THE MOENING OREGONIAN, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1905. EFTRUSTDECISION :ul! Text of the Supreme Court's Pronouncement COMBINE CONTRARY TO LAW Agreement of Packers Is Held to Pre vent Lawful Competition New Ground Taken on Inter state Commerce. , In response to inquiries from several quarters, The Oregonlan prints herewith the full text of the decision of the Su preme Court cf the United States against the Beef Trust, viz.: STATEMENT OF THE CASE. This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court, on demurrer, granting an injunction against the appellants' com mission of alleged violations of the act of July 2, 1S90, chapter 647 (26. Stat. 209). "to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies." It will be necessary to consider both the bill and the decree. The bill is brought against a number of corporations, firms and individuals of different states, and makes the following allegations: First The defendants (appellants) are engaged in the business of buying live stock at the stockyards in Chicago, Omaha, St Joseph, Kansas City, East St. "Louis and St Paul, and slaughtering such livestock at their respective plants In places named. In different states, and converting the livestock into fresh meat lor human consumption. Second The defendants "are also en gaged in the business of selling" such lresh meats, at the several places where they are so prepared, to "dealers and con sumers in diverse states and territories of the said United States other than those wherein the said meats are so pre pared and sold," as aforesaid, and in the Mstrict of Columbia and in foreign coun tries, "and shipping the same meats. .jvhen so sold from the said places of their preparation over the several lines transportation of the several railroad bmpanies serving the same as common rriers to such dealers and consumers. irsuant to such sales." Chird The defendants also are en- red in the business of shipping such sh "meats to their respective agents at ; principal markets in other states, etc.. sale by those agents in those markets iealers and consumers. fourth The defendants together con- . about six-tenths of the whole trade .commerce in fresh meats among the es, territories and District of Colum- 6nd i But for the acts charged would free competition with one another. Jlxth In order to restrain competition wnong themselves as to the purchase of livestock, defendants have engaged In. 'and Intend to continue, a combination for requiring, and do and will require. their respective purchasing agents at the stockyards mentioned, where defendants buy their livestock (the same being stock produced and owned principally in other states and si ipped to the yards for sale) to refrain from bidding against each other "except perfunctorily and without good faith," id b this means compelling the owners of such stock to sell at less prices than thty would receive if the bidding really was competitive. Seventh For the same purpose the de fendants combine to bid up, through their agents the prices of livestock for a few days at a time, "so that the market re ports will show prices much higher than the state of trade w'ill warrant" there by Inducing stockowners In other states to make large shipments to the stock yards to their disadvantage. Eighth For the same purposes, and to monopolize the commerce protected by the statute, the defendants combine "to arbitrarily, from time to time, raise, lower and fix prices, and to maintain uniform prices at which they will sell" f dealers throughout the states. This is effected by secret periodical meetings, where are fixed prices to be enforced until changed at a subsequent meeting. Tho prices are maintained directly, and by colluslvely restricting the meat shipped by the defendants, whenever conducive to tho result by imposing penalties for deviations by establishing a uniform rule for the giving of credit to dealers, etc., and by notifying one another of the delinquents of such dealers and keeping a blacklist of delinquents, and refusing to ?ell meats to them. Ninth Tho defendants also combine to make uniform charges for cartage for thn delivery of meats sold to dealers and consumers in th orkets throughout the es. etc, shipped to them by the de fendants, through the defendants' agents at the markets, when no charges would have been made but for the combination. Tenth Intending to monopolize the said commerce and to prevent competi tion therein, the defendants "have all and each engaged In and will continue" ar rangements with the railroads whereby the defendants received, by means of re bates and other devices, rates less than the lawful rates for transportation, and were exclusively to enjoy and share this unlawful advantage to the exclusion of competition and the public By force of the consequent Inability of competitors to engage or continue in such commerce, the defendants are attempting to monopolize, have monopolized and will monopolize the commerce in livestock and fresh meats among the states and territories and with foreign countries. Eleventh The defendants are and have been in conspiracy with each other, with the railroad companies and others un known, to obtain a monopoly of the sup ply and distribution