The times dispatch. [volume], September 19, 1911, Page 3, Image 3

About The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914

Image provided by: Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

                
MY CHALLENGES
60LDLY UTTERED
(/Continued From First Page.)
classified civil service. But they won't
fX0 ii?at least, they won't do It now.
"It 1 hud the making ot tho laws ot
tills country the iirst tiling 1 would du
would bo to lncludo In tho civil sei ?
vice every collector, deputy collector,
and everybody c-onnectou wiui wie ?in?. -
ual revenue system In local collections,
and put tho whole service on an enec-1
live, non-partisan basis. I kndw that'
ll would bo a source of economy. lj
know It would give the President a
great deal more lime to devote to other
dutleB. 1 know that It would savo a|
good many Congressmen their seats,
and I know that it would tend to the|
elevntlon of the public service."
The President's speech on "trusts'
follows:
Hpoch-Mnktng Decision*.
1 propose to take up the question
wlilcn hus occupied the attention of
the American people lor now twenty
years, that of industrial combinations
known as "trusts." During tho last
year we have hud two great decisions
by the Supreme Court of the United
(States, They arc epoch making, and
the public has not yet come to realize
the effect that those decisions ure cer?
tain lo have. It is not that the coii
Structlon which the court hus put
upon the uct iB different from that.
Which most members of the profes?
sion, und most subordinate courts, and
Indeed the Supreme Court itself, had
before Indicated ss the proper con?
struction of the statute, but It Is that
It Is now dually settled, by two fully
considered decisions in respect to two
of the largest and most powerful of j
these combinations, what their illegal- <
ity consists m, and how they ure to I
be treated, in view of the finding that
they are illegal anil do violate the
provisions ot the so-called anti-trust
or Sherman act
Persons who do not understand the !
effect of these decisions und really |
dp not understand the law have a
great deal to say which Is Intended
to lead the public to the belief that In
Borne way or other the Supreme Court
has emasculated the statute and pre?
vented Hb operation against objec?
tionable and injurious trade combina?
tions and conspiracies. Nothing is1
further from the tiuth.
When the statute was passed In
1M(> the expressions used In It to de
line object and what It was pro?
poned therein to denounce as Unlaw- .
fnl were not new. but they were suf-'
flyiently broad and Indefinite to re
quire Judicial construction to settle
lheir meaning. Congress was deullng
v. Ith a subject matter In respect to'
which It may be assumed that the i
legislators themselves were not clear I
us to the exact limltutlons of the
meaning of the words in the statute I
they were pas-ing. They knew there'
was an evil which they hoped to re
strain by the enactment of this law
und they relied upon the courts In
their construction of the law to hedge
about Its operation such restriction
as would prevent the statute from be?
ing so wide In |tM application a.- to In
jolve absurdity and the Iropractlca
<e r|,e ,;ar|y decisions under th?
law can not be said to have been for
.,,,r,i"" T.leclslori In what wad
known as the .Sugar Trust cose?the
Knight case?was really a retrograde
f ' rV\1d onp w,''r'> seemed to limit
much the operation of the statute [?
encouraged the organization of com
!? nations which the same court has
Mnce round v|oUw thfl ttatul0 T',
tase could not be effectively- present
i, h ,thr r<VJrl the recotd
had not been properly mnd> up. and
Jhe questions arising were treated n
the opinion In such a way as to g| '??
New Tuberculosis Remedy
Based oo Medicine
To say that a ?pedtlc exists for the
> ur? or nopsurnp.'iju is perh.-.ae i.u i
';"1*..a !-:ta,0umo"'- hut i? Rukrnan's
Alterative we have .-i medicine that hits
been the means of saving manv a 1 fa
to yours ot usefutnt.ts, an.1 lu purina
I'tntlr tuilng a large number , ; . on
???>mptive>.
' ertalnly a pera-in afflicted with a
wasting disease- should be 'well fed
with wholesome, nourishing food, but
frequently raw eggs in quantities
? ?? ' "u digii i e bruakdov.... and linn!
no food tioj.- -he-s. As fo,- m>IA, a very
good food for iiij-i -, out a producer
of biliousness for some.
