These men seduced this representative of the people only to cast him aside, as seducers always do. They did not pay him "cash down" when they bought his "peace," but in instalments, and part of his pay was in the shape of $5000 for a year's service for which he was to do no work. This kept the whip-hand of him until the tax matter was finally settled and irrevocably past reopening. When that had been done they cast him off with scorching contumely. The secretary of the trust waved him into obloquy as a black-mailer.
When the trustee who negotiated the "peace" was before the committee of the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1883 which investigated this miscarriage of justice in the tax cases, he was asked if the man of whom he had bought "peace" had used the positions he had held in the producers' and other associations to further his own ends. He answered: "I think he would prostitute anything to further his own mercenary ends."[337]
The committee of the Legislature appointed to investigate this "purchase of peace" furnishes in its report the facts we have recited, which were uncontradicted, but declares that the transactions they disclose "did not prejudice the rights of the Commonwealth," and that nobody had done anything wrong. An effort was made after the failure of the tax case to get the Attorney-General of the State to issue a warrant against the purchaser of peace, upon which he could have been held to trial in a criminal court for bribery and corrupt solicitation of a public officer. An affidavit charging the crime in the usual form was presented to the Attorney-General. There was by this time a new Attorney-General, but he ditched this move with the same skill for the management of his adversaries' case that his predecessor had exhibited in the tax suit. He demanded that affidavit be made by some one who could testify to the bribery of his personal knowledge before the committing magistrate. As the facts were known only to the two principals, and neither of them could be expected to come forward to make affidavit and application for his own commitment, the Attorney-General demanded the impossible.[338] The fact of bribery was publicly known by the confession under oath of one of these principals, and the Attorney-General had been presented with the affidavit of a citizen, prepared in due and regular form, upon which he could have proceeded to issue a warrant, as is done in the case of less powerful offenders. Failing with the Attorney-General to have this transaction taken into the courts, the effort was renewed with the committee the Legislature had appointed to investigate. It was asked to do as committees had done before—to send the case to a criminal court and let it be tried. The distinguished lawyer acting for the people before the committee offered to appear as a volunteer Attorney-General in the prosecution of the trustee. "There is not an honest jury," he said, "in the State of Pennsylvania which upon the testimony would not send him to the penitentiary for the crime of bribery."[339] The committee refused to send the matter to the courts.
Upon the only occasion when the "Trustees" seemed in real danger of being brought in person and on specific charges to trial, criminally, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania saved them. In the Clarion County cases it took the unprecedented step of interfering with the criminal jurisdiction of the lower courts. It was in reference to this that Mr. Gowen said before the Committee of Commerce of Congress in 1880: "I was a member of the Constitutional Convention of Pennsylvania, and I know that if that convention did anything effectively it was when it declared that the Supreme Court should not have original jurisdiction in criminal cases, and yet I have seen three judges of the Supreme Court lay their hands upon an indictment in a county court and hang it up." The effect of this interposition of the Supreme Court is summed up as follows in the history of the contest between the Producers' Union and their powerful antagonists: "This practically terminated the last legal proceeding conducted by the general council of the producers of petroleum." "It was the greatest violation of law," said Mr. Gowen before the Pennsylvania Legislative Committee, "ever committed in the Commonwealth."[340]
That some such action might have been expected could be inferred from the remark in Leading Cases Simplified, by John D. Lawson, warning the student of the law of carriers "not to pay much heed to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania—at least, during the past ten or fifteen years. The Pennsylvania Railroad appears to run that tribunal with the same success that it does its own trains."[341]
Some time after these events the purchaser of this peace gave some money to a hospital for cancers, and, in recognition of his philanthropy, was made its president. This hospital was for cancers of the body—not for moral cancers of the kind propagated for money by men who corrupt the Commonwealth. It would have been full expiation in the good old times of the priest and the baron Ruskin describes to donate to the cure of an evil a fraction of the profits of the culture of it. The newspapers in May, 1891, chronicled the opening of another pavilion of this hospital, and the delivery of "an interesting address" by the new president. One of the journals remarks that "this interest, combined with his well-known liberality in Church and humane matters generally, suggests a thought concerning the peculiar development on this line of many of our very rich men." But what the "thought" was the journalist did not go on to state.
"I WANT TO MAKE OIL"