of fresh meats throughout the Ijnited States, etc And to that end defendants artificially restrain the commerce and put arbitrary regulations in force affecting the same from the shipment of the livestock from the plains to the final distribution of the meats to the consumer. There Is a prayer for an Injunction of the most com prehensive sort against all the foregoing proceedings, and others, for discover' of books and papers relating directly or in directly to the purchase or shipment of Svestock. and the, sale or shipment of fresh meat and for an aneswer under oath. The injunction issued is appended in a note. TERMS OF FEHl'ET U AI, INJUNCTION. Packers Are Allowed to Agree on Certain Details Meld Not to Involve a Possible Restralt of Trade. And now. upon motion of the said attor ney, the court does order that the pre liminary injunction heretofore awarded in tMs cause, to restrain the said defendants and earh of them, their respective agents tand attorneys, and all other persons acting ,j.neir Denau. or in Denair of pithm- nt i, or claiming so to act from entering taxing parr, in or periormlng any con- , combination or conspiracy, the pur jjr effect of which will be, as to trade nmerce in fresh meats between the states and territories and th tic Columbia, a restraint of trad in Ration of the Drovislons of th att ingress approved July 2, 1S90, entitled, "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopo lies," either by direction or requesting tncir resrecuve agents to retrain from biddlnsr azainst each other n tho r... chase of livestock; or colluslvely and by agreement to refrain from bidding against each other at the sales of livestock; or by combination, conspiracy or contract raising or lowering prices or fixing uni form prices at which the said meats will be sold, either directly or through their respective agents; or by curtailing the quantity of such meats shipped to such markets and agents; or by establishing and maintaining rules for the giving of credit to dealers in such meats, the effect of which rules will be to restrict com petition; or by imposing uniform charges for cartage and delivery of such meats to dealers and consumers, the effect of which will be to restrict competition; or by any other method or device, the pur pose and effect of which Is to restrain commerce as aforesaid; and also from vio lating the provisions of the act of Con gress, approved July 2, 1S90, entitled, "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraint and monopolies" by combining or conspiring together, or with each other and others, to monopolize or attempt to monopolize any part of the' trade and commerce in fresh meats among the several states and territories and the District of Columbia, by demanding, ob taining or, with or without the connivance of the officers or agents thereof, or of any of them, receiving from railroad com panies or other common carriers trans porting such fresh meats in such trade and commerce, either directly or by means of rebates", or by any other device, trans portation of or for such meats, from the points of the preparation and production of the same from livestock or elsewhere, to the markets for the sale of the same to dealers and consumers in other states and territories than those wherein the same are so prepared, or the District of Columbia, at less than, the regular rates which may be established or in force oa their several lines of transportation, un der the provisions In that behalf of the law of the said United States for the regulation of commerce, be and the same Is hereby made perpetual. But nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the said defendants from agree ing upon charges for cartage and deliv ery and oiner Incidentals connected with local sales, where such charges are not calculated to have any effect upon com petition In the sales and delivery of meats, nor from establishing and main taining rules for the giving of credit to dealers where such rules in good faith are calculated solely to protect the de fendants against dishonest or Irresponsi ble dealers, nor from curtailing the quan tity of meat shipped to a given market where the purpose of such arrangement in good faith Is to .prevent the over-accumulation of meats as perishable articles in such markets. Nor shall anything herein contained be construed to restrain or Interfere with the action of any single company or firm, by its their officers or agents (whether such officers or agents are themselves personally made parties defendant hereto or not) acting with respect to its or their own corporate or Arm business, property or affairs. SCHEME WITHIN REACH OF LAW. 4 Vagueness in Some Specifications Inevitable, but Whole Structure of Charge Is Clear and Sustained. To sum the bill up shortly, it charges a combination of a dominant proportion of the dealers In fresh meat throughout the United States not to bid against each other In the livestock markets of the different states, to bid up prices for a few days, in order to induce the cattlemen to send their stock to the stockyards, to fix prices at which they -will sell and to" that end to restrict shipments of meat when neces sary, to establish a uniform rule of credit to dealers, and to keep