Any diet that keep* a consumptive
well nourished Is the right one, but
what is going to cure the patient'.'?
Kckman's Alterative has cure'i ami is
? urlng many a case of consumption.
Dot t/hose speak who know. Here Is
u specimen:
"90 Savannah St., Rochester. N. T.
"Gentlemen: On June 3. 1907. 1 was |
operated upon for tubercular peritoni?
tis at St. Mary's Hospital, Rochester,
N. Y. After the operation my physician
gave me up as hopeless. T was then
urged by a priest to take Eckman's Al?
terative, which I did. My wsight at
the time was 72 lbs. 1 began to im?
prove, and steadily gained In health
and strength. I now weigh 125 lbs.
and am absolutely cured. Believing <
owe it to myself and others. I make]
this statement. "EDNA FINZER.
(S:sn? d sHldSVlt 1
Eckman's Alterative Is effective in
bronchitis, asthma, hay fi-ver. tin oat
and lung troubles, and in upbuilding
the system. Does not contain fio'ftn,
opiates or hablt-formlng drugs. For
pale by Owens & Minor Drug Co. and
other leadlDg druggists. Ask for book?
let of cured cases, and write to r>k
man I.ahoratory. Philadelphia, Pa., for
additional evidence.
Give Us a Trial
That's all we ask. If you once start
giving us your work, we will have no
trouble in holding you as a regular
fatrc.ii. At least that has been mr
experience down through the years.
The Royal Laundry,
Hon. 300-813 North Seventh Street.
Visitors Cordially Welcome.
Get Everything Needed
for Comfortable
Traveling at
ROUNTREE'S
703 E. BROAD STREET
BEST
trio Impression that the opera tlen or |
the law would be most restricted, be?
cause ot the limits or Federal Juris- I
Uictlon. Indeed, some law officers at
the government did not hesitate to
bay tnat under this decision there was,
Utile hupe ot reaching thy evil alined,
ut through Federal uctlon. It has
required twenty years uf Mttgut'ou to I
make the statute clear. Hut. now It)
Is clear.
1 shall not attempt to give It a
Close, lawyer-like interpretation, but
1 think It Is not departing from tho
declaration of the court to bay that j
nicy Und any contract in restraint of
trade, made tor the purpose of ex
eluding competition, controlling prices,
or of maintaining a monopoly. In part
or In whole. Is contrary to lue btaVutc
und Is subject to injunction and In-i
dlctment 'under this statute in tho
i I cucrul courts where It affects Inter- I
Stute truUe.
tltiery to Bryan. j
Now, 1 would like to asK Mr. Bryan |
or uuy of the other publicists und ,
J Jurists who have been denouncing this i
opinion as the surrender of tin: rights I
I ot the people and a usurpation of |
> Judicial power to tell the public what
I particular contract or restraint of In- .
terstate trade he would condemn
Which would not be condemned with- :
In this definition of the court. The
difficulty with tho literal construction;
of the statute is that It would de-j
i nounce a great many minor or Incl- |
tieiital restraints of trade, which made
j the statute ridiculous and weakened i
Its effect and lent support to the crltl- <
cisjus and contemptuuu? treatment of
the statute by those . who were op?
posed tu Its passage and enforcement. !
I For instance, tak<- the Instance cited
I by a Federal circuit Judge In which j
he .-aid that under the literal con
j function of the statute which muM
j lie enforced; If there were tuo per- j
Sons doing a vs agon-express business;
across a State line und they united
in a partnership, the union in the.
partnership would be a restraint of In?
terstate trade in violation of the sla- !
tute. Such a result I? really a, re- i
duclia ad absurdum, and no one who
wan In fivor of making the ntctuto 1
effective for the purposes for which
It was passed, and had any Intelll-i
gent appreciation of what the statute ]
! ???? Intended to accomplish and what I
it meant, would contend for such a!
construction. It is true that In ani:
of the decisions of the Supreme Court!
there whs u statement made that the
term "reasonable" could not be in?
troduced Into the statute because Con?
gress had not put II there, but the
very same court, and the very same |
Judge, when a case arose presenting ;
u restraint of trade that must be con-I
denmed as unlawful If a literal mean- |
Ing were to be given to the statute,
said In so many words that It must, i
be reasonably construed, and thut It ,
must not be held to include contracts j
that were merely Incidental restrains
of trade and were not made for that 1
purpose. in one of these cases a
man owned some steamboats that did]
an Interstate business on the Ohio!
