Bluefield evening leader. [volume] (Bluefield, W. Va.) 1906-1911, 1908-10-02

o"s 10 MS party if the public knew
before election what he promise,
10 make Known after the election
his subsequent argument tha,
the publication before election pf
me names and amounts contributed
would discourage those who desire
ID contribute 20 the legitimate pur
poses OF the campaign by exposins
mem TO the bitter d!atrbes OF un.
tair attacks or slanderous condem.
nation OF partisans In an electoral
nght, ought To have little weigh,
when IL Ia considered that such pub.
iication VIII be efficaclous In as
courag' ng those who now desire ia
contribute TO illeglt.mate expenses
ana Tor the purpose OF putting offi
ciais under obligations TO them.
Whiie pubtoat ons after the elsc.
ton may enable us to Judge wheth.
er subsequent official action has
peen improperly affected I'm favor
or the contributors by the SUCCESS
tu! candidates this is OF very small
value compared with the benefit TO
be derived from The publication of
contributions before election.
The people have right To form
their own opinion as to the influ-
".
not need a guardian To proc them
from the misuse OF the xnowledre
which they may acquire, and thay
ought not to be required In EN-.
ploy detectives to find out what tho
ornch,ls are dong after the elec-
ton. Mr.. Taft knows that a great
many matters come before sSecu-
tors and legislators witch Il is dir
fcult, IL not impossible. for the av-
erage voter to investigate the facts.
Tho people have n right 20 know
In advance or election whethor those
with special rights to look after ara
contributing sums larger than pub-
lie spirited, patriotic motives and
general interest would explain. II
Tor instance. candidate for cover
nor Ia likely to have to pass upon
railroad legislation the people have
a right to know whether men large.
ly Interested in preventing railroad
legislation have contributed liberal
ly to his campaign fund. III man
aspAres to an office In which, n
elected, he will have To pass upon
antitrust legislation or enforce anti
trust laws. II is only right that the
public should know by what rights
the TRUST magnates are financing
his campaign. And SO II a man ~
candidate for office which brings
him In Official connection with tar
IN legislation, Il is proper for the
people to know whether he Will be
80 obligated TO HIS 'beheiicIaries of
nigh tbIiff as to be embarrassed
when he cttempts 10 protect the
c1nsumerss @fE f-
Mr.. Taft represents what | have
said In regard 20 Mr.. Hughes. /
called attention TO some OF the con
tributions that were made to MIR.
Hughes fund, and in view Of the
TACT that Mr.. Hughes ATTACKS the
remedies In tho Democratic plat
form AZ a cure for the trusts with
out advancing any remedies or hi
own. and In view of the further fac;
that his testimony was quoted by
the president against me. / aske,
the president whether )he thought
that these contributions by trust
magnates would lessen or increase
the weight of Mr.. Hughes testimo-
ny on the subject OF trusts. It viii
not do for Mr.. Taft to put Mr..
Hughes upon pedestal and clam
tor him immunity from criticism. II
Is not necessary for me t. pass
judgment upon Mr.. Hughes or upon
what he has done In order to pass
judgment upon the question under
discussion. He is only human and
was one OF the allies before thr
Chicago convention. We assume
that public officials will be honest
and yet we require bonds OF those
who handle money, no matter how
much character they may have. The
law will not permit a Judge, a juror