Los Angeles herald., 1908-09-26
Foraker's Statement
The statement Saws


1.-THE president commences his state
ment connected with the publication OF
Judge Taft's letter with a bitter ar
raignment of me because of Mr..
Hearst's charges. which he appears to
have accepted as fully proved as soon
as made. He does not wait for PROOF
or explanation, nor accept the same
when offered.
"Mr. Hearst's charges are not simply
that l was In the employment of the
Standard OIL company and that l was
paid for my services. but that L was
secretly In that employment for ille-
gitimate purposes and that the money
! received was paid as compensation
for improperly influencing legislation
by congress In conflict with and in
violation OF my official duties.
"He read a number of letters and
made certain comments calculated, II
| unanswered or unexplained, to create
the belief that his charges were true.
"That I was employed by the COM
pany was never concealed or denied.
On the contrary such employment was
well known at the time to all con-
cerned. Only a few days ago former
Attorney General Monnett, who was
prosecuting the proceedings against the
Standard Oil company at the time,
stated in public interview that / told
him at the time that I had heen re-
tanned by the company. If employed
and rendering services, presumably
was compensated.
'In announcing, therefore, the mere
fact that was employed by the COM
pany, and showing thatI received pay
nients on that account, no information
was impaired by Mr.. Hearst and no
offense was established, for 1t remained
that such employment and payment
might be entirely proper and legiti-
mate.
Explains Connection
"Under all the circumstances an ex-
planation was required, and in former
statements made such explanation Dy
showing that my. employment was con
fined to the affairs of the company In
Ohio, and in its reorganization after
the trust. was dissolved by order of our
supreme court, and that my employ
ment had no relation in the slightest
degree to anything In which the federal
government was then interested or
with respect to which the congress was
then legislating, or at that time pro-
posing to legislate, and that any en-
ployment was ended long before the
company was made the subject of any
special attention in congress and longer
still before 1t was attacked In the fed
eral courts or proceeded against In any
way by the federal government; and
further, that my employment was not
of violation of the laws of Ohio or the
United States, or the orders of any of
the courts, but only to assist in exc
cutting the orders of the courts and SO
reorganizing as to conform to all laws,
state and national, and to fully comply
with all the orders of the courts that
had been made against it.
'If my statements in this behalf
are true, they make complete de-
fense against Mr. Hearst's charges,
and all deductions therefrohh of i'm
proper conduct, unless the ethics in
volved have been radically changed
from what they have always hereto
fore been supposed to be.
Lawyers vs.. Lawmakers
From the beginning of our govern
ment senators and congressman who
were lawyers were regarded as free
to continue the practice of their pro-
fession IL they so desired during their
terms of office in so far as they might
be able to do so without interfering
with their public duties; and in such
practice free to take any kind of en-
ployment that was offered which did
not in any way conflict with their du-
ties as> members of congress.
Nobody has ever before been criti-
cised on such account. The only ques-
ton has been as to the character of
business Il SeudtoI OF congressman
was at liberty to take, and uniformly
and universally 1t has been considered
that there was no prohibition of any
class of business, outside of those
named in the statutes and such bus
mess as might conflict with public
duties.
when I accepted the employment of
the Standard Oil company in 1899 1t
was not foreseen by me. and probably
not by anybody else, that 1t would be-
come the object OF federal legislation
or of federal prosecution or action of
any kind, and that employment ended
when the company decided to reorgan-
ize under the laws of New Jersey,
which was before anything of that ma
ture occurred
THAT / was not In the employment
of the company after the services I
(Continued ON Page Threel