Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1908-09-26

1903. Under this statute the attorney
general has brought and caused 10 be
brought all the prosecutions against
the standard oil company. Of which
We have read 30 much, including the
case in which Judge Iandis imposed
the fine Of $29,240,V00,
But If that fact is not sufficient,
the Following correspondence is not
only additional proof. but conclusive
In It's character TO the same effect
20 Broadway, New York. May 2,
l9Ob.-My Dear senator: In the pos
sibllity OF an action being brought
aga INST us In ohio, are you ia posi-
tpn to accept retainer from us in
connection with such matter? Your
carly response viii oblige, yours very
truly JOHN y. ARCHBOLD.
TO Hon. }. b. Foraker, $500 six
tecnth street Washington, -. c.
TO which / answered as follows.
Washington, ID. c., May 6, 1906.
John d. Archbold Esq, No. 26
Broadway, New York. My Dear Sir:
My duties In the senate have SO multi
piled that l find it 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 well as be-
,luse Of my relations to the public
service, = can not accept retainer in
the contingency named, as l would be
very g'ad to do IL II 1t We're otherwise.
Assuring you of my proper appre-
citation for the compliment involved In
the hprTy you make, | remain. Verv
truly yours j. +. FORAKER
For weeks prior to the date Of
these letters, the newspapers We're
flucd with announcements threatening
thr company with very serious litiga-
lDE and with criminal prosecutions In
t3.u ,a.pttg ~ (lliD. WAS in View of
fn,sr thI,atcned proceedings that the
company again sought to employ me;
surely an idle and unnecessary per
TO, rance II already employed, ana
these iet'erS further show that | de-
clucd adtn employment among ether
g. rNasCnS r, cause | could not accept the
slmc consistently with my relations to
the public service. The conditions had
greatly changed since my former en-
b. lovtueut largely because of the pros
against the company under
the Eltins law, which | had helped to
frame, furthermore, the employment
was different in It's charac-
ter from that which / had previously
Thlt is To say, instead ot
being an employment, as the former
was, to ala the company
in complying with the orders Of the
courts. and the statutes of the state,
il was to be an employment to resist
'u'S anu P'0''1 1U''0'''
s,,H,,tt that tbese nroofs should
i,,Ssi,,i,,, 49, sbovg ia nnv fair and
lnprcjudiccd mind that l was never
IL. IL ~ .,. " ,,,,,la5p,.,,t tben had no re
~ "'y ~ ,,,tIi' i'n,' that vas in conflict
','o' LLfn 1,tirs. hut bad refer
y, ~ ~ ,', tn tbn REORGANIZATION of the
.i',-.,.'n, ,nd its ohio agencies with
,,ri.,h nn,lrrss had nothing whatever
"
M, tI,orst In create a different
- r,aa ,t II T,ouis tho following
80,
..',oe pro,dvov New york, Feb 25.
.qoo ia non l. r. Foraker Wash
netnn - C-Dcar Sir. Again. my
i,9r senator I venture to write you a
,.ord regarding the bin introduced by
..nstnr Innns of Arkansas, known as
.c49 intended to amend the act To
,rotcct trade and commerce against
,rIavful restraints and monopolies
.l,'.I l,, him 1t really seems as
h"ueh tbis is very unnecessarily se-
.,r,. and even vicious. Is it not much
,ttter t1 test th, application of the
sherman law instead Of resorung to
measure of this kind / none YOU
, D feel $50 about II. ana l VIII pt
r, atly pleased 10 nave "oru lIoUh
ON ON the subject .,,.
with klhd tssai Is, W. ~ :, "''
ours, JOHN -. -Nl.el. - nCi ''i--i. -
- nave no Iv'oileC'i w" "a -.
Giving amy gu'n - ,ig'I,s' i,''I an,,
i"5'i, 7e'i y" a., az. ann, con,5 NJ
l.l ,l.'' ',', '',.... A., an, s,,cb letter i'm INV