In line 19, page 2, after the word "years" insert a comma and the words "or both.' Insert a new section to be known as section 3, as follows: "SEC. 3. That any person who, having or claiming to have such information, shall offer directly or indirectly to withhold for a consideration the disclosure of the same or shall use the same for the purpose of blackmail, extortion, or other unlawful purpose, shall on conviction be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both." The purposes of this legislation are plainly indicated in the terms of the bill itself. It is legislation of exactly the same character as now exists in the provisions of the United States internal-revenue laws and the customs-revenue laws. The payment of rewards to the persons first furnishing evidence of violation of the internal-revenue laws and the customs-revenue laws has been found by many years' experience to be an effective means of procuring the evidence of violations of law which could not otherwise be secured. One of the great obstacles to successful prosecution of the great trusts is the immense power they possess to coerce and intimidate those individuals who may be in position to furnish evidence against them. Their vast financial and political power is so far-reaching and so insidious that it operates to prevent witnesses from producing evidence for the punishment of their offenses. The policy of paying governmental rewards for evidence leading to the arrest and punishment of offenders is well established in the legislation of all civilized countries of the world, and as we have indicated, by reference to the provisions for payments of rewards for evidence which exist in the internal-revenue laws and the customsrevenue laws, it has been for many years a settled policy in the legislation of the United States. Therefore we may say that this bill is no innovation-no mere experiment-in legislation, but is simply an extension into a needed field of what has been shown by many years' experience and trial to be useful and effective legislation for securing evidence necessary for conviction of violators of the revenue laws. There is now carried in the appropriation bills for the enforcement of the customs-revenue laws something like $150,000 per year. It was under this provision of the customs-revenue law that the reward was paid to Mr. Parr of $100,000 for evidence which he furnished the Government of violations of the customs laws on the part of the Sugar Trust. That this was a wise provision of the law is indicated by the fact that it not only led to the arrest and punishment of the offenders, but also enabled the Government to recover into the Public Treasury some $2,000,000, out of which it had been defrauded by the Sugar Trust. An approximately similar amount is carried in the appropriation for the enforcement of the internal-revenue laws. The statute of June 23, 1874, provides, in cases of violations of the customs-revenue laws, that the witness who furnishes the first evidence shall be paid a reward of an amount, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, not exceeding 50 per cent of the net amount recovered; and in the internal-revenue law there is a similar statute that has existed for many years, which provides for similar payments. This bill provides that the reward shall not exceed 10 per cent, so that the percentage provided in this case is small as compared with existing statutes. Experience in trust prosecutions shows that there is great difficulty in producing the evidence because of the timidity and hesitation of witnesses and their fear of the vengeance of these great and powerful combinations. This bill is only putting the arm of the Government's protection around the witness and guaranteeing security in the risk he runs in aiding the ends of justice by furnishing evidence. The custom of all civilized nations has been, and is, that when there appears in any community a group of offenders who are so powerful and dangerous that they can not be apprehended or punished by the ordinary operation of the police power and the ordinary process of the courts, then it is found necessary to resort to extraordinary methods to secure the proper punishment of men who can not be reached by ordinary means. These extraordinary measures vary among the different peoples and nations of the world. One of the most universally used and effective methods of securing the arrest of extraordinary offenders is for the Government to offer a substantial reward, to be paid to any person or persons who shall furnish information that shall lead to the arrest and conviction of the violators of the law. This remedy is peculiarly applicable to the trust magnates and their agents. The great majority of citizens whose testimony must be used against them to convict them of their crimes are men who are held in financial duress and subjection to the trust power; small business men, working men, traveling agents, bookkeepers, assistant auditors, and men whose livelihood and that of their families is absolutely at the mercy of the trusts against which they could furnish evidence if they but dared. These witnesses can not be produced or their testimony secured unless the Govenment throws the strong arm of protection around them and guards them from the vengeance of the great financial power of the monopolies. Many of the trusts are upheld and maintained by the favoritism in transportation rates which they secure through conspiracies with the private managers and owners of the highways, such as railroads, telegraphs, telephones, pipe lines, etc. Therefore the same provision should apply to violations of the interstate-commerce law. The constitutionality of these statutory provisions, both in the internal-revenue and the customs laws, which provide rewards for informers and protect them in all their rights, as well as in the various State laws, have been universally upheld on the ground that the legislature, in imposing penalties for violation of laws, may, in its discretion, for the purpose of securing enforcement of its laws and the collection of the penalties imposed, give a part thereof to an informer, because of the fact that he who, with the intention of having his information acted upon, first gives information of the violation of the law which induces the prosecution and contributes to the recovery of the fine, penalty, or forfeiture is entitled to receive the fruits of his diligence to the exclusion of all others. (See U. S. v. Simons, 7 Fed. Rep., 709; U. S. v. Bark Isla de Cuba, 2 Cliff (U. S.), 458; Lewellyn v. Vale of Glamorgan R. Co., 1898, 1 Q. B., 473; One Hundred Barrels Whisky, 2 Ben. (U. S.), 14; Sawyer v. Steele, 3 Wash. (U. S.), 464; Wescott v. Bradford, 4 Wash., 492; Jones v. Shore, 1 Wheat. (U. S.), 463; Van Ness v. Buell, 4 Wheat. (U. S.), 74; U. S. v. Funkheuser, 4 Biss. (U. S.), 176; State v. Wabash, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo., 562; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 89 Mo., 571; Sutton v. Phillips, 116 N. C., 502; Godwin v. Caraleigh, etc., Phosphate Works, 119 N. C., 120; South. Exp. Co. v. Com., 92 Va, 59; In re Brittingham, 5 Fed. Rep., 191; The Langdon Cheeves, 2 Mason (U. S.), 85; Robinson v. Hook, 4 Mason (U. S.), 139.) In the above-cited cases the rewards are nearly all greater than that provided for in this bill; none as low as 10 per cent. The usual division of moieties is one half to the informer and the other half to the use of the State. O BRIDGE ACROSS MISSISSIPPI RIVER BETWEEN ILLINOIS AND IOWA. JULY 13, 1912.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. Esch, from the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 25073.] The Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 25073) to authorize the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River between Moline, Ill., and Bettendorf, Iowa, having considered the same, report thereon with amendments and as so amended recommend that it pass. The bill as amended has the approval of the War Department, as will appear by the letter attached and which is made a part of this report. Amend the bill as follows: On page 1, line 5, strike out the words "a railroad and wagon." On page 1, line 9, strike out the semicolon after the word "Iowa"; and, same line and line 10, strike out the words "Provided, That the bridge shall be built." On page 1, lines 13 and 14, and page 2, lines 1 and 2, strike out the words "Provided further, That this act shall be null and void if actual construction of the bridge herein authorized shall be not commenced within two years and completed within four years from the approval of the act.' Amend the title so as to read: "To authorize the Moline-Bettendorf Bridge Co. to construct a bridge across the Mississippi River between Moline, Ill., and Bettendorf, Iowa." [Second indorsement.] WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, 1. Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War. 2. The accompanying bill (H. R. 25073, 62d Cong., 2d sess.) authorizing the construction of a bridge across the Mississippi River between Moline, Ill., and Bettendorf, Iowa, is in the usual form and makes ample provision for the protection of navigation interests. 3. So far as those interests are concerned, I know of no objection to its favorable consideration by Congress. W. H. BIXBY, Chief of Engineers, United States Army. (Third indorsement.] WAR DEPARTMENT, June 12, 1912. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives, inviting attention to the foregoing report of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army. ROBERT SHAW Oliver, Assistant Secretary of War. |