The Topeka State Journal (Topeka, Kansas)
June 11, 1908
Historic newspapers carry the language, views and graphic reporting of their time, including racist content. They are shown to teen and adult profiles.
The text was read from the page scans by machine (OCR), so it has mistakes and its columns may run together. See the pages · About this title · At the Library of Congress
Page 1
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 2
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 3
THE TOgEKA DAILY STATE JOTTBNAL THTTBSDAY EVEHPTQ, JUNE 11,1903. Y v lnce had any cause to change that opinion. What were the results under this law? This commission advertised that they would receive proposals for the settlement of the claims of the gov ernment against the Sioux City Pa cific Railroad company. Wide pub licity was given in the columns of the newspapers of the country. Only one proposal was submitted in pur suance of this advertisement; this was from the Chicago Northwest Railroad company which for a long time had been operating this line. The proposal was accepted by the commission. It was to pay $1,872,000 In cash and permit the government to retain $250,841.24 which was In the treasury as a part of the charges .made against the government for transportation over the lines of this road. These two amounts aggregated $2,122,841.24, which the government received on its claim against this railroad company. This was $494,- 21.24 more than the principal of its debt. The Sioux City Pacific rail road line was not as valuable a prop erty as the Kansas Pacific, the in debtedness of which was settled in court, but in the case of the Kansas Pacific the government, by court proceedings, received only the 'princi pal on its debt, but no interest there on, while In the settlement of the Sioux City St Pacific debt the gov ernment received $494,521.24 more than the principal of its debt. This settlement was submitted to President McKlnley and was approved by htm, and was carried out in accordance with law, and every one considers that an excellent settlement of these claims has been made. There was no effort to avoid publicity and settle on the quiet. The law simply continued 'the commission that had settled the Central Pacific and Western Pacific Indebtedness to the government and the result was as satisfactory as the formpr action of the commission. This is a fair sample of the kind' of charges that have been made and Of their utter unreliability and want of correctness. It was an executive act, and in my opinion President Mc Kinley could be fully trusted to ap prove or disapprove the acts of the Commission. Oleomargarine. There are three charges in the article relating to my votes on the oleomargarine legislation. They are as follows: In paragraph 7 this is found: "On page 5288, part 6, volume 33 of the Record. Long is found voting with the packing trust and against the farmers and dairymen on a proposi tion to table a resolution asking for informatior. as to what the packers were putting into oleomargarine; it was a case of Wall street again, .against the people. It would change the existing oror, however wicked the order might be; Wall street wanted votes to hold its plunder and Long voted with Wall street." In paragraph 11 of the article, this charge is made: "In the Fifty-sixth congress, when the farmers and dairymen and peo ple desiring pure food were united on the Grout bill. Representative Wads- worth, who was defeated recently for nis connection with the packers in the pure food bill, came forward in congress with a crippling amendment to the honest bill. Long voted with aaeworth, on pages 185 and 186, volume 34. part 1 of the Congres sional Record, and then voted against Tne original diij. Again, in paragraph 14, Mr. White cays: ,"Qn; page. 1658 of the-Record, vote ume 35,- part:2. Long is found voting to" weaken another oleomargarine bill. Again on page 1660 he is found voting for a "joker" that Wall street wanted; and still again on page 4584 of the same volume he is found voting for a crippling amendment. Sometimes when votes occurred on questions of final passage Long had to save his face and voted against the 'interests,' but only after he had tried under handingly to serve them." The first of these three charges above referred to was in relation to a resolution which was referred to the committee on ways and means, which committee reported recommending that the resolution be laid on the ta ble. Thin action of the committee was Dased on the theory that the in formation called for from the secre tary of the treasury could not be fur nished by h'.m without violating a section of the revised statutes. Mr. Richardson, the Democratic leader, explained the situation aa follows (vol. 33. page 5288): "In one minute I can only say that the committee on ways and means have very carefully considered this resolution. They are almost unani mously of the opinion that the matter Involved was c purely legal question. The section of the revised statute? quoted by the gentleman from Penn sylvania forbids the commissioner of Internal revenue and the officers of the treasury department from giving to congress the information which is ought in this resolution. Every law yer on the committee on ways and means, with two exceptions, were of the opinion that the resolutioM, which is simply a house resolution which we have before us cannot repeal the statute which the gentleman has read. How, then, in conclusion, all the members of the committee xcept the gentleman from Minnesota and the gentleman from Iowa 'every other members of the committee except the member of the minority, without ex ception thought that this resolution ought to be laid on the table." In the discussion of this resolution, it was admitted that it was the pur pose to make public all secret pro cesses of oleomargarine making. I voted to lay the resolution on the ta ble This was not done and the reso lution was passed by the house. The secretary of the treasury in his report on Uie resolution, sent a condensed statement in reference to the manu facture of oleomargarine, showing the kind of material used and the amount of each' Ingredient and the percentage which It bore to the total amount of oleomargarine. Nobody ever paid