a blacklist to make uniform and Improper charges for cartage, and, finally, to get less than lawful rates from the railroads to the exclusion of competitors. It is true that the last charge is not clearly stated to be a part of the combination, but as it is alleged that the defendants have each and all made arrangements with the railroads that they were exclusively to enjoy the unlawful advantage, and that their Intent In what they did was to monopolize the commerce and to prevent competition, and in view of the general allegation to which we shall refer, we think that we have correctly stated the purport of the bill. It will be noticed further that the Intent to monopolize is alleged for the first time In the eighth section of the bill as to raising, lowering and fixing prices. In the earlier sections the Intent alleged Is to restrain competition among themselves. But after all the specific charges there is a general allegation that the defendants are conspiring with one another, the rail roads and others, to monopolize the sup ply and distribution of fresh meats throughout the United States, etc, as has been stated above, and it seems to us that this general allegation of Intent col ors and applies to all the specific charges of the bill. "Whatever may be thought concerning the proper construction of the statute, a bill in equity is not to be read and construed as an indictment would have been read and construed a hundred years ago. but it Is to be taken to mean what It fairly conveys to a dispassionate reader by a fairly exact use of Englih speech. Thus read this bill seems to us intended to allege successive elements of a single connected scheme. We read the demurrer with the same liberality. Therefore wo take It as ap plying to the bill generally for multifa riousness and want of equity, and also to each section of it which makes a charge, and to the discovery. The demurrer to the discovery will not need discussion in the view which we take concerning the relief, and therefore we turn at once to that The general objection is urged that the bill does not set forth sufficient definite or specific facts. This objection la serious, but it seems to us inherent in the nature of the case. The scheme alleged Is so vast that it presents a new problem In pleading. If, as we must assume, the scheme Is enter tained, it Is, of course, contrary to tho very words of the statute. Its size makes the violation of the law more conspicu ous, and yet the same thing makes It im possible to fasten the principal fact to a certain time and place. The elements, too, are so numerous and shifting; even the constituent parts alleged are, and from their nature must be so extensive In time and space that something of the samo Impossibility applies to them. The law has been upheld, and therefore we are bound to enforce It, notwithstanding these difficulties. On the other hand, we equally are bound by the first principles of justice not to sanction a decree so vague as to put the whole conduct of the defendant's business at the peril of a summons for contempt We cannot lssiy a general In junction against all possible breaches of the law. We must steer between these opposite difficulties as best we can. The scheme, as a whole, seems to us to be within reach of the law. The con stituent elements as we have stated them, are enough to give to the scheme a body, and, for all that we can say, to accomplish it Moreover, what ever we may think' of them separately, when we take them tip as distinct charges and they are alleged sufficiently as ele ments of the scheme, it Is suggested that the several acts charged are lawful; and that Intent can make no difference. But they are bound together as the parts of a single plan. The plan may make the parts unlawful. (Alkens vs. Wisconsin, 193 U. S. 194, 206.) The statute gives this proceeding against combinations in re straint of commerce among the states and against attempts to monopolize the same. Intent is almost essential to such a combination, and is essential to such an attempt LAW LOOKS AT INTENT. Restralt of Interstate Trade an Inevitable Consequence of Facts Proved. Where acts are not sufficient In them selves to produce a result which the law seeks to prevent for instance, the mo nopolybut require further acts in addi tion to tho mere forces of nature to bring that result to pass, an intent to bring it to pass is .necessary In order to produce a dangerous probability that It will happen. Commonwealth vs. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 167, 272. But when that Intent and the consequent dangerous probability exists, this statute, like many others and like the common law in some cases, di rects Itself against that dangerous proba bility, as well as against the completed result What we have said disposes inci dentally of the objection to the bill as multifarious. The unity of the plan em braces all the parts. , One further observation should be made The combination alleged embraces re straint and monopoly of trade within a single state, and to that extent is not within the reach of the laws, but Its effect upon commerce among the states is not accidental, secondary, remote or merely probable On the allegations of the bill the latter commerce no less, per haps even more than commerce within a single state, is an object of attack. See Laloup vs. Port of Mobile, 127 U. S. 640. 