Richmond Palladium (Daily), Volume 33, Number 226, 28 September 1908 — Page 3

THE KlUIiaiONn 1-AJLiiAOXLTai AXi SUf-TEIKUKA3I, MONDAY, SEPTE3IBER 28, 190S.

PAGE THREE.

BITTER IS REBUKE FOB W. J. BRYAN (Continued From Page One.)

more vigorously Is answered by a eomrison of the records of the parties In past. . - Mr. Roosevelt then turns to the charges that he allowed the steel trust to purchase one of Its greatest rivals. This he calls a great exaggeration. The Bryan claim for campaign contribution publicity is called a trick by which the Nebraskan sought 'to gain political ammunition. The president's reply to Mr. Bryan Is as follows: Washington, Sept. 27, 1908. , "Dear Sir. I have seen your letter I published in this morning's papers. As to most of what you say about me personally I do not regard any answer as necessary. - "When you say that I am unfair to your platform, you reiterate certain opinions as to which I have quoted, with my hearty approval. Governor Hughes in my first letter, and these therefore, it Is also unnecessary to answer. You have not" answered the Hughes speech, and in my judgment you do well not to make the attempt. 8ays Platform Differ. "You say your platform declares In favor of vigorous enforcement of the law against guilty trust magnates and officials, and that the platform upon which Mr. Taft stands makes no such declaration. "It was not necessary. That platform approved the policies of this administration and promised to continue them, and here, as usual, I have only to compare your words with the deeds of the administration and of Mr. Taft. You merely promise in your platform that you intend to do just what this arimlnlstrntlrtn Vina rinnA and la Holnc. "To show the difference between vnrila nnrl rieerin T will rnmmr thfl records of this administration with the record of one of your most prominent supporters of the moment, Mr. Olney, attorney general under the last democratic administration. "While Mr. Olney was attorney general no cases whatever were brought under the anti-trust law against combination of capital, the only new cases which he brought being directed against combinations of working men. "During the entire administration the only cases brought against combinations of capital under the anti trust act were four in number, awo of t, which were unsuccessful; one of the other two being the case which was decided by Mr. Taft in favor of the government. Work of Thia Administration, i "Under this administration a mass of such, cases have been brought, inSecurities company, against the beef packers, against the Federal Salt company, against the General Paper company, against the Otis and other elevator companies, against the American Tobacco company, against the Powder trust, against the Virginia-Carolina Chemical company, against the Standard Oil company and others. ' , "In a number of these cases the government has already succeeded by.injunctionsand otherwise. Some of the cases are now pending. In hardly any important cases against great lawbreaking corporations has the government yet suffered defeat. , "As regards suits to suppress railway abuses under the last democratic administration there wre no indictments against shippers for receiving rebates or secret rates. "Under my administration there have been forty-nine indictments for secret rebates, resulting in eighteen convictions, and in only four cases have the Indictments failed. The other twentyseven cases are pending. "Among the railroads which have been convicted are the Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; the New York Central r the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, and Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul, while scores of cases are still pending against other railroads. Many Shippers Convicted. "Among the shippers that have teen convicted are some of the great est corporations in the United States, as" for example, the American Sugar company, the aggregate fine actually paid being more than $150,000; Swift & Co., Armour Packing company, the Cudahy Packing company. Nelson Mor ris & Co., each of whom was fined $15,000, and the cases have now been carried to the supreme court. The Standard Oil case is still pending. : "This is a record of actual achievement, and beside it mere promises are empty, and besides they could not be made now with any possibility of performance resulting if it were not for the achievement above recited. "You state that the steel company, with my express consent purchased one of Its largest rivals and thus obtained control of over 50 per cent of the total output. This action of the Eteel company (which Increased Its share of the total output only about 4 per cent and In no way altered the standing of the company under the law) may have been violation of your plan, the absurdity of which has been exposed by Governor Hughes. No Violation of Law. "But there was no violation of the law. I was cognisant of the entire transaction. It was not entered Into by the steel corporation of Its own desire, but solely at the urgent request of the corporation purchased and of the big banks holding th at corporation's securities, in order to enable them to prevent a crash which would nave turned the panic of last fall Into the most widespread disaster. "I should indeed have been derelict In my duty if I had not so acted and efficiently used all th power of the government where It could be legally and properly used (as it was in this case) to see that the panic was Jumt within tho cnallest noaaihla

PRESIDENT

W77 If ; mm A 7

W ' AYv

TQTrOM STtRBOOHAPH COPVPIOHT BrVCr 'Sl UNDERWOOD S UNPERWOOD NVi .