any attention to the resolution or the Information obtained thereunder, af ter its passage. The bill referred to in the second charge above made, was the oleomar garine bill commonly known as the "Grout Bill." In the 56th congress It passed the house but failed to pass the senate during that congress. At that time all oleomargarine was taxed 2c per pound. The bill proposed to reduce the tax on oleomargarine that old not contain artificial coloring mat ter to 14 c per pound and to increase the tax on oleomargarine artificially colored, to 10c per pound. There was a difference of opinion and a sharp conflict of theories in reference to this legislation. The majority of the com mittee on agriculture recommended the Grout bill. Mr. Wadsworth of New York, Mr. Lorrlmer of- Illinois. Mr. Bailey of Kansas, Mr. John Sharp Williams,,' at present leader of the minority in the house, and several other members, made a minority re- port favoring a bill regulating the sale of oleomargarine, under which any person who bought oleomargarine would Know just what he was buying. The Grout bill made color the only test and sought to destroy the busi ness of making colored oleomargarine by Increasing the tax to 10c a pound on artificially colored oleomargarine. The minority of the committee pro posed a bill (pages 185-6) prescribing that oleomargerlne should be put up by the manufacturer in packages of one and two pounds respectively, and In no larger or smaller packages; that upon every print or brick, roll or lump so put up there should be i Impressed by the manufacturer the word "Oleomargarine" In sunken let- ters; that every piece or brick should be wrapped in a paper wrapper upon which should be printed the word "Oleomargarine." Other regulations were provided, having for their pur pose the prevention of the sale of oleomargarine in any except those packages so marked and stamped that the person purchasing the product of the retail dealer would know definite ly and surely that the article purchas ed was oleomargarine. It was not in favor of the sale of oleomargarine as butter. I was opposed to all fraud and deception in relation to the man ufacture or sale of this product, I voted for the substitute and when that was defeated I voted against the Grout bill. I cast this vote not in the Interests of the packer or of Wall street, not against the manufacturers of butter or the dairymen, but because I believed that the substitute bill was a better one and would more surely compel the sale of oleomargarine as oleomargarine. The bill passed the house but did not become a law at that congress. The third charge in relation to oleomargarine refers to the bill that was considered in the Fifty-seventh congress. It was practically the same bill as the Grout bill, but did not bear Mr. Grout's name as he had failed to be elected to congress. It passed the house and senate and became a law, and is still in force. The vote referred to by Mr. White as appearing on page 1658 was on a proposed amendment to the bill and related to the regulation of the manufacture and sale of reno vated butter. The amendment was adopted and it sought to regulate the manufacture of renovated butter along the same lines as the provision In the bill regulating the manufacture of oleomargarine. White says that it was meant to weaken the oleomar garine bill. By reading it, it is shown that it provides for a rigid sanitary in spection of all factories and store houses where renovated butter was handled, and prescribed regulations under which people who bought reno vated butter would know what they were buying. Mr. White says that I was found voting for a "joker" that Wall street wanted. I voted to recom mit the bill with instructions to report the Wadsworth amendment whlcn was identical in language with the amend ment for which I voted in tne Fifty sixth congress, having for its object the establishment of regulations under which every person who bought Oleo margarine would know what he was buying. This motion was defeated, I voting for it, because it expressed my views as to the proper legislation to be enacted. I do not understand what Mr. White means when he uses this language In the last charge in relation to oleomar garine: "Sometimes when votes oc cured on questions of final passage, Long had to save his face and voted against the 'interests,' but omy arter he had tried underhandingly to serve them." My record in congress curing all the years I have been' there snows that I always voted my convictions and always voted on every measure that was up for consideration when I was present, unless I was paired. I never avoided a vote and never cast a vote in my life that did not represent my judgment on the question under consideration: There is nothing in the Record to show that this statement had any reference to the oleomar garine legislation. After the amend ment was defeated for whlcn I voted there was no roll call on the passage of the bill. I voted against the bill however, as I had in the previous con gress, believing that it would be inef fective and would not accomplish what was expected of it. Mr. Charles F. Scott, congressman from this state, held similar views as my own on this legislation. The law has been In force several years and what have been the results under it? Mr. Scott is now chairman of tne com mittee on agriculture of the house and during the last session of congress there was a bill introduced to amend the law which I voted against in the Fifty-seventh congress. The bill was presented at the request of the dairy and farm interests of the state of Pennsylvania. Mr. Woodward, repre senting the state pure food depart ment of Pennsylvania and the State Grange association, spoke for the bill In that hearing Mr. Woodward admit ted that the Grout bill had largely failed to accomplish what was expect ed or it and it required some addition al amendment. He admitted mat the color test of the Grout bill had been Ineffective and that oleomargarine was still being sold as butter. In this hearing. Mr. Scott, the chairman of the committee, said (Hearings nefore house committee on agriculture, May iu page SZ): "The principal provision of the Wade worth bill was found in section 2, which provided tor just what I have stated