strong movement was instituted to give the commission this power. The so-called Elkins Act (1905) was the result, which was not only a compromise, but one favored by the railways who feared more drastic measures. This legislation confirmed the right of the government to discipline common carriers guilty of giving rebates and secret tariffs; fines, however, were substituted for imprison

ment.

Yet the problem was not solved by this legislation, for it failed to reach the owners of private freight lines of the great fruit and packing firms, the owners of pipe lines, express and sleeping car companies, etc. The The former interstate legislation had, in fact, proved a protection to these corporations, for in another guise they were doing what was now denied the railways themselves. It was not long before the abuses resulting from the strategical position they had gained became so onerous, especially upon certain sections of the country, that there was unanimity of public opinion for an extension of the law to cover these corporations also. The result was the Hepburn Law, passed during the last hours of the Fiftyninth Congress (June 29, 1906). This act was under bitter discussion during the whole of the second session, and in view of the powerful forces arrayed against it, came forth a far more comprehensive and stringent enactment than might have been expected.

It gave the Interstate Commerce Commission the power to

*

66

prescribe rates, subject to court review; broadened the term common carrier" so as to bring under the jurisdiction of the law all railways, private lines, express and sleeping car companies, and pipe lines. It forbade issuance of passes to any save employees, forbade the ownership or control of coal, iron, or other companies shipping commodities, required schedules of rates to be deposited with commission, demanded a uniform system of accounting, and made more severe the penalties for rebating. rebating. The commission itself was enlarged, in addition, to seven members. Under the provisions of this law, action was brought against the Standard Oil Company of Indiana for accepting rebates on oil shipped over the Chicago and Alton between Whiting, Ind., and East Saint Louis. This case was tried by Judge K. M. Landis, of the United States District Court at Chicago, August 3, 1907, who fined the defendant the maximum fine of $29,240,000. This was set aside July 22, 1908, by the United States Court of Appeals, on the grounds that the decision was confiscatory.

Another important case under this act was the investigation of the Harriman lines, in order to determine the methods by which he had gained control of one-seventh of the railways of the country. Mr. Harriman absolutely refused to testify on vital points, and his position was upheld

* In 1908, 46 indictments were made for rebating, 3 of which resulted in convictions and fines.

in a decision of the Supreme Court, December, 1908, which interpreted that the penalizing clause referred solely to failure to testify in cases involving a breach of the law.

In another case, decided September 10, 1908, the so-called "Commodities clause " was declared unconstitutional by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, at Philadelphia. This removed the restriction denying railways the right to mine and sell coal and iron, and other products. The courts have thus done everything possible to eliminate the extreme provisions of the law, and have cast suspicions upon the efficiency of the legislation as a whole, yet it is very evident that any activity leading toward further curtailment of the power of the commission would be strenuously opposed by the people, and would result, in the long run, in legislation still more severe. There are only two apparent solutions to the corporation problem: government control or government ownership, and if the former be impossible, the coming of the latter will be only a question of time.

Second in importance perhaps first, if its influence upon the welfare of the people be considered, was the National Food and Drugs (Pure Food) Act, passed June 30, 1906. This was a compromise, and far less stringent than food legislation that has been on the statute books of foreign nations for years, yet it was a tremendous forward stride in the direction

of protecting the people from the innumerable frauds that for years had been perpetrated by individuals and corporations whose morality has lagged far behind their desire for wealth. It had long been known that food, drugs, and other articles of consumption had been supplied to the public in adulterated form for years, but in absence of legislation there was no apparent method of stopping the practice. The matter was brought to an issue by the army beef scandal, and the evidence produced at the hearings of the commission of inquiry was of such a nature that a strong demand arose for action on the part of Congress. Session after session bills were presented, but the forces arrayed against them were too strong, and they were quietly shelved. But the issue could not be evaded longer, and the result was the passage of the law of 1906. This legislation was hastened by the publication of a book named The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which revealed a horrible condition of affairs in the stock-yards of Chicago. An investigation proved the relative truth of his accusations, and the result was the indictment of high officials of the beef companies. Public opinion became so strongly in favor of protective legislation, that the long-hoped for acts were finally passed. The Food Bill is primarily a publicity law, and provides a penalty only for using poisonous or otherwise injurious substances in adul

teration, and for misbranding; the dealer is not denied the right to adulterate his product, if no harmful substance be used, but he is denied the right to offer it as the genuine article. The public must know what it is buying, being given the privilege of determining whether it wishes to buy adulterated food and drugs or not.

