REMARKS

OF

HON. JAMES E. MARTINE.

October 2, 1914.

Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. Mr. President, I desire to give expression to a few thoughts that have come to me with reference to this bill. I present no thoughts of law, for I have none to express; but what matters it, Mr. President, for a million men and more in this land have never heard of Blackstone, and they care naught for his doctrines or teachings, and yet they are splendid citizens and stout defenders of this Republic. In fact, there are multitudes who have contempt for man-made and man-written law.

I feel that the passage of this bill will tend to increase their prejudices, for a law to be respected must be just and must be impartial. This measure, as I read it, is not impartial to the citizens of our land. Our citizens as a mass believe in God's law of eternal justice, and for this they will contend.

This bill as it comes from the conference committee does not give this to our countrymen. Mr. President, I have been in almost constant attendance in my seat during the sessions of the Senate. I have participated in the discussion on and voted for or against the various amendments that have been proposed to this measure-the Federal antitrust bill. I did not vote for or against these amendments as a partisan. No thought of Democrat or Republican ever entered my mind. I voted as a Senator of the United States, free from selfish purpose or animus. I voted for this measure because I believed it would bring relief from a condition which was bearing heavily on and destroying independent business throughout the length and breadth of our country. I voted for it because, as a citizen of New Jersey, I had seen the evil of the trust system. For years I had been appealed to by my fellow citizens asking if something could not be done to bring relief.

Mr. President, I voted for this bill because I had pledged my fellow citizens that I would vote to stay and punish the archconspirators and violators of law. I pledged my fellow countrymen that I stood on this subject with the declarations of Woodrow Wilson, insisting on personal guilt, that these violators of the law should serve time behind the bars. Now, imagine my great surprise and dissatisfaction when I find the penalties are practically withdrawn.

I have been told by Senators for whom I have the greatest respect, both for their legal ability and their political principles, that it was my political duty to stand by this report. This, Mr. President, I repel and deny. I deem it my duty to stand by that which I deem right, and this thought has prompted every vote I have cast in this body. I had felt that this report

should be sent back to conference, that it might be shaped and molded to the interests of justice and in harmony with our party's promises.

So jealous and earnest was I in regard to the wisdom of passing the so-called Clayton bill, and so conscientiously did I vote for its provisions inflicting penalties on wrongdoers, that I now view with alarm the omission of these penalties from the conference report. I do not seek the death of the measure. but I seek to make it stronger. I fear that to adopt the cou ference report will so weaken the measure as to destroy it.

Mr. President, I am admonished by friends that there is much in this bill of value to labor, and hence it is my duty to stand by it. As I read the measure, there is no more there than rightly belongs there, and not a word more than labor richly and honestly deserves. Nor do I believe there is a Member of this body nor of the House who would vote to detract a word therefrom that would tend to place in jeopardy the rights of labor. I have no fears upon this score from recommitment.

Mr. President, other kindly disposed friends have urged upon me that it would be well at this time to ease up on the penalty clauses. Let me recite to the Senate a little experience that came under my observation in my own State:

Two young men had gathered together a few thousand dollars. They chose to embark in the tobacco and cigar business. After a short experience, a store of the United Cigar Stores Co., an offshoot of the Tobacco Trust, located near by and proceeded to cut prices to a ruinous degree. As time wore on the little capital of the boys fast faded out. Finally, for some infraction, either real or fancied, of the revenue laws, the firm was closed out, the little stock confiscated, and the young merchants were out of business because they had violated the laws of the great United States. A reprimand would never do, they were told. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was the inexorable decree of the law; and to-day these young men are in business

no more.

In the face of this tale you ask me to vote for a measure that will administer a gentle "Go thou, and sin no more" to the great violators of our law. No, Mr. President, I can not, I will not. Further, let me state that all this happened within a few miles of the gorgeous home and glorious gardens of some 3,000 acres, which fairly rival the splendors and beauty of Babylon of old, the home of Duke, the president of the Tobacco Trust. Ah, no!-a thousand noes! I would not dare face my fellow citizens. I have too often inveighed against this evil to shut my eyes now, stop my ears, and still my tongue against the cruel and the horrid wrongs that have been perpetrated against my countrymen.

