Baltimore Evening Sun (17 May 1911): 6.

From the salutatory of the new Mayor:

Discourage the muckrakers and muchmakers and faultfinders. (Tumultuous applause.)

I shall require every head of a department to …. dispense with every employee whose services are not needed. (Profound silence.)

A brief chronology of the case of the United States vs. the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey:

1906.

• Nov. 15—Complaint and exhibits filed in the United States Circuit Court at St. Louis by D. P. Dyer, District Attorney.
• Dec. 12—Complaint served upon John D. and William Rockefeller, John D. Archbold and the other officers of the company.

1907.

• Jan. 12—First legal battle. Company tried to have complaints dismissed save as they concerned the Waters-Pierce Oil Company, of Missouri.
• Jan. 20—Court refused to dismiss complaints.
• April 9—Company filed an answer of 66 printed pages, showing 37 exceptions to the Government’s complaint.
• May 24—Argument on exceptions begins at St. Paul. Minn. May 25—Court overruled all exceptions.
• June 10—Franklio Ferriss, of St. Louis, appointed special master in chancery, to take testimony.
• July 15—Company filed new answer. Sept. 1—Taking of testimony began to New York city.
• Nov. 18—John D. took the stand.
• Nov. 24—John’s testimony ended. Dec. 31—Taking of testimony still going on.

1908.

• Jan. 1—Taking of testimony still going on.
• June 1—Taking of testimony halted for the summer.
• Sept. 1—Taking of testimony resumed.
• Dec. 31—Testimony of four hundred and thirtieth witness reached.

1909.

• Jan. 1—Taking of testimony still going on.
• Jan. 22—Final testimony taken at Chicago—444 witnesses in all.
• March 22—Testimony covering 25,000 pages filed with the Circuit Court at St. Louis.
• April 5—Argument begun at St. Louis.
• April 10—Argument ended.
• Nov. 20—Court handed down decision declaring Standard Oil Company, of New Jersey, a combination in restraint of trade and ordered it to he dissolved within 30 days.
• Nov. 25—Standard appeals to Supreme Court of United States, alleging 66 errors in decree of Circuit Court.

1910.

• Jan. 11—Argument before Supreme Court begun.
• Jan. 17—Argument ended.
• Jan. 18—Judges began meditating their decision.
• Dec. 31—Still at it.

1911.

• Jan. 1—No decision yet.
• May 15—Decision handed down affirming decision of lower court, but extended time of dissolution from 30 days to 6 months.
• May 16—Standard Oil formally announces that it will obey the court.

In brief, it took just four years and six months to a day to track down and scotch the octopus. For the courts of the United States, it must be confessed, that was very good going. The average, everyday criminal case, provided the accused has plenty of money; takes fully as long, and the really important case takes much longer. From the day of Abe Ruef’s first indictment to the day of his final incarceration at San Quentin there was an interval of more than five years. The Schmitz case, begun when the Ruef case was begun, seems to be still going on. And so is the Thaw Case.

Altogether the Standard Oil case, from the standpoint of the connoisseur of legal backing and filling, must be set down a disappointment. The cause is not far to seek. The lawyers of the company, for some inexplicable reason, neglected almost every opportunity to obfuscate and delay. At the start, true enough, they made the usual motion to dismiss the Government’s complaint, and the argument on this motion and on the exceptions following occupied a week or so; and later on, when the Circuit Court’s decision was handed down, an appeal was taken, and the arguments on this wasted another week or so; but save in these instances no effort whatever was made to charge the wheels of justice with corundum.

The only serious delays, indeed, were opposed rather than fostered by the legal toreadors of the trust. Nine-tenths of the 444 witnesses, for example, were brought to the stand against their protest—and the examination of these witnesses occupied one year four months and 22 days. The next longest delay—one year and four months—was caused by the tardiness of the Supreme Court in reaching a decision.

In brief, the case must needs be regarded as falling far short of a masterpiece. It engaged, from beginning to end, some of the most famous lawyers in the country, and yet it lasted less than five years. The layman, as a good citizen, may thank these Sarassates of the writ and appeal for their forbearance, but at the same time he cannot help lamenting, as a follower of a manly sport, their apparent loss of prowess, the strange decay of their technique.

From Mr. Wegg, that accomplished exegete (or at least from his secretary), comes news that the Bible does not prohibit swearing. Says the secretary:

The proving of all things by the summary, mechanical process of heaping up texts is no longer au fait in theology. The tendency of the Bible, the progressiveness of the witness of the Christian consciousness, individual and collective, are used to supplement the written word. I heard Mr. Wegg remark once that he never troubled himself looking for texts of Scripture prohibiting swearing and similar evil practices; that he didn’t think it worth while to bother the Bible about something that his own conscience was competent and willing to decide for him.

But how about the man whose conscience is not so ardent and efficient an organ?

Do unto others as you think others are trying to do unto you.

It seems a shame that the exigencies of partisan politics should force the retirement of Deputy Comptroller Julius W. Freeman, one of the most competent and faithful officials upon the city’s payroll in recent years. No man knows more about the finances of Baltimore than Mr. Freeman. He is an expert upon budgets and taxes; his services have been of constant and notable value to the Board of Estimates, to the three City Comptrollers since 1895 and to five Mayors.

Some day the city of Baltimore will grow wise enough to retain the services of such men, once it has discovered them. How long would a bank last if it discharged old and trusted employes, men of undoubted and undisputed efficiency, on the mere ground that other fellows needed their jobs? And what sort of men would a bank attract if it were known that their places hung upon such chances?

The last installment of synonyms for beard:

H. L. Mencken