The Washington times., 1908-09-24
Letter Is a General Arraign-
ment of Bryan and
Haskell.
No Specific Proof Given of
HaSkeli'S Connection With
Standard.

President Rooseven's scathtng reply
to the request Of William Jennings
| 3ryan, for specific information as TO
| the alleged connection between Gov
! ernor c. n. Haskell, now treasurer
| Of the Democratic national committee,
and the Standard oil Company, has
/ brought to the Chief Executive scores
| OF kilograms of congratT son from
all parts Of the country ao- from men
high IN the political councils of the
Republican party.
While Mr.. Roosevelt does not, in that
/ statement, give any specific information
as 10 Governor Haskelrs connection
with the OIL trust. while he was In Ohio.
ne bases his criticism upon what he
! SAYS the Democratic treasurer has done
TO favor the Standard oil Company
| since he has been governor Of the new
est state
| Mr.. Roosevelt not only takes up the
| allegations of William r. Hearst as
to Governor Haskell's connection with
| the Standard oil Company. but he con-
| trasts the attitude of afr. Taft toward
| Senator Foraker with that Of Mr.. Bry-
an toward Governor Haskell, and says
| emphaicaIly that it is "a scandal and
! a disgrace that Governor Haskell
| should be connected with the manage
/ ment OF any national campaign"
The Presidents letter reads as fol
| ows:
Presidents Reply.
September %. 1905.
| In your telegram You speak Of so
/ much of the charge against Governor
1 Haskell as dealt with his relations,
while in Ohio, with tie Standard Oil
| Company.
| You admit the charge as 10 his re-
| lations with the Standard OIL inter
| ests. as shown by his action while
/ governor OF Oklahoma, this very sum-
mer. this action being, In part. taken
| while he was at Denver, where, as
| you state, he was by your wish made
/ chairman OF the committee which
drafted the platform upon which you
are standing.
IN my statement purposely made
! no specific allusion 10 the Ohio matter.
! and shall at this time make -iJne, in
\ spite OF the further fact that Govern
| or HaskelIs close relations With the
| Standard Oil interests while he was IN
Ohio was a matter Of common nOtOTiety-
In Oklahoma il is a matter OF court
record.
BY this court record it appears that
the attorney general Of the State,
elected by the people, obtained an in
/ junction 10 prevent the Prairie OIL and
/ line. and that Governor Haskell found
this out while he was at Denver, as
appears by the representation for the
| dissolution OF the injunction made In
his name on behalf Of the State before
a court Of superior Jurisdiction 10 that
which had issued the injunction
Asked PostPonement.
IN this the governor states that tae
acting governor in his absence had
asked that the hearing be postponed
until he. the governor might return
and have an opportunity 10 investigate
the controversy.
The governor sets forth in his petit
ton tlIat he is the sole authority 70
determine such matters, and that the
attorney general and the Judge Of the
lower court had 10 right In the mat
ter, and that the action Of the judge
iof the lower court represented an
encroachment by the judiciary"
dissolution Of the injunction, stat
ing that the Prairie Oil and Gas Com
pany was foreign corporation, which
had not accepted the provisions Of TIE
Constitution applicable 10 such cOrpOr-
atIcns, and that without authority OF
law. II was employing a great force OF
men ana teams 10 llE I'D across. ana
INTO various highways Of the State for
the purpose Of laying its pipe lines.
| The governor prevailed. the injunc-
ton was suspended, and the pipe line
TO use the words Of the attorney gen
| eTal, without any cOlCr Of law" I
call attention 10 the fact that the
Iquestion is not whether or not the
judge erred. of whether the injunc-
tion was proper The point Is that
the governor was alert 10 take out
Of the hands of the attorney general
what the attorney general felt was
his swOril duty TO prevent-an alleged
instance of the breaking Of the laws
by this particular great corporation.
Action Inexcusable.
| AS FAR as 1 have seen, Governor Has
keu has not even attempted anything
which can be called a defense Of this
action of his. II thus appears that HIS
| action was as inexcUsable as it was
wanton, except on the theory that in
defiance of the attorney general Of the
! state and at all hazards he intended.
for some reason of his own, to protect
the interests OF a great corporation
= against the law
IL has been suggested on his behalf
! that after all he did not favor the
Standard on Company, but merely the
Prairie OIL and Gas Company. This
! claim is disposed Of by the testimony
= of the Standard Oil Comp ny itself,
> taken in the latter part Of 1907 in the
, suit now pending before the United
States court at st. Louis against the
Standard Oil Company.
- IN this testimony, the Standard Oil
! Company. upon being required by the
Government to put in q list Of all the
2 companies in wEich ii held stock q
, in which its subsidiary companies held
= | stock reported, among others, the
Prairie Oil and Gas Company. total
t capital $4,000 600, OF which the Ma
| tional Transit Company's proportion
was 50. 999, 500; and, Furthermore. Il ap-
- pears that the National Transit Com
pany had a capital stock Of $25, 455, 200
p of which the Standard Oil Company
owned SIS. 451, $50.
III In other words. this Prairie OF and
| Gas Company was owned. all except
| $500, by the National Transit Com
| pany, and this National Transit Com
pany was owned, all except about
| So $50 by the Standard OIL Company.
III Now contrast your action in this case