Senator BRANDEGEE. Have they had a meeting recently about the amendment of the Sherman law?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; we have had several; discussed it very extensively and very frequently, and not only recently, but in times past over and over again; and as was declared by a Member of Congress from New York, who was a delegate to one of our conventions several years ago, in which he stated the only difficulty with the Sherman antitrust law is that it was not enforced, and we believe that is true to-day the same as it was when the Congressman made the statement 10 years ago in Chicago.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you have any stated meetings of your national executive committee?

Mr. MARTIN. No, sir; we meet according to the emergencies as they may arise.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Who calls the meetings?

Mr. MARTIN. Either the president or the secretary.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Are there any by-laws governing those things, or rules?

Mr. MARTIN. Not by-laws governing the meetings, but there is a national declaration of principles.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Where may it be obtained?

Mr. MARTIN. I can furnish it to the Senator, if he desires.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I wish you would. I would like to have it in the record.

Mr. MARTIN. I would be very glad to insert it in the record. We are rather proud of it. We think it is a declaration of sound government principles, and we hope it will result in the conversion of all good citizens.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The reason I asked-I am not familiar with the organization, and I wanted to ascertain what the nature of it Of course I assume I knew what the purpose of it was.

was.

In one of your statements you remarked rather incidentally that some of the members of a Judiciary Committee had told you that it would not be wise in their judgment at present to attempt any amendment of the Sherman law, because it would involve new legal constructions by the court, and they had better let the present law be thoroughly construed, as I understood you. What Judiciary Committee did you allude to?

Mr. MARTIN. Not the present Judiciary Committee, although I think some of the present members were members then.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I mean the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. Mr. MARTIN. It was a previous Congress.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Was it the Judiciary Committee of the Senate? Mr. MARTIN. Of the United States Senate; yes, sir. Some of those members are members now of the present Judiciary Committee, and will undoubtedly be heard from on any amendment, because they will probably go to that committee.

Senator BRANDEGEE. They might come to this committee. Who did you say was the counsel of your league?

Mr. MARTIN. Herman J. Schulties, of Washington, was one of our counsel; ex-Attorney General Frank S. Monett, of Ohio, who was instrumental in driving the Standard Oil Co. out of that State, was also one of our national counsel in that matter; and also Senator Blair Lee, of Maryland. He appeared for us in the preparation of our

original case against the Steel Trust in 1901, and has acted as one of our legal advisers ever since.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I did not mean to inquire as to the names of the array of counsel that you may have had in the past in different matters. But who is your counsel now?

Mr. MARTIN. Joseph Hartigan, of New York, and there are many Members of Congress who are also kind enough to give us very valuable legal advice at times.

Senator BRANDEGEE. What I wanted to elicit a reply to was with reference to your statement that you had a general counsel, an attorney at law, who was your general counsel-who is that?

Mr. MARTIN. That is not perhaps accurate, Senator. No one man is exclusively our general counsel. Mr. Schulties, who is a resident of Washington, probably does more work than anyone else here in town because he is a resident of the Capital.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Who appeared for you in your proceedings for bringing the Tobacco Trust decision before the Supreme Court? Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Schulties, of Washington, and Joseph Hartigan, of New York.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Did they appear for you in the circuit-court case?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. I have here the petition they filed for us at that time. I think it might be interesting to members of the committee if I should file it as a part of my remarks. It is not lengthy, and it specifically sets forth the situation, as we understand it.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no objection. (The paper referred to is as follows:)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. THE AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. ET AL.

To the honorable the judges of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York:

First acknowledging the courtesy of this court in permitting this petitioner to file objections in this cause, your petitioners, the members of the American Antitrust League, through their national secretary, Henry B. Martin, who also as an individual is injuriously affected in the same manner, together with many millions of other consumers of the products of the above-mentioned American Tobacco Co. within the United States, hereby protest and remonstrate against the reorganization plan of the American Tobacco Co. presented to your honorable court, because the consumers, who in numbers and interest are greater than any other party to this cause, have not, as it appears to us, been directly nor fully represented in these proceedings, the object of which is to restore full and free competition in the sale of tobacco and its products, and that thereby the consumer be protected from the extortionate prices and inferior, adulterated products which invariably follow, and in this case have followed, the establishment of the monopoly.

