Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-26

Senator Foraker.
CINCINNATI. Ohio. September 26.-In
long and CAREFUL. prepared statement
United States Senator Joseph B. Foraker
takes up recent charges preferred by
William r. Hearst and President Roose-
welt. explaining his temporary connection
with the Standard Oil Company and dis
cussng the Brownsville incident and his
connection with the rate bill. The state
ment is as follows:
FoRAKER'S STATEMENT.
The President commences his state
ment connected with the publication of
Judge Taft's letter with a bitter arraign-
ment of because of Mr.. Hearsts
charges. which he appears to have &C
cepted as fully proven as soon as made.
He does not wait for proof or explanation
nor accept the same when offered.
Mr.. Hearst's charges are not simply
that | was in the employment of the
Standard Oil Company and that 1 was
paid for my services, but that 1 was
secretly in that employment for iuegiti-
mate purposes and that the money re-
ceived was paid as compensation, for i'm
properly influencing legislation by. Con-
gress in conflict with and in violation of
my official duties
He read number of letters and made
certain comments calculated, if un-
answered or unexplained. to create the
belief that his charges were true
That 1 was employed by the company
was never concealed or denied. On the
contrary such employment was we'll
known at the time to all concerned. Only
few days ago ex-Attorney General
Monnett, who was prosecuting the pro-
ceedings against the Standard Oil Com
pany at that time, stated in d public in
terview that l told him at the time that
l had been retained by the company.
If employed and rendering services.
presumably l was compensated.
In announcing, therefore, the mere
fact that l was employed by the COM
pany and showing that l received pay
ments on that account. no information
was impaired by Mr.. Hearst and no of
Tense was established. for it remained
that such employment and payment
might be entirely proper and legitimate
Under all the circumstances an ex-
plantation was required. and in former
statements / made such explanation by
showing that my employment was con-
fined To the affairs of the company in
Ohio and its reorganization after the
trust was dissolved by order of our Su-
preme Court, and that my employment
had no relation in the slightest degree
to anything in which the federal govern
ment was then interested or with respect
to which the Congress was then legislat-
ing or at that time proposing to legislate.
and that the employment was ended long
before the company was made the SUBJ
jet OF any special attention in Congress-
and longer still before it was attacked In
Inc FEDERAL courts or proceeded against
IN any way by the federal government
and. further. that the employment was
not 10 defend the company against
charges of violation of the laws of Ohio
or the United States or the orders OF any
OF the courts. but only to assist in exc
cutting the orders of the courts and so
reorganizing as to conform to all laws
state and national and to fully comply
with all the orders of the courts that had
been made against it,
A Complete Defense.
II my statements in this behalf are true
they make complete defense against
Mr. Hearst's charges, and all deductions
therefrom of improper conduct unless
the ethics involved have been radically
changed from what they have always
heretofore been supposed TO be From
Inc beginning OF our government senators
apd congressman who were LAWYERS have
been regarded free 10 continue the
practice OF their profession if they so de-
sized during their terms of office in so
FAR as they might be able 10 do so with
oat interfering with their public duties
and in such practice free TO take any
KIND OF employment that was offered
Whlch dld not IN any way conflict with
MGR duties as members of Congress No
BODY has ever before been criticised on such
account The only question has been as
TO the character of business a senator or
member of Congress was at liberty 10
take. and uniformly and universaliv II
has been considered that there was no
prohibition of any class of business out
side of those named in the statutes and
such business as might conflict with
= public duties.
When | accepted the employment of the
Standard OH Company in 1899 II was not
foreseen by me, and probably not by
anybody else, that it would become the
object of federal legislation or of federal
prosecution or action of any kind, and
that employment ended when the COM
pany decided 10 reorganize under the laws
of New Jersey whic hwas before any
thing OF that nature occurred.
The Elkins Rebate Bill.
That / was not in the employment of
the company after the services. 1 have
mentioned were rendered. and that such
employment did not afterward influence
me 10 favor the company in legislation, is
shown by the part / took in the enact
ment OF the Elkins law. approved Feb
ruary 10 1893. Under the statute the At
torney General has brought and caused
to be brought all the prosecutions asains,
the Standard Oil Company OF which We
have read so much including the case in
which Judge Lands imposed the fine Of