TAFT COMMENDED.

radius and the damage caused as slight as possible. "You would better understand the principle on which I acted if you would rid yourself of the idea that I am trying to discriminate for or against any man or corporation because he or it is either wealthy or not wealthy. I regard such discrimination in either direction as utterly incompatible with a spirit of honesty and fair dealing. "I base my distinction on conduct, not 'on relative wealth. When the same men who were leaders in the steel corporation acted in connection with the Northern securities suit in a manner which I regarded as contrary to the law, by my direction successful suit was immediately undertaken against them. If they violate the law in connection with any act of the steel corporation I will immediately proceed against them. , Until they do violate the law they will be treated precisely as any other corporation, great or small, which obeys the law, is treated. Does Justice to Harriman. "I treat each man and each corporation with a view solely to whether he or It is acting rightly on a given occasion. Let me give you an example. I have proceeded against the cor porations of which Mr. E. H. Harri man is the head on certain points where I believe they have violated the law. But when in connection with the breaking of the Salton Sea dam. one of the Harriman corporations' re paired the dam. I last winter did everything I could to have congress reimburse Mr. Harriman for so much of the obligation as I felt ought to come upon the United States. I would hold myself unfit to be president if, because I prosecuted Mr. Harriman where I thought he had broken the law. I yet hesitated to do him justice where I thought the facts required that justice should be done him. In exactly the same way I have acted and shall act as regards the steel corporation." Names Trust Man for Bryan. The president, taking up Mr. Bryan's assertions, further continues: You ask me to name a single official connected with a law-defying corporation who has declared or will declare that he is supporting you. In a St. Louis paper which reaches me at the same time the papers containing this published letter of yours, I find a statement from Judge Henry S. Priest attorney for the Waters-Pierce Oil Co., the Western subsidiary or representative of the Standard Oil company, in which he announces that he is for Bryan and states that Wall street believes Bryan will be elected. In response to the question as to whether he could quote any of the Standard Oil magnates as feeling that way, he answered: "I did not say I saw any of the officials of the Standard company. I am giving you what I found was the drift of opinion among well-posted politicians as well as bankers 4 guess Governor Haskell is all right They have not proved anything on him, have they?" The newspaper clipping goes on to say: Juage Tie6t was one or tne lawyers who fought Attorney General Hadley in the state's ouster suit against the Waters-Pierce and Republic Oil companies. His legal practice is chiefly with the big corporations and his firm is counsel-for the United Railways company and the North American interests in St. Louis. "Judge Priest is credited with originating the phrase, 'Bribery is a conventional offense,' which he used in an argument at the trial of R. M. Snyder, the Kan sas City millionaire, now dead." Special Interests for Bryan. You say the trust magnates know their own interest and are supporting Judge Taft. So far as their Interests are simply interests of the business community, and especially of the wage workers, I believe they will support Judge Taft So far as they have special interests which are to them more important than the general business welfare, I believe they will support you. ; I base this belief upon what happened In 1S96. Your success then would, in my belief, have been a calamity for the country from the standpoint of the welfare of the business men, farmers and working men, just as, in my belief, your Buccess now would be a calamity to the country, both from the standpoint of business (and especially of the Interests of the wace work

