terest of the laboring man, but furthermore in the interests of all of us as American citizens; for, gentlemen, the bonds that unite all good American citizens are stronger by far than the differences, which I think you accentuate altogether too much, between the men who do one kind of labor and the men who do another. As for immigrants, we cannot have too many of the right kind; and we should have none at all of the wrong kind; and they are of the right kind if we can be fairly sure that their children and grandchildren can meet on terms of equality our children and grandchildren, so as to try to be decent citizens together and to work together for the uplifting of the Republic.

Now a word as to the petitioning of employees to Congress. That stands in no shape or way on a par with the petitioning of men not employed by the Government. I cannot have and will not have when I can prevent it men who are concerned in the administration of Government affairs going to Congress and asking for increased pay, without the permission of the heads of the Departments. Their business is to come through the heads of Departments. This applies to postmasters, to army and navy officers, to clerks in the Government departments, to laborers; it applies to each and all, and must apply, as a matter of simple discipline.

WAGES, THE DOLLAR LEFT OVER.

Out of our 85,000,000 of population, 35,000,000 are wage earners. If they should receive the compensation of $1 per day, the money thus earned would add to the daily circulation of our country $35,000,000. If, by reason of protective legislation, they should receive $2 per day, then we have $70,000,000 in circulation instead of $35,000,000, and a like ratio of increase in wages will increase the amount of money placed daily in circulation, for money is the basis upon which all wealth is accumulated. The margin of each day's business is the possibility of gain. The greater the volume the greater the possibility of a margin. Truly, Wendell Phillips uttered something worthy of more than passing notice when he said: "It is the dollar left on Saturday evening, after all the bills are paid, that means education, independence, selfrespect, manhood. It increases the value of every acre nearby, fills the town with dwellings, opens public libraries and crowds them, dots the continent with cities and cobwebs it with railways. The one remaining dollar insures progress and guarantees millions to its owner."

SMITTEN WITH THE LOVE OF PEACE.

(San Francisco, May 1, 1892, Chamber Commerce Reception.) We will pursue the paths of peace; we are not a warlike nation; all our instincts, all our history is in the lines of peace. Only intolerable aggression, only the peril of our institutions of the flag-can thoroughly arouse us. With capability for war on land and on sea unexcelled by any nation in the world, we are smitten with the love of peace. We would promote the peace of this hemisphere by placing judiciously some large guns about the Golden Gate-simply for saluting purposes, and yet they should be of the best modern type.— Benjamin Harrison.

IMMIGRATION.

(From President McKinley's Letter of Acceptance.) "While we adhere to the public policy under which our country has received great bodies of honest, industrious citizens, who have added to the wealth, progress and power of the country, and while we welcome to our shores the welldisposed and industrious immigrant, who contributes by his energy and intelligence to the cause of free government. want no immigrants who do not seek our shores to bec citizens."

Anti-Trust Proceedings.

Speech of Hon. James E. Watson, of Indiana, in House of Representatives, June 27, 1906.

Mr. Watson: Mr. Chairman, I desire to speak of the beef-trust proceedings. In general interest these proceedings are of the most importance. They were concerned with obtaining for the people an article of prime necessity at a reasonable price. The proceedings were begun by bill in equity, the object being to have the defendants, Swift & Co., Armour & Co., and a number of corporations, firms, and individuals, restrained by order of the court from continuing their illegal combination.

The following characterization of the means used by the defendants in carrying out and making effective their alleged unlawful practices is found in the Attorney-General's argument in the Supreme Court:

Controlling 60 per cent of the fresh-meat industry of this country, they sit down in their packing houses and counting rooms, and, with the aid of the telegraph and telephone, through the instrumentality of countless agents and attorneys spread throughout the country, clothing their transactions and scattering their misconduct by ciphers and secret codes, lower and raise prices at will, and when lowered or raised fix and maintain absolutely the price of every pound of one of the great necessities of life as it comes to our households.

In the bill it was alleged, in effect, that the defendants by means of an illegal combination were perpetrating fraud on all the people by exercising their power to unduly raise the price of dressed beef; that they were oppressing and grievously injuring the farmer by forcing him to sell his live stock at prices unprofitable to him; by issuing instructions to their agents not to compete in bidding after prices had been unduly bid up at various points and the owners of live stock had been induced to make large shipments to those points, and that independent packers were being forced to the wall by the lowering of prices where competition was keen, the losses there being recouped by arbitrarily raising prices where the field had been conquered.

These statements have never been denied in court by the packers. They refused to file a sworn answer to the bill after the lower court had overruled points of law raised by demurrer and appeal to the Supreme Court on those questions and after an injunction had issued against them in that court. They were represented by able counsel and the Government by the AttorneyGeneral.

