which in his letter of May 15, 1910, to Senator Nel- son, he said had existed and had been the very paper upon which he had chiefly acted when he directed the dis- missal of Glavis. That omitted paper had been prepared in the Interior Department by Oscar Lawler, the assist- ant Attorney General assigned to that Department; and had been thus prepared at the personal request of Presi- dent Taft during the week ending September 11, 1910, and was delivered to the President at his home in Bev- erly on Sunday morning, September 12, 1909. In his letter to Senator Nelson, President Taft stated that he had requested Mr. Lawler when preparing that paper, to write it as if he were President of the United States, so that when Mr. Taft came to read it, if he thought it would be suitable for the purpose, he could sign it and publish it as his own written judgment of the merits or demerits of the case which Glavis had made against Ballinger. But President Taft also stated in his letter to Senator Nelson, that when he came to read the Law- ler paper, he found it only partly satisfactory to him, and therefore instead of signing it and adopting it, he did on the following day, himself compose his letter of September 13, 1909, to Ballinger. * . The Taft letter to Ballinger and the Lawler draft. upon which it was partly based, were afterward printed in parallel columns on pages 4507-4514 of Volume 41 of Senate Documents of the Third Session of the 61. Con- gress. And a comparison of those sets of parallel col- umns will show that the Lawler paper was so much the foundation of the Taft letter to Ballinger, that truth 19 required it to be sent to Congress on January 6, 1910, with the other papers on which that letter was also partly based. . . - . What is written in this pamphlet relevant to the Bal- linger scandal and relevant to the conduct of President Taft in whitewashing Ballinger and dismissing Glavis, has been carefully collected by me personally out of the official records of Congress; and anyone who will imitate my industry in making that collection, can verify all my statements upon the subject. And I would recommend any such person to begin by reading Taft’s letter to Nel- son of May 15, 1910, as it is printed at page 4393 of Vol- ume 41 of Senate Documents of the third session of the Sixty-first Congress. The humiliating confessions con- tained in that letter were not spontaneously made. They were made only after the investigating committee of Congress had spent months in detecting and exposing the facts to which those confessions related, and after the ante-dating of the Wickersham “Report and Summary” and the suppression of the Lawler document, had been discovered and had been published. * - Volumes 35 to 44 of Senate Documents of the Third Session of the 61. Congress, comprise a library of books, occupying about two feet on a shelf. Those books are devoted entirely to the record of the joint investigating committee of Congress, relevant to the case of Glavis against Ballinger, and to the Ballinger scandal as a whole. Ballinger anl Glavis both testified at great length on that subject during that investiga- tion. The testimony of Ballinger was evasive, con- tradictory, and very unconvincing. But the testi- mony of Glavis was responsive, consistent, and persuasive to a unique degree. It also proved to the satisfaction of everybody who heard it, that Glavis was a young man of extraordinary powers of memory and of statement. During four days, he was cross ex- amined relevant to the contents of letters and other pa- 20 pers in the Interior Department, which he had not seen for months; and when that testimony was afterward compared with those letters and other papers, it was found that it did not contain any material misstatement or other error. The entire investigation showed that Ballinger was pitifully weak, if he was not willfully wicked. It also showed that Glavis had been a singularly faithful and efficient field agent of the General Land Office. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the facts which Glavis presented to President Taft, in August, 1909, in causing the investigation which resulted from those facts, were the means which did prevent the consummation of the Cunningham fraud, and did pre- serve to the Government and to the people of the United States, the many millions of dollars worth of public prop- erty of which the United States were about to be robbed by means of the Cunningham conspiracy, when Glavis exposed that conspiracy to President Taft. The Ballinger scandal was odious in many ways which are disclosed in the record of the investigation of the joint Congressional committee. Ballinger himself has escaped into obscurity, and the public is forgetting him. But Congress has recorded, and history will not forget, that when President Taft was trying to white- wash that scandal, he set his big foot down upon the good name of Louis R. Glavis, and afterward tried to justify that action by sending to Congress with a special mes- sage, a written opinion of the Attorney General of the United States, which derived its apparent significance from its apparent date; and which date was made ficti- tious, by the order of President Taft himself, for the ex- press purpose of giving that apparent significance to that written opinion. - ALBERT H. WALKER. Park Row Building, Manhattan, New York. August 20, 1912. PREFACE. This pamphlet is Number 2 of a series of historical sketches of the administration of President Taft, which I am writing and publishing. The first number of the series was published August 20, 1912, and attended to the three most noteworthy transactions of the President, during the first three months of his administration. Those transactions were the selection of the Taft cabi- net, and the Tariff Law of 1909, and the Glavis case. This pamphlet is devoted to what President Taft has done, and what he has omitted to do, relevant to enforc- ing the Sherman Law against industrial combinations. The third number of the series will be published late in September, and will attend to the actions and omissions of the President, in respect of enforcing the laws of the United States against interstate Railroad Companies. Early in October, the fourth part of the ser- ies will be published, and will attend to the Taft bill of 1911 to regulate commerce with Canada, and which bill was promoted by him under the name of “reciprocity.” This pamphlet brings its history down to July 1, 1912, that being the latest date to which the public records reach, and little or nothing relevant thereto having been done by the Taft administration since that date. Park Row Building, A. H. W. Manhattan, New York. September 11, 1912. SHERMAN LAW INDUSTRIAL CASES TRANSFERRED FROM ROOSEVELT TO TAFT. Seventeen cases which had been brought by the United States against industrial combinations for viola- tion of the Sherman Law, were pending when President Taft succeeded President Roosevelt on March 4, 1909. During the first three years and four months of the Taft administration, those seventeen cases had the following histories respectively: United States v. Metropolitan Meat Co. et al. This is an action in equity, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, in the United States Court for Hawaii, to stop the operation of alleged unlawful combinations