Hlver. lie wished to sell out. He |
did sell out, and in the bale of the j
steamboats he wished to sell the good
will of the line which he had been I
running. Accordingly ho stipulated I
that he would not himself engage in '
that business between those same
points tof a certain number of years.
This was interstate business' and his!
contract was In rettralnt of trade,
but the Supreme Court held that It
was a mere incidental restraint, i. c,
incidental to the sale of the good
will, and so was not within the sta- i
tulc.
functioned I? Common Law.
This would have been the same .it
common law, where from time Im- ;
memorial such a restraint as this has
been held to be reasonable because
limited to the necessity of preserving
the good will which the vender was
selling, and which but for such an
agreement would be worth nothing. In
other words, the Supreme Court in1,
this case gave a reasonable construe- I
tlon to the statute and eliminated
from Its operation those harmless use- i
ful Incidental restrains growing out!
of lawful contracts which are mud', j
lor a nentlrely different purpose from
that of controlling prices or maintain?
ing a monopoly by suppressing compe- '
lition und which have always been
recognized ah properly enforceable by I
courts of both luw und equity. 1 re- j
peat again that in spite of alt the i
denunciations that WO have heard of |
the decisions of the Supreme Court in i
the Standard Oil and the Tobacco
< .ises, there is not one who has crltl
< lzed them that can formulate a con?
ti act In restraint of trade that ought
to come within the statute that does
not come within it under the decision
of the Supreme Court.
It is said that the Supreme Court \
has read something Into the statute j
that was hot there before; that it]
has Insered the word "reasonable" be-1
tore restraints of trade, when the!
same court had said thut this could I
not be properly done, because Con- j
gress had evidently not Intended to]
Include such a limiting word in the I
statute. This Is not fuir to the court, j
It is true that the court, in the early |
cays of the construction of the sta- i
tute, had said that It could not limit i
the statute in effect by excluding from ,
its operation what was deemed rea- J
sonable at common law. But as oth- I
er case arose it found it necessary to!
make exceptions to the literal opera-1
tlon of th- words "restraint of trade," 1
and It did so by excepting what was!
minor, or incidental, or Indirect, and j
including only those cases where tho
chief object of the contract or com- j
blnatlon was the restraint. Ih doing
SO the court said that It must give the
statute a reasonable construction and
not one leading to absurd or ridiculous
lesults. In the last two cases the
court did not change the substance of
the reasoning and scope of the pre?
vious decisions, hut only treated the
exceptions previously termed "inci?
dental and indirect." as excluded from
the operation of the statute in the
light of reason. I. e., in conformity to
the evil sought to be reached. Now.
in what way has this Injured the pub?
lic weal? What combinations or ar?
rangements can escape under this in?
terpretation that any sensible man
would wish to have condemned? Did
the court not condemn the Standard
Oil Company, the father of all trusts, i
in the history of which every form of!
criminal illegality was practiced? Did
It not, on the other hand, condemn
the Tobacco Trust, of much later ori?
gin and framed under the advice of
cunning counsel for the very purposes
ef evading the condemnation of the
statute und at the same time securing
and enjoying the monopoly the fram
ers of the statute intended to pre?
vent and punish?
PulutH llroad Distinction.
Let me renew a?iiln the Invitation
to any of the vociferous critics of the
decision of the Supreme Court to use
their legal Imaginations and state the
facts of a case not condemned within
the rule of construction put upon the
statute by the Supreme Court, but in?
cluded within their construction of it,
which reasonable men would think It
wise or proper to make criminal.
