Los Angeles herald., 1908-09-26
FORAKER MAKES
BITTER ATTACK
IN STATEMENT
GREATLY WIDENS BREACH
WITH TAFT
SAYS THE PRESIDENTS ACTION
SHOWS GUILTY CONSCIENCE
Explains His Own Connection with
Standard Oil and Declares Hearst
Did Not Read All the
Letters
CONTINUED from Page ono,


have mentioned were rendered, and
that such employment did not after
ward influence me to favor the COM
pany in legislation, is shown by the
part / took in the enactment of the
Elkins law, approved February 19, 1903
Boosted the EIkns Law
"Under this statute the attorney
general has brought, and caused to be
brought, all the prosecutions against
the Standard Oil company, of which
we have read so much, including the
case in which Judge Lands imposed
the fine of $29,240,000.
"But If that fact is not sufficient, the
following correspondence is not only
additional proof, but conclusive in its
character to the same effects
"26 Broadway, N. Y, May 2, 1906.
my Dear Senator: In the pos
sibility of an action being brought
against us in Ohio, are you in a
position to accept a retainer from
us In connection with such a mat
ter?
"'Your early response will oblige,
yours very truly,
"'JOHN d. ARCHBOLD.'
"'To Hon. ]. B. Foraker, 1900 Six
teenth street, N. W., Washington,
d. c.
"tro this I answered as follows:
Washington, D. c., May 9, 1906
John D. Archbold, ESQ.,,
".No. 26 Broadway, N. 7.
"'My Dear Sir: My duties in the
senate have so multiplied that find
1t necessary to retire entirely from
the practice of the law. have not
taken any new employment for more
than two years past.
Ion this account, as we'll as be-
oouoa nf INV ra1affonq m the nIIhliC
service, 1 cannot accept a retainer
in the contingency named, as l
would be glad to do il 1t were 9TH
erwise.
"'Assuring you of my proper APP
preciation for the compliment in
volved in the inquiry you make,
remain, very truly yours,
~. B. FORAKER.
Cites Other Reasons
"For weeks prior to the dates of these
letters the newspapers were filled witt
announcement threatening the company
with very serious litigation and witt
criminal prosecutions in the courts o.
Ohio. 1t was in view of these threat
ened proceedings that the compan,
again sought to employ me; surely al
idle and unnecessary performance
already employed, and these letters FUR
ther show that I declined such employ
ment, among other reasons, because
could not accept the same consistent.
with my relations to the public service
1.-THE conditions had greatly changed
since my former employment, largel,
because of the prosecutions against th'
company under the Elkins law, which
I had helped to frame; Furthermore, the
employment proposed was different II
its character from that which 1 hac
previously accepted. That is TO say
instead of being an employment-as the
former employment was-to aid the
company in complying with the rules OF
the court and the state, 1t was to be ar
employment to resist such proceedings
81 submit that these proofs should
be sufficient to show to any fair
minded. unprejudiced person that was
never employed except prior to 1901, ano
that my employment then had no rela-
ton to anything that was in conflict
with my public duties, but had refer
ence solely to the reorganization of the
company and it's Ohio affairs, with
which congress had nothing whatever
to do.
That Other Letter
''Mr. Hearst, to create a different
belief, read at st. Louis the following
".2s Broadway N. Y, Feb. 25. 1902.
Ito Hon. ]. B. Foraker,
/" Washington, ID. G.
"'Dear Sir: Again, my dear SEN
ator, venture oywrite you word
regarding the bill introduced by
Senator Jones of Arkansas, known
as "649," intended to amend the act
to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and
monopolies, introduced by him. 1t
really seems ais though this is un-
necessarily severe and even vicious.
Is 1t not much better to test the
application of the Sherman law, in
stead of resorting to a measure of
this kind? l hope you will feel so
about it and will be greatly pleased
to have word from you on the
subject.
with kind regards, very truly
yours, JOHN d. ARCHBOLD.'
'I have no recollection of receiving
any such letter, and a most diligeni
search falls to disclose any such letter
in my files or any copy of any answer
to any such letter in my letter book
But waving all that, the letter shows
that Mr.. Archbold did not pretend te
have any right to address me on any
such subject, except as any citizer
might have done.
such requests are of daily occur.
renee in the experience of every SEN
ator. If ever received such a letter
lily lIldDlllty " llAA II VI " illiO Oh
answer is doubtless due to the fac
that I simply referred 1t to the judici.
airy committee for consideration witt
the bill.
II would not deem it necessary tc
make an explanation If it were not thai
Mr.. Hearst, in reading this letter
coupled 1t with the following letter:
Look Bad Together
"'2s Broadway, N. T.. January
MY Dear Senator: Responding
to your favor of the 25th, it gives
me pleasure to hand you herewith
certificate of deposit $4,000 in ac-
cordance with our understanding.
Your letter states the conditions
correctly, and trust that the
transaction will be successfully
consummated. Yours very truly,
"JOHN d. ARCHBOLD.'
"Mr. Hearst accompanied the reading
of these two letters with other com
ments calculated, If not intended, tC
convey the impression that one haC
reference to the other. and that they
constituted evidence that I was, fol
money received, trying to influence
legislation in accordance with the views
of Mr.. Archbold The dates OF the two
letters show that the money was sem
almost a month prior to the lettel
- *