641; Cructher vs. Kentucky, 147 U. S. 47, 59; Allen vs. Pullan Company, 191 U. S. 171, 179, ISO. Moreover, It Is a direct ob ject it is that for the sake of which the several specific acts and courses of con duct are done and adopted. Therefore the case is not like United States vs. C. B. Knight Company, 156 U. S. 1, where the subject matter of the combination was manufacture, and the direct object monopoly of manufacture within a state. However likely monopoly of commerce among the states in the article manufac tured was to follow from the agreement, it was not a necessary consequence nor a primary end. Here the subject matter is sales and the very point of the combi nation Is to restrain and monopolize com merce among the states In respect of such sales. The two cases are near to each other, as sooner or later always must happen where lines are to be drawn, but the line between them Is dintinct Montague vs. Lowry, 193 U. S. 2S. So again the line is distinct between this case and Hopkins vs. United States, 171 U. S. C78. All that was decided there was that the local business of commis sion merchants was not commerce among the states, even If what tho brokers were employed to sell was an object of such commerce. The brokers were not like tho defendants before United States, themselves the buyers and sellers. They only furnished certain facilities for the sales; therefore, there again trie effects of the combination of brokers upon the commerce were only indirect and not within theact Whether the case would have been different if the combination had resulted In exorbitant charges was left open. In Anderson vs. United States. 171 U. S. G04, the defendants were buyers and sellers at the stockyards, but their agreement was merely not to employ brokers or to recognize yard traders who were not members of their association. Any yard trader could become a member of the association on complying with the conditions, and there was said to be no feature -of monopoly In the case; It was held that the combination did not directly regulate commerce between the states, and, being formed with a different Intent, was not within the act The present case is more like Montague vs. Lowry. 193 U. S. 38. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the carrying out of the scheme alleged by the means set forth, properly may be enjoined, and that the bill cannot be dismissed. MONOPOLY eF COMMERCE INTENDED. Transportation of Cattle for Sale in Anolher State Held to Be Interstate Trade. So far it has not been necessary to con sider whether the facts charged in any single paragraph constitute commerce among the states or show an Interfer ence with it There can be doubt, we ap prehend, as to the collective effect of all the facts. If true, and if the defendants entertain the intent alleged. We pass now to the particulars and will consider the corresponding parts of the Injunction at the same time. The first question arises on the sixth section. That charges a combination of independent dealers to restrict the com petition of their agents when purchasing stock for them in the stockyards. The purchasers and their slaughtering estab lishments are largely In different states from those of the stockyards, and the sellers of the cattle, perhaps It is not too much to assume, largely In different states from either. The intent of the combination Is not merely to restrict com petition among the parties, but as we have said, by force of the general allega tion at the end of the bill, to aid In an attempt to monopolize commerce among the states. It Is said that this charge is too vague, and that It docs not set forth a case of commerce among the states. Taking tip the latter objection first commerce among the states Is not a technical legal conception, but a practical one, drawn from the course of business. When cat tle arc sent for sale from a place In one state, with the expectation that they will end their transit, after purchase, in an other, and when In effect they do so, with the only interruption necessary to find a purchaser at the stockyards, and when .this is a typical, constaritly-recurring course, the current thus existing is a current of commerce among the states and the purchase of the cattle is a part and Incident of such commerce What we say Is true, at least of such a pur chase by residents of another state from that of the seller and of the cattle. And we need not trouble ourselves at this time as to whether the statute could bo escaped by an arrangement as to the place where the sale In point of law Is consummated. See Norfolk & Western Railroad vs. Sims, 191 U. S. 441. But the sixth section of the bill charges an inter ference with such sales, a restraint of the parties by mutual contract and a combination not to compete in order to monopolize. It Is Immaterial if the sec tion also embraces domestic transactions. It should be added that the cattle in a stockyard are not restrained" even to the extent that was held sufficient to war rant taxation in American Steel and Wire Company vs. Speed. 