Now. i desire to call attention to
a very broad dlstlnclon that many
persons have failed to draw o\- per?
ceive between a reasonable construc?
tion of the statute which the Su?
preme Court has Insisted upon and the
Introduction of the word "reasonable"
in the statute so as to lead to a re
' suit by which combinalons for the
t purpose of restraining trade with ft]
clow to controlling prices and main
I taining a monopoly could be held to
be reasonable and thus lawful. Un- |
til the decision of the Supreme Court i
in these last two cases there was a j
clearly defined hope in the minds of |
many business men who had reached |
the conclusion that it was impossi?
ble to conduct business on a free com- 1
I potittve basis, and that it was neccs- i
jsary to secure monopolistic control of
I prices and competition In order to
make business reasonably profitable,
that in some way or other the sta
tute could be construed so as to make
I It apply only to unreasonable monopo?
lies and unreasonable exclusion of.,
compettlon and control of prices. ;
They had in their minds the thought
that in some way or other a stnndard ;
could be set by whiqh If those who \
enjoyed" the monopoly and the re?
straint of competition and the control,
of prices did not abuse their power to
the point of seeking: from the public
?xqrWfctant ivqfttj,, ttte.tr arrangements
Why is the soda
cracker to-day such
a universal food ?
People ate soda
crackers in the old
days, it is true?but
they bought them
from a barrel or box
and took them home
in a paper bag, their
crispness and flavor
all gone.
To-day there is a
soda cracker which
is the recognized
staple ? Uneeda
Biscuit.
Uneeda Biscuit are
the most nutritious
food made from
flour and should
be eaten every day
by every member
of the family from
the youngest to the
oldest.
Uneeda Biscuit?
soda crackers better
than any ever made
before?made in the
greatest bakeries in
the world?baked to
perfection-? packed
to perfection ?
kept to perfection
until you take them,
oven-fresh and
crisp, from their
protecting package.
NATIONAL BISCUIT
COMPANY
could be held to be only reasonable
and not within the statute or pun?
ishable by law. In my message of
January 7. li'10, on the Interstate, com?
merce and anti-trust laws and Federal
incorporation. I used this language:
Good and Bad Truata.
Many people conducting great busi?
nesses have cherished a hope and a ]
belief that In some way or other a I
line may be drawn between "good
trusts" and "bad trusts." and that it I
is possible by amendment to the antl-|
trust law to make a distinction under j
which good combinations may be per- I
mltted to organise, suppress compe?
tition, control prices, and do It all
legally If only they do not abuse the
power by taking too great profit out
of the business. They point with force
j to certain notorious trusts as having
i grown Into power through criminal
j methods by the use of Illegal rebates
] and plain cheating, and by various
.acts utterly vlolatlve of business hon?
esty or morality, and urge tho estnb
! lishment of some legal line of separa?
tion by which "criminal trusts" of this |
ff? A a>Jf?9tf* /Instantly Relieve
!lJ4IJIl oiand raFidly Curc
^ ' "'^Gout, Rheuma?
tism, Rheumatic
Gout, Sciatica,
- -j i Lumbago, and all
PEI -LX \ pains in the head,
0 ? \ face and limbs.
GOUT
X. FOUGERA A CO., 8ole Agents, New York.
All Bfcuggjgts._
kind can be punished, and they, on
tht other hand, be permitted undo?
the law to carry on their business.
Xow the public, and especially the
business public, ought to rid them?
selves of the idea that such a dis?
tinction is practicable or can be In?
troduced into the statute. Certainly
under the present anti-trust law no
I such distinction exists. It has been
proposed, however, that the word
"reasonable" should be made a part
I of the statute, and then that it should
be left to the court to say what Is a
reasonable restraint of trade, what Is
a reasonable suppression of compe?
tition, what Is a reasonable monopoly.
