Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1908-09-29

much stress, viz, the article in the
Outlook of September 5. My attention
was never called to that article until
1 read the published copy of your let
ter, and while 1 have great respect for
the Outlook, and 1 suppose l have for
the writer, (although you do not give
his name,) 1 would hardly feel justified
in deciding as promptly as you do on
an ex parte statement without exami
nation.
The Trust Question.
You present an indictment against
our platform declarations on the trust
question, but you do not refer to all OF
the planks and do not deal justly with
those to which you do refer. Our plat
form declares in favor Of the vigorous
enforcement Of the criminal law
against guilty trust magnates and off,
cials.' Your platform does not con-
tain any such demand. Will you say
that your platform is better than ours
in that respect? Our platform demands
that corporations beyond a certain
size be compelled to sell at the same
price in all parts of the country, due
allowance being made for the cost of
transportation. Will you deny that this
is in the interest of the consumer and
in the interest of the smaller competi-
tors? We present a plan under which
no corporation will be permitted to
control more than one-half the tota'
product. 1t has been stated that the
steel company, with your express con-
sent, purchased one Of its largest rivals
and thus obtained control of more than
so per cent Of the total output. Will
you insist that in permitting this you
showed less favor to the monopolistic
corporations than do in opposing it?
Steel Men Helped Hughes.
You quote at length from speech
made by Governor Hughes, in which
he ridicules one of our antitrust rem
edies. Is this the same Governor
Hughes who was counted as one Of the
allies who endeavored to defeat Mr.
Taft when, as you insisted, Mr.. Taft
represented the 'reformers' Of your par
" and his opponents the reactionary
element? Did not Gov. Hughes have
the support of the New York delega-
ton in the convention, and is not New
York city the home of many Of the Re-
publicans most conspicuous in their
connection with the law defying cor
porations? You are certainly aware Of
the fact that in the statement filed by
George r. Sheldon, then treasurer of
the Republican state committee, two
years ago, after Mr. Hughes's election.
| II appears that the following contribu-
tions were made to the campaign fund:
]. P. Morgan, $4,000; John D. Rookie
feller, $4,000; Andrew Carnegie, $4,000;
Chas. NJ Schwab, $4,000; John w.
Nelson Cromwell, $1,000 w. F. Have
myer, $500; B. NJ. Duke, $500. Several
Of these men are known to be officially
connected with the trusts.
Would the fact that these gentlemen
contributed to his campaign fund
strengthen or weaken his testimony
against the reasonableness Of our anti
trust remedy?
Hughes a Fault Finder.
You cannot have failed to notice
that Governor Hughes in his speech
assumed the role of the critic, and
not that of the constructive states
man. Any one possessing a vivid i'm
agination and a pen can find objec-
tions to remedial measures. Lord
Macaulay is quoted as saying that elo-
quent and learned men could be found
to dispute the law Of gravitation If
there were any advantage to be gain
ed by it. But when known abuses
are to be cured, an ounce Of remedy
is worth a pound of fault finding.
"As you quote from Governor
Hughes, 1 take it for granted that Mr..
Taft has not yet expressed himself in
satisfactory 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 corporation
has any other reason to fear from
you save what it will suffer in the gen.
eral paralysis of business etc.
Trusts Supporting Taft.
referring to the last part of the
sentence first, 1 might question your
ability to act as an expert as to panic
preventives, since you now have one
on your hands, but as to your charge
that no law defying corporation has
reason to fear the direct effect Of the
antitrust remedies which l favor,
permit me to suggest that your testi-
mony on this subject is not conclusive.
You are a witness, to be sure, but your
Interest in the result Of the election
must be taken into consideration in
weighing your testimony. There is
better evidence. The trust magnates
know their own interests, and they
are supporting Judge Taft. Not one
of the trust magnates helped to Sc
cure my nomination, while it is a mat
ter of common notoriety' that they
were conspicuous in the Republican
convention. and it is equally common
lnOtoriety that they are supporting
your party in this campaign. If you
will name a single official connected
with a law defying corporation mon
Oply or trust who has declared or
will declare that he is supporting me,
| will publicly warn him that l will
enforce against him the present GRIM
inal law, and will also enforce against
him also the laws demanded in the
Democratic platform as soon as the
laws can be enacted.
Campaign Publicity.
But there is another fact which
raises a presumption in favor Of our
party and against your party. I re-
ferred to it i'm my former letter to
Iyou, but you inadvertently overlook
ed it in your reply and the members
of your cabinet called in for cOnsulta-
tion, evidently did not notice it. [
stated that we had not knowingly re-
ceived dollar from any Of those con-
nected with a corporation known as