in restraint of trade in beef and beef products. The Taft adminis- tration never did anything to prosecute this case. United States v. Allen dº Robinson, et al. This was an action in equity, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, in the United States Court for Hawaii, to stop the oper- ation of alleged unlawful combinations to restrain trade in lumber. This case was prosecuted by the Taft ad- ministration; but on March 30, 1911, it was decided against the United States. United States v. American Ice Co., et al. This is an indictment under Section 3 of the Sherman Law, in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, charging an agreement to restrain trade in ice. The Taft administra- tion never sought to have the case tried, and never did anything else relevant thereto. United States v. Chandler Ice dé Cold Storage Plant, et al. This was an indictment, in the United States Dis- trict Court for the Territory of Oklahoma, charging a violation of Section 3 of the Sherman Law by means of a combination to restrain trade in ice. The Taft admin- 2 istration never prosecuted the case, and it was dismissed by the court on April 10, 1911. United States v. Alfred M. Gloyd et al. This was an indictment, in the United States District Court for the Territory of Oklahoma, based on alleged violation of Section 3 of the Sherman Law, by a combination to re- strain trade in lumber. The Taft administration never prosecuted the case, and it was dismissed by the court. United States v. American Seating Co., et al. This is an action in equity, in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, brought under Sec- tion 4 of the Sherman Law, to stop the operation of an alleged unlawful combination in restraint of trade in school and church furniture. During the Roosevelt ad- ministration, a decree was entered granting a perpetual injunction against all the defendants, except one corpor- ation and three persons. The Taft administration never did anything to prosecute the case against those four de- fendants, and as to them the case is still pending. United States v. American Seating Co., et al. This is an indictment, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, based on alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law, by a combination in restraint of trade in school and church furniture. Prior to the beginning of the Taft administration, the case had been disposed of, except as against one of the de- fendants, namely, The E. H. Stafford Manufacturing Co. As to that defendant, the case then stood upon a plea of not guilty. But the Taft administration never brought the case on for trial, or did anything else about it. United States v. E. H. Stafford Mfg. Co. This is an- other indictment against the last mentioned defendant, in the United States District Court for the Northern Dis. trict of Illinois, charging another violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law, by engaging in a combination in restraint of trade in school and church furniture. The Taft administration never prosecuted this case. 3 United States v. One Hundred and Seventy-five Cases of Cigarettes. This is a proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, un- der Section 6 of the Sherman Law, which was instituted by the Roosevelt administration, to adjudicate a forfeit- ure to the United States of 175 cases of cigarettes, which were alleged to be the subject of a combination in re- straint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law. The Taft administration never prosecuted the case, or did anything to enforce the forfeiture of those cigarettes. iº United States v. Joseph Stiefvanter et al. This was an indictment in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which charged a combin- ation in restraint of trade in plumbers’ supplies in vio- lation of Section 1, of the Sherman Law. The case was dismissed on June 25, 1910. United States v. Charles L. Simmons et al. This was an indictment pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, charging violation of Section 1, of the Sherman Law, by a com- bination in restraint of trade in plumbers’ supplies. The Taft administration prosecuted this case to the extent of getting a plea of guilty on December 1, 1910, followed by fines aggregating $265. United States v. E. J. Ray et al. This is the name of each of two cases in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, upon two indictments against seventy-two laborers, charging combination and conspiracy in restraint of foreign trade, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law. On January 26, 1911, the Taft administration prosecuted these two cases, to the extent of bringing them on for trial, getting a ver- dict of guilty as to the three of the defendants, and se- curing the imposition of fines aggregating $110. There- upon however, an appeal was taken and the cases were 4 transferred to the United States Circuit Court of Ap- peals for the Fifth Circuit, where they are still pending. United States v. Union Pacific Coal Co., et al. This was an indictment in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, charging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law, by means of a conspiracy to re- strain trade in coal. The case had been tried and a ver- dict of guilty rendered, during the Roosevelt adminis- tration. In pursuance of that verdict, on March 29, 1909, fines aggregating $13,000 were imposed on the de- fendants. But the defendants appealed from that judg- ment, and secured a reversal thereof, in November 1909, by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. And in pursuance of that reversal, the case was dismissed on March 21, 1910. United States v. American Naval Stores Co., et al. This was an indictment in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia, charging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law, by a com- bination in restraint of trade in turpentine. The Taft administration prosecuted the case, by bringing it on for trial, and securing a verdict of guilty against five indi- vidual defendants on May 10, 1909. The court thereupon imposed fines on those defendants, aggregating $17,500, and sentenced two of the defendants to three months im- prisonment in jail. That judgment was afterwards af- firmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. But the Supreme Court granted to the defen- dants a writ of certiorari to take the case to that tri- bunal, where it is now pending, but where it will not be reached for argument until some time in 1913 or 1914. United States v. E. I. duPont deMemours Co. et al. This was an action in equity under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, pending in the United States Circuit, Court for the District of Delaware, and based upon al- leged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law by a 5 combination in restraint of trade in gun powder and other explosive substances. The Taft administration prosecuted this case successfully, and obtained on June 13, 1912, a final decree dissolving the combination. United States v. American Tobacco Co., et al. This was an action in equity brought under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, which was pend- ing on appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States, at the beginning of Taft’s administration, March 