CHAPTER XLV.

THE ROGERS LAW.

R. HEARST'S attack on me had a companion piece in an attack made first in 1907, and then renewed in 1908, on account of the enactment, April 22, 1896, by the Ohio Legislature, of what is known in Cincinnati as the Rogers Law, by which provision was made for the consolidation and merger of the street railways of Cincinnati, then five in number, into one company, to which the Board of Administration of Cincinnati was authorized, subject to certain limitations and restrictions, to grant a franchise to maintain its tracks in the streets of Cincinnati for a period of fifty years upon certain terms and conditions to be prescribed, which terms and conditions, including rates of fare to be charged, were subject to revision at the end of twenty years and at the end of each fifteen years thereafter so long as the franchise might continue.

This statute was enacted after I had been elected to the Senate, but almost a year before I had taken my seat.

It was charged that the Legislature had been corruptly induced to pass the law, and that I had appeared before the Legislature as a lobbyist; that I had kept open rooms at the hotel where refreshments were dispensed, to which legislators were invited and where I had solicited and importuned their support for the bill. It was also charged that for the services so rendered I had been paid enormously large fees, ranging according to the reports so circulated from a few thousand to a million dollars.

The whole story from beginning to end was an extravagant tissue of lies, for which there was no excuse whatever, but it naturally caused much talk that was prejudicial to my candidacy. When it commenced I thought it would easily answer

itself, and that it would not be necessary for me to dignify it with any attention whatever.

Before I had learned otherwise, my good friend, Judge West, who in the way already recited in the preceding chapter came to my rescue in the Hearst matter, made an investigation of these charges. I do not know how I can better refute the malicious lies and slanders and libels that were started than by inserting here a pamphlet published by Judge West, showing how he came to make his investigation, the nature of it and the results of it.

FIAT JUSTITIA.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

The story is current that while the fifty years' street franchise or so-called "Rogers Law" was pending before the Legislature in 1896, Senator Foraker opened and kept open lobby headquarters at Columbus, to which the Members were invited and labored with to support it, and that for these services he was paid by the Cincinnati Street Railway Company an enormous fee, in amount never disclosed, but variously reckoned at tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, sometimes a million dollars.

It is a singular fact that no one, living or dead, has ever been named as authority for this story. It is either true or it is false. Whether it is the one or the other I have no personal knowledge, but there are living witnesses who have, Members of that Legislature and officers of the railway company, from whom the truth, whatever it is, can be ascertained by making inquiry. Because others believe the story without making such inquiry, or profess to, must I also, and without inquiry join in their hue and cry against an eminent citizen and public servant who has rendered distinguished services to the country, both in field and forum, and whom the State in times past has delighted to honor? This I can not, will not do. Believing it the duty of good citizenship, if that civic virtue is not "a barren ideality" and academic pretense, to do for my neighbor and fellow citizen what I might justly wish to have him do for me, our relations being reversed, to make inquiry and ascertain what the facts are before pronouncing judgment, I have on my own motion taken it upon myself to make that inquiry and the truth has been found to be as follows:

ORDER OF EVENTS.

Ex-Governor Foraker became Senator-elect January 14, 1896, but did not become Senator in fact until March 4, 1897. The "Rogers Law" was introduced in the Legislature February 21, 1896, and passed the House April 2, 1896, by a vote of 75 to 24, eleven of the twenty-five Democratic members voting for it. House J. 605 and 926. It passed the Senate April 22d by a vote of 22 to 18, four of the seven Democratic Senators voting for it. Senate J. 819. It was in no sense a party measure

On retiring from office in 1890, ex-Governor Foraker resumed the practice of law in his home city of Cincinnati, where later he became associate counsel with those eminent attorneys, John W. Warrington and E. W. Kittredge, for one or more of the street railway companies, of which John Kilgour was President, each at a fixed annual salary, payable in any event whether the service he rendered was much or little. Did either of the said attorneys receive compensation from any source, in addition to his fixed annual salary, for any services rendered in connection with the "Rogers Law"?

President Kilgour writes: "The impression prevailing that a large sum of money was paid Senator Foraker for services connected with the passage of the 'Rogers Law' is without foundation in fact. At that time E. W. Kittredge, John W. Warrington and Senator Foraker were and for some years had been the regular attorneys of the street railway company with which I was connected, under contracts of employment for the payment to each of a fixed annual salary for what legal services he might perform. Not one cent in addition to his regular fixed salary was ever directly or indirectly paid by the street railway company to Senator Foraker or either of the other attorneys for any services performed by either of them in connection with the 'Rogers Law,' either before or after its passage, nor was the salary of either of them thereafter increased." E. W. Kittredge writes: "As one of the attorneys of the Cincinnati Street Railway Company I assisted John W. Warrington and Senator Foraker, its other attorneys, in drafting what is known as the 'Rogers law. Neither Senator Foraker, Mr. Warrington nor myself received any compensation from the Cincinnati Street Railway Company, or from any other source, for our services before the standing committees of the Legislature or elsewhere, outside of our fixed annual salaries. When the resolutions of the Board of Administration of the city of Cincinnati were prepared by us, as attorneys for the Cincinnati Street Railway Company, granting the extension of time for the various lines of road, the work was done in like manner by all three of us as such attorneys; and we never received any compensation from the Cincinnati Street Railway Company, or otherwise, for these services, outside of our fixed annual salaries."

John W. Warrington writes: "As attorneys of the Cincinnati Street Railway Company, Senator Foraker, Mr. Kittredge and myself each received a fixed and the same salary, and none of us received any extra compensation for any services rendered by us or either of us in connection with the 'Rogers Law.' The whole story that either of us did is an untruth."

