Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1908-09-28
OSEVELT RE-
PLIES TO BRYAN
Not Agree to Publication of
Campaign Expenses.

have acted and shall act as regards
the steel corporation.
Standard OIL Man for Bryan.
You ask me to name a single
official connected with a law-defylng
corporation who has declared or will
declare that he is supporting you.
In st. Louis paper which reached
me at the same time the papers con-
Gaining this published letter of yours
find a statement from Judge Henry
s. Priest, attorney for the Waters
Pierce Oil company, the western sub
sidiary or representative of the Stand
ard Oil company, in which he an
nounees that he is for Bryan and
states that Wall street believes that
Bryan will be elected. In response
to the question as to whether he
could quote any of the Standard Oil
magnates as feeling that way, he
answered: 4 did not say saw
any of the officials of the Standard
OIL company. am giving you what l
found was the drift of opinion among
well-posted politicians as well as
bankers. guess Governor Haskell
is all right. They have not proved
anything on him, have they?'
Bryan's Rich Supporters.
"One of your supporters, the New
York World. in February last print
ed a list of contributions to your
campaign fund in 1895, containing
the names of individuals and corpora
tiOns owning silver mines which
made contributions to the aggregate
amount of 1888, 900, one of these
contributions being of $4,000, and
another of $4,000, etc.
Campaign Contributions.
81 come to what you have to say
about contributions and you furnish
your own answer. You state that
1t appears from the public statement
of the contributions for Mr.. Hughes
campaign for governor two years ago
that various men of wealth, some of
them connected with big corporations.
whom you name to the number of
nine, contributed from $4,000 to
$50. 900 apiece. You say, Would the
fact that these men contributed to
his campaign fund strengthen or
weaken his testimony against the
reasonableness of our antitrust
remedy And later you continue by
asking, Are you willing to say that
any public interest was served in
1904 by concealing until after cleo
ton the contributions made to the
republican campaign committee by
Mr.. Hartman and those collected by
/ him for others?' Are you willing to
say that the publication of the cleo
tion contributions then made would
have no effect? You then propose to
publish the names of contributors be-
fore election and ask us to do the
same
In the case of Mr.. Hughes and
myself the answer is fortunately
easy. You have nothing to do but
examine our records in the Offices OF
which we were both eleced. You
either know or ought to have known
before writing that in not one in
stance has Mr.. Hughes, as governor.
1 In ~ ~
description for any of the contribu-
tors to his fund, which ought not
to have been done. and would not
have been done II no contribution
had been made.
No member of the national COM
mittee has ever directly or indirect
ly suggested to me that I shopld
either do or leave undone anything
whatever because any one had con-
tributed or had failed to contribute.
These are the facts. Now for
your proposal: You have yourself
furnished it condemnation. You have
quoted the subscriptions furnished to
Governor Hughes as a reason TO dis
trust Governor Hughes attitude to-
ward corporations. and am obliged
to say that this can not be sincere
on your part, for you know well what
the governors attitude has been
throughout his term. You quote the
subscription Of Mr.. Hartman to my
campaign. and ask II It would not
have affected the campaign IL
known before. Thereby you
have furnished an excellent
reason for refusing to meet
your proposal. for you make II evil