4, 1909. When it was about to be reached for argument, in Octo- ber 1909, Attorney General Wickersham moved the court to postpone the hearing until the following year, without stating any reason for that motion, further than to say that the reason was personal in its nature. That motion being granted, the case was argued in January 1910, but not having been decided prior to the death of Justice Brewer in March of that year, the case was re- stored to the docket for reargument at some future time. That future time was not reached until January 1911, and the case was not decided by the Supreme Court un- til May 29, 1911. That decision remanded the case to the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, for further proceedings to be taken in ac- cordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court. Dur- ing the next six months, such proceedings were taken in that tribunal, and a final decree dissolving the Amer- ican Tobacco Company was entered there on November 16, 1911. But that decree has not yet operated benefi- cially to the general public; and is not known to have done anybody any good. Though, contrary to the gen- eral opinion, it has established a real and even a stren- uous competitive condition between the corporations, which it caused to be created or reorganized from the materials of the corporation which it dissolved. That competitive condition will probably soon develop higher 6 prices for leaf tobacco, and lower prices for tobacco pro- ducts, than would otherwise prevail. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, et al. This was an action in equity, brought under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, which was pending in that tribunal and nearly ready for argument, at the beginning of Taft's administration. On November 20, 1909, that court rendered a decree dissolving the com- bination of more than thirty Standard Oil corporations, which had been effected, and for many years maintained, by means of all the stocks of those corporations being owned by the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. The defendants appealed from that decree to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that appeal was first argued in that tribunal in January 1910. But the case not having been decided prior to the death of Justice Brewer in March of that year, the case was re- stored to the docket for reargument at some future time. That future time was not reached until January 1911, and the case was not decided by the Supreme Court until May 15, 1911. That decision was an affirm- ance of the decree of dissolution which had been ren- dered by the Circuit Court. That dissolution was ef- fected by conveying to each of the stockholders of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, the same propor- tion of the shares of each subsidiary corporation, that the stock of that stockholder in the Standard Oil Com- pany of New Jersey, bore to the entire stock of that cor- poration. It was the theory of this dissolution that, thereafter, the subsidiary corporations would not be managed with unity of action, but would compete with each other, as if the stockholders in each of the sub- sidiary corporations were a different set of men from the stockholders in each of the other subsidiary corporations. But if the former unity of control of all the subsidiary 7 corporations by the Standard Oil Company of New Jer- sey, has been followed by mutual competition between them, that fact is not generally known nor generally be- lieved. Indeed, it is not generally believed that the dis- solution of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey has ever done anybody any good, except such speculators and other persons as have derived profits from the enor- mous increase in total market prices of the stocks of the subsidiary corporations, as compared with the market price before dissolution, of the stock of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. - SHERMAN LAW INDUSTRIAL CASEs. DURING THE FIRST TEN MONTHS OF TAFT’s ADMINISTRATION. During these ten months, the Taft administration did nothing relevant to the Sherman Law industrial cases which had been transferred from Roosevelt to Taft, ex- cept to observe the courts in which they were pending, proceed with them by dismissal or otherwise, or do noth- ing at all about them, respectively. And during those ten months, none of those courts did anything impor- tant about any of those cases; except to hear arguments in the Standard Oil case in April 1909, and decide that case in November of that year, upon a record which had been completed during the administration of President Roosevelt. During those ten months, the Taft administration did nothing toward beginning any new suit to enforce the Sherman Law against any industrial combination; ex- cept that the United States District Attorney for the Southern District of New York, on July 1, 1909, obtained an indictment against the American Sugar Refining Com- pany et al., and on December 7, 1909, obtained an indict- ment against the Albia Box & Paper Co., et al. No suc- 8 cess attended either of these indictments until after Jan- uary 1910; and no permanent success has ever attended the indictment against the American Sugar Refining Co., et al., though pleas of guilty were made in the Albia case in February 1910, and were followed by fines aggre- gating $57,000. It was in this negligent situation of affairs relevant to the enforcement of the Sherman Law against indus- trial combinations, that on January 7, 1910, I ventured to write to President Taft a letter, conveying to him much elaborate and carefuly collected information, to the effect that a particular industrial combination of great magnitude had been violating the Sherman Law all the time for some years, without being prosecuted for that violation. The last paragraph of that letter ran as follows: ‘‘I have written this letter to your Excellency in plain terms, because I believe you are entitled to receive the information I am conveying, and because I know you would rather read the naked truth than to bother with interpreting ambiguous phrases. It was always the pe- culiar misfortune of chief magistrates of great nations to be kept partly uninformed of important facts which were well known to many other men. This misfortune has partly arisen from fear of giving offense in high Quarters by plain statements. But I am not afraid of giving you any offense, because I know and you will be- lieve that my motives are such as spring from warm and entirely disinterested friendship.” On January 8, 1910, President Taft sent me an auto- graph reply to my letter of January 7, which reply was as follows: “My dear Mr. Walker: I have your letter of Jan- uary 7th and have referred it to the Attorney General. The pendency of the Tobacco Trust case in the Supreme Court, and the Standard Oil Trust case, make us slower 9 now, than we expect to be after the Court has disposed of those two all-embracing cases.” When I received the foregoing letter, I was disap- pointed, because it appeared to me to indicate serious presidential procrastination. And that procrastination appeared to me to be quite uncalled for; be- cause I knew that the facts in the American To- bacco case and the facts in the Standard Oil case, were such that there was no necessity