The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-09-27
BRYAN AGAIN PAYS
HIS RESPECTS TO
THEO. ROOSEVELT

CONTINUED f. ON Page One.)
mands that corporations beyond a
certain size be compelled to sell at
the same price In all parts of the coun-
try, due allowance being made for the
cost of transportation. Will you deny
that this lie In the interest of the con-
sumner and in the interest OF the
smaller competitors? We present
plan under which no corporation will
be permitted to control more than one
half the total production. 1t has been
stated that the steel company with
your express consent, purchased one
OF its largest rivals and thus obtained
control of more than fifty per cent Of
the total output. Will you insist that
in permitting this you showed less
favor to monopolistic corporations
than / do In opposing 1t?
You quote at length from speech
made by Governor Hughes in which
ne ridicules one of our Anu-Taft RENE
dies. In this same Governor Hughes
who was counted as one OF the al
lies, who endeavored to defeat Mr..
Taft when as you insisted, Mr.. Taft
represented the "reformers" OF your
party and his opponents the reaction
airy element? Did not Governor
Hughes have the support Of the New
York delegation in the convention
and is not New York city the home
OF many republicans most concious In
their connection with law defying cor
porations?
You certainly are aware OF the fact
that in the statement filed by George
r. Sheldon, then treasurer OF the re-
publican state committee, two years
ago after Mr.. Hughes election, 1t ap-
pears that the following contributions
we're made to the campaign fund:
J. Pierpont Morgan $4,000; John D.
Rockefeller $4,000; Andrew Carnegie
$50,o00; Charles NJ. Schwab $4,000;
John W. Gates $4,000: w. e. Corey
$4,000: w. Nelson Cromwell $1,000;
W. F. Havemeyer $500; B. M. Duke
$500.
be officially connected with the trusts
Would the fact these gentlemen con-
tributed to his campaign fund streng-
then or weaken his testimony against
the reasonableness of our antitrust
remedy? You cannot have failed to
notice Governor Hughes in his speech
assumed the role of critic and not that
of conservative statesman. any one
possessing vivid imagination and pen,
can find objections to remedial meas
ures. Lord McCauley is quoted as
saying that eloquent and learned men
could be found to dispute law of gra-
vitation IL there were any advantage
to be gained by 1t, but when known
abuses" are to be cured an ounce Of
remedy is worth pound of fault find
ing.
As you quote Governor Hughes.
take it for granted that Mr.. Taft has
not yet expressed himself in as salts
factory manner on the subject, for
you would naturally prefer to quote
from the presidential candidate
wherever possible. You say, Let us
repeat that no law defying corpora.
ton has any other reason to fear from
YOU save what 1t will suffer in gen.
eral paralysis business" etc.
Speaks Of Panic.
Referring to the last part OF the
sentence first. l might question your
ibility to act as an expert as to panic
representatives., since you now have one
on your hands. but as to your charge
that no law defying corporation has
reason to fear direct effort of anti
trust remedies which favor, permit
me to suggest your testimony on this
subject Is not conclusive. You are a
witness. to De sure. but your interest in
the result OF the election must be TAX
en- into consideration in weighing your
testimony
There is better evidence that trust
magnates know their own interests
and they are supporting Judge Taft
Not one Of the trust magnates helped
to secure my nomination, while it is
matter of common notoriety" they
are supporting your party in this cam
paign. If you will name a single OFF,
cial connected with law defying cor
poration," monopoly or trust, who has
declared or will declare that he is sup
porting me, l will publicly warn him
that / will enforce against him also
laws demanded in the democratic
platform as soon as those laws can
be enacted.
But there is another fact which
raises the presumption in favor of our
party and against your party. | re-
ferred to 1t in my former letter, but
you inadvertently overlooked It in
your reply. And members OF your
cabinet called in for consultation, evil
IDENTIFY did not notice 1t. stated that