1902. U. S. 500. But It may be that the question of taxation does not depend upon whether the article taxed may or may not be said to be in the course of commerce between tho states, but whether the tax so far affects that commerce as to amount to a regula tion of It The injunction against taking part in a combination, the effect of which will be a restraint of trade among the states by directing the defendant's agents to re frain from bidding against one another at the sales of livestock. Is justified so far as the subject material Is concerned. The Injunction, however, refers not to trade among the states In cattle, con cerning which there can be no question of original packages, but to trade in fresh meats, as the trade forbidden to be restrained, and it Is objected that the trade In fresh meats described In the sec ond and third sections of the bill Is not commerco among the states because the meat is sold at the slaughtering places, or when sold elsewhere may be sold in less than the original packages. But the allegations of the second section, even if they Import a technical passing of title at the slaughtering places, also import that the sales are to persons in other states, and that the shipments to other states are part of the transaction "pur suant to such sales" and the third sec tion Imports that the same things which are sent to agents are sold by them, and sufficiently Indicates that some at least of the sales are of the original packages. Moreover, the sales are by persons In one state to persons in another. But we do not mean to Imply that the rule which marks the polntat which state taxation or regulation becomes permissible neces sarily Is beyond the scope of Interference by Congress In cases where such Inter ference is deemed necessary for the pro tection of commerce among the states. Nor do we mean to intimate that the statute under consideration is limited to that point Beyond what we have said above, we leave those questions as we find. them. They were touched upon in the Northern Securities Company's case, 1903. U. S. 157. We are of opinion, further, that- the charge in the sixth section Is not too vague The charge Is not a single agree ment but of a course of conduct Intended to be continued. Under the act the duty of the court Is, when applied to, to stop the conduct The thing done, and In tended to be dene. Is perfectly definite with the purpose mentioned, directing the defendants' agents and inducing each other to refrain from competition In bids. The defendants cannot be ordered to com pete, but they properly can be forbidden to give directions or to make agreements not to compete (See Addyston Pipe & Steel Company vs. United States, 175 U. S. 21L) The Injunction follows the charge. No objection was made on the ground that It Is not confined to the places speci fied in the bill. It seems to us, however, that It ought to set forth more exactly the transactions In which such directions and agreements are forbidden. "The trade In fresh meat referred to should be de fined somewhat as It is In the bill, and the sales of stock should be confined to sales of stock at the stockyards named, which stock Is sent from other states to the stockyards for sale or Is brought to those yards for transport to another state. GROSSCUP INJUNCTION MODIFIED. Packers Entitled to Precise Statement of Things Forbidden. ' After what we have said, the seventh, eighth and" ninth sections need no spe cial remark, except that the cartage re ferred to in section 9 Is "not an Indepen dent matter, such as was dealt in Penn sylvania Railroad vs. Knight 192 U. S. 21, but a part of the contemplated transit cartage for delivery of the goods. The general words of the Injunction, "or by any other method or device, the purpose and effect of which is to restrain com merce as aforesaid," should be stricken out The defendants ought to be in formed accurately as the case permits what they are forbidden to do. Specific devices are mentioned In the bill, and they stand prohibited. The words quoted are a sweeping in junction to obey the law, and are open to the objection which we stated at the beginning that It was our duty to avoid. To the same end of deflnlteness. as far as attainable, the words "as charged in the bill" should be Inserted between "dealers In such meats" and "the effect of which rules" and two lines lower, as to charges for cartage, the same words should be Inserted between "dealers and consum ers" and "the effect of which." The acts charged In the tenth section, apart from the combination and the in tent, may, perhaps, not necessarily be" unlawful, except for the adjective which proclaims them so. At least we may as sume for purposes of decision that, they are not unlawful. The defendants sever ally lawfully may obtain less than the regular rates for transportation. If the circumstances are not substantially sim ilar to those for which the regular rates are fixed. Act of February 4, 18S7, chap ter 104, 2, 24 St 379. It may be that the regular rates are fixed for carriage In cars furnished by the railroad companies and that the defendants furnish their own cars and other necessities of trans portation. We see nothing to hinder them from combining to that end. We agree, as we already have said, that such a com bination may be unlawful as part of the general scheme set forth In the bill, and that this scheme as a whole might be enjoined. Whether this particular com bination can be enjoined, as it is. apart from its connection with the other ele ments. If entered Into with the intent to monopolize, as alleged. Is a more delicate question. The question Is how It would stand If the tenth section were the whole bill. Not every act that may be done with Intent to produce an unlawful result Is unlawful, or constitutes an attempt It Is a question of proximity and degree The distinction between mere preparation and attempt Is well known in the crim inal law. Commonwealth vs. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267, 272. The same distinction is recognized In cases like the present Uni ted States vs. E. C. Knight Company, 156 U. S. 133; Kidd vs. Pearson, 12S U. S. 1, 23, 24. We are of opinion, however, that such a combination is within the meaning of the statute. It Is obvious that no more power ful instrument of monopoly could be used than an advantage in the cost of trans portation. And even If the advantage Is one which the act of 18S7 permits, which is denied, perhaps Inadequately, by the ad jective "unlawful," still a combination to use It for the purpose prohibited by the act of 1SS0 justifies the adjective and takes the permission away. It only remains to add that the foregoing question does not apply to the earlier sec tions, which charge direct restraints of the trade within the decisions of the court and that the criticism, of the de cree, as If it ran generally against com binations In restraint of trade or to mon opolize trade, ceases to have any force when the clause against "any other meu-od or device" is stricken out So modified, it restrains such combinations only to the extent or certain specified devices which the defendants are alleged to have used and intend to continue to use Decree modified and affirmed. HEW JERSEY'S REVENUE. Unblushing Boast of a Full Till From Acknowledgedly Dubious Sources. Chicago Chronicle. Edward C. Stokes, tho new Governor of New Jersey, stated somo facts In his In augural address which arc of Interest to people outside of his state Congratulating the people of New Jer sey on their gocd fortune, he stated that at the close of tho last fiscal year the bal ance In the State Treasury was over 52,940,000. The ordinary receipts for the same year, he said, amounted to more than J4.302.000. The point of the Governor's congratula tion lay in the fact stated by him that "of the entire Ihcqme of the government not a penny was contributed directly by .the people," and that nearly 78 per cent of it "came from railroads and the business companies domiciled In our state." These business companies, as we all know, are mostly companies originating outside of the state and doing most of their business elsewhere. The big steel corporation Is a conspicuous example. By way of formal compliance with the law these companies have offices In New Jer sey, which are within easy reach of their main offices, Just across the river In the City of New York. These companies are the source of most of the revenue of which the people of New Jersey indirectly con tribute only a trifle Happy people! Governor Stokes reminds them that the revenue of which they con tribute not a penny directly not only suf fices, to meet all the ordinary expenses of the state government, including those for charities and education, but also to de velop "a magnificent road system, em bracing one-third of the macadam or state roads of the United States." The people of New Jersey have reason to feel about as comfortable as a certain suburb of Chicago which gets enough out of racetracks and a lot of saloons to cover nearly all its public expenditures. . . . Governor Stokes' inaugural is a sname less confession of Jersey selfishness and of a purpose still further to shape Its In corporation laws not for the good of the general public, but to get the utmost reve nue out of them and by making the trusts at home otherwise in New Jersey. Increase Booth-Kelly Stock. EUGENE, Or., Feb. 5. (Special.) The annual meeting and election of officers of the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company result ed in the re-election of all the old of ficers F. H. Buck, president; J. F. Kelly, vice-president; G. H. Kelly, secre tary; R. A. Booth, .general manager and treasurer. The capital stock of the com- Si Special Terms Morris Ch You can't begin the week in a better way than by buying one of these chairs. They are substantially built of selected golden oak the frames are well put together and have polish finish. They have spring seats and backs, upholstered in fine velours your choice of green or red. These chairs are all fitted with automatically adjust able backs no troublesome rods to get out of place. You can adjust the back to five different positions while sitting in the chair. The more you use them the 'more comfortable they grow. f $9 MONDAY, CREDIT GOOD pany was Increased from $1,500,000 to 52,000.000. No other business of import ance was transacted at the meeting, al though some changes are contemplated in the working of the mills. TASEET BARBARISMS. Reasons for the Abrogation