ROOSEVELT HEARS NEWS OF THE

' n 6 jr 4 'fv..-w.'.-'. . , t " 'r - ' er,) and from the standpoint of morals. One of your supporters, the New York World, in February last, printed a list of contributions to your campaign fund of 1896, containing the names of Individuals and corporations owning silver mines who made contributions to the aggregate amount of $288,000, one of these contributions being of $159,000 and another of $45,000, etc., etc. Now, all the great financial magnates who then contributed to your campaign fund would have preferred business prosperity to business adversity, other things being equal; but they would rather have had the immense profit that would have accrued to them from the free coinage of 50 cent dollars than the smaller profit which would have accrued to them merely from the general industrial prosperity of the country. Because of their personal interests and against the interest of the community at large these "trust" magnates then supported you. My belief is, and the statement of Judge Priest quoted above and the attitude of many men of large financial interest warrant me in expressing the belief that those trust magnates whose fear of being prosecuted under the law by Mr. Taft is greater than their fear of general business adversity under you, will support you and not Mr. Taft. Contributions to Campaign. I now come to what you have to mav as to contributions, and here you furnish your own answer. You state that it appears from the published statement of the contribution, to Mr. Hughes' campaign for governor two years ago that various men of wealth some of them connected with big cor porations whom you name, to the number of nine, contributed from $20,000 to $500 apiece. You ask, "Would the fact that these gentlemen contributed to his campaign fund strengthen or weaken his testimony against the reasonableness of our anti-trust remedy?" and later you continue by askine. "Are vou will ing to say that any public interest was served in 1904 by concealing until after election, the contributions made to the republican campaign committee by Mr. Harriman and those collected by him for others? Are you willing to say that the publication before election of the contributions then made would have had no effect on the election?" You then propose to publish the names of contributors before election and ask us to do the same. The amcmts you mention as contributed to Mr. Hughes are utterly trivial compared to the amounts I have already mentioned as contributed to your campaign in 1896, but in my judgment the amount contributed has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. The auestion was. for oxample, whether Mr. Clark of Montana, when he contributed heavily to your campaign fund, had a proper motive and whether your actions would or would not have been influenced properly or improperly by that contribution and the same question applies to Mr. Hughes and to me. In the case of Mr. Hughes and myself, the answer is fortunatelv easv. Yon have nothing to do but examine our records in the offices to which we were both elected. You either knew or ought to have known before writing that in not one instance has Mr. Hughes, as governor, done one thing of any kind, sort or description for any one of the contributors you mention, or for any other contributor to his fund which ought not to have been done and would not have been done if no contribution had been made. Yet you clearly imply that he is and has been improperly influenced by the fact of these contributions having been made. Do you consider such an implication either straightforward or sincere? No Obligation for Donations. .In a letter to the chairman of my campaign committee on Oct 26. 1904. I specifically approved of the conditions under which the national committee was accepting contributions, saying that their acceptance was to be "with the explicit understanding that they were given and received with no thought of any more obligation on the part of the national committee or of the national administration than is in implied in the statement that every man shall receive a square deal, no more and no leas aaa

li J- -dirt jt- lc ' - . f5 -; .4t -i tf -t;V .... i 4, . ; l ? t.v , A

TAFT ATTACKED.

