The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1908-09-29
the provisions Of the license Of fran.
chise issued to the Oil company By
your administration.

question:, p u you do not refer to a
OF the planks and do not deal iustl
with those you refer to. The Jp1atforn
declares In favor Of the vigorous er
torcement of the criminal law agains
guilty trust magnates and officials
Your platform does not contain A,
such demand. Will you say that 5
platform Is better than ours III TIA
respect? Our platform demands tha
corporations beyond a certain size b,
compelled to sell at the same nrfc,
In all parts of the country, due allow
ance being made for the cost Of trans
portatton. Will you deny that THU
is' II the interest Of the consumer AM
10 the interest Of the seller competi
tors? We present q plan under whicl
no corporation will be permitted Il
control more than one-half OF a prod
uct. It has been stated that the stee
company, with your express consent
purchased n Of Its largest rivals and
thus obtained control Of more than &
per cent OF the total output. VIII,
You insist that in permitting this vol
showed less favor to the monopolistis
corporations than I do in opposina
them? You quote at length from 8
speech made by Governor Hughes IN
which he ridicules m of our antitrust
remedies. Is this the same Governor
Hughes who was counted as one Of
the allies who endeavored to defeat
Mr.. Taft when, as you insisted, Mr.,
Taft represented the *reformers' Of
your party and his opponents the re.
dictionaries? Did not Governor Hughes
have the support Of the New York del.
egation in the convention and Is not
New York the home Of many Repub-
licans most conspicuous in their con
nection with the law-defying corpora
lions? You are certainly aware of the
fact that In the statement filed by
George r. Sheldon, treasurer of the
Republican state committees two year
ago, after MI. Hughes election, it an
pears that the following contributions
We're made to the campaign fund;
III. Morgan, $4,000; John d. Rookie
teller, $4,000; Andrew Carnegie, IS.
600; Charles M. Schwab, $4,000; John
w. Gaets, $4,000; w. E. Corey, 81, 900:
w. q. Nelson Cromwell, $1,000; W. n
lHavemeyer, $500; B. M. Duke, $500
Several Of these men are known Is be
ot11cially connected with the trusts
Would the fact that these gentlemen
contributed to this campaign fund
strengthen or weaken his testimony
against the reasonableness Of our anti
trust remedy?
you cannot have failed to notice
that Governor Hughes in his speech
assumed the role of the critic and not
that OF the constructive statesman.
Any n possessing vivid Imagination
and q pen can find objections to rene
dial measures. Lord McAuleyis quoted
saying that eloquent and learned
could be found to dispute the law
Of gravitation II there were any ad.
vantage to be gained ~ 1t. But when
known abuses are to be cured. an
ounce OF remedy is worth q pound OIL
fault-anding.
"As you quote from Governor
Hughes, / take 1t for granted that Mr..
TAFT has not yet expressed himself
IA 2 satisfactory manner on the Sub
tect, for you would naturally prefer
to quote from the presidential candi-
tate, wherever possible.
You say: Let us repeat that mol
aw-defying corporations have anyt
other reason to fear from you, save
It will suffer In the general paral-
isis OF business etc. Referring to the
asst part Of the sentence first, / might
question your ability to act as an
expert as to panic preventatives, since
0ou now have one on your hands, hut
V to your charges that no law-defying
corporation has reason to fear the
llrect eject Of the antitrust remedies
which I favor, permit me to suggest
your testimony on this subject is
lot conclusive. You are q witness. to
he cure, hut your interest in the
OF the election must be taken|
nto consideration in weighing your
estimony. There is better evidence.
me trust magnates know their own
interests and they are supporting
Judge Taft. Not one OF the trust
nagnates helped to secure my nomina.
while 1t Is a matter of 'common
that they were conspicuous
q d Republican convention, and 1t is
squally q matter of Common noto-
iety' thai they r supporting your
'arty In this campaign. II you will
anne q single Official connected with
Iaw-defying corporation monopoly
: trust, who has declared or will de- ]
lare that he is supporting me. I viii s
ublicly warn him that / will enforce Z
gainst him the present criminal law /,
will enforce against him also the
AVIS demanded In the Democratic plat
orm as soon as these laws can be {
nacted. /
But there is another fact which I
aised q presumption in favor OF our '
arty and against your party. I re-
erred to It In my former letter to you. !
ut You inadvertently overlooked 1t s
your reply, and the members Of u
our cabinet, called in for consulta- b
on. evidently did not notice 1t. a
lated that we had not knowingly re- b
eived q dollar from any oflcial con-. b
ected with . corporation known as t