The morning journal-courier., 1908-09-28

Oil company, the western subsidiary or
representative OF the Standard OIL COM
pany In which he announces he Is for
Bryan and states that Wall street be-
lieyes Bryan will be elected. In reply
as to whether he could quote any OF
tho Standard OIL magnates as feeling
that way, he answered;
IT did not say saw any officials OF
the Standard OIL company. ] am giving
you what found was the drift OF
opinion among well posted politicians
as we'll as bankers. guess Gov
Haskell is all right. They have not
proved anything on him, have they?'
Character OF Endorser.
The newspaper clipping goes on to
say that Judge. Priest was one Of the
lawyers who fought. Attorney General
Hadley In the states custer suit
against Waters-Pierce and Republic
OIL companies His legal practice Is
chiefly with the big corporations and
his firm is counsel for the United Rail-
ways company and the North Ameri-
ttll llll'ItStS III pl, LOUIS uhbk' 4 ii'fN
Is credited with originating the phrase:
Bribery Is a conventional offense,
which. he used In an argument at the
trial of r. M. Snyder the Kansas City
millionaire. now dead"
Reason for Trust support.
You say that the trust magnates
know their own interests and are sup
porting Judge Taft. So far as their
interests are simply the interests Of
the business community, and especial
~ OF the wage workers | believe they
will support Judge Taft SO far as
they have special interests which are
to them more important than the gem
eral business welfare, / believe they
will support YOU | base this belief
npon what happened in 1896 Your
success then would, in my belief, have
been a calamity for the country from
the standpoint Of the welfare OF the
business men, farmers and working
men just as. in my belief, your sue
cess now would be a calamity to the
country, both from the standpoint of
business (and especially OF the inter-
ests OF the wage worker) and from
the standpoint Of morals. one of
your supporters, the New York World,
In February last printed a list of con-
tributions to your campaign fund Of
1896, containing the names Of indlvld-
uals and corporations owning silver
hines who made contributions to the
aggregate amount of s2sS000, one Of
the contributions OF $4,000 and
another OF $500, etc. Now all the
great financial magnates who then
contributed to your campaign fund
would have preferred business pros
perlty to business adversely, other
things being equal; but they would
rather have had the immense profit
that would have accrued to them
from the free coinage of the 50-cent
dollar than the smaller profit which
would have accrued to them merely
| from the general Industrial prosper
! fly OF the country. Because Of their
personal interests and against the in
terests of the community at large
these trust" magnates then support
ed you. Ny belief Is. and the STATE
ment OF Judge Priest quoted above,
and the attitude Of many men of large
financial interests warrant me in nx-
pressing the belief, that those trust
magnates whose fear of being prose-
cuted under the law by Mr. Taft is
greater than their fear of general
business adversely under you, will sup
port YOU and not Mr. Taft
Campaign Publicity.
Il now come to what YOU have to
say as to contributions, ana here you
furnish your own answer. You state
that II appears from the published
statement Of the contribution to 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 $500 apiece. You ask
Would the fact that these gentlemen
contributed TO his campaign fund
strengthen or weaken his testimony
against the reasonableness Of our anti
4 trust remedy?"; and later you con
tnue by asking; Are you willing to
say that any public interest was serv'
ed in 1904 by concealng until after
election the contributions made to the