Mr. MARTIN. No. We have not said that. I do not think that I have said that, and I do not want the committee to get that impression.

Senator NEWLANDS. That is your view regarding the Tobacco case, is it not?

Mr. MARTIN. It is, because there was a failure of justice in the lower court. If the lower court had given a wise and just decision that would have given the people relief, put a stop to the operations of the trusts, we would not have to appeal it.

Senator NEWLANDS. I am quite in sympathy with that view myself, but so far as the Tobacco case is concerned, if the combination of the very numerous corporations which resulted in that trust were simply divided into four enormous combinations, which must necessarily include a great many constituent companies that were absorbed in the old organization, that organization ought to be passed upon by the tribunal that rendered the decision. I am quite in sympathy with that view.

Mr. MARTIN. I agree with you, Senator, very heartily.

Senator NEWLANDS. It does seem to me that the reorganization of that enormous trust into four enormous corporations is hardly a compliance with the spirit and decision of the Supreme Court.

You referred to the law authorizing the organization of the Bureau of Corporations, and you stated that your league had something to do with the framing of that law.

Mr. MARTIN. Our committee was the only committee that appeared before the House Committee on Interstate Commerce.

Senator NEWLANDS. And the bill was changed; you intended it to be a bureau of publicity, and instead of that it was made a bureau of secrecy. You do not mean to say that this has been done by the deliberate action of the Commissioner of Corporations himself? You mean to say that that secrecy was imposed by limiting the bureau

Mr. MARTIN. No; I believe that secrecy was imposed by the executive officer. It was not made mandatory that he should report to Congress, but he was directed to report to the President; and the executive department construed that as putting the whole thing in their hands, and they would not let any of it out, which I think ought to be remedied by an amendment making him report to Congress as well as to the President.

Senator NEWLANDS. It was the law itself that provided that he should report to the President and not to Congress, and the commissioner has simply complied with that law.

Mr. MARTIN. That was not the draft of the law.

Senator NEWLANDS. You understand that the bill as it finally passed provided that the commissioners should report to the President and not to Congress.

Mr. MARTIN. It did not say "not to Congress." It says he should report to the President.

Senator NEWLANDS. It only gave him the power to report to the President, and pursuing the law, the commissioner reported only to the President. Do you claim that it is also his duty to report to Congress under that law?

Mr. MARTIN. How is that?

Senator NEWLANDS. Do you claim that it is also the duty of the commissioner to report to Congress under that law?

Mr. MARTIN. As it now stands?

Senator NEWLANDS. Yes.

Mr. MARTIN. No; I do not know that it is; but if Congress requires it, I think he ought to give the information.

Senator NEWLANDS. You think, therefore, that when Congress has expressly passed a law instructing the commissioner to report only to the President, that a committee of Congress, without a change in the law, has a right to tell that commissioner to report to it?

Mr. MARTIN. I am inclined to think so, but as I said, I would remedy that by changing the law which can be readily done.

Senator NEWLANDS. Do you not think it is a rather strong term to say that the commissioner himself in simply carrying out the law defied Congress?

Mr. MARTIN. His attitude was a little bit defiant; it had that appearance.

Senator NEWLANDS. Did he not base his action upon his opinion that the law made it his duty to report to the President?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes; he had an opinion from the Attorney General, which he took out of his pocket and read to the committee. He did the same thing before the Senate Committee on Judiciary two years ago.

Senator NEWLANDS. All I wanted to call your attention to was that the law was to blame and not the commissioner.

Mr. MARTIN. But the President afterwards directed him to furnish the information and he did it. I am not blaming the commissioner. That was only an incidental remark. I do not desire to condemn the commissioner particularly. All I desire to suggest to the committee is the desirability of amending the law and making him report to both. I had no desire to criticize the commissioner in his absence.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Senator wish to ask Mr. Martin any further questions?

