The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-09-28

ton and the same question applies to
| Mr.. Hughes and to me. In the case
of Mr.. Hughes and myself the answer
| is fortunately easy.
"You have nothing to do but exam
inc our records in the offices to which
we We're both elected. You either
| know or ought to have known before
! writing that in not one instance mas
Mr.. Hughes as governor done one
| thing of any kind. sort or description
| for any one of the contributors you
mention or for any other contributor
to his fund which ought not to have
been done and would not have been
done if no contribution had Deen
made, yet you clearly imply that he is
and has been improperly Influenced by
the fact of these contributions having
been made. Do you consider such an
! implication either straightforward or
| sincere?
Had His Approval.
"In a letter to the chairman OF my
/ campaign committee on October 70,
| 1904. I specifically approved OF the
/ conditions under which the national
| committee were accepting contrlDu-
4 lions. saying that their acceptance was
\ to be with the explicit understanding
| that they were given and received
With no thought of any more obiiga-
! ton on the part OF the national COM
mittee or of the national administra-
! ton than is implied in the statement
! that any man shall receive square
deal, nc more and no less. and that
this I shall guarantee him in any
| event. to the best of my ability. If
| they subscribe for the purpose Of Sc
curing such national welfare and with
no thought of personal favors to them:
why. their action is entirely proper
1 continued:
| I'm returning the money TO them
| (any contributors 1 wish it made
| clear that there is not the slightest
personal feeling against them and they
can count upon being treated exactly
as we'll by the administration. exactly
as fairly, as if we had accepted the
contributions. They shall not suffer in
any way because we refused them, just
as they would not have gained in any
way if we had accepted them. No
member of the national committee has
ever directly or Indirectly suggested to
me that should either do or leave I'M
done anything whatever because any
one had contributed or had failed to
contribute.
''These are the facts. Now foreyour
proposal. You have yourself fur
nished it's condemnation. You have
quoted the subscription furnished to
Governor Hughes as reason to dis
trust Governor Hughes's attitude to-
ward corporations and 1 am obliged
to say that this can not be sincere on
your part, for. you know what the
governors attitude has been through
out his term. You quote the sub
paign. although you know well that
it did not interfere with any action
taken by me as against Mr.. Hartman,
and ask if it would not have affected
the campaign if known. Thereby
you have furnished an excellent rea-
son for refusing to meet your pro-
posal; for YOU keoit evident that to
adopt your proposal would give to
every man who cared merely for
partisan success the chance. by pre-
~ q ont I-r,f1 4 90
create to mere purpose. the false i'm
preston that you are now seeking to
create.
Taft Not to Be Swayed.
Mr.. Taft's reputation. Mr. Taft's
acts on the bench and in the execu-
tive service show that he could not
be swayed in any shape or form by
any consideration save the public in
terest and that the fact that any CON
tributions or failing to contribute
would in any way influence his ac-
ton any more than it has Influenced
my action or the action of Governor
Hughes. rclroc = -f.:~-i
Il emphatically approve of the pub
lication of campaign expenses after the
election, whether provided for by law
or not. You have shown by this letter
of yours that if the contributions to
Mr.. Hughes campaign fund had been
made public before election YOU and
those who act with you would have
striven to give the false impression that
Mr.. Hughes was unfit to be entrusted
with the position of governor and YOU
have shown by this letter of yours that
if Mr.. Harriman's contribution to the
campaign fund of 1904 and. incidentally.
l may mention that / am informed that
this contribution was not used for the
national campaign. but in the New
York state campaign, had been made
public before the election, Won and
your speakers would have endeavored
to use the fact Of its having been made
as an insincere and untruthful argyll
ment to show that I could not be trust
ed to deal out exact Justice to Mr.
Hartman. No stronger argument
against your proposition has yet been
advanced than this. that YOU have thus
unconsciously advanced.
I now come to the important part
of your letter. your attitude toward
Mr.. Haskell. You state that Mr.. Has
kell has voluntarily resigned from the
public service which he has rendered
and protest against any condemnation
of him except such IS may come in a
court. Out of your own mouth you
are condemned You thereby set up
that standard OF law honesty which
has been the bane of this people in
endeavoring to get equity and fair deal
ing-as they should obtain among high
| minded men--from great business cor
| porations and from individuals like Mr.
Haskell. Apparently. you disclaim even
asking Mr.. Haskell to retire from the
position in which you placed him so
he could retire of his own free will
| and you utter no word of condemna-
ton of his gross offense against public
i decency and honesty.
Attacks Haskell Again.
ION the contrary, you strive TO make
| it appear that his misconduct in refer
| ence to the Standard Oil is all of which
| he is accused whereas shameless
though this particular act of his is. it
! is no worse than countless others in his
career Contrast your action in this
case with that of Mr.. Taft in reference
to Mr.. Foraker. Mr.. Taft's Statement
/ when the question of his nomination
was at stake was that he would rather
lose than accept it at the price of sac