66

"he would not be surprised" if he has spent $460,000 influencing public opinion, though "not one cent was ever spent in an illegitimate way." "You can spend a lot of money" he added, coming to the point, "in newspapers and periodicals." Precisely how he had spent this money Mr. Oxnard did not reveal; when asked for the books of the American Sugar Beet Association, he found himself unable to give them up, as they had been burned. This conflagration took place two years ago; since that time, said Mr. Oxnard, the association had been keeping no books whatever. The purpose of these large expenditures, however, was perfectly plain. It was to avert disaster" to the sugar industry to prevent Mr. Oxnard and his fellow sugar capitalists from being “ruined." Ruination meant a lowering of the duty on sugar- or, what was scarcely foreseen until the present session, its entire removal. Whenever there was the slightest suspicion that the sugar schedule was to be affected, Mr. Oxnard always regularly made his appearance in Congress. He somewhat exultingly recited his exploits in this direction. He fought Cuban reciprocity, the annexation of Hawaii, the Wilson bill of 1894, the Dingley bill of 1897, and the provision of the PayneAldrich bill that admitted 300,000 tons of sugar free from the Philippines.

-

However, Congress has not absorbed all of Mr. Oxnard's attention, for the stock market has made certain demands upon his time. When he organized the American Beet Sugar Company, Mr. Oxnard explained, he had poured in $15,000,000 of "watered stock." He also described how He also described how he had succeeded in selling his watered stock at prices ranging from $15 to $50 a share. It also appeared that the profits in the sugar beet business were not disheartening. The Senate Committee discovered that his company had been earning something more than 15 per cent. on the original investment for the last decade.

For many years Mr. Oxnard, as head of the American Sugar Beet Association, personally directed the publicity campaign. Two years ago, however, he retired, handing over the reins to Mr. Truman Palmer and Mr. C. C. Hamlin. Mr.

Palmer, in his early life an experienced newspaper man, has in late years acquired fame as a beet sugar statistician and expert. He calls his Washington office a "research bureau," is proud of the fact that he has "the finest sugar library in the world," and has a scientific as well as a journalistic interest in his subject. Indeed, he apparently divides his time between a search for the "one-germ-seed" and a pursuit of newspaper exploitation. For several years Mr. Palmer has drawn a salary of $10,000; his associate, Mr. C. C. Hamlin, is even a higher priced man, his salary having been $15,000. Mr. Palmer's chief activities have apparently been in securing wide circulation for his sugar ideas at public expense. Three years ago he wrote an elaborately illustrated pamphlet on "Sugar at a Glance"— a complete treatment of the subject from the beet sugar side. Mr. Palmer succeeded in having this printed as a Senate document; he even made numerous alterations in the copy as it was passing through the press. He sent 320,000 copies through the mails at government expense ment expense thereby saving $3,200 in postage. Mr. Palmer has testified that obliging Senators and Congressmen had made many other of his lucubrations public documents, and permitted him to use their franking privilege on an extensive scale. Almost 1,771,000 "documents" of this kind, said Mr. Palmer, he had "franked" to all parts of the United States. His associate, Mr. Hamlin, has manufactured public opinion in other ways. He has inspired many petitions to Congressmen . and induced public men everywhere to write letters indorsing the Oxnard viewpoint. He attempted to secure control of the Chicago Inter-Ocean and use it as an organ of the sugar men. "The influence of the paper," he wrote, "as well as Mr. Hinman's personal influence would be of great value to us. Mr. Hinman's friends are among the strongest men in public life in Washington." Mr. Hamlin, according to his own statements, prepared the sugar paragraphs in the Republican campaign text book of 1912. "The sugar question will be handled subject to our approval," he wrote: "in fact, the matter is being furnished by us." He paid a Washington

correspondent $125 a month to write articles favorable to the sugar cause.

