Omaha daily bee., 1908-10-01

enacted in compliance with the democratic
platform, but that ] will also vigorously
enforce existing laws against any and AL
who violate them and that Iwill enforce
them. not spasmodically and internationally
but persistently and consistently they will
not be suspended, even for the protection
of many men OF large financial interests. %
warrants you lin expressing the belief that
those trust magnates whose fear Of being
prosecuted under the law by Mr.. Taft is
greater than their fear of general business
adversely, under me, will support me
rather than Mr.. TAFT.
You have attempted to word that state
ment in such a way as TO claim the sup
port of all the trust magnates, and Yet
put It on the ground that they are support
ing your party for patriotic reasons rather
than for the promotion of a selfish inter-
est. That is ingenious, but It Is not sound.
The trust magnates are supporting the re
publican party. and the Bible offers an ex-
pianation: THE OK knoweth his owner and
the ass his masters cry" You admit that
YOU gave permission to the Steel trust to
absorb a rival and thus increase its con-
troll OF the output of steel and iron pro-
duets. I will leave the American people 10
pass judgment upon that act and compare
your position on the trust question with
mine.
You refer to our campaign fund in 1895
and accuse us of allowing two men to con-
tribute largely to the small fund with
which the committee conducted the cam
paign. l am not sure about the figures
because l have not seen any authentic
statement of the contribution, but l was
informed that the largest of the two sums
which you mention, was not all contrib
uted by the man to whom Il was credited,
but included contributions from others, as
well as that which he gave himself. But
II you want to be fair, why do you not
give the amount of the republican cam
paign fund that year and the source Of II?
| am willing to have both funds published,
are you? II some of those who contributed
to our fund OF less than 100000 had a
pecuniary interest In the result OF the cleo
ton, how will you xplain the enormous
contributions made TO the republican fund?
II you will remember, the democratic plat
form candidly declared the party's purpose.
have been Of advantage to anyone the
whole public had knowledge, and the pub
LEGATION of the contributions would not have
affected the result. Publicity az TO cam
paign funds is not needed to make known
that which is disclosed by the platform, but
to direct attention to secret agreements
EXPRESSED or implied. which would other
wise be concealed from the public.
Notes and Beams.
You certainly pay more attention to the
mote than to the beam when you find fault
with our national campaign fund in 1896
and ignore the significance OF a fund al
most as large, which, at your request was
used in one state and was only a small item
in the fund collected that year. But your
letter presents "A defense OF your .patty's
position and an accusation against the
voters which emphasizes an issue already
prominent. You are the first members of
your party TO attempt an explanation Of
the party 8 opposition to publicity before
the election and the admission which you
make will embarrass your party associates.
Your position that the publication before
election of the contributions made to your
fund would furnish your political oppon-
sion as TO the fitness of the candidates.
You elite as Illustrations the contributions
to Governor Hughes campaign fund, the
contribution collected by Mr.. Hartman and
the contribution which are now being col.
lected for Mr.. Taft's campaign fund. You
charge in effect that the people are so lack
ing in intelligence that they might con-
denim as improper. contributions which you
declare to be proper. II the voters differ
essarlly ignorant and wrong? Must the
members of the party organization act as
self-appointed guardians of the people and
conceal from them what is going on, lest
the. people be misled as to the purpose
and effect OF large contributions? Is this
your explanation Of the action OF the re-
publican leaders in the national convention
in voting down the publicity plank. If you
viii pardon the suggestion I believe a bet
ter explanation can he found In holy writ.
for do we not read of men loving darkness
evil?
Not n Personal Question.
You attempt to make a personal question
or II. and ask whether any one Will accuse
such men as you, Governor Hughes and Mr..
Taft of being influenced by contributions
That Is not the question. II It IS found that
TNH - ESAN Ahah bANaha q sum VI Ollt
10 one OF the Jurors the court does not
stop to inquire whether or not the Juror
Is an ~incorruptible man or whether in ac-
cepting the money he explicitly stated that
Ii was accented with the understand
ing that he was under no obligation
to consider It in making up his
the giving Of money by an interested party
CT the receiving of money was a contempt
OF court and an Interference with the ad-
ministration of justice. Prh'ic officials oc-
CuDN much the Same nngitiOn# as Jurors
They are constantly called upon to decide
questions between the favor seeking cor
poratlons' on the one hand and the people
on the other, and there is a very genera
impression that these favor seeking cor
porations do not put M large sums o.
money from purely. patriotic motives. Mr..
HaVemeyer testified before a senate COM
mittce some years ago that the Sugar trust
made II a business to contribute to cam
paiGn funds and that II was the custom
to give TO the party In power In the state.
I do not mean TO say that YOU were in
formed OF the contributions collected by Mr.,
Hartman; neither do I mean to say that
Mr.. Taft will be influenced by the con-
tributions that are being made TO his fund
by the trust magnates, but l do mean tc
say that the American people have a right
tn know what contributions are being made
that thew may Judge for themselves the
motive of the giver and the obligation i'm.
posed on those who receive.
Alleged Reelection on Voters.
The reflection upon ,ne peor.s involved
in your charge that they would misuse the
knowledge which publicity would give Is
unworthy OF one who has been elevated "a
so high an office by the votes OF the, peo-
pie and | venture the assertion that YOU
cannot procure from Mr.. Taft an indorse-
ment of your defense. He is now before
the people; he is offering himself as 9
candidate for the presidency. He dare no
tell the people he appeals to that they have
not sense enough to form a just and correct
opinion as to the purpose which leads
parties interested In special legislation Il
make big contributions. Your fear is that
we would misrepresent the motives IF those
who are contributing to the republican cam,
paign fund and cast an unjust suspicion
urDn the republican candidates. II the
names and amounts were made known be.
fore the election. Your argument, IL sound
would prevent publication after the cleo,
ton, for why should an unjust suspicion
be cast upon officials after the election any
more than befOre?e Does not the secrecy
before the election increase the suspicion
We are going TO give an opportunity e
misrepresent the motives Of those who Civ
10 our campaign fund and to arouse al
the suspicion you can: We are going &
prove to the people that we are making
light for the whole people, and not fol
and faVors at the hands OF tho government
and we expect the honest sentiment OF tn
country will rebuke the parry whose con
ventiOn refused TO endorse any kind o
publicity and whose candidates are no
willing that the people should know unit
after the polls are closed what predatoFl
interests have been active I'm support o
the republican party. With great respect
yours truly, WILLIAM J. BRYAN.