Twenty-three days after the argument was concluded the court unanimously sustained the Government's contentions, and the defendants were directed to cease their unlawful practices.

Thereafter it came to the Attorney-General's attention that the mandate of the court was not being obeyed. An investigation was ordered, the evidence collected. It was placed before the Federal grand jury, and after a patient and a fair examination an indictment was presented at Chicago charging Armour & Co., Swift, and a number of individuals and corporations engaged in the packing business with violations of the anti-trust law.

In so

Meantime the Bureau of Corporations had been making an investigation, by direction of the House of Representatives, contained in the so-called "Martin resolution," into "the unusually large margins between the price of beef cattle and the selling price of fresh beef." The Commissioner of Corporations made the investigation and a report, which was published. doing he was furnished information by packers and was given access to their books, except that no information was given to him as to the existence of rebates, the affairs of the National Packing Company, or the results of the selling and shipping business. He summoned no witnesses by subpoena or otherwise, and at the argument it was admitted that he made no promises of immunity.

The packers, although they plead not guilty, were strangely ат (as they had been in the proceeding by a bill in equity)

66

In

to any hearing upon the merits. They filed pleas attacking the constitution of the grand jury, the jurisdiction of the court, and demurrers to the indictments, which were severally overruled. Then they filed what have been called "immunity pleas." other words, they claimed that they had received a pardon by virtue of the provision of law which gave to them all the immunities conferred by the act of 1893, amending the interstate commerce act, which amendment applied to all witnesses summoned in pursuance of the law under which the proceedings were undertaken.

They contended that although they had not been subjected to testimonial compulsion—that is, brought before the Commissioner by subpœna and placed under oath—and had not furnished any incriminating evidence, and although the Department of Justice had not used any of the evidence collected by the Commissioner of Corporations, yet they acted under compulsion in law, because the Commissioner had been directed to investigate them and had authority, under the foregoing law, to compel them to testify and produce documentary evidence.

The "immunity pleas" were sustained as to the individual packers, and they were discharged. The pleas were overruled as to the defendant corporations on the authority of very recent decisions by the Supreme Court in the Paper Trust and Tobacco Trust cases hereafter noticed.

The Government also brought suits against several packing companies of Kansas City, the Burlington Railroad Company, and two individual defendants for making and accepting rebates. The outcome of the litigation was the imposition of a fine of $15,000 each against the packing and railroad companies and $6,000 and $4,000, together with imprisonment for four and three months, respectively.

The Paper Trust Case.

This was a bill in equity against the General Paper Company and some two score independent paper manufacturing companies, located in the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan, where they manufactured substantially the sole supply of news print and fiber paper for the district west of Chicago and east of the Rocky Mountains. The defendants raised, in the lower court, some very important questions relative to the rights of witnesses under the constitutional provision that "no person * * * * shall be compelled * * * to be a witness against himself."

The point and force of the decision of these questions will be stated in the reference to the Tobacco Trust case, next succeeding, for these cases were argued together and the latter contains all the important points decided in this.

The Supreme Court overruled the defendants' contentions. This decision practically disposed of the Paper Trust's defense, for there was none on the merits, and it submitted without further proceedings. The trust is now dissolved; the benefits of free competition are being received, and it is reported, on reliable authority, that news print and fiber paper are now being supplied to the consumer at the substantial reduction of 30 per

cent.

The Tobacco Trust Cases.

These grew out of an investigation by a Federal grand jury, sitting for the southern district of New York, of the American Tobacco Company and the MacAndrews & Forbes Company. Witnesses were summoned to testify to their knowledge of any facts tending to show that these companies were violating the antitrust laws. Subpoena duces tecum were served upon officers of each company, directing them to produce papers and other documentary evidence belonging to the corporations, and those officers refused. They were adjudged in contempt of court, and they appealed to the Supreme Court. The questions taken to the Supreme Court and decided in favor of the Government were:

First. That a corporation which could not testify, or as a witness produce papers, is not within the terms of the immunity act of 1903, which is in almost the exact language of the immunity act under which the packers claimed immunity.

Second. That a corporation engaged in interstate commerce is not entitled to withhold its books and papers from the scrutiny of the properly authorized officers of the Federal Government, and that the fifth amendment of the Constitution does not grant to such a corporation the right which an individual would have to withhold the same evidence upon the ground that it might tend to incriminate him.