for wait- ing for the Supreme Court decision in those cases, before beginning suits against other industrial combin- ations violative of the Sherman Law, such as the par- ticular combination which I had described in my letter of January 7, 1910, to the President. SHERMAN LAW INDUSTRIAL CASEs BEGUN BETWEEN JANUARY 8, 1910, AND MAY 29, 1911. It was during this time of nearly seventeen months, after writing to me his letter of January 8, 1910, that President Taft was waiting for the Standard Oil case and the American Tobacco case to be decided by the Su- preme Court, before proceeding to enforce the Sherman Law against industrial combinations as vigorously as he expected to do afterward. Nevertheless, during those seventeen months, the Taft administration did begin twenty prosecutions of industrial or commercial combin- ations for alleged violations of the Sherman Law. Those twenty cases were as follows, and they respectively had the following histories prior to July 1, 1912. United States v. John S. Steers et al. This was an indictment returned February 7, 1910, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Ken- tucky, which charged that the defendants who were com- monly called “Night Riders”, were guilty of restraining interstate trade in tobacco, by means of violence and in- 10 timidation, used to prevent its shipment by growers. The case was tried, and on April 16, 1910, a verdict of guilty was returned as to eight o' twelve defendants, and fines aggregating $3,500 were imposed upon them. That judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on December 5, 1911; but on May 11, 1912, President Taft remitted the fines, upon the pay- ment of costs by the defendants. United States v. National Packing Co., et al. This was an indictment returned March 2, 1910, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Il- linois, charging a combination to restrain trade in fresh meats. A demurrer to this indictment was sustained June 23, 1910, and the case was thus defeated. United States v. National Packing Co., et al. This was a suit in equity, brought under Section 4 of the Sherman Law March 21, 1910, in the United States Cir- cuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois, charging a combination in restraint of trade in fresh meats, and praying for a dissolution of the combination. In the fall of 1911, this suit was dismissed at the motion of the United States, in order to avoid all possible conflict with an indictment against the same defendants. United States v. Armour Packing Co., et al. This is an indictment which was returned in April, 1910, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, charging a combination to restrain trade in fresh meats. The defendants appeared and filed a de- murrer to the indictment, and that demurrer has not yet been decided. United States v. Imperial Window Glass Co., et al. This was an indictment returned April 17, 1910, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, charging a combination to restrain trade in window glass. On November 10, 1910, pleas of nolo contendere were entered, and fines aggregating $10,000 and costs were imposed and collected. 11 United States v. Southern Wholesale Grocers’ As- sociation. This was an action in equity, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, begun June 9, 1910, in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ala- bama, alleging a combination to restrain trade in gro- ceries. In pursuance of an agreement between counsel for the United States and counsel for the defendants, a decree was entered by the Court October 17, 1911, per- petually restraining the association, its officers and members, from doing any of the acts complained of. United States v. Chicago Butter dº Egg Board. This is an action in equity, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, begun June 13, 1910, in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Issue has been joined in the case, and some testimony has been taken therein, during the more than two years which have passed since the action was begun. United States v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., et al. This is an action in equity, under Section 4 of the Sher- man Law, which was begun July 22, 1910, in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland, charg- ing a combination to restrain trade in enameled ware, such as bath tubs and other sanitary apparatus. The Circuit Court decided the case in favor of the United States by a decree entered November 25, 1911. The de- fendants took an appeal from that decree to the Su- preme Court, in which tribunal the case is set for hear- ing in October, 1912. United States v. Frank Hayne, James A. Patten, et al. This is an indictment which was returned August 4, 1910, in the United States District Court for the South- ern District of New York, alleging a combination to re- strain trade in cotton by means of speculative manipu- lation of prices thereof. Demurrers were sustained as to some counts of the indictment, and overruled as to other counts, and thereupon the case was appealed by 12 the United States to the Supreme Court. It was argued in that tribunal in November, 1911, but was afterward restored to the docket for reargument, at some future time which has not yet been reached. United States v. Louis F. Swift, et al. This was an indictment returned in September, 1910, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Il- linois, against ten persons, charging a combination in restraint of trade in fresh meats and other provisions. The case was tried during three months, ending March 27, 1912, when the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. United States v. John Reardon dé Sons Co., et al. This was an indictment, returned in October, 1910, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A demurrer to the indictment was sus- tained on June 23, 1911, and the case of the Government was thus defeated. United States v. Purrington et al. This is in indict- ment returned September 14, 1910, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, charging a combination to restrain trade in paving bricks and blocks. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled November 9, 1911, and the case is still pend- ing. United States v. Horatio W. Heath, et al. This was an indictment, returned in October 1910, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained June 23, 1911, and the case was thus ended with the defeat of the United States. United States v. Ferdinand Sulzberger, et al. This was an indictment, returned in October 1910, in the |United States District Court for the District of Mass- achusetts. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained on June 23, 1911, and the case was thus ended in favor of the defendants. 13 United States v. American Sugar Refining Co., et al. This is an action in equity, begun November 28, 1910, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, charging alleged violation of the Sherman Law by the American Sugar Refining Com- pany, and praying for its dissolution. Issues were joined in the case and some testimony has been taken therein; but much remains to be done before the case can be argued to the court. United States v. Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co., et al. This was an indictment returned in the United States District Court for the District of Michigan on Decem- ber 6, 1910, against the same defendants, and charging the same violations of the Sherman Law, that were in- volved in the case in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. This criminal case in Michigan was tried during six weeks, ending March 14, 1912, with a disagreement of the Jury. United States v. General Electric Co., et al. This was an action in equity, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, begun March 3, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio, charging a com- bination to restrain trade in incandescent electric lamps. A final decree was agreed upon between counsel for the United States and counsel for the defendants, and was approved and entered by the Court, October 12, 1911. United States v. William C. Geer et al. This is an indictment, returned April 28, 1911, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging a combination to restrain trade in paper board. A demurrer to the indictment was filed, and has not yet been decided. United States v. Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association. This is an action in equity, begun May 19, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, charging a combi- 14 nation to restrain trade in lumber. Issues have been joined in the case, and the taking of testimony has been nearly completed therein. United States v. Isaac Whiting et al. This is the title of two indictments, returned May 26, 1911, in the United States District Court for the District of Mass- achusetts, charging a combination to restrain trade in milk throughout the New England states. Demurrers have been filed to the indictments, but have not yet been decided. Only five of the foregoing twenty cases have resulted in enforcing the Sherman Law against anybody. These are the “Night Riders” case in Kentucky, wherein fines aggregating $3,500 were imposed by the Court and after- ward remitted by the President; and the Window Glass case in Pennsylvania, wherein fines aggregating $10,000 were imposed and collected; and the Standard Sani- tary case in Maryland, wherein a decree was entered against the defendants, but appealed to the Supreme Court; and the wholesale Grocers case in Alabama, wherein the defendants consented to a decree, restrain- ing them from violating the Sherman Law any more; and the Electric Lamp case in Ohio, wherein the defend- ants consented to a decree dissolving their combination. SHERMAN LAW INDUSTRIAL CASEs BEGUN BETweFN MAY 29, 1911 AND JULY 1, 1912. During the more than thirteen months after the de- cision of the Supreme Court in the Standard Oil case and the American Tobacco case, and before July 1, 1912; the Taft administration began twenty-three prosecu- tions or groups of prosecutions of industrial or com- mercial combinations for alleged violations of the Sher- 15 man Law. Those twenty-three litigations were as fol- lows, and they respectively had the following histories prior to July 1, 1912. United States v. Periodical Publishing Co. This was an action in equity, begun in June 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, against the members of the Magazine Combination. Issues have been joined in the case, and the evidence on those issues has been taken; but the case has not been submitted to the Court for adjudication. - - United States v. Lumber Secretaries’ Bureau of In- formation, et al. This is an indictment returned June 23, 1911, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, charging a combination in restraint of trade in lumber. A demurrer to the indictment has been filed, but has not been decided. United States v. E. E. Jackson, Jr., et al. These were nine indictments, returned June 29, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, against nine groups of defendants, of each of which E. E. Jackson, Jr. was one, and charging viola- tions of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Law, by nine separate combinations in restraint of trade in wire and so forth. All the defendants entered pleas of molo contendere, and each was fined $1,000 or more, aggre- gating $128,700, imposed upon more than eighty de- fendants. United States v. Jay B. Pearce, et al. This was an indictment, returned June 19, 1911, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, charg- ing violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law by a com- bination in restraint of trade in wall paper. The case was tried in May 1912, and resulted in a verdict of not guilty on May 24, 1912. - j 16 United States v. Edward E. Hartwick, et al. This is an action in equity, begun August 31, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Michi- gan, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, charging a combination in restraint of trade in lumber. Issues have been joined, and testimony is now being taken but has not been completed. United States v. Standard Wood Co., et al. This was an action in equity, begun in September, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, charg— ing a combination to monopolize trade in kindling wood, contrary to Section 2 of that statute. In default of an answer, a decree was entered against the defendants, on March 11, 1912. United States v. Hunter Milling Co., et al. This is an indictment, returned September 10, 1911, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Okla- homa, charging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law. A demurrer was filed and was argued March 4, 1912, but has not yet been decided. United States v. S. W. Winslow, et al. This is the title of each of two indictments, returned September 19, 1911, in the United States District Court for the Dis- trict of Massachusetts, charging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Law, by combinations and conspir- acies in restraint and monopolization of trade in shoe machinery. Demurrers were filed to the two indictments, and were sustained in part and overruled in part; and thereupon the cases were taken by appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, where they are now pending. United States v. Colorado dº Wyoming Lumber Deal- ers’ Association, et al. This is an action in equity, filed September 25, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Colorado, based on Section 4 of the Sherman Law, and charging a combination to restrain 17 trade in lumber. Issues have been joined in the case. and testimony is now being taken therein, but has not been completed. United States v. Willard G. Hollis, et al. This is an action in equity, begun in October, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, charg— ing conspiracy and combination in restraint of trade in lumber, contrary to Section 1 of the Sherman Law. Is- sues have been joined in the case, and testimony is now being taken therein. United States v. United States Steel Corporation, et al. This is an action in equity, begun October 27, 1911, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against thirty-seven corporations and twen- ty-three persons, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, for alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of that statute, by means of numerous combinations and combinations of combinations, in restraint of trade in iron, steel, coal and so forth. The defendants filed answers early in 1912, and