I venture to think that this is to put
into the hands of the court a power
Impossible to exercise on any con?
sistent principle which will Insure the
uniformity of decision essential to
Just Judgment. It Is to thrust upon
the courts a burden that they have
no precedents to enable them to car?
ry, and to give them a power ap?
proaching the arbitrary, the abuse of
which rnigW. involve our whole Judi?
cial system In disaster.
This paragraph has been quoted and
spread on the record of tne Senate
on the motion of a Senator who con?
sidered this to be'at'variance with the
decisions of the Supreme Court. In?
stead of being at variance, It Is In
I exact accord with those decisions.
Issue .Met by Court,
j Again, from thoso who have given
up free competition as an economic
force that ought to bo encouraged or
I enforced, and who are utterly opposed
to the spirit of the nntl-trust law. w?
have frequently heard the question,
I "Well, suppose you convict those largo
combinations under the statute, wh&t,
i arc you KOjtoaT tA.Afc ap.O.V-t it? You
can. perhaps, send some men to tho
penitentiary for creating these, com?
binations which have cheapened tho
cost of production and given you most
of your foreign trado and much of
your prosperity, but what are you
going to do with the capital invested,
the plant, and the organization? You
can confiscate it and ruin your coun?
try by a panic, but you can't divide,
Euch combinations Into their compo?
nent parts ogiiln. for the lines of di?
vision have disappeared Into a com?
mon ownership."
The cou'rt has met the Issue and th
queries presented by the doubters and
the scoffers. It has vindicated the
majesty of the law. has Illustrated tho
wonderful elasticity and adaptability
of remedy by injunction In equity, and
has at the same time manifested a due
regard for the welfare of the Innocent
business men ur.d the community at
large, who. In a cataclysm caused by
the eonllscaion of such enormous capi?
tal as are Involved In these combina?
tions anil a suspension of the legiti?
mate part of their business, would be
burled with them In a common ruin.
The court has exhibited a courage,
in facing the necessary results in en?
forcing the statute that. Instead of
prompting an attuck on It. ought to
Piwke every American proud that we I
have such a tribunal. It Is now en-j
forcing Its decree against the Stand?
ard Oil Company and against the To?
bacco Company, and It Is making
those great combinations divide them?
selves into actually competing parts
under uch provisions In the decree
that an Injunction shall be constant?
ly operative to prevent by contempt
proceedings any assumption of the
old relations of a monopoly. ThbJ was
an easier mutter In reference to the;
standard Oil Company, because it was
easy to divide up the various com?
panies that were united by the own- '<
erhlp of xtock of the companies In a j
single holding company.
Tobacco Case Olfllcult.
In the Tobacco Company tho decree
could not bo worked out so easily,
mid It will be necessary to scparalo
the properties owned by single com?
panies and to distribute these plauts
Into different and differing ownerships
in order to create competition between
them and maintain that competition by
t the power of a continuing injunction
against ?ny future union, or any
"grcf/nent to avoid future competi?
tion. It needed these two great de?
cisions to teach the business public
that at least not In the supreme tri?
bunal of ;hls country would the claim
be listened to: that in this day and
l,oneratioii we have psssed beyond the
possibility of fret competition as con?
sistent with proper business growth,
or that wc have reached a time when
only regulated monopoly and the fix?
ing of prices by governmental author?
ity are consistent with future prog?
ress. We did get along \ylth com?
petition; we can get along w-ith it.
Wt did get along without monopoly;
we can got along without It; and the
business men of this country must
square themselves to that necessity.
Hither that, or we must proceed to
State socialism and vest the govern?
ment with power to run every busi?
ness. The decision of the Supreme
Court is In the highest Interest of
the public, and I am glad to think
that business men who have been
violating the trust law are now buijig
made to see the necessity for putting
their houses in order, changing their
original- organizations, giving up the
idea that It Is necessary to control
markets in order to make profits, and
reverting to the old principle of free
competition, in which all limit upon
it to prevent its being excessive must
be self-imposed by the good sense of
each competitor and not by any ar?
rangement or contract between com?
petitors or secret stipulation or wink
or nod.