I feel that I violate no confidence in this presence when I state to the Senate that in a conversation only yesterday with the author of this original bill, Judge Clayton, he did not hesitate to express his sincere regret and disappointment that the penalties embodied in the bill had been eliminated. I appeal, let the Senate of the United States insist that these penalties that have been eliminated in conference shall be restored as they came from the brain and the hands of it illustrious and patriotic author.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, before the Senator takes his seat, I am not certain that I understood one statement he made. Do I understand the Senator to say that Judge Clayton, the author of this bill, or the chairman of the committee that reported it, had made some request or statement about it?

Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. He made no request. It was simply in conversation. I will say that I have great admiration for the patriotism and the splendid ability of Judge Clayton. I met the judge yesterday in company with his wife, and naturally the topic turned on what we were doing in the Senate. I said: "We are thrashing over the Clayton bill. Is that a familiar sound to you?" "Oh, yes," said he. I said: "It has been changed somewhat, since it came out of conference, from the bill as it was first presented. The penalty clauses have been decidedly and sadly eliminated." To which he responded: "Yes; I view with deep regret and disappointment the fact that that is the case."

Mr. WALSH. Mr. President, for the purpose of setting the Senator from New Jersey right about a matter as to which he seems to be in error, as I am sure he desires to be correct about it, I desire to say to him that the penalties were all taken out of the bill on the floor of the Senate and not by the committee.

Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. Well, they are out to-day; and, by the eternal gods, I will not vote for any measure that will not put them back again. That is the way I feel about it. [Manifestations of applause in the galleries.]

October 3, 1914.

Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. Mr. President, I am prompted to offer a telegram I have received. I am prompted to do it because of the telegrams presented by the Senator from Michigan regarding the proposed tax on automobiles. My telegram does not refer to automobiles, but it refers to the proposed taxing of gasoline. It reads as follows:

Hon. J. H. MARTINE,

HOBOKEN DEPOT, N. J., October 2, 1914.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: Gasoline should not be taxed for manufacturing and technical use. Price too high already. We use it in quantities for dry cleaning. A. D. EYRE & Co.

My friend from Michigan is standing up for the automobile, and the friend who telegraphs me is standing up for gasoline, so we will have the machine stagnated, butting in at both ends. if this is adopted.

I am opposed to a tax on gasoline, for the use of gasoline is not confined to automobiles, of which my wealthy friend from Michigan is the fortunate possessor. I have none. Gasoline enters into manufacturing. It enters into the operations of almost every farm. A little gasoline engine, costing from $40 to $60, is pulled up alongside of a stack of wheat and does the threshing; it does the pumping, the churning, the wood sawing, and a million other things. So I think gasoline should stand a little better chance before the Senate than automobiles.

While I am not here to tinker with the present tax on automobiles, yet I think an automobile could stand it very well. I think my friend from Michigan wants to be fair, however. He is a very delightful and companionable and genial gentle.

man. I love his pugnaciousness. I know he must feel better now, since he has gotten this campaign speech off his mind and out of his system. He will feel better over Sunday on account of it. He could not let the opportunity go by. We are to have an election in a few weeks, and he had to get in his campaign speech about the tariff, claiming that we had instituted a tariff which failed to produce the results anticipated. Of course it did. We did not have war in Europe then. He was not fair enough to tell the Senate that the imports were stifled and shut off through the unfortunate situation that exists abroad. Oh, no; he told you nothing about that, but simply the fact that our tariff had failed to produce revenue. He went on to tell you that when we came into power here the factories were busy, they were humming all over; and yet we had the uncanny and horrible strike in Lawrence, Mass., under your administration, and under your infernal system of tariff taxation. We had strikes all around. The Senator does not say anything about that. We are not the authors of this necessity, however. We did not make this war, and God knows we all wish it might be stayed and stopped. We are not the authors of it in any sense whatever; but it is apparent, and every fair-minded Senator on the other side will admit, that there is a need of revenue for no reason of our own making. We must not put it on automobiles, oh, no, for some multimillionaire who rides in a lavish one might have to pay a dollar or two a year. How is that going to affect you people in Michigan? Not a bit. You are an ingenious, thrifty set of manufacturers and business men up there. Every dollar we put on automobiles you will charge up to the consumer, the man who buys the automobile. Of course the Senator from Michigan, having two, would have to pay a little more than some poor devil who did not have any.

