The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-27
Justice EIkins ExpIaina.

! Justice Elkins Explains.
 Pittsburg, Oct. 26.-Justice J. P. Eikin. of the Supreme Court of Penn sylvania. who up to this time has made only a general denial of improp- CT relations with John D. Archbold and the Standard oil Company, as tn- ferentially charged by Editor Wan. R. Hearst, through the reading of a num- Der of letters to Mir. Elkin. at a poltt- ical meeting in New York last Satur- day night, presented a detailed state ment to the Associated Press tonight. MT. Elkin stated that he had not been able carrier to conuslt his files and see cure the data to make detailed ex- planation. Justice Elkins' statement follows:
 The evident intention of the publi- cation of the four letters read by Mir. Hearst in which my name appears is to support an inference that the money was sent me to improperly in- | huenoe legislation or for some other | unworthy purpose. The first Is letter | of introduction to MT. Twombly, dated 1 September 25. 1899. About that time 1 the New York Central through its l Bech Creek connections, contemplated making extensions Into my home coun- | ty where. with some friends, was in- 1 terested in undeveloped coal lands We | were anxious to get some definite inc 1 formation on the subject and 1t was | suggested to me that I take up the 1 subject with some official of the rail- road system. l did not personally know any person connected with the railroad company and asked Mr. Areh- bold whom I had known since he was | struggling young man In Western Pennsylvania, to give me letter of introduction, which was done AS. 1t turned out afterwards did not use | the letter for the reason that the de- | dtr Inf from | other sources, I do not know MT. | Twombly personally, and never met him. The next two letters are dated February 5, 1900, and March 5, 1900, | respectively, and from these letters the inference is attempted to be drawn from the money mentioned therein was intended to secure the defeat of certain legislation which was deemed | obiectIonable. The Legislature was not in session at that: there/ were no bills pending and the inference IS manifestly unfounded. The preceding sessien of the Legislature had expired nine months before these letters were written. the members of the succeed- ing Legislature had not even been l named and those subsequently, nomi- mated were not elected until the fol- lowing November. eight months af- terward, While the drafts mentioned were forwarded to me, they were not intended for my use.
 "They were contributions for polit- teal purposes and were by me imme- diately turned into the campaign fund The money was principally used in helping to liquidate the Indebtedness of the State Committee incurred in prior campaigns. My sole connection with this matter was to turn the drafts over for the purpose intended Not A pen- ny of this money was expended for the benefit or to the advantage of my self. Beginning With the fall of 1885, for a period of five years, l was act lively engaged in the management of political affairs. either as State chair man or member of the Executive Com-
 mIttee. Contributions for campaign purposes were generally addressed to me, but immediately turned over to the treasurer of the campaign fund Tn the early months of 1900 there be- ing no Legislature tn session and no official duties to be performed, was at home in the practice of my profess sion and was not engaged in political matters.
 "As to the letter of May 9, 1901. upon which reliance Is put to connect all these matters with the suggestion of the improper use of money in infuenc- ing legislation 1t must not be over looked that this letter was written eighteen months after the Twombly letter and one year and three months after the other two letteTS, WHICH could have had no reference to any legislative matter at that ime It was supposed to have been written just before the adjournment of the Legislature of 1901. and made inquiry about some pending legislation. The letter as published does not mention : the bill referred to nor to proposed legislation objected to-. It was let ter of inquiry only which assume was received by me. although l do not re- call the incident. As Attorney Gem eral I received hundreds of letters from people asking for information and advice about pending legislation and other political matters. These were not confined to any particular class Indeed. farmers, business men mechanics and laborers wrote me more frequently than persons connected with corporations and other la ge interests. In every case I considered tt my duty to cautiously reply and give such in- formation as I had on the subject about which inquiry was made And this is all could have done or did in answer to the letter of Mir. Archbold. He did not ask me to defeat any leg islation, nor did attempt Vo do SO"