The decision of the Supreme Court
as it grows to be understood In tho
near future will be u signal for the
voluntary breaking up all combina?
tions in restraint of trade within the
inhibition of the statute, and will, I
hope, lead to a complete revulsion of
feeling on tho part of the business
men of this country and to a clear
understanding by them of the limita?
tions that must be Imposed by them
upon any business combinations mude
by them in the future. T)*> operation
of the statute has illustrated the slow?
ness of Judicial procedure, and of this
1 have often made complaint: but in
the settlement of issues of this im?
portance two decades are no great
length of time, and it in that period
we shall have stamped out an evil
which would certainly have curried
u.s to socialism as a reaction from the
vicious control of the few, the time
spent, the effort, and the litigation are ,
worth the cost. There have been
times when among others I have
thought that the enforcement of tho
law might have been facllltaed had
the courts visited Its breach with se?
verer punishment, but "Though the
mills of thw gods grind slowly, yet
they grind exceeding small," and with?
out the severity that some of us urg?
ed and would have' been glad to see
used, a revolution In business meth?
ods where they have heretofore been
vlolatlve of the statute will bo ac?
complished, and with least, disturb?
ance to business which is lawful.
In a special message on the sub?
ject of trusts which I sent to Con?
gress January 7, 1910, I said:
It is the duty and the purpose of
the Executive to direct an investiga?
tion by the Department of Justice,
through the grand Jury or otherwise,
into the history, organization, and
purposes of all the Industrial com?
panies with respect to which there Is
any reasonable ground for suspicion
that they have been organized for a
purpose, and are conducting business
on a plan which is in violation of the.
anti-trust law. The work Is a heavy
one, but It Is not beyond the power
of the Department of Justice If suf?
ficient funds are furnished to carry
on the Investigations and to pay the
counsel engaged In the work.
I wish to repeat this now, and to
say further that the Attorney-Ocn
eral has Instituted Investigations Into
all the Industrial companies above de?
scribed, and that theso are In various
stages of completion. I am glnd to
be able to add that If Concress shall
continue needed appropriations, every
trust of any size that violates the sta?
tute will, before the end of this ad?
ministration in 191?. be brought Into
court to meet and acquiesce in a de?
gree of disintegration by which com?
petition between Its parts shall he
restored and preserved under the per?
suasive and restrictive Influence of a
permanent und continuing Injunction.
Opposed to Amendlnc ' n w
Under these conditions. I am en?
tirely opposed to an amendment of
the anti-trust law. It Is now a valu?
able government osset and Instrument.
Tested and brought Into practical and
beneficial use by twenty years of liti?
gation and construction by the high?
est court, why should we imperil Its
usefulness by experiments? The out?
cry sought to be raised In some quar?
ters, followed by proposals of amend?
ments prepared without a real un?
derstanding of the law or the court's
decisions, may serve the purpose of
promoting unreasonable and unreason?
ing discontent, but certainly ought
not to be considered seriously.
When an amendment Is proposed, let
tho proponent state the defeot In the
statute the amendment Is to rem dy,
and how It will effect it.
Tf the avowed purpose 1" to make
It impossible to use reason In the con?
struction of the statute as the Su?
premo Court did. let the mover of tho
amendment formulate a ease of re?
straint of Interstate trade not con?
demned under the Supreme Court's
construction of the statute, which
ought to he condemned. Eet us avoid
general expressions. T^et us avoid
charges of Improper motives. T,ot us
come down to concrete cases and facts
and make a showli. r for an amend?
ment that n lawyer and n legislator
can understand and weiarb. and not he
content with mere rhetoric and lan?
guage useful only for declamation.
In mv message of January 7. 1910.