namely, that the manufacturers of ol eomargarine should brand their pack ages by pressing into the oleomargar me ltseu tne word "Oleomargarine," so that it could not be erased, and that the retail dealer must sell in the original package with the revenue stamp intact There were a great many of us who thought that such a provision would more certainly compel the sale of oleo margarine for oleomargarine than the provision of the law that was passed Is it your opinion now that If that bill had been passed It would have been effective? "Mr. Woodward I think It would have helped. I third your law now i defective in this, that there ought t be a system by which you can trace the oleo from the original manufacturer down through to the consumer. The provision with reference to color in the present act, that is, taxing the white one-quarter of a cent and th yellow ten cents a pound, has been defeated to a very great extent by the policy of the manufacturers by man! putilation in the manufacture of oleo margarine, to produce a color which r. one could determine was artificial. "Mr. Scott Exactly, and it was jus because some of us thought it would be possible to do that, that we pre ferred this bill. It did not seem to U3 that the color test was a sufficient one and yet we were very bitterly criticized at the time for being under the in fluence of the manufacturers, packers. etc., of oleomargarine. Some even went so far as to suggest that we were in the pay of the packers because we be. lleved that this provision would be more effective than the color provision to which you have alluded: and it is rath er gratifying now to find that experi ence has demonstrated that, to an ex tent at least, we were correct and that the very Interests which so bitterly criticized tne Dili we then favored now come and ask us to incorporate into the law practically the very language oi mat. same Dili. It thus appears that time and ex perience have demonstrated that the legislation in relation to oleomargar. ine which I voted against has been largely Ineffective, and It is admitted now by a representative of the. dairy interests that a provision of law simi lar to the Wadsworth bill that I voted for in the Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh congresses, would have, if enacted Into law, made It impossible to sell oleo margarine as butter and would have compelled that industry to be conduct ed on its merits and without decep tion. It is easy for an editor with a bril liant imagination and with utter disre gard for facts, sitting in his office in Emporia, to charge congressmen with Voting in the interests r.f Wall and the packers' trust, but It is anoth- r imngr io demonstrate from the rec ords that the votes cast by me years ago were wrong, when time has, dem onstrated that they were right then and are right now. Trusts and Suspending Tariffs. This is the charge in the article: 'On pages 6499 and 6500 nf h Pn. gressional Record, volume 33, part 7. Long's vote is on record against allow ing the president of the United States to suspend the tariff duties on any ar ticle which was found to be controlled by a trust; it would affect 'securities' of Wall street; it would act as a big stick over monopolies and trusts, but Wall street needed a vote and Long gave it one. The people had to whis tle." This vote waa cast on Mav 31. l&Ofl: it was on a bill to amend the Sher man anti-trust act. This was a party vote. The Republicans of the house of representatives determined to pre sent certain amendments to the Sher man anti-trust law. The Democrats presented a number of other amend ments to the bill, all of which were voted down by a strict party vote. Mr. Terry, a Democrat from Arkansas, presented an amendment providing that when the president of the United States should be satisfied that the price of any commodity had been en hanced in consequence of any mono poly, he should issue his proclamation suspending the collection of all cus tom duties on like articles of mer- handise brought from foreign coun tries. This amendment presented the Democratic doctrine of the regulation of trusts by the reduction of the tar ns. The Democrats have always supported this doctrine and the Re publicans have always opposed it. The protective tariff was not made for the trusts or for the particular industry, but for the benefit of the whole peo ple, including principally those who earn their living by the labor of their hands and brains. A tariff construct ed on these lines would eventually mean free trade in this country, for instead of permitting congress to re vise the tariffs, it would place it with in the power of a combination of mo nopolies in the United States to de stroy all domestic competition, by forming a trust in the particular ar ticle. President Roosevelt hit this fallacious doctrine on the head with great force and vigor in his letter two ears ago to Mr. Watson, at the open ing of the congressional campaign. He said: "The question of revising the tariff stands wholly apart from the question of dealing with the so-called "trusts; that is, with the control of monopolies and with the supervision of great wealth in business, especially in cor porate form. The only way in which it Is possible to deal with those trusts and monopolies and this great corpor ate wealth is by action along the line of the laws enacted by the present congress and its immediate predeces sors. The Cry that the problem can be met by anv changes in the tariff. represents, whether consciously'" or un consciously, an effort to divert the public attention from the only metnod of taking effective action." This Is what the Democrats were endeavoring to do In the 56th con gress when this vote was cast. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 134 to 122. I voted against the amendment as did every other Re publican in the house; every Demo crat voted for it. Side by side with this charge of Mr. White and Mr. Brlstow I place the above extract from the letter of President Roose velt and I leave to them the difficult duty of reconciling their position with that of President Roosevelt. I voted against another amendment offered to this bill which sought to renulre eornorations doing an inter state business to file statements of their condition with the government. The amendment differed greatly from the recommendations made by PresU dent Roosevelt In his recent messages. The amendment had no place on the hill which we were considering ana was offered by the Dmocrats knowing that it would be voted down. Every Democrat voted for it and every Re publican voted against it. If I voted for Wall street, so did every other Re- nubllcan in the house. I voted wun the Republicans and Mr. White and Mr. Bristow think I should be turned nut of the senate because I did not vote with the Democrats. The Union Station, Washington. This Is the charge: "The grab of the Pennsylvania rail road in building the Washington union station is one or tne most notorious in this country. Scores of honest men in congress protested. But Long did not protest. On page 2660, volume 36, part a of the Congressional Record, Long is found voting for this gift of over rour million dollars to the railroad company. It was another place where Wall street found Long dependable." This was a senate bill; it passed tne house in December, 1902, while I was In Kansas engaged In the senatorial contest. The vote referred to was cast February 25. 1903, after a second con ference committee reported. The sen ate bill proposed paying the Phil adelphia, Baltimore Washington Railroad company $1,500,000, while tne house proposed paying this company $1,000,000; the senate proposed to pay the Baltimore Ohio Railroad com pany $1,500,000, while the house pro posed to nay it $1,000,000. The differ ence between the two bills was that the senate bill proposed to pay these rail roads $1,000,000 more than the house bill. A motion was made in the house to recede from the house amendments and thus pass the senate bill. It be came apparent that the legislation would fail unless the house receded from Its nosition. I voted to recede and this Is the vote which is criticized bv Mr. White. Calderhead, Curtis, Miller and Scott voted with me on this motion. For more than thirty years two rail road stations had been located in Washington. One waa the Pennsyl vania and the other was the Baltimore and Ohio: in 1901 these roads were au thorized to raise their tracks so as to avoid grade crossings, and to build new depots on their old sites. If they did so the Pennsylvania was to be given certain lands valued at $1,500,000 and the Baltimore Ohio was to be given Sl.500.000 in cash. Neither road made any move to build stations under this legislation. The senate diu was intend ed to take the place of the provisions of these two former acts and to provide for a union station. It was provided that the Pennsylvania should give up its right to land valued at $1,500,000 and should tunnel under the Capitol hill to the new union station.' The Baltimore Ohio was to give up its old depot grounds to the government. It was evi ,.nt,w.hen thls vote wa cast that the legislation providing for a union sta tion would fall unless the house agreed lbH senate biu- The report show that the proposition did not come from the railroads; they were satisfied with their present stations, but there was a demand among the people -of Wash ington generally that there should be one union station instead of two sta tions. The railroads contended that a union station would not increase their business, but would greatly increase their expenses; they were not asking for the legislation.. The vote that I cast then, acting as I did with a majority of the house, re sulted in legislation for the Union sta tion at Washington. It has lately been opened to the public and is now recognized as one of the most impos ing and beautiful railroad stations in the world. As a member of the Dis trict of Columbia committee of the senate, I had something to do last win ter with passing legislation which se cured street car tracks to the station. These tracks will shortly be built and by the time the next president is in augurated the station will be fully completed and street cars will oe able to handle the great crowds that will attend the Inaugural ceremonies. It is a source of satisfaction to me now. al though I was not personally familiar with the details of the legislation then. and only followed the committee that nad the bill in charge, that I voted as I did on this proposition. It has given to Washington and the country a mag nificent Union station that will be a source of pride and gratification to the people of the United States for all time to come. My vote alone did not accomplish this result. Other members of the house and senate voted with me. but. above all, President Roosevelt agreed wun what we did by approving the bin for which we voted, and it thus be came a law. Washington Gas Light Company. The charge In this article on this subject is as follows: "On page 1580. when' the Washing ton Gas Light company wanted to water its stock and increase the amount on which the people should nave to pay interest in the price of gas. Long on page 1580, volume 34, part 2, voted for the proposition. It was in line of the things Long and Wall street believe in, and Long voted tor wan street. A bill was unanimously reported from the committee on the District of Columbia, which directed the Wash ington Gas Light company to increase its plant so as to enable it to meet the growing demands of the District. It authorized an increase in the capital stock of the company, under the su pervision of the supreme court of the District of Columbia; no increase of capital could be made by it until after filing a petition in this court and the decree of the court permitting it. The bill authorized the company to pur. chase the capital stock of other illuminating companies doing business in the District. An amendment was presented to this bill providing for a reduction In the price of gas; a motion was made to recommit the bill to the committee with Instructions to report It back for a reduction in the price of gas to the people of the District. The amendment was adopted without de bate, and the motion to recommit with instructions was adopted without debate. Later in the. da--- Mr. Bab- cock, chairman of the committee, moved to reconsider this motion by which the bill was recommitted with instructoins. It was this motion to reconsider which, waa Called up and