The legislation, however, has forced all misbranded articles out of the trade, and along with them the self-advertised frauds. Thus, although indirectly, under the efficient application of the law by Secretary of Agriculture Wilson, and chief of the bureau of chemistry, Dr. Wiley, results have been gained almost as salutary as would have come from making adulteration of any sort primarily a criminal offense. To the end of 1908, 135 cases were brought to trial in none of which was there a decision adverse to the government.

Similar in intention, and passed at the same time, was the act providing for a rigid inspection of cattle slaughtered for food. The provisions respecting adulteration and misbranding were also applied in this law, and common carriers were subjected to heavy penalties for transporting such commodities. Several States had passed pure food legislation prior to the agitation of 1905-6, but by the end of the year 1907, 26 had passed pure food acts, the majority of which were modeled upon the Federal law.

The passing of these laws upon a

basis of more or less uniformity was a phase of a movement toward uniformity of State legislation which had long been deemed desirable. One of the movements tending most strongly toward this result was the conference of State governors called together at the instance of President Roosevelt, May 13-15, 1908. The prime object of this conference was to consider plans for the conservation of national resources, and grew out of a convention of the Inland Waterways Commission, with which the President took a trip of inspection down the Mississippi during October, 1907. The conference met in Washington, 40 States being represented by their respective governors. This was remarkable as the first gathering of the kind ever attempted, and its success probably means the injection of a new force into the national civic life. The first meeting confined itself strictly to the subject of conserva- . tion, but the possibility of coöperation of the States upon that topic, it is reasonable to suppose, will lead to coöperation on other subjects and future conferences will doubtless extend the scope and purpose of the organization so far as is consonant with the provision of the Constitution denying individual States the right to enter into agreements not authorized by Congress.

As a corollary to the conference of governors, and in response to a suggestion made at the time, President Roosevelt appointed, June 3, 1908,

the National Conservancy Commission. The objects of the commission, as stated by Henry Gannett, the geographer of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, are: 1st. To collect and systematize information regarding national resources; 2d, to disseminate this information; 3d, to shape State and national legislation to carry out the ends of conservation.

In 1905 it became known that there was dissatisfaction in Porto Rico, and in November a petition from the citizens of the island was forwarded to the President asking that the people of Porto Rico be given a greater share in the government of the same. Later (January 15, 1906), Mayor Todd of San Juan appeared before the House Committee on Insular Affairs, and asked that an elective council be granted the island, protesting, at the same time, against the control of Porto Rico being vested in officials from the States. As the result of these protests, a bill was drawn up by the House committee recommending that United States citizenship be extended to the Porto Ricans. This appeared to be an act of mere justice to a people whose position was anomalous, to say the least. The citizens of this dependency had, not without reason, cause of bewilderment, for while they were declared by the Commissioner-General of Immigration to be aliens (August 2, 1902 a decision supported by the Supreme Court) they were, on the other hand declared by the treaty

of Paris, to be living upon "territory of the United States." Moreover, the Supreme Court had declared them subject to taxation on commodities exported to the United States, like any foreign nation. The legislation establishing the exact status of this dependency, has, however, yet to be enacted.

Meanwhile the course of events in Cuba had not been as smooth and tranquil as had been anticipated when the reins of government were placed in the hands of Cuban officials. President Palma had conducted his office in a creditable and praiseworthy manner during his first term and in 1905 was again nominated by the Moderate party for the presidency. He was elected and again inaugurated in May, 1906, but the Liberal party charged that the Moderates had practiced gross frauds, bribery, intimidation, and illegal voting in the elections. After the inauguration the opposing party exhibited bitter animosity towards the government, and the insurrectionary spirit gradually gained headway until the smoldering flame of revolution broke out and resulted in armed clashes between the adherents of the two factions. By August the strife had assumed the aspect and proportions of a civil war. Palma several times requested intervention on the part of the United States but President Roosevelt declined to act until the state of affairs should prove to be beyond the control of the Cuban government.