Polk County observer. (Monmouth, Polk County, Or.) 1888-1927, 1905-03-03
MAKES VIGOROUS DENIAL
Senator Fulton Says He Has Never
Represented Amy Person in
Timber Land Matters.

the Editor of The Telegram)-In late
issue OF The Evening Telegram, Of
the 18th fhst., 1 think, appeared an
article headed Shadow on Hammond.
Investigation to include Sena
Charles w. Fulton" etc. 1 have not
seen a copy of the paper, but a friend
cut out the article and mailed it to me.
1t is alleged in substance that Ham
mond's transactions in timber lands
are under investigation, and l was
his attorney. 1t is directly alleged
that the combination was Hammond,
Pillsbury and Kribs, and that ''the
attorneys for these manipulators were
Mitchell and Tanner and present
United States Senator Fulton" 1t is
stated that 'there is as yet no positive
indication that Senator Fulton will be
drawn into the Governments net, but
his connection with Hammond's deal
ings is under investigation, and if it
is shown that in 1903 he received
money from Hammond for his services
he will be liable to Indictment, etc
Under ordinary conditions on publi-
cation Of such an article concerning
me would be justified in instituting
an action for libel, but l realize that
under the influence Of the present
atmosphere in Oregon, charged as it is
with rumors of impending revelations
and startling developments, even
newspaper reporters become hysterical
and fail to observe that regard for
private character that under different
circumstances would control them. AS
a matter Of fact have never at any
time acted for or been employed in the
of attorney, or otherwise, in
any land matters, or in any matter
whatever, by the parties mentioned,
or any Of them, excepting that have
Mr.. Hammond and the
Astoria Company in two cases in the
United States Court, and have been
attorney for the Astoria & Columbia
River Railroad Company, in which he
IS interested. Aside from those mat
ers, 1 have never represented him in
my capacity in any manner. So far
rs his land purchases are concerned
have never in any capacity repre-
jented him or advised him or any of
lis associates, or any corporation or
company in which they, or any Of
hem, are or have been interested. In
this statement I would not
nave you infer that I assume or be-
ieve that Mr.. Hammond has been en-
gagged in any questionable transac-
ions in acquiring lands. Knowing
lim as I do, am confident that he
has not been so engaged. l wish simply
70 make it clear that I have never at
any time, either before I was elected
senator or since, been in any capacity
by Mr.. Hammond or his
associates, or any Of them, or repre-
jented or advised him or them in re-
alton to any lands or land matters
whatever. Indeed, this statement
iced not be restricted to them, for in
ruth | have never represented any
Derson in the matter of acquiring
'ubllc lands. Not but that | might
have done so before my cleo
ion, but it so happens that l never did.
Tor have Mr.. Hammond, or his asso-
iates, or any Of them, paid me any
honey or other compensation for any
ervices whatever since my election to
1e Senate. If he or they have been
lterested in any lands, or land mat
RS, pending before the Interior De-
artment, the General Land Office, or
NY local land office at any time, I
ave not been aware Of it. I cannot
ow recall that any Of them have ever
with me about any such I
latters. though, Of course, it is pos 6
lble that some of them may have
ritten to me about some tract pend {
lg before the Department. 1t is my {
elief that none of them ever has, :
lough it is, Of course, possible that
ne or more Of them should have done
}, and in the multitude of letters
similar character such fact
icape my memory. | am certain of
lis, however, that no person will say
lat he has ever paid me anything for
ny work or sevices performed in or
bout any department Of the Govern {
lent. Nor did your reporter possess +
ny knowledge whatever of any facts +
lat justified him in making the insin- q
ations against me contained in the
rticle mentioned The mere fact that 9
knew that l had represented Mr.. /
ammond in some other matters did c
ot justify him in asserting that 1 a
presented him and his alleged asso- k
ates, or any of them, in the land 9
alters mentioned. That | did so n
present them is in the article posi- c
7ely asserted, the only open ques-
IN being whether l had accepted
mpensation or not 1t occurs to me ii
at the statement that / represented P
EN- was extremely reckless, and I E