on which a roll call was had. It was my vote on this roll call to which Mr White objects in the article. The onty question was whether the Instructions in the motion to recommit should stand. During the debate (page 1578) it became very apparent what influ ences were back of these instructions. It was shown that there were two electric lighting companies in the Dis trict of Columbia that were competi tors of the Washington Gas Light company: that these instructions would require tne uaa iignt company to reduce its cnarges 2 5 per cent while the charges of the electric lighting companies would not be af fected. I voted to reconsider these instructions to the committee and members voting with me on this mo tion were Calderhead, Cannon, Crum packer. Dalzell. Grow. Moody, Over- street. Sherman and Tawney. This was a ouestlon to wnicn 1 naa given no personal consideration, but In which I louowea tne recommendations of the committee in charge of the bill. The Uintah Indian Reservation Opening. The following charge is made on this subject: On cage 5133. volume 35 or tne Congressional Record, part 5, Long is found voting for a proposition which allowed an asphalt outfit to retain claims that under the law belonged to the people, and representing unesti mated values. But it preserved things as they are, and so justice and eouitv and the interests of the people of this country were not considered as against the interests or wail street, and Long voted for Wall street." This refers to my vote on agreeing to the conference report on the Indian appropriation bill. This report is set out in full (page 5119) and covers 2 V. Dages of the K.ecord. it was signed on the part of the house by J. S. Sherman, chairman of the com mittee on Indian affairs, and Chas. Curtis, two of the managers of the house, and by senators wiinam m Stewart. O. H. Piatt and J. L. Raw- lings, manager on the part of the sen ate. The bill originated in the house the senate made 134 amendments to the bill, all of which went to con ference. When the conference report came before the house, objection was made to only one of these amend ments, number 65; this related to the opening of the Uintah Indian reservation in Utah. The report per mitted the Raven Mining company to retain 100 mining claims within the reservation, and also permitted the Florence Mining company to locate mining claims to the extent of 640 acres, prior to the opening of the reservation for settlement. It was admitted that pursuant to existing laws, the Raven Mining company had been authorized by the secretary of the interior to locate mines in this reservation and under this authority had located 134 mines under a ten year lease, executed more than three years prior to the time when this vote was taken. It was also admitted that the Florence Mining company, under provlsolns of law, had been author- ized by the secretary of the Interior to locate mining claims not exceeding 640 acres in extent, within this reservation. It was also admitted that the provisions of this bill would ter minate these leases unless special provision was made for continuing them, so the bill provided that the Raven Mining company might retain 100 of its 134 mining claims and the Florence Mining company might re tain its 640 acres of claims provided by their respective leases. Mr. Little of Arkansas refused to sign the report and made the objec tion to this item which is taken as true in the article of Mr. Bristow. Representative Sutherland of Utah now United States senator from thai state, defended the provisions of the conference report In reference to this reservation which was located in his state. He discussed the matter very fully on page 6125- of the Record and among other things, said: I i want to caU the attention of the house first of all to the fact that al most since the day that this congress opened, the members of the senate and house from the state of Utah have been devoting more or lean time to this very question. It has been con sidered by the senate committee which has held session after session on this identical question. That com mittee nas had before it every one of these letters which the gentleman has read and many others which he has not read. They have made an exhaustive investigation of this Klin. ject. Senator Rawlins, a Democrat. is a member of that committee We agreed to this conference report and amendment. The other sena tor from my state, a Republican, also agreed to it and I have agreed to it myself. Every representative from that state in congress has agreed to It as being the very best thing to do under the circumstances. I have agreed to It with the full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding these leases, and If we are to be conceded honesty of pur pose, It seems to me that our judg ment ought to be quite as good as to what Is best to be done In that state with this reservation, as the judgment of the gentleman from Arkansas or the gentlemen from any other state." Speaking of the Raven Mining com pany's lease, on page 5125 of the Rec ord. Mr. Sutherland said: "I will give the house some figures later on as to what this company has done. In round figures it has spent nearly $250,000 in the way of improve ments upon the grounds; in the way of work upon the various mines; In the way of salaries to officials and so on. It has spent this enormous sum of money in attempting to develop this Humus inausiry under its lease, it nas received In return, m shnwn hv its books, less than $30 .000. Rn there hnu oeen an enormous expenditure of mon ey and comparativelv small Return Now this company took these lands In ttDsoiute good raith, so far as I am informed. I know nothing that could in any manner challenge the e-nn.i iann or tne rcaven Mining company. It procured its lease I n the or dinary way; first, it had a permit from me secretary oi the interior' to go nnon the reservation to negotiate with the Indians and to procure their consent to the lease. Later the CAmnsnv nr.i- cured the signature of the secretary vl me interior to a lease of all the latente. lands on the reservation. Un der that lease the company went into possession. Now what can be said by way of criticism on this policy of leas ing the Indian lands. Whatever may be said