I advocated the passage of a stntttte
vhich shall permit the incorporation
of companies eng'iged In Interstate
commerce liv the Federal government
' believe that a statute might he
,lr,,?-n to fum'sh 'the protection which
vnuld Induce companies engaged
? ?<>l?flv In Interstate trnd< to take Oil
Federal Incorporation, and that hy
?the supervision which inlgyt be main?
tained by an executive bureau of ^be
201 E. Broad St.
We Call Attention to
peoal Sales
esVs School
Dresses annd Coats
Also in Women's Waists, Satin Dresses and new Muslin
lUnderwear. Full particulars may be found in to-day's
NEWS LEADER AND JOURNAL.
i government over their transactions It I
I would be possible to prevent future
I violations of tho anti-trust law by
j those companies on the one hand and
I to secure to th?m a freedom from con
. st.int foar of prosecution on the other,
i Hut this statute would In no way be |
? an amendment of the anti-trust law, i
i which has now reached a porlod in its
i history when It I? roally accomplish
' in^c the purpose of Its framers and Is
enforcing a reform in the business
[ methods of this country which will be
[ as useful as It Is widespread.
j PROGRESS OF SEWER WORK
Dig Project on Virginia Avenue Is
Waring Completion.
Assistant City Engineer Koegan, in
charge of the Virginia Avenue sewer,
the groat drain which will serve th? I
j larger part of Clay Ward, reported'
j yesterday tnat the tunnel through
solid granite had now run 1.500 of:
the total of l.SHO feet. Two of tho
shafts have been connected, the calcu- j
latlons having been so perfect that,:
working from one shaft to the other, j
the tunnels met less than a half-Inch
out.
Only tho Sectio? leading out to tho.
canal at Ifnxall Station remains to'
1 Ibe completed, and Mr. Keegan thinks!
the entire granite hill \vjll have been
I pierced In forty-five rroro working
! days. The whole is then to be lined i
i with concrete and connections made. !
He thinks the contractors. Stamper.!
Ragland & Co.. will finish the JoJb com?
plete in January.
I. J. Smith i- Co. has the contract;
for the threo main branches on Hamp?
ton Street, Colorado Avenue and i
through Shlelds's Woode. While this1
part of the work is somewhat bo-j
I hind schedule, the engineers bellevo
they will be In a position to put In the
I lateral sewprs, hou.t* connections and
street ba6ins In the early spring.
AMBULANCE PURCHASED
Fast Motor Vehicle Coming From Lo?
comotive Works.
Following an all-afternoon discus?
sion by u subcommittee and an almost!
equally lengthy discussion before tho!
full Committee on Relief ot the Poor
last night, the committee entered into
contract with the American Locomo?
tive Company for purchase of an Alco
automobile ambulance of shaft-driven
typo, with nn-horsepower motor, cup
1 able of running sixty miles an hour,
the body to be tbullt according to city
specifications. The prosent motor
ambulance Is an Alco, 45-horsopowor
car. The contract price of the new
car Is $4,100.
For some time tho committee dis?
cussed changing the color to a steel
tint, but decided that Inasmuch as the
present yellow had been used for city
ambulunces in Richmond for a gener?
ation and was readily recognized at it
! dlstanoe the present color would ho
j retained.
CHILDREN'S DAY AT FAIR
School Hoard Asked to Give Holiday
on Friday.
Because of the danger to children
in the great crush of Richmond Day
at the State Fair, It la planned to have
the school holiday on Friday instead
of on Wednesday of fair week. At
the meeting of the executive commit?
tee of the Fair Association, held lent
night, a committee was appointed to
make a request of this nature to tho |
City School Board.
The custom bus prevailed of desig-?
natlng Wednesday as Richmond Day,,
this being the biggest day of the week.
Invariably the school authorities have
picked that day for a holiday. It Is
the Intention now to have Friday called
Children's Day. and to make especial i
preparations for entertainment in the i
shape of fireworks designed for the!
school children's amusement.
Signatures of Leading Citizens
Secured by Man Writing
From Lynchburg.
[Special to The Times-Dispatch.]
Petersburg. Vs., Septesnber 18.?One
of the shrewdest forgery- schemes ever
known In Petersburg and successful
as far as heard from, came to light to?
day. Under date of Lyncnburg. Sep?
tember ?, a man addressed a letter to
the pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church. Petersburg, stating that he>;
expected to be married In Petersburg
on Saturday evening, September 16, ex?
pressing the desire to have him, if
possible, to perform the ceremony, and
asking him if he were at liberty to do
so. The Rev. Charles R. Strlbllng, la
the pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church, and "the letter was dollvered
to and promptly answered by him. No
person, uowever, came to bo married.
