LOT Scott J Winslow Associates Inc.  /  Historical Autographs and Americana  / 

696

Exceptional Theodore Roosevelt Lot

Currency:USD Category:Antiques / Books & Manuscripts Start Price:1,500.00 USD Estimated At:2,500.00 - 2,750.00 USD
Exceptional Theodore Roosevelt Lot
Stock certificates from the United States and other countries around the world. Items offered cover a wide variety of collecting topics including automotive, railroads, mining, autographed and much more.
STANDARD OIL CASE, THE “DESPOTS” WITH JUDICIAL POWER, CORPORATE CONTROL & POWER, CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND EVEN THE DRED SCOTT DECISION DISCUSSED Typed Letter Signed. “Theodore Roosevelt”; Oyster Bay, N.Y., July 25, 1908. 1 page on White House stationary. Includes the original typed letter-press copy of the missive to which Roosevelt, the “Trust Buster” was responding. Addressed to Reuben D. Silliman, a Wall Street Jewish lawyer and former Circuit Court judge, who was influential both the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt and William Taft. With the inclusion of the original letter sent to Roosevelt, a rare occurrence when collecting presidential letters, we can gather the full scope and depth of what the president meant in his reply when he emphasizes: “I think your letter is absolutely right. It is a matter of utter astonishment to me how men hesitate before facts which we cannot blink unless we are willing to see some grave convolutions in this country...” The Republican 1908 convention had just been held a month before, and it was a foregone conclusion William H. Taft would be the party’s nominee. Two years earlier, Roosevelt had “busted” Standard Oil’s monopoly. Roosevelt was on his way out. His last two years in office he grew increasingly distrustful of big business, despite its close ties to the Republican party in every large state. Public opinion had been shifting to the left after a series of scandals, and big business was in bad odor. Abandoning his earlier caution and conservatism, Roosevelt freely lambasted his conservative critics and called on Congress to enact a series of radical new laws — the Square Deal — that would regulate the economy. In this exceptional letter his friend Silliman covers deeply important matters of the day that reflect on the Justice system and reminds us of just how in a span of a 100 years, few things change: Silliman’s four page letter: Dear Mr. President: The Standard Oil decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals is another illustration of the underlying truth of the principles we have been trying to work out into something tangible to the end that they may be applied in some satisfactory form of remedial legislation or otherwise made effective. That decision shows how wholly negative is the action of the courts. It demonstrates, and to my mind it demonstrates conclusively, that the root of the disappointments experienced by the people and your administration is in the present character of the court control of commerce under a divided sovereignty. I am not sure that it is right to speak of a “divided sovereignty” any longer. May we not as well concede at once that if the courts and the vested interested are able to maintain their present position there is not only a single sovereignty but that it finds lodgement in the singularly complicated, far removed and negative action of the courts? The decisions in the Employer’s Liability and Minnesota cases, and, to a lesser extent, in the Standard Oil case, show how repressively the courts are using their powers, while the Minnesota case, especially, indicates almost humorously in certain of its paragraphs, how the Supreme Court has come to feel that it alone is vested with wisdom and can adequately deal with the country’s complicated problems. The Supreme Court and nearly all the inferior courts, acting under the influence of its leadership, have taken to themselves somewhat of the airs of benevolent despots and have exercised with the sublime confidence of one holding the reins of arbitrary power, and largely in the interest of more or less corrupt vested interests, the delicate privilege of setting at naught the people’s will as expressed through the action of the other coordinate branches of government. The Congress, the Attorney General, the State Legislatures, the State Attorneys General, one or all, no longer have the wisdom to deal with property questions. Nothing is even supposed to be settled (I had almost said sound) until, having been enacted as legislation, it is brought into court, negatively examined and re-examined, and then re-enacted and examined again. So on ad infinitum. The process has developed the most fine spun and interminable system of perpetuating iniquity that the human mind has yet devised. While one scheme of swindling is sought to be reached a new form is devised. But the property of the country continues to pass into the control of fewer and fewer hands, until today the welfare of every man, woman and child is to a large extent capable of being deeply influenced by the caprice of a few wealthy citizens who have already transferred their social aspirations and spheres of action to the more congenial environment of Europe where they are free to express their abnormal ambition without the criticism of those who finally must pay the bills. If there is to be any independent manhood in this country the tendency toward consolidation must be checked even if the prevailing system of corporate control and ownership has to be rooted out at its foundations. What re property improvements worth if the final end of is all is monopoly and the one man control of all avenues of employment? A dependent people is necessarily servile. A servile people is never happy. I still believe, and I am sure that you agree with me, that the constitution originally contemplated one sovereign power qualified to act in the field of national commerce when and to the extent that the Congress, in its wisdom, should find the conditions of the country required it. This does not mean that the government of the country is to be concentrated on the banks of the Potomac, nor that all commercial controversies can be transferred into the federal courts. Those matters will continue to be subject to the discretionary control of the congress and there need be little, if any, change in the machinery of our government. The recognition of the principle would, however, bring about uniformity of law and simplicity of enforcement. It would mean the unfettering of power to do justice, the ability to stop abuses, the abridgment of subtlety and the end of the reign of complicated negation. We will never reach the root of the trouble until we have established one legislative body with full power to express the people’s will. The Dred Scott decision forced the civil war and this country knew no peace until it had been done away with. Nor will we be permanently relieved of the present curse of complicated inequity until we reestablish the first principles of righteousness. I do not mean to be an alarmist, but there is food for though in the trend of thing. As you have often expressed it, though in other words, it is vain to expect that the will of the people can be eternally thwarted – and may I add, even under a maze of technical sophistry which cannot be understood by them, though the source be one which [ we] would naturally wish to respect." Includes the original White House envelope with postal mark from Oyster Bay, July 26, 1908. Last page of Silliman's letter has tear with small amount of loss, o/w Fine.
Sign In to Bookmark Lot