in reference to its legality, and I have a pretty positive opinion upon that subject which I have hither to expressed upon this floor whatever may be said with reference to those matters, the Raven Mining company nas proceeaea under the law as it has been interpreted by the department and by the courts and is equitably entitle! to protection. It is not to be held re sponsible because the government has adopted a policy which my friend from Arkansas believes and I believe to be a bad and a vicious policy." The question before the house was the adoption of the conference report as a whole. There was no possibility of voting against the conference report on mis amendment number 65 and vot ing for the conference report on the other 133 -amendments. The conference report Was adopted by a vote of 99 yeas to 82 nays; I voting to adopt the report, and in doing so agreed with Mr. Sherman of New Tork. Mr. Curtis of Kansas, Senators Piatt, Stewart and Rawlins, all of whom had fully Investi gated the whole subject. My vote was also in agreement with the position taken Dy tne representatives and sena tors from the state of Utah, in Whlcn tne reservation was situated. If voted ror wall street when I support ed this conference report, then Presi dent Roosevelt also favored Wall street when he approved the bill with this provision in it. The Klkins Law. On this subject the article contains this charge: "When it came to the repeal of the clause providing for the imprisonment oi re oat era, ixjng again on page 2159 of the Record, volume 36, part 2, voted to save tne hide or Wall street. This vote was on the Elkins law. It is evident that Mr. White wrote the article solely from the document. The vote on page 2159 of the Record to which he refers shows that the bill passed by a vote of 250 yeas to 6 nays; I was among the 250. The 6 negative votes were cast by Demo crats. On page 2151. in discussing -the adoption of the resolution making this bill a special order, Mr. Richardson, the Democratic leader, said: I take it for granted that we shall all vote for this bill. For myself at any rate, I am prepared to say that shall vote for it. But while this is true, I do not think there ought to be denied to us the right to propose amendments in order to make the bill more effective for the suppression of a great evil in tnis country mat we are all crying out against." There was a roll call on tne motion to adopt this resolution (page 2154) and I voted with my party to adopt the resolution, which was carried by a vote of 140 to 110. I am not criticized on this vote, but White and Bristow contend that I ought to be turned out of the senate now because I did not Join with the 6 Democrats in voting against the bill on its nnai passage. This bill was recommended by the president and the interstate commerce commission; there had been difficulty in enforcing the law providing ror a penitentiary sentence for .violation of the interstate commerce act. It was the opinion of all those interested in the subject then that the prison sen tence should be repealed and that a fine on the corporation should be sub stituted. President Roosevelt signed the bill and approved of it at that time. Under this Elklns law, which I am so severely criticised for sup porting, and the president for approv ing, all the fines for giving rebates have heen imposed. Among these fines are the $29,000,000 fine against the standard Oil company, the fines imnnsed against the Santa Fe in Cali fornia, and many other fines against railroads and corporations through nut the country. Two years ago, how ever, we re-enacted the law providing for a penitentiary sentence for giving or accepting rebates. These sixteen votes are the only ones criticized during my six years t! the house I am most surprised at- the omissions in this record: when White and Bristow were referring to my "Wall street" votes, why did they not mention the most conspicuous "one of all? I cast one "Wall street" vote dur ing my first term that defeated me for re-election. It was my vote against free silver. It was charged general ly over the district that it was a "Wall street" vote and in the interest f the "money power." It was gener- oiiu- helieved them.' Why do they not I refer to it now? Because as I have (said before, when they tart out to malign a public official and mlsrenre- sent him, they charge that the votes mcn mey Delleve were cast wrong were "Wall street" votes and those cast right were in the interest of the people. Mr. White and Mr. Bristow agreed with me then and do now on my vote against free silver, so they say nothing about it. Some other person who believes In free silver. In making up a list of my "Wall street" votes would place that among the first. Why do thev- not sav an-vthine- about my votes on Porto Rican tariff and Cuban reciprocity? I was severely crmcizea men and am now by persons in Kansas who believed I voted wrong on both these propositions. My po sition, on Porto Rico was violently at tacked In the newspapers of the state and in the country at the Ume. I nave oeen censured and condemned for my vote and the Dart I took on Cuban reciprocity. I have opposition now because of this. I am still charged with having then voted In the interest or the trusts and "Wall street," on Cuban reciprocity. Whv this silence on the part of White and uristow? They both supported mv po sition then and strongly endorsed it. They could not very well criticize it now, so they remain silent on these questions to which I gave my princi pal attention and which were report ed from my committee, and criticize my votes on local bills from other committees which I had not investi gated personally, but In which I fol lowed the committee reporting the bills. Any one having had service In a legislative body, especially In the house of representatives, knows how impossible it is for a member of that body to personally investigate every question upon which he is called upon to vote. A member, be he ever so in dustrious, can only give attention to the great public questions and to those that are considered by the com mittees of which he Is a member. It seems strange that at this late date these gentlemen should find V much fault with my record in the house of representatives. They