On the "th of September, In ex?
actly the same handwriting, dated at
Lynchburg, another letter was ad?
dressed to the superintendent of publlo
schools and was In course of the mulls
delivered to R. Randolph Jones, tho
superintendent. In this letter the wrlt
| er stated that ho was about to movo
his family to Petersburg. He had
three children of school ages, but had
heard that the schools hero were some?
what overcrowded. "If this be true."
he writes, "and If you will bo in any
way embarrassed by the addition of
my flock, kindly advise me. and I will
leave ono or two of them hero with
their grandparents for the present."
Mr. Jones answered the letter, stating
there was room for tho children.
Check Is Presented.
On the 13th of September a chock for
fT?. drawn by "E. R. Chambers to the or?
der of H. C. Christie," on the Clifton Fori;?
? National Dank r.nri bearing the Indorse?
ment of 11. C. Christie and the forced In
I dnrtament of R. Randolph Jones. was
cashed at one of the Petersburg banks mid
I forwarded for collactlon to the Clifton
i Forge bank. It was returned as "no good."
' and the name of R. Randolph Jonas as In
dorser was here pronounoed to be a forg?
ery.
In the same handwriting as appeared In
these letters and In the names on tho
fraudulent check, but with a different
hand signed to It, a letter from Lynch burg
ntid addressed to "A Methodist Minister,
Petersburg." was placed In tho hands of
the Rev. J. T. Bosman, pastor of Market
Street Church. It was of the same tenor
aa that received by the Rev. Mr. Strib
Ung. asking him If he eould marry tho
writer. Mr. Bninwn answered the letter.
The object of this swindler was evidently
I to get the namgS and signatures of respon?
sible citizens of Petersburg that he might,
I as In tho case of R. Randolph Jones, usa
; them to his benefit on forged and fraudu
j lent checks. The chief of police. In whose
I hands the cade has been placed. Is expect
\ !ng other checks of tho kind to turn up
I with the names of the ministers and prob?
ably others, whose signatures he has so
shrewdly seelred. forced on them.
Marriages In Washington.
Dr. Joshua F. Speed, of 10 South
Third Street, this city, and Miss Louise
Lyle, also of Richmond, secured a,
llcenso to marry In Washington yes?
terday.
Licenses were also 'asued to Elon A.
Knupp, of Harrlsonburg, Vn., and Mar?
garet Pheehan, of New York; Samuel
M. Auerbach, of Hampton. V?., and
I F.dythe Handler, of Baltimore.
f MARGARET DELANO'S
New Novel
The IRON
WOMAN
ANY book by Mrs.
. Deland would be.nois
ble. But "ThelronWomsn"
marks an event in American
publishing. It is mpre than'
a novel, as we have come
to know the word. Mrs. De
land pictures youth?detoy,
virginal youth?in all Its
tenderness and-passion', its
foolish obstinacy, and gen?
erous impulsiveness, with
truthful idealism. H e r
young people are wonder,
fully attractive in their per
feet naturalness. She por,
trays the elders?people
whom life has hardened ?
with just as deep under,
standing and sympathy. She has a way of penetrating the outward
husk of habit and finding the living hear: underneath. Asior the siory
itself?it is difficult to speak of Its beautv in terms of self-restraint.
iiiiimiiisiimisj ,11? H AR PER & BROTHERS
MR T C. CONI.ON will he at the Rlchtr.ond Hotel on WEDNES?
DAY AND THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH AND 31ST, where he will
i'how the most oomplete line of
Imported Woolens, Fancy Vestings and
Trouserings
ever displayed In your city. Our line of Riding Breeches goods Is more
oomplcti than ever before. Mr. Cordon Will be slad to have his many
fllends and customers call and see him.
Yours to serve,
T. C. CONLON & CO.,
Chnrlottesvlllo, Vs.