Page images

Charges Made Against the War Office of the Confederacy

(From "The Life and Times of Yancey "')

J. W. DuBose


TRUE policy of war, from the suit after a great victory-would inevConfederacy side, being reduced itably have captured the invading army to the saving of armies which emand the gunboats supporting it, when braced well-nigh all its material for he was instantly superseded by order of war, it so happened that with the the war office, the pursuit checked and opening of the first campaign, after the imminent military success, which these changes in the personnel of the must have restored New Orleans and War Office had taken effect, that great the entire lower valley of the Missisdisasters in the field began, traceable to the intereference of the War Office with sippi and the western rivers to the Congreat commander in the field; and in federacy, was changed into useless sacsomething over a twelve-month of the rifice, and the retirement of the entire duration of this interference, three trans-Mississippi forces from active great Confederate armies were practi- service for the remainder of the war. cally removed from service, leaving the (3) In July, 1864, Johnston was refield to the enemy. (1) Johnston, atmoved from command, against earnest tempting in the summer of 1863, to save protests of his army, rank and file, and his army of forty thousand superb the people, with absolute unanimity— troops in Mississippi, as Washington at a time when discontent throughout had saved his army after its defeat on the Northwest seemed only waiting on Long Island, was countermanded from Sherman's fate to ripen into revolt the War Office, and, as General Lincoln against the Government at Washington had lost his army at Charleston, GenCharleston, Gen--the result being the speedy annihilaeral Pemberton was empowered to lose empowered to lose tion of his army, under command of the garrisons of Vicksburg and Port another, following the interference of Hudson and tens of thousands of brave the civil government. lives in useless battle, by the interference of the civil authorities. (2) In May, 1864, General Richard Taylor having, by skillful retreat, drawn Gereral Banks and a fleet of gunboats into favorable position, attacked Banks at Mansfield, drove him from the field in full retreat, and continuing the pursuit -the only example of Confederate pur

Against each of these three citations of destructiveness, issuing from the civil authorities, stand the generalship and valor of Confederate armies upon the page of history; the one marking the source of the catastrophe in which the Confederate cause finally dissolved; the other indicating the reasonableness of its inception.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]


R. TAFT is paid a larger salary than any President of the United States ever received. He is the most expensive tenant we have ever had in the White House. Nevertheless, he spends more time on his personal pleasures and personal interests than any other President has ever done. He is almost never hard at work; he is almost always playing golf, cruising on one of our naval vessels, or traveling about the country on a luxuriously appointed special train. After several months of vacation and pastime in New England, Mr. Taft is now (Sept. 18th) entering upon several weeks of campaigning for a renomination. When voting the President $25,000 a year for traveling expenses, Congress certainly had no intention of taking money out of the people's treasury to defray the cost of a candidate's electioneering tour.

* *

What would Mr. Taft have done to Dr. Wiley, the Pure Food Expert, had the case come up at the time Ballinger's did? Would the Doctor have met the swift dismissal of Glavis and Pinchot? Would some Lawler have been deputized to write out the Presidential opinion? When our crooked Secretary of Agriculture, and his crooked underling, Solicitor McCabe, perused Mr. Taft's exoneration of Dr. Wiley, who, according to Attorney-General Wickersham, deserved "condign punish"condign punishment," they must have sighed heavily

and cursed the fate that postponed their case until the campaign of 1912 was al. ready on.

While the evidence taken by the Congressional Committee made it clear that the Department of Agriculture had done all in its power to nullify the Pure Food Law, this fact was not more clearly proven than was Ballinger's guilty connections with the Cunningham claims. While it was shown, beyond all question, that Secretary Wilson and Solicitor McCabe furnished Government witnesses at the Government's expense, to testify in behalf of the manufacturers who use injurious substances in the preparation of canned food, this fact was not more surprising or scandalous than the proof which showed how Ballinger dismissed the experienced, capable lawyer wha had charge of the Government's sid of the Cunningham case, giving it to a mere boy (Sheridan) who never had tried a single lawsuit and who promptly butchered the Government's case, as Ballinger meant he should.

[ocr errors]

While it is likewise true that Solicitor McCabe was shown to have garbled a decision of the courts, condemning the use of certain chemicals, and to have entered that decision in such a way as to leave the manufacturers free to continue to use benzoate of soda, that fact was not more amazing, than was the discovery that the President himself

had made a deliberate mis-statement as to the documents that were before him when he wrote the letter exonerating Ballinger.

Therefore, one instinctively inquires, Why the radical difference in the Taftian attitude toward the two cases? There is but one answer:

The campaign of 1912 is open and Taft wants a second term.

If Wickersham had any self-respect, he'd resign. After such a public snub, administered to him by the President, Wickersham's continued stay in the cabinet can mean nothing else than that the Sugar Trust has more dirty work for him to do.

And if Secretary Wilson and Solicitor McCabe do not voluntarily get out, Taft should kick them out.

IN N the recent convention of Governors, a committee was appointed to go before the Supreme Court of the United States, and protest against the en. croachments of the lower Federal courts upon the reserved rights of the States. How silly! The Committee might as well protest against a politician's hunger for office. These life-term Federal judges have the power to extend their jurisdiction; and they wouldn't be human, if they did not abuse the power.

What we really need is one Governor with back-bone enough to defy the usurpers. Had the Governor of Minnesota gone right ahead enforcing these intra-state rates which the Legislature had lawfully passed, what could Federal Judge Sanborn have done? Nothing.

Even now, the Governor of Minnesota could safely put these freight rates into operation. It is not lawful for any court whatsoever to enjoin a State from being a State.