For years the Hawaiian cane sugar growers have maintained offices in Washington for a similar purpose. For the last three years Mr. Sidney Ballou, once a supreme court judge in Honolulu, has served as its head at a salary of $10,000 a year. Mr. Ballou has specialized on the country press. He is a past-master in the art of "boiler plate." Attentive readers of country weeklies and small city. and small city dailies, for that matter are frequently are frequently struck by the peculiar typographical appearance of certain inside pages. The printing has a splotchy effect; the type used is distinctly different from the rest of the "make-up." The literary matter is of a general character - special articles, an occasional story, an illustration or two, perhaps a humorous department. These pages have no local news; they could be printed with appropriateness in any part of the country. Such matter is technically known as "boiler plate," and "patent insides."

Special agencies in the larger cities prepare this literature, set it up, and make stereotype plates which they send to their country subscribers. For $1.50 these small papers thus obtain an entire page of printed matter.

But there is one way they can obtain it for nothing. Interested people, such as the Hawaiian sugar men, prepare boiler plate and send it gratis to any paper that will print it. They deftly work into such articles paragraphs here and there that are intended to help their cause. There will be an elaborate article, for example, on the cost of living with an explanation that the price of sugar has nothing to do with this increased cost. They will run long interviews with Dr. Wiley and Exsecretary Wilson of the Department of Agriculture, on the development of the sugar industry. There will be articles on such non-committal subjects as the Panama Canal and Hawaii — invariably, however, certain paragraphs are tucked in, helpful to the cane sugar men. Mr. Ballou also sends mimeograph material which the country press can set up and print itself. This is known in the newspaper profession as "canned editorials." Sometimes the

papers will publish these offerings under a Washington date line, with the accompanying legend, "From our own correspondent." In the main they are impartial discussions of current news; always, however, there is something somewhere about sugar and the need of a higher tariff. In addition, Mr. Ballou sends a daily sugar bulletin to newspapers, Congressmen, Cabinet officers, and the White House. In the last few months he has spent large sums advertising the merits of sugar protection in the Washington press.

These men and their numerous subordinates constitute what is known as the "sugar lobby" in Washington. They make their presence felt upon every Senator and Representative. Being a new Senator, circumstances led them to concentrate their energies upon myself. I was a member of the Finance Committee, which has charge of the tariff bill. The Senators from some of the other sugar states, for example, had already taken a stand against the bill. Above all, if the sugar interests could win over myself and my associate. Mr. Shafroth, they could defeat the tariff bill-the Democratic majority in the Senate being so small.

They began their work in the early days of the Colorado campaign. My position on the sugar issue was well known. I have always taken my stand on the traditional Democratic ground of a tariff for revenue. Thus I have always advocated a low duty, for revenue purposes, on sugar. I have not advocated a protective duty on sugar or anything else. I have expressed my convictions on all possible occasions. There has not been a sugar crisis in the last fifteen years in which I have not taken the deepest interest. All that time sugar has figured largely in Colorado politics. I remember sitting in the Senate gallery in 1902 listening to the debate on the Philip pine bill. My old law partner of eighteen years' standing, Senator T. M. Patterson, of Colorado, then made an impassioned speech against admitting Philippine sugar to American ports. Shortly afterward I congratulated him on having made the best protection speech I had ever heard on that subject. In 1908, I opposed the proposition to include in the Democratic

platform of Colorado a declaration against admitting Philippine sugar. On all these occasions the sugar lobby has been alert and active.

I have been much struck with the way its membership has increased. As far back as 1876, when the treaty with Hawaii was negotiated, you will find that the native growers were bitterly opposed to admitting Hawaiian sugar. They were going to be "ruined." Once admitted, Hawaiian sugar men joined the combine in its efforts to keep out everybody else. When the admittance of Porto Rican products was before Congress, these several interests again set up the cry of "ruination." Once Once admitted, however, Porto Rico growers likewise joined the lobby that was fighting other sugar countries. They all opposed the proposition in the Payne-Aldrich bill admitting 300,000 tons of Philippine sugar free. Again they were to be "ruined." Now that the Philippine growers have access to our markets, their representatives have joined their old adversaries against opening the gates to other countries.