Senator Foraker writes: "I was never paid by the Street Railroad Company of Cincinnati, nor by any other person or corporation, for any service rendered in connection with or under the 'Rogers Law,' either before or after its passage, any compensation in money or otherwise, beyond the regular fixed annual salary which was payable by said company and would have been paid to me if that law had never passed, been drafted or thought of."

This is the concurring evidence of the only persons who have or could have had personal knowledge respecting the fact of which they speak. No one of his own knowledge has ever asserted in print or otherwise or

ever will assert, the contrary; nor has any one ever in print or otherwise named nor will he name another as authority for such contrary statement. They who have respect for the command to abstain from bearing false witness against their neighbor or for the Author of this command or for the virtue of good citizenship, will desist from reiterating the story thus refuted. They who have respect for neither the command nor its Author, nor the virtue of good citizenship, will continue to print and circulate it "on reliable authority" (?), which is the inexhaustible but nameless source whence reportorial calumny distills and disseminates its insidious virus with which to poison the public mind against some eminent citizen whose reputation it seeks to blacken or downfall to compass.

NO LOBBYING.

After a measure affecting public or private interests and especially the latter, has been introduced in Congress or the State Legislature and referred to its appropriate committee, it is the usual practice for its advocates and opponents on the request or by permission of the committee to appear before it in person or by attorneys and discuss its merits and demerits and give their respective reasons why it should or should not be favorably considered and reported. Such practice is in no sense lobbying, but is universally sanctioned as a legitimate and proper mode of furnishing the committee the information necessary to its intelligently determining and reporting pro or con.

When the Anti-Saloon League appears by its officers or attorneys before the proper committee of the Legislature to advocate some temperance measure referred to it for consideration and report, the newspapers of the better sort do not, nor do the good people of the State rail at and execrate them as pernicious lobbyists.

The Editorial Association of the State recently recommended the enactment of legislation requiring all expenditures of public money to be reported and published in detail. If, after that measure has been presented to the Legislature and referred to the Committee on Printing, the association shall, by its officers, agents or attorneys, appear before the committee to discuss its provisions and show that the public benefit to result from such publication will more than compensate its cost, will any reputable newspaper of the State or decent citizen denounce them as reprehensible lobbyists?

REPLIES.

Only a fraction of the matter received in reply to inquiries can be incorporated herein without extending this paper to an unreasonable length.

Hon. Chase Stewart, who represented Clark County in 1896, writes: "I never was in sympathy with the Rogers bill and did not vote for it. I recall distinctly the day the vote was taken on that law in the House. I know of no lobby in favor of it. It would be natural for me to have known of any lobbying or unfair methods that might have been used, because of the fact that I stood opposed to the law to the last. It is true the Hamilton County members seemed to be quite enthusiastic and were actively engaged on the floor trying to secure votes for the bill. But I had no knowledge of any unsual or unfair methods whatever being used or employed by friends of the bill."

Hon. H. C. Smith, who was a Representative from Cuyahoga County, writes: "Replying to your inquiry, I have to say that as one of the Representatives from Cuyahoga County, I voted against the Rogers law. I never knew or heard that headquarters were established or kept open at Columbus or elsewhere by Senator Foraker to which members of the Legislature resorted and were labored with by him to support it, and am confident that no other member of the Legislature had such knowledge or will so state, for it could not have taken place without my knowing it.

"The Rogers Law was never mentioned or alluded to by the Senator in any conversation I had with him during that session and I called on and conversed with him a few minutes every time he was in Columbus after his election, which, as I remember, was but twice, once when he appeared before and publicly addressed the House committee and once when he addressed the Senate committee.

"Shortly before the passage of that law in the House arguments were made before the standing committee having it in charge by Senator Foraker and other attorneys for, and by Mr. McDougall and other attorneys against it, just as arguments are made by opposing attorneys to a court or jury. I do not believe that it occurred to any member of the committee nor to anybody else that they were giving countenance to lobbyists by hearing these arguments for and against the law."

The statement of E. W. Kittredge (condensed): "The purpose of the Rogers Law, so far as it affected Cincinnati, was 'to secure to the people of Cincinnati and Hamilton County cheaper, more rapid and more commodious urban and interurban transportation,' by consolidating into one single system under one management more than a score of independent street railway lines then owned and operated by nearly as many different companies under franchises granted at different times empowering each company to charge full fare without compulsory transfers; and 'to enable a passenger to ride for a single fare, not exceeding five cents, from one suburb of the city, in the same general direction, to the most distant suburb-in many cases ten to fifteen miles.'

"After this Rogers Law was introduced in the Legislature, and referred to its appropriate committee, Senator Foraker, with John W. Warrington and myself, as attorneys of the Cincinnati Street Railway Company, appeared before the committee of the House to discuss the terms of this law. The opposition in that discussion were represented by the late Thomas McDougall and other lawyers associated with him. The measure was then and there very fully discussed.

"While said bill was pending before the Senate committee, we were informed that the opponents of the measure had applied to the Senate committee for further hearing of the opponents to the bill. As representing those favoring the Rogers Law, we were notified of this application, and of the time set for this further hearing. Senator Foraker, Warrington and myself went to Columbus and appeared in the committee room of the Senate. McDougall and other attorneys appeared for the opposition before the committee, and the measure was again fully discussed. Both this and the former hearing were in the evening, and we had to remain in Columbus on each occasion until the following day. The charge that Senator Foraker 'opened lobby headquarters at the