of the Tax on Art, Books and Lumber. From an Editorial In the February Century. The tariff on art cannot be defended by any of the customary arguments of an economic sort. It is not desired by those whom It "protects; It accom plishes nothing In the upbuilding of our Industries; It does not result in the ul timate cheapening of something to the consumer; and thousands of protection ists de.sire Its abolition. If such an ab surdity could be conceived as the pro tection of our portrait painters, for In stance, through the tariff. It could be done only by excluding foreigners from plying their brushes within the boun daries of the country. To read the law, one would think we had "Old Master" factories in full blast, but in perpetual Infancy, unable to compete with the old masters of other countries. So weak, indeed. Is the economic basis of this tax that its defenders have nothing to urge in its favor but the argument that paint ings and sculpture are luxuries, like champagne and diamonds, and that their importers should be made to pay round ly. This Is "tariff for revenue only" with a vengeance; it is certainly a tariff for nothing else. Meanwhile the educational and civilizing value of art Is left wholly out of the account. There Is probably no one thing that has CASTOR I A 3?or Infants and Children. The Kind You Have Always Bought Bears the Signature GOLDEN OAK SI.OO DOWN 5Qc A WEEK TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY so retarded the general development of taste In this country as this tax. The In fluence of a correct public taste upon the production of art Is Immense. As the recent comparative exhibition of Ameri can and foreign art has indicated, wo have admirable painters; but, with few exceptions they have formed their taste and received their culture abroad. That they are not more widely appreciated at home is largely due to the obstacles thrown in the way of tho importation ot great foreign art. The love of art and the taste for It are formed by a continual acquaintance with its best examples, and upon these the United States Govern ment puts a stigma amounting to a ban. The objection that we should be flooded with trash Is specious. For educational influence all the trash In the world and we have plenty of our own could not weigh In the balance against one great Rembrandt. Not only Is beauty "Its own excuse for being"-, it carries Its own power and revelation and Inspiration. How many soever artists we produce we shall never be an artistic people until we live in closer access to the great art of the world. Every museum In the coun try Is a standing rebuke to the short sightedness of Congress in thus taxing the development of the people. Another barbarism Is the tariff on books. This is as much a tax on knowl edge as If it were laid upon the public schools and colleges. By a curious an omaly, the books thus affected are main ly those of English origin, the expression of a civilization sympathetic to our own, while books in foreign languages are ad mitted free. The situation Is something to be ashamed of. Jf any duty is kept on books, there should be a clause pro viding that all books sent for review to any periodical entered as second-class mall matter shall be admitted free under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct. A hardly less absurd theory seems to have Inspired the tariff on lumber. On our northern border is a country of inexhaustible timber, able and eager to supply our wants. And yet. for the en richment of a comparatively few, we prefer at enormous expense to destroy our own supplies at many a point to "make a-solitude and call It peace." The destruction of forests In Minnesota, "Wis consin and Michigan, New York and New England by fire and for the necd3 of Sale Q airs $9 M AKE YOUR OWN TERMS costruction and, latterly, for wood pulp is alarmingly on the increase. Against such influences the conservative ten dencies of forest reservation In the far "West, tree planting and scientific culti vation and cutting, seem to be like "sav ing at the spigot and wasting at the bung." It is high time that Congress should look at this subject in truer per spective and should remember that its duty Is to legislate not merely for its constituents today, but for generations to come who are to preserve and. defend the Ideas for which this Republic stands. Activity in Logging Business. KALAMA, Wash., Feb. 5. (Special.) Preparations are being made by loggers and mlllmen to resume active operations. I. G. "Wickstrom, In addition to running his mill, is building a logging road Into a new body of timber preparatory to log ging It off. The McFarlane Bros, have gotten their new piling camp in running order and have a force of men at work felling timber. They will only employ a small force until the bark will peel, and then they expect to rush work to All their contract of 600,000 linear feet. The Spencer Creek Lumber Company has finished a plank road from Its mill out to the county road. I. T. Dray & Sons are running a log ging camp on the Kalama River, above the falls, where they have 3,000,000 or 4.000.000 feet of logs to put In. ears P Pears' Soap is the great alchemist. Women are made fair by its use. void continuously since 17&.