It should be remembered that all this time, in spite of the pressure brought to bear in my own state, I have stood for a low sugar tariff. I made my campaign for the Senate last fall largely upon that issue. The people elected me knowing my position; the legislature confirmed their voice with the same understanding. My principal opponent was Mr. Waterman, the general counsel of the Great Western Sugar Company; naturally, the sugar interests. lined up solidly behind him. All these people whose activities I have described the men we know in Washington as the sugar lobby worked hard against me. Mr. Truman Palmer's masterpiece, "Sugar at a Glance" was scattered all over the state we have since learned at the expense of the Government. These things, however, did not deceive the people of Colorado. The voters themselves did not believe in the high sugar duty; the sugar companies are far from popular; and Mr. Palmer, Mr. Oxnard, and the rest lost their battle.

However, the sugar capitalists did not surrender gracefully. A few days after the election the Denver Post sent a

reporter with a request that I define my position on sugar. As I had repeatedly defined it in the campaign, the question was an impertinent one. It seemed to imply that I might change now that I had carried the election.

Therefore, I simply told the reporter to read the Democratic platform. The Denver Post then "went for" me hard. It printed cartoons, interviews, and editorials the burden of which was that I was going to Washington with the expressed intention of "destroying Colorado's greatest industry." est industry." It threw out hints that "it was not too late for Colorado to repudiate me." What it meant was that the legislature could repudiate the popular choice.

My old friend, Ex-senator Patterson, although not sympathizing with my sugar ideas, supported me loyally in the campaign, and was the first to resent the suggestion that the legislature should betray the popular will. I am convinced that the sugar lobby, led by Mr. Charles Boetcher, of the Great Western company, was back of this campaign.

Once I was elected, the sugar interests tried to tie my hands. One of their plans was to get a resolution passed by the Democratic legislature calling for as high a duty on sugar as possible. This resolution was then withdrawn. It was introduced and passed in modified form the next month. Obviously, I could not be bound by it.

Before I came to Washington the sugar people began to pay me calls. The first was Mr. C. S. Morey, president of the Great Western Sugar Company. He is an old friend and neighbor.

"Now I am not going to make any bones over saying that we didn't want you as Senator," he began. "But you're elected, and why can't we talk this over? We cannot submit to a reduction of more than 25 per cent."

"But you said in the campaign that any reduction at all would ruin you," I reminded him. And then we fell to discussing other aspects of the case. As he expressed a willingness to answer questions, I took the opportunity to extract certain information. Like all the sugar companies

the Great Western is grossly overcapitalized. Their demand that we pay high prices for sugar is merely that we help them pay dividends, on large quantities of watered stock, to say nothing of high salaries and other extravagances. Mr. Morey, for example, gets $35,000 a year.

"Is it true, Mr. Morey, that your company cut a melon of $53 a share?" "Well, we did make some profit," he admitted.

"Then I'm told that when you formed your company you exchanged your stock one for two?”

"Yes, that's so."

"I'm also told that your whole outfit cost less than $15,000,000 and that you issued $25,000,000 capital against it."

He agreed that this was true also. "Now you've sold your stock at a good price, haven't you?"

"Yes."

We then discussed the prices at which the trust sells its product in Colorado. That is one of the reasons that Colorado consumers believe in a low duty. Although we are a great sugar-producing state, our sugar costs us more than it does the people of Kansas and Nebraska. The trust charges us the Kansas price and then adds to it the amount of the freight rates from Missouri River points. The fact that The fact that our sugar has never been outside our own state does not matter. I asked Mr. Morey why he did this.

"Well, if Colorado bought its sugar from New York it would have to pay the freight rate, wouldn't it?"

"It seems to me," I said, "that you sugar people are protected from competition in two ways. The tariff protects you and the railroads do also- and apparently you add the amounts in each case to the price of sugar in Colorado."

My next important caller was Mr. Charles Boetcher. He "wanted to congratulate me," and to "talk things over." "We're up against it," he said. "We are going to be ruined. You and Shafroth can save us."

The interview, however, did not terminate satisfactorily for Mr. Boetcher. But as soon as I reached Washington the

lobby renewed its efforts. My position on the sugar question somewhat changed as a result of developments in Washington I had never advocated free sugar; I had always stood for a low revenue duty. But free sugar at least free sugar in thre years now became the party programme years And the party policy naturally became my policy. The new Administration would succeed or fail in its tariff bill; I did not purpose to wreck it at the outset by bolting on the sugar schedule. The many visitors I received did not influence me in the othe direction. They all came - Mr. Oxnard Mr. Ballou, Mr. Palmer, Ex-govern Carter of Hawaii, and the representatives of Porto Rico. Mr. Oxnard was the most solicitous; he called several times. I explained to him that I should follow my party on this question.