found no fault with that record at the time, but instead gave it many words of praise and commendation, privately and publicly. After this record was made, Mr. Bristow loyally and ear nestly supported me for the senate. In the article I find this after the re. cltal of my votes In the house: "Bv that time Wall street knew Long and so, as Curtis has so aptly said. The railroads defeated me." And they elected Long. They knew his tempera. ment; they knew that he might be de pended upon always when the Issue came up squarely between progressive government and the things that are, and they knew when It came to separat ing the robber from his plunder. Long did not have to be watched. Also, he did not have to be bought." Times change and we change with them. The opinions that are held to. day by some persons seem to differ from the opinions of the same persons expressed sometime ago. The charge is made in this article that the railroads elected me to the senate. It might be well to re. fer to some political history connected with that election. There were three leading candidates for the senate In 1903: Governor Stanley, Mr. Curtis and myself. We practically had the same number of votes In the caucus. My votes came principally from the Seventh district that I had represented for six years, while I cast the votes for which I am here so severely criticized. There were several sessions of the caucus there was no -material change in the votes, except that I gained a few votes and Governor Stanley lost a few. It became evident that there could be "no result In the caucus until one of the three candidates withdrew from the race. My forces coming from the Sev enth district, familiar with the record that I had made in congress, loyal to me as they had been through several congressional battles, were not of the kind or nature to abandon their candi date. The supporters of Governor Stanley held a caucus and decided to withdraw his name. They also prac tically unanimously decided to give their support to me. This was done af ter full consultation with Governor Stanley and his managers, and one of those managers was William Allen White. If the railroads elected me to the senate, it was done by inducing the suDDorters of Governor Stanley to abandon him, and one of the instru ments through which the work was done was William Allen White, the au thor of this article to which I am re plying. He became my supporter late In the contest, while Mr. Bristow had been my supporter from the beginning. After the work was done and I was nominated in the caucus and elected by the legislature, among the pleasant press notices that I received, teh one I think I appreciated the most was the following from Mr. White's paper, the Emporia Gazette, under date of Janu ary 29. 1903: The career of Chester I. Long in Kansas public life is an example of the man who has always recognized 'oppor tunity.' and who, when he once grasp ed her hand, never let go. He first en tered state politics about 1890 when ne was appointed by Governor Humphrey to fill out the term of the state senator in his district which had been made vacant by a Judicial appointment. Af terward he was elected senator by his people. Then he received the nomina tion for congress in tne oevenui ais trlct, but was defeated by Jerry Simp son. Then came aft up-an-down session with Simpson and Populism that ex tended over a term of years, years fraught with all the stress and uncer tainty of political life, when people were not governed by party principles and beliefs, but wholly by emotions hysteria. First Simpson would win, then the reflex of that emotion would send Long to congress. Then another swing and Simpson. And so the thing went, but tjnester l. umg never budged. He only, gripped the thing tighter. Failure only servea to aeveiop the hanging-on qualities of his Jaw and in the end he conquered. The Seventh district is solidly behind him and as a senator his state will be solidly behind him, for he is that kind. He is a fine man and it is the Gazette's belief and most earnest hope that he will make a great senator. He takes his place with the best element in Kansas politics the element that stands for decency and honor and integrity absolutely at his back. He has youth, with its splen did enthusiasm and ambitions and pos sibilities. He has convictions and the courage of them, and they will all be to the honor and glory of his state and his nation." N On March 5, 1903, Mr. Bristow in his naner. the Salina Journal, said: "Mr. Long's successful senatorial contest was the result of his method ical and industrious campaign. He does not make friends rapidly, but holds them tenaciously; and, what is indispensable to .the success or puDlic men, his friends are most enthusiastic and earnest in his support. While he inherits the In galls succession he has none of the characteristics of that erratic and brilliant statesman. Air. Un7 is not styled a brilliant man, though he has great strength of character and fine ability. He has some of the qualities qf Plumb, but fortunately none of his faults. He la -conscientious and honest In private as well as public life. He does not seek public position for the purpose of accumulating wealth. His ambi tion is not Inspired by a desire to gratify Inherent vanity. He loves the m.hlU 1 A.I .3 1 1 J public affairs, and. as a result has strong ambition to have a hand in their direction. While he is not as brilliant as Ingalls he will make a far more useful senator. He may not be so popular aM Plumb. He has none of the characteristics of the dema gogue. He will not yield against his conviction or judgment to any popular or ephemeral passion that may agitate the people, but will do what he thinks is in the interest of the public wel fare. It is hard to speak in too high praise of Mr. Long. His private life is admirable. ,He is a model husband, father, and citizen. He enters the senate at a fortunate rteriod of life. and unless overtaken by some un expected misfortune will become a conspicuous national leader and ren der his country valuable service." One who believes in fairness. In honest treatment of even an opponent, must admit that there is much con flict between the present opinions held in reierence to my record by Mr. White