the complainant has begun to take testimony in sup- port of the complaint. United States v. National Cash Register Co., et al. This is an action in equity, begun December 4, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern Dis- trict of Ohio, under Section 4 of the Sherman Law, al- leging conspiracy and combination in monopoly of trade in cash registers and other registering devices. The prosecution of this case has not proceeded far. * United States v. United Shoe Machinery Co., et al. This is an action in equity, begun December 12, 1911, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade in shoe machinery. But little progress has yet been made in the prosecution of this case. United States v. Pacific Coast Plumbing Supply Asso- ciation, et al. This is an action in equity, begun Decem- 18 ber 18, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of California, alleging combinations, conspiracies and boycotting in restraint of trade in plumbing supplies. A preliminary injunction was or- dered on January 6, 1912, to restrain the defendants from thereafter committing any such acts as those complained of. United States v. Keystone Watch Case Co., et al. This is an action in equity, begun December 20, 1911, in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging combinations and conspiracies to monopolize trade in filled watch cases and in Howard watches. Issues have been joined and some testimony has been taken in the case. - United States v. American Naval Stores Co., et al. This is an action in equity, begun January 8, 1912, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, alleging a combination and conspiracy in re- straint of trade in turpentine and resin. The defendants filed a demurrer, but that demurrer has not been decided. United States v. New Departure Manufacturing Co., et al. This is an indictment, returned January 8, 1912, in the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of New York, charging a combination and con- spiracy to monopolize trade in coaster-brakes for bi- cycles. A plea in abatement was filed by the defendants, but was overruled April 2, 1912. United States v. North Pacific Wharves dº Trading Co., et al. This was an indictment, returned February 12, 1912, in the United States District Court for the First Division of the District of Alaska, charging a conspiracy to monopolize the coal business in Skagway, Alaska, in violation of Section 3 of the Sherman Law. The defend- ants filed a demurrer to the indictment and that demur- rer was sustained, May 3, 1912. 19 United States v. John H. Patterson, et al. This is an indictment, returned February 12, 1912, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, against thirty officials and employees of the National Cash Register Company, for participation in a conspir- acy to restrain trade in cash registers, and to thereby monopolize that trade. The defendants filed a demur- rer, but that demurrer was overruled June 26, 1912. United States v. Julius F. Miller, et al. This is an in- dictment, returned April 2, 1912, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, charging a combination and conspiracy to restrain trade in charcoal. The defendants filed a demurrer, but that demurrer has not been decided. United States v. International Harvester Co., et al. This is an action in equity, begun April 30, 1912, in the United States District Court for the District of Minne- sota, alleging a combination to restrain and monopolize trade in harvesters and other agricultural machinery and implements, and in binding twine. Little or no progress has been made in the prosecution of this case. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America. This is an action in equity, begun May 16, 1912, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Penn- sylvania, charging a combination to restrain and mo- mopolize trade in aluminum and aluminum wares. A con- sent decree granting substantially the relief prayed for in the case, was entered by the Court on June 7, 1912. United States v. Herman Sielcken, et al. This is an action is equity, begun May 18, 1912, in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging a combination in restraint of international com- merce in coffee, consisting of an alleged conspiracy to reduce the exports of coffee from the State of San Paulo, Brazil to the United States. A motion for a preliminary injunction in this unique case was denied by the Court. 20 Only four of the foregoing twenty-three cases or classes of cases have resulted in enforcing the Sherman Law against anybody, or in punishing anybody for its violation. The most important of these were the “Wire Pool” cases, but even in those cases the defendants were not restrained from doing anything in the future, and the only punishment inflicted on them for the past, was a compulsory payment to the United States of only $128,- 700, out of several millions of dollars which they had derived, from those violations of the Sherman Law for which they were nominally being punished. The other three of the twenty-three cases in which something af- firmative was accomplished against the defendants, were the Standard Wood case, in New York, the Plumbing case in California, and the Aluminum case in Pennsylvania. But nothing was accomplished in either of those three cases, except to enjoin the future continuance of the re- straints of trade upon which they were based. The entire work of the Taft administration, relevant to Sherman Law industrial cases, has been fairly stated and reviewed in this pamphlet. That work was confined to seventeen cases transferred from Roosevelt to Taft, and two cases which were begun during the first ten months of Taft’s administration, and twenty prosecu- tions which were started during its next seventeen months, and twenty-three prosecutions or groups of prosecutions, which were commenced during the next thirteen months of that administration, ending July 1, 1912. This aggregate of sixty-two Sherman Law prosecu- tions, includes eight cases in which no action was ever taken by the Taft administration; and ten others in which such action as was taken, resulted in final failure; and thirty-two others in which no affirmative result has ever been reached, or is likely to be reached during the 21 Taft administration; and only twelve, in which anything final was accomplished. The only cases, among the sixty-two, which ever de- veloped any hope of general public benefit, are the Stan- dard Oil case, the American Tobacco case, the DuPont Powder case, the Electric Lamp case, the Standard San- itary case, the Wire Pool cases, the Sugar Refining case, the Shoe Machinery case, the United States Steel case, the Cash Register case, and the International Harvester case. Moreover, the contributions of the Taft adminis- tration to the first three of those eleven cases, consisted only in reaping some results from the long previous work of the Roosevelt administration. Only the next three of the eleven cases have ever been prosecuted so far as to reach even a final Circuit Court Judgment, and the first of those judgments was reached by consent of the defendants, while the second is the subject of a pending appeal in the Supreme Court. And the judg- ments in the Wire Pool cases, were obtained through pleas of nolo contendere, and amounted only to collect- ing