"If the party stands for free sugar, said Mr. Oxnard, "you people will be here in Washington debating the matter wher the snow is flying in November."

All these calls, however, struck me a somewhat half-hearted and futile; I think my visitors did it more as a matter of forr and tradition, not really expecting t accomplish much. They relied upon othe methods to bring me to terms. The posta service and the telegraph wires are the popular modern methods of lobbyin: This cyclone, however, was not entire unexpected. In fact I received letter. from friends in Colorado telling me the it was on the way. "Accelerators" public sentiment were scouring the state in the interest of a "public opinion" cam paign. One company offered a prize f the best letter in defense of the Colorad sugar industry — this letter to be addressed to Colorado's Senators and Congressme Several great Colorado newspapers, espe cially that of my old friend, Ex-senat Patterson, the Rocky Mountain Ne.. opened their batteries against me. Larg employers of labor were circulati petitions to be forwarded to me. Peop': everywhere were importuned to write me letters or to send telegrams. Several corespondents inclosed circulars which made clear as daylight the mechanism beh:: these communications. For example, her is a circular which the Great Western Suga

Company, of Longmont, Colo., sent to all

it employees:

THE GREAT Western Sugar COMPANY,

Longmont Factory.

LONGMONT, COLO., May 12, 1913. TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE LONGMONT FACTORY: You have heard so much of the tariff bill and its probable effect on our industry that many of you think, no doubt, that it is only a scare and that the Sugar Company will not be hurt by it.

I want to say to each one of you in all earnestness that it is a very serious proposition to each and every employee of the Great Western Sugar Company.

If the present bill, as it has been passed by the House of Representatives, should be passed by the United States Senate, which it has every chance of being, we would not be able to pay more than $4.50 per ton for beets, if that much, and you all know that the acreage grown for $4.50 per ton will be so small that not more than two or three of our nine factories could

be operated, and you all know also that idle

factories mean idle men.

As employees of the company, interested in keeping the factories in operation, will you not each one write a letter to the Hon. Charles S. Thomas, United States Senate, and the Hon. John F. Shafroth, United States Senate, Washington, D. C., asking that they use their influence to have the "Free-sugar-in-threeyears" clause eliminated in the tariff bill?

Your letter will have just as much influence with those gentlemen as any letter they will receive, and we would ask that you show your interest in the state at large as well as the company you are working for by doing this, advising the head of your department when you bave written this letter. If you are a Democrat and will so state in your letter, it will carry even more weight with the gentlemen, as I do not think any Democrat in Colorado anticipated any such sweeping reduction as is contemplated in this bill.

The undersigned respectfully protest against any law being passed that will do away with the duty on sugar. We believe that free sugar will mean the closing of many, if not all, the sugar factories in the state and the throwing out of employment of hundreds of factory employees as well as the thousands employed

in the beet fields. This will mean decreased values of land and city property.

We respectfully ask your consideration of the thousands of farmers and working men in Colorado who will be hurt by such action.

Many of these people who are now making. vigorous protest against this reduction supported you in the election, feeling themselves secure in your promise that you would not harm legitimate industry and which pledge cannot be faithfully fulfilled if you destroy one of Colorado's greatest industries by the passage of a bill calling for free sugar.

Yours very truly

Especially significant, I think, are the words which I not Mr. McCreery — have italicized. Each employee was directed to notify the head of his department when he had written the letter. Any man who did not so notify his boss could, therefore, be put down as not having obeyed instructions. This, of course, is a particularly gross form of intimidation; and yet these letters, forced out of dependent workmen by what was virtually a threat, the Senators were expected to accept as representations of public sentiment.

Judging from my mail the employees of the sugar factories took the hint. As an evidence of their industry I have a mass of several thousand letters and telegramseither in the form or the spirit of the copy set for them by the employers. All other sugar factory towns evidently followed the example of Longmont. Between the lines of this correspondence I think I can detect the influence of the traveling publicity expert. For example, one day I received a large