The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1908-09-28

you say. Let us repeat that no law
defying corporation has any other rea-
son to fear from. save from what it
fwill suffer from the general paralysis
Of the business
Referring to the last part OF the
sentence. might doubt your ability to
act as an expert as to panic pre-
yentiyes. 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 anti
trust remedies which l favor, permit
me to suggest that your testimony on
this subject is not conclusive. You
are witness. to be sure. but your in
terest In the election must be taken
into consideration on 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 mag
mates helped to secure my nomination,
while It is a matter OF common noto-
riety' that they were conspicuous in
the Republican convention and II IS
equally a matter Of common notorlety'
that they are supporting their party
in this campaign If you will name
single official connected with law
defying monopoly or trust who has
declared or declares that he supports
me, / win publicly warn him that will
enforce against him the present Grim
inal law and will enforce against him
the laws demanded in the Democratic
platform as soon as these laws can he
enacted.
':'But there Is another fact which
raises a presumption In favor OF our
party and against your party ] re-
ferred to It in my former letter to YOU
but you inadvertently overlooked it In
your reply, and the members Of your
cabinet, called in for consultation, evi-
IDENTIFY did not notice 1t. stated that
we had not knowingly received a dol
lar from any official connected with
corporation known as a trust. and that
any money so received would be re-
turned as soon as We received knowl-
edge OF the fact. I now remind you
that your convention deliberately re-
jected by vote of 9 to / the PLANK |
favoring publicity as to campaign con-
M. Taft has repudiated |
the action OF the convention and re-
buked the members of the convention
by declaring himself in favor of pub
licity law, but he favors publicity after
the election, while we favor publicity
before the election Which do you re-
gard as the better plan-to let the peo-
pie know before the election what in
fluences are at work or to let them
know after the election?
Are you willing to say that any
public interest was served in 1904 by
colcealing, until after the election, the
made % the Republican
fund by Mr.. Hartman and
those collected by him from others?
Are you willing 10 say that the pub
Iication after elections then made
would have no effect on the election?
AS | have said, we will publish the
names Of contributors above $780, viii
you ask your national committee to
publish before the election the contri-
buttons above 500? Or, if you regard
this as too small, the contributions
IF above $1,000, Or If this is also too
small, the contributions above $10,000?l
If n,t what reason can you give to the
public why our willingness to let the
know the sources from which
we secure contributions raises a pre-
in our favor that must be
overcome before you can ask the peo-
pie to accept your statement that the
aw-defying corporations have more
TO rear from Republican success than
from Democratic Wctory?"