Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1907-02-15

AauluSIl1S LIS 1dluer-lu-lhW LlySIlIy-
ing plan for maximum and minimum
tariff when Brother Gardner interrupt
ed me to know if I would favor free
hides-a New England fad-to which 1
replied, Eyes; so quick it will make
your head swim, provided the tariff is
taken off boots, shoes, harness and
other things made of leather" AS we
say out west, these Massachusetts, Re-
publican tariff reyisionists must walk
up to the lick log if they want relief
The Publicity Bill Once More.
In my last letter / told of the brill
liant part that young Mr.. Robinson Of
Arkansas played in the debate on the
bill to prevent corporations from con-
tributing to political campaign funds,
and now propose to tell somewhat Of
the brilliant part played by another
congressional youngster, William T.
Hardwick of Georgia. In fact, it was
q great day for the youngsters. Hard
wick, who is slender, youthful look
ing, mild hammered young man, fear
lessly engaged the veteran General
Keifer Of Ohio once speaker Of the
house, man built on very generous
physical pattern. 1t was sort of
David and Goliath affair, Hardwick
doing great credit to the role Of David
and getting decidedly the better of the
ex-speaker. If Hardwick's manners
are mild, his tongue cuts like two
edged sword. He is only thirty-four
years old, though he is closing his sec
ond term in congress, having been
elected for another. l wish I had
room for Hardwick's entire speech,
but must confine myself to samples.
Among other things, he said:
The provision is, at shall also be I'M
lawful for any corporation whatever to
make a money contribution in connection
with any election at which presidential
and vice presidential electors or a repre-
sentative in congress is to be voted for"
| Well, now, will say that we clearly have
| the right to make laws applicable to the
government of all corporations SO far as
contributions to elections for electors for
president and vice president and mena-
| beers Of congress are concerned, and that
Is all that this bill provides as to that
character Of corporations.
| But. Mr.. Speaker, I arose not particu-
| larly to defend this bill, because 1t needs
no defense from this side of the chamber
nor from that Every honest man in this
country is for j, and l doubt very much
whether any Republican or Democrat can
| safely afford to face his constituency in
| opposition to it, but do say this: That
an effort ought to be made to get from
! the committee the bill to regulate the
question of individual, as well as cor
porate, contributions and to provide for
publicity of all contributions, and l am
very much surprised that we have not
erfEy hat
The president himself at the last session
of congress recommended a measure of
that kind, but he has virtually abandoned
| that position in this message. However,
he has recommended the passage of this
| bill, and assume that all my Republican
friends will vote for it for that reason,
and, as 1t is based on good Democratic
principles, the Democrats will support it.
The president has progressed a great
| deal since the last election. He was
| charged, in express terms. by the Demo-
| cratic candidate with having received
| contributions from corporations, and with
| that charge was coupled the intimation
| that there were improper purposes in
| making these contributions, and there
was perhaps an implied promise as to
| what these corporations should receive in
| return for these contributions He de-
MED it in one of the bitterest statements
ever issued to the American public. He
admitted in that statement that there
were such contributions being made by
corporations, but he denied absolutely
that there was any improper motive or
| agreement, and he challenged Mr.. Parker
to prove it. 1t is a pretty easy thing to
challenge proof about motives, because
when you have to prove motive the only
| way you can do 1t IL by the facts and
circumstances, Just as fraud is shown,
and that is always difficult to show even
when 1t exists, as I believe it did in this
case.
In 1904 the president was not opposed to
contributions by the corporations; at
least he did not object to them. Now we
have got him advanced a little further
because in this bill he has at least and
at last objected to it and said he was
opposed to it, and il we keep on i'm
| proving him we may make pretty fair
Democrat out of him after all.
Reference has been made here today to
| what happened on the subject of cam
paign contributions in the last national
campaign. I want to read to you the
statement of man named Andrew Ham
ilton. who was the legislative agent, lob
| byist or what not-I do not care what
you call him-of the New York Life In
stirance company: statement not about
some election long past, but about the last
| national election, the one about which
Parker and Roosevelt got into their row
and the one about which the president
was SO free with his falsehood charges
Not long ago, when these insurance
frauds and contributions first leaked out
and were exposed to public view, Mr.
Hamilton said this, among other things
II had nothing to do with the payment
in 1900 and 1904"
Speaking of the payments to the Re
publican campaign committee, he said:
"1n the last campaign some of the
trustees insisted upon having the honor
of making the payment l made no pro-
test, as 1 was glad TO get rid of the re-
sponsibility The 1904 contribution.
amounting to $4,000 was paid to Mr..
Bliss by G. w. Perkins through j. p.
Morgan & CO..
I have seen it published in the papers
as a boast and with all the pride and
porflp of heraldry that the Republican
party has a full treasury. ask, as .sug-