After an examination of the petition and plan of the American Tobacco Co. filed herein, your petitioners find that this plan proposes to allow the vast accumulated profits of extortion and monopoly to be left in the control in consolidated form of the defendants, which is repugnant to the mandate of the Supreme Court and to the act of July 2, 1890, known as the antitrust law. This consolidation, in view of the vast and irreparable injury wrought in the past by its power to oppress the consumers, producers, and dealers in the matter of prices and the destruction of competition, should not be allowed, whether in the form of four different companies or of any other number of companies, to continue their domination and control of the tobacco business within the United States, which will surely result if the plan they have submitted is accepted and approved by this honorable court.

We concur in the objections to the defendant's plan which have been submitted to the court by the independent manufacturers, merchants, and farmers' associations, as well as those filed by the attorneys general of the States of Norh Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and New York. We also concur in the restrictions which have been presented by the Attorney General of the United States, and especially urge that his proposal, that whatever plan is adopted, the future conduct of the individual and corporate defendants to this case shall be subject to the supervision of the court, with the power reserved to the Government to at any time within five years petition for further relief in case of the failure of the defendants to fully comply with the order of the court.

Your petitioners do not share in the fear expressed by the Attorney General that the appointment of a receiver might involve any great danger to the business of the country or to the interests of any considerable number of honest investors. Even though it be conceded that some risk be involved in a receivership, it is clear that, on the other hand, a far greater and more imminent danger and injury to the business and people of this country is involved in any plan which permits the continued control of the hundreds of millions of dollars of assets and vast consolidated monopoly power of the tobacco combine in the hands of these defendants.

Therefore we petition your honorable court to reject the plan of disintegration proposed by the American Tobacco Co. and the other parties to the unlawful tobacco combine, and we respectfully request that a receiver or receivers be appointed, to the end that the tobacco business of the country may go on unimpeded and that the men who have been adjudged by the courts to be violators of the law shall no longer be permitted to control so vast an engine of extortion and oppression as is the present tobacco combine and as their new-planned foursquare combination would be. We respectfully submit that the proposed plan of the tobacco combine would create four powerful monopolies closely interlocked together and allow the defendants to hold a powerful, if not dominating, interest in and influence over the several other great companies enumerated in their plan.

The proposed plan is also dangerous and unlawful in that it practically creates an international combination of all these tobacco companies which would be more powerful to destroy competition and oppress consumers even than is the present combine, and the plan, if approved by the court, would give the sanction of law and the approval of the Government to this newer and greater monopoly. Your petitioners are in no way affiliated with any of the defendants in the above-entitled action, but on the contrary are consumers of tobacco products vended by the defendants and are injured as hereinbefore set forth; especially by the United Cigar Stores Co., which could be placed in the hands of a re ceiver without involving any of the possible objections suggested to the other receiverships referred to.

In conclusion, we submit that the defendants' plan would not only result in a failure of justice, but would legalize their unlawful methods in contravention of the act of July 2, 1890. Your petitioners further pray to be heard herein by counsel at any subsequent hearings and to file within such time as the court may designate such written memoranda or argument as they may be advised. All of which is respectfully submitted for the consideration of this honorable court.

Dated, New York, November 4, 1911.

HERMAN J. SCHULTIES,

Counsel The American Antitrust League, 1519 R Street, NW., Washington, D. C. JOSEPH HARTIGAN,

Associate counsel,

135 Broadway, Borough of Manhattan, New York City.

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Schulties and Mr. Joseph Hartigan, of New York, were the gentlemen who presented that point.

Senator BRANDEGEE. In these views that you have presented to the committee as the views of your organization, I suppose they have been adopted by your national executive committee?

Mr. MARTIN. Not all, in a formal manner. We are all great believers in the power and benefits of free public opinion, and our

members are largely active men who are writers and speakers and thinkers and advisers in the world of politics and business, and by correspondence and by mutual reading of publications we are in touch with one another daily and constantly as to great questions arising which come within the scope of the work of our organization; and our aim and I think we are successful in it-is to keep in good fighting trim all the time and in thorough touch with each other by the various instrumentalities, so that we know what is going on and what we want to do in connection with it.