from the defendants a small percentage of the plun- der which they had derived from their violations of th Sherman Law. -º Having now ascertained and stated what the Taft administration has done, and has omitted to do, relevant to enforcing the Sherman Law against industrial com- binations, in all the Sherman Law industrial cases which have been pending during that administration; it is now in order to ascertain and state, as far as practicable, what combinations, violative of the Sherman Law, have been doing business in the United States since President Taft’s inauguration, without being prosecuted by him or under his authority. It is impossible for any private in- vestigator to make any such ascertainment complete. But it is possible to ascertain and state the names of the great corporations which are ‘‘holding companies,” own- 22 ing and controlling the stocks and assets of subsidiary in- dustrial corporations, which if not thus held and con- trolled, would be competitors of each other. It is true, that a restraint of mutual competition between subsi- diary companies, by means of one holding company con- trolling them all, does not necessarily result in restraint of trade or commerce in the commodities made and sold, or purchased and sold, by those subsidiary companies. But such restraint of trade or commerce is such a nat- ural and almost universal result of such restraint of competition, that a critical investigator is fully justified in assuming, that a list of such holding companies will include few, if any, in which the inevitable restraint of competition does not also involve restraint of trade or commerce. And where the subsidiary corporations of such a holding company, are engaged in interstate or in- ternational trade or commerce; the presumption that their confederation constitutes, or at least causes, a vio- lation of Section 1 of the Sherman Law, is strong enough to fully justify a working hypothesis to that effect. Proceeding upon that working hypothesis, it is neces- sary to state at this place, the existence of more than a thousand holding companies in the United States, which respectively combine the operations of nearly ten thous- and industrial corporations, being an average of nearly ten subsidiary industrial corporations, confederated to- gether under the control of each of the one thousand holding companies. During the Taft administration, actions have been prosecuted for violation of the Sherman Law against a few of those holding company organizations, including the United States Steel Corporation, the American To- bacco Company, the Standard Oil Company of New Jer- sey, the American Sugar Refining Company and the In- ternational Harvester Company. But more than a thous- and other holding company organizations of the same 23 general character and mode of operation, have been en- tirely undisturbed, in their regular business of violating the Sherman Law, throughout the administration of President Taft. The following is a list of fifty of those undisturbed holding companies, which list includes their names, their capitalization, and an approximation of the number of subsidiary corporations controlled by them, respectively. NAME OF HOLDING COMPANY CAPITALIZATION SUBSIDIARIES Amalgamated Copper Co. 155 millions 12 American Smelting & Refining Co. 100 { % 14 American Can Co. 88 { { 73 American Woolen Co. 8() { { 28 Central Leather Co. 80 é & 14 Corn Products Refining Co. 8() { % 7 United Copper Co. 80 ‘‘ 2 United States Rubber Co. 75 { { 14 United States Refining & Mining Co. 75 ( & 12 Pittsburg Coal Co. 64 { % 16 American Car & Foundry Co. 6() “‘ 19 Lackawanna Steel Co. 60 { % 3 Virginia–Carolina Chemical Co. 58 { { 6 National Biscuit Co. 55 { { 5 Republic Iron & Steel Co. 55 “ 57 Allis-Chalmers Co. 5() & 4 6 American Locomotive Co. 50 { % 13 Crucible Steel Co. of America 50 { % 15 National Lead Co. 50 { % 19 Independent Fertilizer Co. 50 “ 4 Pennsylvania Steel Co. of N. J. 50 “ 7 International Paper Co. 45 ‘‘ 6 Copper Range Consolidated Co. 40 “ S Intercontinental Rubber Co. 40 & & 6 International Steam Pump Co. 39 ( & 11 American Hide & Leather Co. 35 { { 25 American Cotton Oil Co. 35 & 4 17 Eastman Kodak Co. 35 & 4 & American Linseed Co. 33 4 & 46 Distillers’ Securities Corp. 32 - 7 General Asphalt Co. 31 & 4 69 Bethlehem Steel Corp. 30 & 4 8 Great Western Sugar Co. 30 “ 8 International Salt Co. 30 “ 4 24 NAME OF HOLDING COMPANY CAPITALIZATION SUBSIDIARIES National Enamel & Stamping Co. 30 millions 6 U. S. Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Co. 30 ‘‘ 15 Singer Mfg. Co. 30 6 : 4 Railway Steel Spring Co. 27 & 4 11 Union Bag & Paper Co. 27 8 General Chemical Co. 25 { { 13 Pressed Steel Car Co. 25 ‘‘ 8 United Fruit Co. 25 { { 12 United Lead Co. 25 { { 20 International Nickel Co. 24 { { 7 American Writing Paper Co. 22 4 ( 32 American Beet Sugar Co. 20 { { 3 Union Typewriter Co. 20 £ 6 7 International Silver Co. 20 21 Royal Baking Powder Co. 20 4 & 6 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. 20 4 & 11 The foregoing fifty holding companies have a capi- talization of more than twenty-three hundred million dollars, and have more than seven hundred subsidiary corporations; the average number of their subsidiary corporations being more than fifteen, and their average capitalization being more than forty-six million dollars: I can furnish a list of more than mine hundred and fifty other industrial holding companies which have an aggregate capitalization of more than five thousand mil- lion dollars, with more than six thousand subsidiary cor- porations, but I will not expand this pamphlet enough to make it include that list; though I do not doubt that most of those holding companies and subsidiary corpora- tions are regularly engaged in violating the Sherman Law. But most of them are less extensively thus en- gaged, than is each of the fifty holding companies, with their subsidiary corporations, which are specified in the foregoing list. I am writing this historical sketch of the adminis- tration of President Taft, relevant to the Sherman Law, for the purpose of imparting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on that subject, to such of my 25 fellow citizens as may do me the honor to read this pamphlet, either now or in future times. And I hereby challenge President Taft, Attorney General Wickersham, and every other man, to specify any error which he may claim to exist in any of these pages. But the historical sketch which I have thus written, and am now about to print and publish, presents to the people a picture which has no resemblance to what Pres- ident Taft said upon the same subject, in his speech of August 1, 1912, accepting his nomination for the Presi- dency. He devoted six paragraphs of that speech to the Sherman Law, and that one of those paragraphs which purported to comprehensively state what his administra- tion had done toward enforcing that statute was as fol- lows: ‘‘I think I may affirm without contradiction, that the prosecution of all persons reported to the Department of Justice to have violated the antitrust law, has been car- ried on in this administration without fear or favor; and that everyone who has violated it, no matter how prom- inent or how great his influence, has been brought before the bar of the court, either in civil or criminal suit, to answer the charge.” When President Taft wrote that paragraph into his speech of acceptance his character had radically changed from what it was when he was a judge; but when he read that speech to Senator Root and the other members of the notification committee, it must have been difficult for him to avoid a blush, and for everybody who heard it, to avoid a gasp. There is one substantive section of the Sherman Law, which the administration of President Taft has never made the slightest effort to enforce against anybody. That is Section 6, which is as follows:— ‘‘Sec. 6. Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and 26 being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure and condemnation of prop- erty imported into the United States contrary to law.” This Section 6, originated with a very great constitu- tional lawyer, Senator Edmunds of Vermont, the chair- man of the Judiciary Committee of the United States Sen- ate, when the bill which afterward became the Sherman Law, was being framed by that Committee in the exact words in which it was passed by both houses of Congress, and approved by President Harrison. There is no reason whatever upon which to base any denial or even any doubt of the constitutionality of that section. The only objection which anybody can make to that section would have to be based upon the fact that if enforced, it would work most effectively to divert men and corporations from violating Section 1 of the statute. President Taft has understood that section for many years, for he wrote about it when he was a judge, delivering the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the case of the United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., et al. 85 Fed. Rep. 301, 1898; and what he there wrote about it, was exactly as follows: “The sixth section of the Anti-Trust Act, after pro- viding that property owned and in transportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country, under a contract inhibited by the act “shall be forfeited to the United States’’, continues ‘‘and may be seized and con- demned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure and condemnation of property im- ported into the United States contrary to law”. This requires a like procedure to that prescribed in sections 3309-3391, Rev. St., and involves a trial by jury.” 27 On February 24, 1911, Attorney General Wickersham wrote a letter to me, the only permanently important part of which was as follows: “The forfeiture section (Sec. 6) of the Sherman act has never been before the Supreme Court, and in view of the trend of decisions in that court, I have great doubt whether they will sustain it. For that reason I have hesi- tated to resort to it when the ordinary processes of a court of equity were adequate to accomplish a purpose in view. No doubt resort will have to be made to that sec- tion at some time.’’ This letter from Attorney General Wickersham to myself, implies that he did not feel bound to do any- thing toward enforcing Section 6 of the Sherman Law, though he entertained the opinion that resort would have to be made to that section at some future time; which, being interpreted, appears to mean that it was the policy of the Taft administration, relevant to the Sherman Law, to enforce or not enforce, its various sections, according to circumstances, as circumstances might from time to time arise. The doubt expressed by the Attorney Gen- eral, that the Supreme Court would sustain Section 6 of that statute, has no known foundation, and is inconsist- ent with the high authority of the author of the section, and is also inconsistent with the fact that similar statutes relevant to the forfeiture, seizure and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law, have been in force and enforced throughout the history of our nation, and have never been held to be uncon- stitutional or otherwise invalid. When William H. Taft took the presidential oath of office, he did solemnly swear to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States; and he knew, or at least ought to have known, that Section 3 of Article II of the Constitution of the United States, expressly provides that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’’ 28 This pamphlet shows, beyond all possibility of de- nial or doubt, that President Taft has not taken care that the Sherman Law be faithfully executed; and that on the contrary, he has not done anything toward exe- cuting any section of that law against more than five per cent of its violators, and has not done anything what- ever toward executing Section 6 of that law, against even one of the thousands of corporations which have incurred the forfeitures prescribed by that section. The historical fact is, and is undeniable, that Presi- dent Taft, in order to induce the common people to vote for his reelection, stated, in his acceptance speech of August 1, 1912, that everyone who has violated the Sher- man Law, no matter how prominent or how great his in- fluence, has been brought before the bar of the Court, either in civil or criminal suit, to answer the charge. And the fact is equally undeniable, that President Taft, in order to induce the great industrial corporations to support him for reelection, has never endeavored to execute the full force of the Sherman Law against even one of them, and has never taken a single step toward enforcing any portion of that law, against more than one-twentieth of their number. Park Row Building, ALBERT H. WALKER. Manhattan, New York, September 11, 1912. POSTSCRIPT. The foregoing pages are devoted to destructive criti- cism. Readers may properly expect the critic to add to his work, by stating exactly how the Sherman Law might have been effectively executed during the adminis- tration of President Taft. I reply that that adminis- tration could have obtained from Federal Grand Juries, five hundred indictments, for violations of Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Sherman Law; and ought to have begun a thousand actions in equity, under Section 4, of that stat- tite; and ought to have prosecuted its Section 6, by pro- ceedings to forfeit, to the United States, the property outlawed by that Section, in five hundred cases more. Attorney General Wickersham could have done all that work, with the help of the eighty United States District Attorneys who are constantly subject to his orders, and with the special assistance of a few able and earnest lawyers, devoting their whole time to Sherman Law cases. Congress would have appropriated all the money President Taft would ask for, to enable the Attorney General to pay whatever expenses would be caused by such really earnest work. But President Taft never asked for any such appropriation; and he never engaged in any really strenuous campaign to enforce the Sherman Law against its violators. No law can be truly said to have failed until it has been tried. And the Sherman Law was never really tried, by the administration of President Taft. A. H. W. ¿ §§$%; ?ķ%; ¿% º §§§ ; º： §§ ¿$）; ！！ }！§§ #: : § § # t; ** * §§ !º: § ¿şčķā:::：：: ¿ ț¢.žižģ * ;&# -§§§§§ Ģ################-º ț¢ții????:?& ×}ț#$$$ §§§§§ ¿?¿?- ș##################### *.*¿¿.****** * * * · * * * * ##### * «4 §§ și::::: -* : » ##-#！***! ::::::：:-�.-…:... • $$$$$$$$$$$? **ş， & ***\; ; *******...*** #: # jº Iº. ** §§§）