Senator OLIVER. Senator Pomerene, in one of the questions he asked, referred to the course of the Department of Justice under its present administration in enforcing this law, or rather referring to its failure, as he thought, to properly enforce the criminal provisions of the law as reprehensible. I would like to ask you, Mr. Martin, your opinion as to the comparative reprehensibility of an Attorney General who actively and successfully enforces a law like this, who resuscitates it, and makes it effective in the highest court, although up to the present time he has devoted most of his attention to its civil provision, as compared with one of his predecessors who did nothing to speak of in connection with its enforcement, and in fact declared it to be a dead letter. I refer to the record of the present Attorney General as compared to that of former Attorney General Harmon, of Ohio. I would like to have your opinion as to that?

Mr. MARTIN. As to the relative merits of the conduct of the office under the two administrations?

Senator OLIVER. Relative reprehensibility.

Mr. MARTIN. I have no hesitancy in answering the Senator definitely and plainly that I consider that the present Attorney General has given a better administration of the law than the former Attorney General.

Senator OLIVER. I have nothing further.

Mr. MARTIN. I say that because this is a matter of grave importance and it is vital to the citizens of this Republic, I believe, that this law should be enforced, and any man who gives his efforts to that direction, it matters not to me what party he belongs to or what section or class, I am glad to see any steps taken toward the enforcement of that law. But I do not want to be understood as saying by that that I believe the present Attorney General has gone as far as he ought to go, and I believe that this committee and Congress ought to inquire why he has not gone further in enforcing the criminal provisions, because time flies and we can not afford to let the growth of these things go on any longer. It is a dangerous situation that they are involving the country in.

Senator POMERENE. In the interests of history, as it was suggested yesterday, my very good friend, Senator Õliver, is mistaken in his statement that Attorney General Harmon declared it to be a dead letter. That in substance was said by Attorney General Olney at the time that Mr. Harmon became Attorney General. Senator OLIVER. I will include Mr. Olney.

Senator POMERENE. I am glad you do.

Mr. MARTIN. I will accept him, too.

Senator POMERENE. At the time that Harmon became Attorney General the one decision by the Supreme Court on that statute was the Knight case, in which the decision was adverse to the Government. The only other two decisions up to that time was the one in the Trans-Missouri case by the United States circuit court, in which proceeding was begun by Attorney General Miller, and that was adverse to the Government. On appeal to the United States circuit court of appeals the decision was again adverse to the Government, with one dissenting opinion. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Attorney General Olney did nothing on the subject. Attorney General Harmon took charge of the case when he became Attorney General, and against the advice of others in the department, took it up himself, personally wrote the brief, every word of it, personally argued the case in the Supreme Court, in December, 1896, and the court did not hand its opinion down until March 21, 1897, after his term had expired.

That in the interest of history.

Mr. MILLER. Which was the case you refer to?

Senator POMERENE. The Trans-Missouri case.

Mr. MILLER. Oh, yes.

Senator POMERENE. And he also began, or instructed to be begun during that time the Addyston Pipe Co. case and the case against the Joint Traffic Association.

Mr. MILLER. As to the Trans-Missouri matter, I want to say that we have always set great store by that decision, and whatever Attorney General Harmon contributed to that, I consider that it was a service to the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Senator TOWNSEND. Mr. Miller, do I understand, or do I not, that if you had your way, you would advise Congress to pass a law which, without regard to the effect upon the interests of these great trusts and corporations which exist at the present time, would be destroyed? Mr. MARTIN. I did not catch that.

Senator TOWNSEND. Ought the Congress in dealing with this great trust question to have in mind the property of these trusts as it exists to-day; final distribution of that, or should it be destroyed? Mr. MARTIN. I would not destroy any personal property; no.

Senator TOWNSEND. Well, the values of any property by the owners of it at present?

Mr. MARTIN. Any values which arise as the result of conspiracy would disappear with the destruction of the conspiracy, of course. They are intangible values.

Senator TOWNSEND. No matter who owned it; whether it should be an innocent stockholder or one of the offenders?

Mr. MARTIN. The law does not extend much courtesy to holders or the innocent purchasers of stolen property, etc., and the offenses of is kind have been public and so conspicuous that such a thing as an innocent purchaser of the common stock of the Tobacco Trust, or an innocent purchaser of the common stock of the Standard Oil Co., or of the Steel Trust is a pretty scarce article, in my judgment. Men who gamble their money on partnership and crime ought to take the consequences.

