The Ketchikan miner., 1907-04-27
ROOSEVELT-HARRIMAN.

DOlleu uOWD lHtO uub HuSil uioic than single paragraph by The Out look which sums the whole thing up like this: In 1904 the well informed had very little doubt that Mir. Roose- velt would be elected President, but a good deal of doubt whether Mr. Higgins woud be ected Governor of New York. He was seriously handi- capped by the unpopularity of his predecessor in office, Mr. Odell. The Federal campaign was going well with the Republican party, but not so the State campaign. The State Committee was without funds and could not get them. The President had very little anxiety as to his own election, but good deal as to the election of Mr. Higgins. And the railway financiers had good deal of anxiety as to Mr. Roosevelt's railway policies. He had already declared himself in favor of railway rate regu-
 ation. and they were desirous that he should confine it to such regulation as was possible under the then exis s- ting Elkins Law. Finally, Mr. Hartman was understood to be back ing Mr. Odell in New York State politics, and desirous to see him vim dicated and his candidate, Mir Black, sent to the United States Senate in place of Mr. Depew, whom therefore he was desirous of providing with a mission abroad. Such were the con- ditions when in October the Presi- dent invited Mr. Hartman lin view of the trouble over the State ticket in New York; to come on to Wash ington for lunch or dinner. He went. Exactly what took place at the inter- view is in dispute. Mr. Hartman reports that Mr. Roosevelt asked his help in raising funds for the National Committee. This Mr. Roo ,evelt emphatically denies; he ayers that the communication between them related exclusively to the State cam paign, in which Mr. Hartman was intensely interested, because he re- garded the attack on Mr. Higgins as an attack on himself and on his friend Mr. Odell. Mr. Hartman re- ports that Mr. Roosevelt promised that he would appoint Mr. Depew Ambassador to France: Mr. Roose- welt atfirms that he declined to give any such assurances. Correspondence immediately following the election shows that Mr. Hartman desired to urge his railway views on the Presi- dent before his message should go to Congress. The President, while ex- pressing willingness to confer with him on that subject, declared that the conference would be useless, since his mind was made up to urge further legislation and could not be changed
 It is apparent that the interview between the President and Mir. Harri- man was desired by Mir. Hartman impress on the President his rail way views, and by the President
 to impress on Mr. Hartman his views of the importance of electing Mr.
 Higgins Mr. Hartman came back from the interview, and raised $200, : 000 giving one-quarter of it himself. He claims without stating the grounds fnt, hia ,l ai that thic added S0 900 to the Republican vote in New York City. If the differences in the report of this interview given by Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Hartman, re- spectively, involved an issue of yer acity, we do not think, in view of recent revelations on the witness stand, that the country would have any question about accepting MT. Roosevelt's report. But question of fact is not necessarily question of veracity, and after careful compar
 ison of their conflicting reports, we are quite clear that the difference can be accounted for by a difference of interests and emphasis in their minds at the time, and difference of recollection since. That the Pres ident wrote to Mr. Hartman explic- itly saying that his visit to the White House would do exactly as well after the election as before it, is conclusive, however, that there was no money-raising motive in the invitation. But Mr. Hartman has been in his political affiliation and experience so accustomed to the sor- did use of money by both politicians and capitalists that it is quite prob able that he could not understand the possibility of more honorable motive. He is therefore entitled to whatever credit there may be in such misunderstanding Where one may legitimately choose between the hypothesis of misunderstanding and that of deliberate faleshood the mis- understanding IS always the better hypothesis. We think it would have been stronger as well as more charit- able if the President had adopted it instead of adopting the other.
 
 There is inside history to the fight