The investigation was again taken up and resulted, on June 18, 1906, in the finding of an indictment against the MacAndrews & Forbes Company and Karl Jungbluth, its president, and against the J. S. Young Company and Howard E. Young, its president, charging them with violating section 1 of the Sherman antitrust law by engaging in a combination in restraint of the trade in licorice paste, that being an indispensable ingredient in the manufacture of plug tobacco and some kinds of smoking tobacco, cigars, and snuff. This trade was restrained in the usual way that is to say, competition was destroyed, arbitrary prices were fixed, the volume of business was apportioned, and terms of sale and discounts were made uniform. A feature of the combination was that the MacAndrews & Forbes Company, in the division of customers, was allotted the trade with the tobacco manufacturers who were members of the so-called "tobacco trust," while the J. S. Young Company was given the independent trade, the latter company having by its advertisements made special claims for recognition by the independent trade before the date of the combination in question.

en

This indictment also charged the same defendants with gaging in a conspiracy in restraint of the same trade, and attempting to monopolize that trade ( Sec. 2 of the act), in and by the acts specified in connection with the charge of engaging in a combination. This case will be brought to trial at the earliest possible moment.

The Drug Trust.

May 9, 1906, suit for an injunction was filed against the drug trust. The principal parties defendant are the Proprietary Association of America, the National Wholesale Druggists' Association, and the National Association of Retail Druggists.

The bill charged, in substance, that these associations, their officers, delegates, and members are all engaged in the business. or manufacturing, buying, and selling patent medicines, drugs, and proprietary articles throughout the United States; that they have entered into a conspiracy to arbitrarily fix and regulate the prices at which such articles shall be sold to the consumer, and that they have established rules and regulations to enforce such an unlawful agreement by restricting the purchase and sale of such commodities to those members of the several associations who shall live up to and observe the rules and regulations thus arbitrarily prescribed by the respective associations.

The ultimate object of the alleged conspiracy is to fix the prices which shall be observed by the retail druggists in selling to the consumer the various commodities manufactured by the several members of the Proprietary Association. The plan by which such object is effected is, in brief, as follows:

No retail druggist can obtain goods from a wholesale druggist or the manufacturer of a proprietary medicine unless such retail druggist becomes a member of the National Association of Retail Druggists, and in order to become such member he must. agree to observe the established price at which such proprietary medicines shall be sold to the consumer. If he cuts prices, he is blacklisted and is unable to obtain from any manufacturer or any wholesale druggist, who is a member of the association,, eny of their medicines.

In a case brought by a Philadelphia druggist under the Federal ti-trust act the plaintiff obtained a substantial victory. For eral months prior to the trial of this case the Department of tice had been engaged in the investigation of the conspiracy, the Attorney-General, having reached the conclusion that

the combination is one prohibited by the terms of the Sherman anti-trust act, has directed the district-attorney for the district of Indiana to file this bill. An injunction is prayed prohibiting these associations from acting in concert for the purpose of maintaining prices and the individuals, firms, and corporations who are members of the respective associations from acting together for the purpose of maintaining uniform prices to the consumers throughout the United States.

The Elevator Trust.

March 7, 1906, suit was brought against some thirty companies manufacturing passenger elevators for buildings, the bill alleging an illegal combination which had obtained a practical monopoly in the manufacture and sale of elevators.

The Government's case was complete; the defendants have admitted their guilt and have dissolved their combination.

Coal Investigation.

The Attorney-General has recently appointed special counsel to make a full and complete investigation into the alleged combination of railroads and coal operators in the anthracite and bituminous coal regions, and the investigation is now proceeding. It promises to be one of the most important steps taken by the Government to break up combinations that are hurtful to the consumers of the country. Already astounding revelations have been made, and even before a report has been made reforms are in progress. When final report is submitted to the AttorneyGeneral, if there is shown to be any ground for criminal prosecution, the Government will take active steps.

Nome Retail Grocers' Association.

The Government's prosecution of the trusts has extended even to far-away Alaska. Complaint was made that there was 8 combination known as the "Nome Retail Grocers' Association," which had fixed prices and suppressed competition. The Government took action, won a decree in its favor against the combination, and the Attorney-General is advised that the effect has been very salutary.

Hawaiian Beef Trust and Lumber Trust.

The Government went to the relief of the citizens of Hawaii, who complained against a meat and a lumber trust, and entered several suits. The mere beginning of the suits resulted in the lowering of prices, although the cases have not been decided.

Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.

In Missouri suit has been brought against the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, the St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal Railroad Company, the Wiggins Ferry Company, and others, in which it is sought to free interstate traffic from an alleged combination to operate to the Eads Bridge and the Merchants' Bridge as a common agency of interstate commerce and to suppress competition between these bridges and the ferries. It is alleged that the defendants are monopolizing the interstate transportation across the Mississippi River and into St. Louis. The Government is prosecuting these cases vigorously.

Jacksonville Wholesale Grocers' Association.

In Florida the Government is seeking an injunction against the Jacksonville Wholesale Grocers' Association. Complaint was made by consumers, and the Department has taken up the case with vigor.