and Mr. Bristow. as shown by tne article to which I refer, and th opinions that they held after this reo ord In the house was made, during the six years of my service there. These words were said before Mr. Bristow became ambitious to succeed me and before Mr. White blossomed out aa his general manager In this campaign. Coal. Oil and Asphalt Lands. The charge is as follows: "When the attempt was made In the senate to keep the coal and oil and asphalt lands of the five civilised tribes out of the hands of the rail roads, Senator Long voted with Wall street, which held that It should con trol the coal and levy tribute upon the people. President Roosevelt after ward stepped in and took all coal lands away from such future control. Long's vote on this proposition Is on page 3272, volume 40, part 4 of the Congressional Record. It is a Wall street vote If ever there was one." The bill referred to was to provide for the final disposition of the affairs of the five civilized tribes in the In dian Territory, and was known aa the Curtis MIL The vote In the senate referred to by Mr. White was taken on March 2, 1906. The bill as It came from the house reserved these lands from sale until further action by con gress. These coal, oil and asphalt lands do not belong to the United States, but are the property of the Choctow and Chickasaw Indians. They have been leased for many years to Individuals and corporations and a fixed royalty Is paid to the Indians. The royalties amount to about $250, 000 a year and this amount is ex pended by the government for the he.neflt of the Tnillanfl nf 4-heae wa tribes. The senate committee on In dian affairs reported an amendment to the bill providing for the sale of the lands In 1907; this was amended in the senate providing that they should not be sold prior to 1911. To this amendment an amendment was of fered by Senator LaFollette (page 8211), placing certain limitations and restrictions upon the sales of these lands when they were sold. One of the restrictions was that no railroad company or any person who was a stockholder in any railroad company could become a purchaser of these lands. The debate shows that I was opposed to the committee amendment providing for the sale of the lands, and that I favored the house pro vision for reserving the lands from sale. Senator McCumber (page 3271) made a motion to lay the committee amendment on the table. This would carry with it Senator LaFolIette's amendment and would reserve the lands under the house provision. I voted for this motion; the yeas were 38 and the nays 7. The charge that I voted in favor of permitting those lands to be un der control of railroads is false, as is also the other statement that Presi dent Roosevelt stepped in and took all these lands away from such control. President Roosevelt has made no or der in relation to these lands. He did make an order in reference to coal lands owned by the United States, but those are Indian lands which are leased under laws passed by congress. There has been no change In the status of these lands by virtue of the legislation that was enacted in 1906. The record shows that I voted to lay the committee amendment on the mule, utcaum l was opposea to tne alienation of these land by the In diana. TXT". ,A l 1 sas City Star of May 31st, said in reference to this vote: "So rank was that vote and so cross the injustice to the people of Kansas, that they had to turn from their duly elected senator and present a memorial to Theodore Roosevelt, who, by execu tive order and without trusting to the justice of the Wall Street senate, took those coal lands from the railroads bv executive order, and made them part of the public domain." This is raise in every particular and has no foundation In fact. There has been no change in the status of these lands since the vote was cast. Thv still belong to the Indians and are op erated under leases approved by the secretary of the interior. Instead of President Roosevelt con demning my vote by Issuing an execu tive order, as stated by Mr. White, he Indorsed my vote when he signed the bill which provided that these lands should be reserved from sale until fur ther action by congress. Lake Erie and Ohio River Ship Oanal. This is the charge: "When it was proposed to limit the issue of stock and bonds on the pro posed Lake Erie Ohio liver canal, that the charges for freight on that canal might not be heavy to pay for watered stock and fraudulent bonds. Senator Long voted the Wall street idea that the public be damned, and his vote is recorded on page 8626, vol ume 40, part 9 of the Congressional Record. Again on page 8629 he voted again, the same sentiment, and again on page 8676 in the same volume, and again three pages later Senator Long voted against the provision which em powered the interstate commerce com mission to find out what the canal cost and regulate charges accordingly. The charges on this canal when built will affect every pound of freight In Kan sas, but it will also affect indirectly the interests on hundreds of millions of dollars in Wall street and Long voted against Kansas and with Wall street. Interest on Wall street dollars Is more sacred to him than the commercial freedom of his constituents." This was on a bill In the 59th con gress, first session, to charter the Lake Erie Ohio river ship canal, which was a project to build a canal from Lake Erie about 122 miles to a point on bill passed the house (page 3069) by h vote of 196 to 83. Of the Kansas repre sentatives, Calderhead, Miller, Murdock and Reeder voted for it, and Bowersock, Campbell and Scott inn alred $s) .1
Page 4
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 5
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 6
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 7
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 8
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 9
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 10
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 11
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 12
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 13
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.
Page 14
This page's text is still being fetched. See the page, or reload in a moment.