that this I shall guarantee him and In any event to the be3t of my ability. . . . If they subscribe for the purpose of securing such national welfare and with no thought of personal favors to them, why they are acting as is entirely proper," I continued: "In returning the mony to them (any contributers) I wish it made clear that there is not the slightest personal feeling against them and that they can count upon being treated exactly as well by the administration, exactly as fairly as if we had accepted the contributions. They shall not suffer in any way because we refused them, Just as they would not have gained in any way if we had accepted them." No member of the national committee has ever directly or indirectly suggested to me that I should either do or leave undone anything whatever because any one has contributed or had failed to contribute. Condemnation is Furnished. These are the facts. Now for vour proposal. You have yourself furnished its condemnation. You have quoted the subscriptions furnished to Gov ernor Hughes as giving reason to distrust Governor Hughes attitude to ward corporations, and I am obliged to say that this can not be sincere on your part, for you know well what the governor's attitude has been through out his term. You quote the subscription of Mr. Harriman to my campaign, although you know well that it did not inter fere with any action taken by me as against Mr. Harriman, and ask if It would not have affected the campaign if known. ! Thereby you have furnished an excellent reason for refusing to meet your proposal, for you make it evident that to adopt your proposal would give to every man who cared merely for partisan success the chance, by precisely the argument you have now made, to create to more purpose the false impression that you are now seeking to create. Mr. Taft's reputation, Mr. Taffs acts on the bench and in the executive service, show that he could not be swayed in any shape or way by any consideration save the public interest, and that the fate of any man's contribution or failing to contribute would in any way influence his action, any more than it has influenced my action, or the action of Governor Hughes. I emphatically approve of the publication of campaign expenses after the election, whether provided for by law or not. Would Create False Impression. You have shown by this letter of yours that if the contributions to Mr. Hughes' campaign fund had been made public before election you and those who act with you would have striven to give the false Impression that Mr. Hughes was unfit to be intrusted with the position of governor, and you have shown by this letter of yours that if Mr. Harriman's contribution to the campaign fund of 1904 (and incidentally I may mention that I am informed that this particular contribution was not used for the national campaign, but in the New York State campaign) had been known be fore the election j-ou and your supporters would have endeavored to use the fact of its having .been made as an insincere and untruthful argument to show that I could not be trusted to deal out exact justice to Mr. Harriman. No stronger argument against your proposition has yet been advanced than this that you have thus unconsciously advanced. Haskell Incident Revived. I now come to the Important part of your letter, your attitude toward Mr. Haskell. You state that Mr. Haskell has voluntarily resigned from the committee. You speak highly of the public service which he has rendered and protest against any condemnation of him except such as may come in a court Out of yqur own mouth you are condemned. You thereby set np that standard of "law honesty", which has been the bane of this people In endeavoring to get equity and fair dealing as they should obtain among high-minded men from grea( business corporations and from individuals like Mr. Haskell. Apparently you disclaim even asking Mr. Haskell to retire from the position In which yon placed him. so that ha retires of his own free will.

CAMPAIGN

and you utter no word of condemna tlon of his offensa against public de cency and honesty. On the contrary you strive to make it appear that his misconduct in reference to the Stand ard Oil company is all of which he is accused, whereas, shameless though this particular act of his is, it Is no worse than countless others In bis career. I contrast your action in thmis case with that of Mr. Taft In reference to Mr. Poraker. Mr. Taft's statement when the question of his nomination was at stake, said that he would rather not accept at the price of sacrificing principle by supporting Mr. Foraker for senator. Does Not Censure Haskell. You do not venture in so much as the lightest possible manner even to censure Mr. Haskell for his manifold misdeeds, and you ask that he be held guiltless of them unless convicted in a court of law; although you know that as regards the worst of them no action in a court of law would lie. You say you were ignorant of Mr. Haskell's record. If so it was willful ignorance on your part. I call your attention to the letter of Mr. L. T. Russell, the editor of the Morning Democrat, of Ardmore, Okla., in which writing to you on Sept. 24, 1908, he states: "If were ignorant of such charges it is because you refused to read them when nresented to you when you vis ited Oklahoma last fall in the interest of Candidate Haskell. At that time I personally presented to you ten type written pages of charges against Mr. Haskell, covering his operations in Ohio, New York, Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma. The charges re cently made by Mr. Hearst were all made by me at that time." I You ask that we leave the courts to j deal with Mr. Haskell. " As to some j matters the courts have already dealt j with him. As to other private indl-j vlduals whom he has wronged and the United States government on behalf of hapless Indians whom he has wronged are striving to have the courts deal with him. Letter From Indians' Attorney. M. L. Mott, national attorney for the Creek nation, writes me as follows: "In October, 1900, Mr. Foulk, Richmond, Ind., was sent to investigate the matter of the townsite frauds in the Creek nation. Mr. Foulke's report is in hands of the secretary of the interior. All parties connected with these townsite frauds have used the same means and methods. "Upon the report filed by Mr. Foulke I, as atorney for the Creek nation, was directed by the secretary of the Interior to file suits in equity for the, cancellation of all deeds to town lots in the Creek nation where the same had been secured by fraud. Proceeding under instruction and after a full investigation, I found that Governor C. N. Haskell, among others, had secured deeds to quite a number of lots in Muskogee by conspiracy and fraud; that he had these lots scheduled in the name of 'dummies or 'straw men' who lived in Ohio or elsewhere, and then had them quit claim back to him without consideration. By this dishonest means he succeeded in getting deeds to a large number of lots belonging to the Creek Indians at one half their appraised value. "I have filed quite a number of suits against Governor Haskell, in which conspircy and fraud is charged and the manner of consummating it is set out in detail. Mr. Haskell has not filed any answer in any of these cases. He has simply, through his attorney filed dilatory motions, such as demurrer, pleading to the jurisdiction, etc He dares not answer and deny the allegations set up in our bill; such an answer would be a sworn lie, known to be by the large number of 'dummies and 'straw men he used In perfecting the fraud. . t Justice Coming to Haskell. For this particular act of the man whose public record you indorse, you may rest assured that the interior department will endeavor to see that the courts do "justice to him. When Mr. Haskell was In New York various judgments were filed against him. I will not at this moment discuss the charge of perjury and fraud made against him by Attorney Albert H. Walker in connection with the suit decided by Judge La combe in March, 1902. But the records of the county clerk of New York county show that