* *

A State of this Union is a sovereign. ty in full possession of every sovereign power, excepting such portions thereof

as were surrendered to the Federal Government. The right to regulate commerce inside the State, was never surrendered. Consequently, each state has the completest sovereign right to regulate commerce within her borders. When an inferior Federal Judge virtually says to a State:

"I command you to quit being a sovereign; within your own borders, you shall not enforce your own laws; I forbid you the exercise of your police powers, and your right to fix tolls on your own public highways"—

the Governor should simply refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the Federal judge.

The Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution was made for just such cases as that of the railroad companies against Nebraska.

A man named Chisholm, living in Alabama, entered suit in the lower Federal Court, against the State of Georgia. To the universal indignation of the States, the U. S. Supreme Court held that a state could be sued by a private citizen. This decision caused the states to adopt the Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution. And not until after the Civil War, did any corporation dare to attempt to drag a sovereign State into the Federal Courts. Not until the bench had been packed with corporation lawyers, did the Federal judiciary venture to nullify the Eleventh Amendment.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was that which framed the Federal Courts. One of the sections of the Act prescribes the manner in which the Constitutionality of State laws may be tested. The case must be brought in the State courts, carried to the Supreme Court of the State, thence to the Supreme Court, of the United States. Thus, the dignity of the State was respected, and uniformity of decisions assured.

That section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is still the law of the land; but the lawyers who represent the States in these cases do not appear to be aware of it.


If we had one Governor with the nerve to call out the State troops, if necessary, to resist the officers of the Federal Court, when attempting to arrest the State officials for contempt of court-in not obeying the haughty mandate of the judge-we would never have any further trouble with these usurpatory judges. If I were Governor of Minnesota, I would put that new rate law into operation; and if Judge Sanborn sent marshals and deputy-marshals to arrest me, I would fling them into jail as fast as they came.

The Federal Government, (dearly as it loves the corporations) would never risk a war with a State, in behalf of the detested Federal judiciary, and the detested railroad corporations.

MR. HEARST, who claims credit for pretty much everything, boasts "I killed cock-robin," in the case of Joe Bailey, of Texas. As usual, Mr. Hearst claims too much. Bailey's votes in the Senate were the cause of his downfall. He had weathered the storm of the Hearst exposures. Had he lined up with the Progressives, championed the cause of the tariff-cursed millions, fought the insatiable trusts with all the power that was in him, Texas would have forgotten the scandalous facts which were brought out by the Texas committee of investigation. But, when Bailey began to vote against free raw materials, free lumber, free coal; when he passionately espoused the cause of Lorimer; when he voted against the Farmers' Free-List bill and the Underwood-La Follette wool bill-it was all over with the infatuated man. How he could fail to realize that

he was cutting his own throat, is hard to comprehend.

Better by far would his record be, had he allowed his resignation of last year to stand. Apparently, he was not his own master; apparently, the Standard Oil and its affiliated interests had power to work Bailey to the very last day of the extra session.

WHEN you lose confidence in your

employee, how much longer do you keep him? When you discover that the book-keeper, or the salesman, or the hired man, is dishonest, or incapable-when do you discharge him? At once, of course.

Why, then should we not retire from office a public servant who betrays his trust? Why should we not do this as soon as we can prove the betrayal?

In Switzerland, the people do that very thing. When an official official goes wrong, he is "recalled." Those who voted him in, vote him out.

But President Taft says, with great

vehemence, that the system would not work in America. Especially, does he object to the recall of judges. No wonder. Mr. Taft is not a peoples' President; he is the President of, for and by the corporations. He knows what the people will do, and ought to do, to the judges-the Federal judges particularly. Hence, the Taftian fear of the recall.

* *

In his address to the farmers at Sryacuse, N. Y., on Sept. 16th, Mr. Taft said:

"I have given much attention to the matter of economy and efficiency in government."

When? Where?

Was it in the Philippines, where blood and treasure were so lavishly squandered? Was it when he was paying the friars such enormous price for the land out of which the natives had been defrauded? The highest valuation

[blocks in formation]

EMBOLDENED by the failure of the Government to prosecute the big men, the Sugar Trust has advanced prices, from day to day, until sugar is higher than it has been in twenty-two years. Of course, the Trust has put forth the usual lying statements. Like the Beef Trust, the Ice Trust, &c., the Sugar Trust claims that the advance is due to the diminished supply. As usual, the contention is at variance with

the facts.

There is as much raw sugar in sight as there was at this time last year. There are 225,000 tons afloat now, coming from Hawaii and Java, due here Sept. 27th. Why then the doubling of the price? A corner on the available supply the vulgar, unlawful, inevita

ble device of the blood-suckers-is the

explanation. In other words, the Trust got a monopoly on raw sugar; and, de. fiant of law and Congressional committees, demanded all that the traffic would bear.

In June, the Brooklyn refinery of the Arbuckles was destroyed by fire. During June, July and August, none of their immense store of raw sugar could be refined. All of the dealers who had

depended on the Arbuckles for sugar turned to the American company. whose business was hugely increased. Consequently, its supply of raw sugar was rapidly diminished. Thus, the destruction of their Brooklyn refinery, which caught them with an enormous quantity of cheap raw sugar on hand, turned out to the advantage of the Arbuckles. By accident, they had the only great store of raw sugar, immediatly available; and by combination with the American and Federal companies, they sent prices skyward.

Unfortunately, certain politicians and newspapers of the Democratic party were gulled (or pretended to be) by the specious statements of the criminal conspirators; and these Democrats have

« PreviousContinue »