Senator TOWNSEND. But you would destroy, if they are found guilty; had the Tobacco Trust and the Standard Oil Co. been found guilty, you would destroy all property interests of the holders, if you could?

Mr. MARTIN. Oh, no; I would not.

Senator TOWNSEND. You would not do that?

Mr. MARTIN. No.

Senator TOWNSEND. How would you deal with that?

Mr. MARTIN. Why, I would-as the company has been dissolved, the dissolution of the combination means its death.

Senator TOWNSEND. What would you do with the property?

Mr. MARTIN. The property, of course, is legally the property of the holders, except such part of it as may be taken in fines or seizure in transit. The other proceedings should be left to the holders to divide up and use as they see fit-not in violation of the law. Bearing in mind always that any use they put it to in the future, they must remember that the next time it will be the second offense. As a certain judge in Chicago said to a defendant, "Will fine you a certain sum this time, but the next time you come back here, look out." Senator TOWNSEND. If the civil and criminal remedies were all used, there could not be any second offense that would be much more drastic.

Mr. MARTIN. That would be the end of it.

Senator TOWNSEND. At the present time you would destroy all property rights and the offenders would serve the penalty in prison, if it were possible?

Mr. MARTIN. That would be a good thing for the country. It would free the country of their restraint; it would restore competition; prices would fall, and the quality of the products would be improved, and commerce would flourish.

Senator TOWNSEND. And you say that commerce would flourish under such conditions as that?

Mr. MARTIN. I certainly do.

Senator TOWNSEND. Not immediately.

Mr. MARTIN. I did not understand your question when you asked to know my idea in regard to the destruction of physical property. I do not favor anything of that kind.

Senator TOWNSEND. I am curious to know what would become of it if you would destroy their right to it, their interest in it.

Mr. MARTIN. In the case of the dissolution of a combination, if the court appoints a receiver and the property is put up for sale and sold, it will go to whoever buys it. That is not a novel or extraordinary proceeding, as I understand it.

Senator TOWNSEND. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Does any other member of the committee have any questions? If not, Mr. Martin will be excused.

Mr. MARTIN. Senator, I would like to say one word in regard to a feature of this matter. Just before recess the Senator from Pennsylvania was questioning me in regard to certain features of the matter, and I was under the impression that he was going to ask something further at the renewal of the session, but he did not, and I ask the privilege of just a suggestion here, and that is the Senator from Pennsylvania appeared, as I understood him-I may have been mistaken to criticize my suggestion as to one of the causes of the fall in the price of steel to the consumer and I want to ask, in the interest of instruction of all of us in the record, if the Senator would suggest, that we might know it, what his idea was of the cause of that reduction in prices. I do not know that I have any right to make such a request, but I feel that in fairness to my position I would like to have that information if it could be had.

Senator OLIVER. I am not being heard before the committee at this time.

Mr. MARTIN. I withdraw the question.

Senator OLIVER. I will state, however, that I did not criticize the statement of Mr. Martin with reference to one of the causes. Mr. Martin stated unequivocally that the cause of the fall in prices of iron and steel products was the investigation of the Stanley committee. I am free to say that I combat that proposition absolutely, and in my opinion-which is only an opinion, and which I think is worth as much as Mr. Martin's-a number of causes contributed to that, the least of which, if it has any bearing at all, is the investigation of the Stanley committee.

Mr. MARTIN. If the Senator will permit me, I think that my statement was that the investigation of the committee had resulted-not that it was the sole cause of the reduction in prices--but that it had resulted in a reduction equivalent, approximately, to $25,000,000 a year; not that it was the sole cause, but that it had contributed.

Senator OLIVER. I do not know what that means if it does not mean that that was a result of the investigation.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions to be asked, you are excused, Mr. Martin.

(Mr. Martin was thereupon excused.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jaritz, do you want to be heard now?
Mr. JARITZ. I would prefer to be heard now.

Senator NEWLANDS. Before Mr. Jaritz is heard will you just allow me to make a suggestion? It will take but a moment. I observed in this morning's paper that Bernard N. Baker, president of the