on Feb. 21, 1900, a judgment for damiges and costs amounting to $42,233.43 ecovered in the supreme court of the

county, was filed against Charles N. Haskell. On April U. 1000. this Judgment was returned on the sheriffe ex ecution satisfied to the extent of only t'J'j.m and the remainder of it still re mains unsatisfied. In this instance your proposal that Mr. Haskell be left to the court does not seem to have produced thorough justice. Neither shall I touch upon the var ious suits now pending against him for all kinds of reasons. Thus, it is reported in the press under date of Sept. 19.190N. that a ix judgment had been obtained against Mr. Haskell by an attorney of Arkansas, who was employed by him to "lobby be fore the city council of Muskogee to get through a franchise. The attorney's fee was never paid, but the' franchise was granted." Nor shall I touch upon the facsimile published in the press of Sept. 25, last. showing Mr. Haskell having three years ago joined an organization to prevent union labor from entering the city where he lived. Indeed, as regards this last statement, I wish distinctly to acquit Mr. Haskell of being opposed on principle to either trade unions or corporations, for I wish to acquit him of being opposed to anything on principle. Connection With Standard Oil. Now as to Governor Haskell's 'con nection with the Standard Oil company i in Oklahoma. Governor Haskell advances the fact that the United States government permitted the Standard Oil company on the same terms as any other companies to enjoy the legal privileges to which it as entitled on the Indian reservations of Oklahoma, as his justification for having given it illegal privileges to which it was not entitled in the State of Oklahoma. The excuse furnishes the measure of Governor Haskell's moral quality. The federal act of March 11. 19M. conferred upon the secretary of the in terior the right to grant permits for oil and gas pipe lines to cross Indian reservations. Regulations to carry out the law were drawn .up by the In dian office and approved by the secretary of the interior April 12, 1904. "In compliance with the law and the regulations the Department of the Interior permitted the Standard Oil Pipe Line Company (the Prairie Oil and Gas Company) and the various rival pipe line companies (such as the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, the Cary River Gas Company, the Dens Portland Cement company and others, Including Texas and Gulf companies). all on the same terms and under the same conditions, the right of way across the Indian reservations. All Were Treated Alike. "No preference or privileges were granted to any company that was not also granted to all the others. Any other action than that actually taken by the Interior Department would have been as grossly improper as the actions of Governor Haskell himself. "The Government stood neither for nor against any company; but it required each to obey the law. Its action was precisely like the action which it took, for instance, in proceeding against the Standard Oil Company in the rebate matter; it did not thus proceed because the Standard Oil Company was involved, but because rebates had been granted; it would have proceeded just as quickly against the rivals of the Standard Oil as against the Standard Oil itself. Superior to Constitution. "Governor Haskell refuses to permit any proceedings to be taken against the Standard Oil Company, although this company declines to obey the law of Oklahoma. He claims that the Standard Oil rights were superior to the requirements of the Oklahoma constitution, for which he was himself mainly responsible. "He took the decision of this question away from the Courts, and, against the opinion of his AttorneyGeneral, he decided it in favor of the Standard Oil Corporation. The Attorney-General of Oklahoma has made the following statement in this matter: '"The President's statement as to the Prairie OH and Gas Company suit Is less than the whole matter In its whole iniquity, because on April 23 I had Informed the Governor that thf action taken by the Prairie company was illegal and should be enjoined, and that I had an open Injunction suit At that time, April 23, the Governor agreed with me as to the illegality of the action and approved the beginning of the injunction. "'The same day the Governor left