Senator BRANDEGEE. What I more particularly meant was, for instance, in your present appearance before this committee, did the national executive committee pass a certain vote and instruct you to come here and to say on behalf of the organization that the organization as a whole took this attitude on the proposed amendment of the Sherman law?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE. And had no other attitude. Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir; repeatedly. The organization has instructed both myself and Mr. Schulties and any member of the executive committee who may be in Washington to take this attitude before any and all committees whenever occasion shall arise.

Senator BRANDEGEE. When you use the term "this attitude," of course you know that in the length of your testimony you have taken a great many attitudes upon a great many subjects. I do not mean that you have taken more than one on the same subject, but you have represented the views of your organization upon a great many questions, and what I am trying to have appear in the record is what means you have of knowing whether what you have said is really the attitude of all these different members of your organization, which I assume are scattered all over the United States.

Mr. MARTIN. Of course, Senator, it would be impossible to say that my verbal expressions on each detail of the matter represented exactly the views of every other member of the organization, but I am absolutely sure that they represent, as to the main policies on all these points, the clear and unquestioned sentiment of the great body of our people because we have discussed them over and over again. Senator BRANDEGEE. I want to draw your attention to this fact. You have stated that you are not an attorney at law.

Mr. MARTIN. I am not.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Yet you have opinions about the Sherman law and the interstate commerce act and all these matters, legal matters and governmental matters, and wherever you have stated them, if I recall your language correctly, you have stated that "our position is this," and "we believe that." Now there are very close questions involved in the consideration of the Sherman law, and the distinction to be drawn between the different decisions of the courts are very close and very complicated. So, when you say that plainly: "We take this position upon that," and "we take the other position on the other thing," I wondered whether you are absolutely sure that all the members of your organization were aware as a whole of what you were going to state to the committee before you came down.

Mr. MARTIN. As I said a moment ago, I would not say that each individual member of that body was thoroughly familiar with the

exact language I was going to use, but I am sure that our legal adviser and our chief officers and the great body of our people are in accord with me in these views. Of course during the course of 35 years, in which I have been struggling with this question and devoting a very considerable part of my time to it, I have become pretty thoroughly acquainted with the views of the men on our side of the house, if you please, on these subjects, and most of the various ramifications of these questions. And I have endeavored to boil down and concentrate into the briefest possible form what I am thoroughly convinced is a substantially true and correct statement of the views of our people; and I absolutely feel safe in standing publicly and openly upon that standpoint.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Do all your counsel and attorneys act voluntarily and without compensation?

Mr. MARTIN. No. At times they are paid. That is practically the only exception. The officers of our organization thought at times they ought to receive some compensation. Very many of them give their assistance at times freely, but there might be emergencies that would make it necessary to compensate them. Of course, counsel at times necessarily involves some expense in traveling and otherwise, that makes it entirely proper and necessary that we should compensate them to some extent.

Senator BRANDEGEE. What I meant was whether your counsel generally, when they appeared in court or before legislative committees, whether they contributed their services, or whether you compensated them.

Mr. MARTIN. That is a detail I do not know that I am prepared to go fully into.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I do not want you to.

Mr. MARTIN. And perhaps it is not of public importance.

Senator BRANDEGEE. It was of some significance, in my opinion, to understand whether the attorneys that appeared for you appeared because they were members of your association and subscribed to your platform and acted with you, because they really believed it, or whether they were employed to represent the views of your association, as a lawyer would be to try a case in court, largely. Mr. MARTIN. Sometimes they appeared in one way and sometimes in the other, but generally it was a sort of combination of both. Most of our counselors are men who hold very pronounced views on these subjects, and are heartily in sympathy with us. We would consider that we were taking a great deal of risk if we employed men to represent our views on this question who were not in thorough sympathy with our movement.

Senator BRANDEGEE. How many of your counsel do you expect to appear before the committee here?

Mr. MARTIN. I hope to have at least three or four of them before the matter is over. The committee has been very generous to us in this matter, and we would have our counsel wait until there came perhaps a day when the attorneys might have had more opportunity of hearing every phase of the legal question from the other side.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I simply ask you this question to ascertain whether I can go into the legal propositions with you or wait until the attorneys who represent you will appear.