It is also said that we must not put it on whisky. Now, I am in favor of putting it on luxuries-putting it on whisky, on wine, on beer, on tobacco. But we find rebellion at each of these points. The whisky men write me, on lavish letterheads: "Now, don't think of imposing any more tax on whisky. God knows we have burdens enough."

Two or three brewers come from my State and say: "Oh, don't think of putting it on beer, for beer is the poor man's drink." I think it poor at that, but that is their proposition. Then we come to the wine producers. The wine producers of Ohio say: "Oh, unholy the thought of taxing wine, for our Savior, you know, dealt out wine, and let it be as free as water." My New Jersey friends tell me it will be ruinous to put it on wine. My New York friends, up at Pen Yan and around there, tell me that it will not do to put it on wine there, because they produce those wines.

46

I come to my southern, warm, genial-hearted, liberal friends who raise tobacco, and they say: "Do not put it on tobacco." "Why?" Why, it is the poor man's luxury. He smokes tobacco." Then another man from the South says: "Do not put it on tobacco, because we export tobacco, and we are already hard hit on the cotton question. In God's name do not put it on cotton and do not put it on tobacco."

In all reason, Mr. President, let us be rational and fair over this proposition. If there is any one group of luxuries that it should be put upon. I say it is wine, whisky, beer, and

tobacco. I think no fair-minded man could rebel against that, and I believe we can secure quite enough revenue from that source to satisfy the needs of our Government. If, however, it should become necessary to exact even more, I should not hesitate to impose a stamp tax on checks, bonds, mortgages, deeds, and the like. I believe this would be acquiesced in by the mass of our fellow citizens without any dissatisfaction or any rebellion.

As to the automobile proposition, I say that a machine used for commercial purposes-a dray or a vehicle of that kindmight well be exempt; but a luxurious, splendid equipment in the way of a carriage, such as an automobile is, might fairly and decently and justly have a fair levy of tax.

But I think my friend from Michigan is unjust in his attacks. This horrid financial condition and chaos exists the world over, not here alone. We have weathered the storm, and stand par excellence before the world. The world over, almost to every nation, is in chaos, driven to straits unparalleled and unknown before; and, naturally, as each year advances and as our civilization has gone on nations come closer in touch, and it is not unnatural or unreasonable that we should feel the effects of their strife. But, thank Heaven, we shall weather the storm. The hundred millions of people that make up America, prompted by the holy thought of right and justice, guided and directed to-day by the hand of the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, who has but one purpose, and that is justice and fairness to all mankind, will bring us out of this cloud and lift us to a brighter and holier sunshine in the near future that will bless Republican, Democrat, Jew, and Gentile alike.

October 5, 1914.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is before the Senate. Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. Then I desire, Mr. President to make a brief statement. I have received to-day a number of telegrams from trades-unions and workingmen. One goes on to say:

MY DEAR MARTINE: You have ever been a true friend of labor. We therefore appeal to you to sustain the Clayton antitrust bill.

Another reads:

In behalf of the trainmen and other railroad employees of New Jersey I urge you to stand by the Clayton trust bill.

True enough, at this telegram says, I have ever been the friend of labor. I have been brought up with the laboring man from my early youth; I left school at 12 years of age, and since then I have been a worker. My sympathies have naturally been with the laboring man, and they are touched and aroused on the labor question. Wherever their case needed a sponsor or a defender I have been their defender, not for the purpose of elevation or the hope of reward, but because of the fact that the principles of honest labor were so deeply instilled within me that I could not rid myself of them if I would.

I stood in favor of the Clayton antitrust bill when it was first presented from the House, because, as I said on Friday last, I believed it was a step in the direction of aiding men in business and in the general walks of life who were under the ban of and were being crushed by the mighty influence of combinations of money; and God knows there is no State in this