CHAS. H. HANER The Jeweler 810 Main St F. H. Edmunds, OptoractricL

the state to go to Denver, the Prairie State Company started its trespass. This. I believe, was prearranged be

tween the Governor and the Prairie Company, as the Prairie Company rushed the laying of its pipe line during the absence of the Governor from the state. 'I wired the Governor on the'lst of July, askrrg whether he had given the Prairie Oil Company permission to build its line. His reply evaded my -sole question, and Instead of answering it he said that he was satisfied that the Prairie Company would not violate the law. Didnt Advise Further. "'Between the 22d of April and the 2nd of July. Governor Haskell received no advices from me, as his le gal adviser, as to the matter, and It he had received advice from his Assistant Attorney-General he did not do me the honor of submitting the same to me. 'When he heard of the bringing of the suit he directed the acting Governor to order me to dismiss the suit and indulged in insolent language to the effect that he would not tolerate any proceeding by me except at his direction. The use of this insulting language regarding me, together with his sudden change of heart between April and July, evidences that some very deep and controlling motive of a personal nature was back of his action. " The only person that the prohibi tions could help was the Standard Oil company, and that he hazarded as much as he did for them as he did after his sudden change of heart supplies the necessary factor for any intelligent man to reckon whether the Governor of Oklahoma has a leaning toward the Standard Oil company, and, therefore, the President's statement see msto me a very mild rebuke. CHARLES B. West, "'Attorney-General of Oklahoma." "The National Government obeying both the law and the principles of sound morality, discriminated neither for nor agalnBt'the Standard Oil company or its rival. "Governor Haskell, against the law and against every principle of hones-, ty and fair dealing, discriminated In favor of the Standard Oil corporation. Failure to see the distinction between the two cases indicates moral rather than mental obtuseness. "I believe in radical reform; and the movement for such reform can be successful only if it frowns on the demagogue as it does on the corrnpf tionlst; if it shows Itself as far removed from government by a mob as from governmenet by a plutocracy. "Of all corruption, the most farreaching for evil is that which hides itseir behind the mask of furious dema gognery, seeking to srouse and to pander to the basest passions of mankind. No better exemplification of, this type of corruptyn could be found than in the case of Mr. Haskell. "You have uttered no word of condemnation of Haskelllsm as we thus see it That you consciously sought to bring it about I do not believe. That it was the natural result of the effort to apply In practice your teachings, I have no question.' Yours truly. THEODORE ROOSEVELT. "Hon. William Jennings Bryan. Lincoln, Nebraska." ' - V- a V Relieves sour stomach, Oalpitation of the heart. Digests what yon eat. PALLADIUM WANT ADS. PAY Last Chicago Excursion ONLY $3.00 ROUND TRIP To CMfflo Via The Chicago, Cincinnati & Louisville R.R. Saturday Night, Oct. 3 Your last opportunity this season to visit Chicago at this extremely low rate. Train leaves Richmond 11:20 p. m., arriving Chicago 7:00 Sunday morning, returning leaves Chicago 9:20 p. m. (Sunday night) arriving Richmond 5:15 a. m. Monday. For particulars call C. A. Blair. P. A: T. A.. Richmond, Ind. Home. Tel. 2062. it

Feretonic Lenses These cuts show how much greater range of vision you can get with Permtoric lenses than the older forms. They are a little more expensive than other lenses but are so much better for the eyes that you wilt never grudge the extra cost. We handle all styles of lenses box make a specialty of Peretorics. . If you need new glasses call and see us so we can explain their advantage more thoroughly to you.