The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1908-09-29
BRY Am in REPLY
Scores Roosevelt sor Lowering
dignity Of High 0afgee.
TAFT PET OF TRUSTS

daSs Replies % the Dodging letter
OF she President With the Strong
est Document That Has Appeared
This Campaign From ANY Source.
VIM j. Bryan, candidate for
President. on his way from Madison
to Milwaukee, Saturday, gave out
ahe following letter for publication:
Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, Presi-
dent of the United States, Washing
ton. D. C.-Dear Sir: While have
not yet received your letter and
shall not until I reach home next
week, / have read copy. of It in
the press and beg leave to submit
the following reply:
''Mr. Haskell having voluntarily
resigned from the committee that
he might be more free to- prose-
cute those who have brought charges
against him, l need not discuss the
question of his guilt or innocence
further than to say that the public
service which he has rendered and
the vote Of confidence which he mas
received from the people of his own
State ought to protect him from
condemnation until the charges can
be examined in some court where
partisanship does not bias, and
where campaign eyigencIes do not
compel prejudgment. / would not
deem it necessary to address you
further but for the fact that you
seize upon the charges and attempt
10 make political capital out Of them.
You even charge that my connection
with Mr.. Haskell's selection as
member of the resolutions commit
tee raises a question as to my sim
cerity as an opponent of trusts and
monopolies. AS an individual and
as the candidate of my party, X re-
sent the charge and repel the in
sinuation. 1 have been IN public
life for eighteen years and l have
been sufficiently conspicuous to
make my conduct matter of public
interest I have passed through two
Presidential campaigns in which
party feeling ran high and epithe.
was exhausted. have no hesita-
tion in saying you cannot find ar
act, word or a thought OF mine
TO justify partisan charges:
High Tribute to Haskell.
IT have never been informed OF.
any charge that had been made
against Mr.. Haskell connecting him
with the Standard Oil Company or
with any other trust. had known
him as leader IN the Constitutional
Convention of Oklahoma, and had
known him as one of the men prin-
cipally responsible for the excellent
Constitution which has since been
adopted-and adopted by majority
of over one hundred thousand,
seventy thousand OF which was
furnished by Republicans. had
known of his election to the Gov
ernorship of. that great young State
by majority of some thiity thous-
and. had known. that the Const-
tuition was adopted and the Cover
nor Haskell was elected in spite OF
the speeches made in Oklahoma by
Mr. Taft.
You say that it was matter
of common notoriety that Mr.. Has
kell was connected with the Stand
ard Oil Company. have rlgnt
to assume that if so serious an OBJ
lection had existed to Mr. Haskeffs
election and had been matter or
common notoriety in Ohio, as you
say, Judge Taft would have felt 1t
his conscientious duty to warn the
people when he spoke in Oklahoma.
II he did not have the knowledge.
why can it be assumed that had
it? And, if he had it, how can you
excuse his failure to communicate
the, information to the people OF
Oklahoma?
If YOU feel it your patriotic duty
to denounce Mr.. Haskell when he IS
only a member of the national organ
ization, how much more would Mr..
Taft have felt 1t his patriotic duty
to denounce Mr.. Haskell when he
was aspiring to be the Chief Ex-
ecutiye OF a great nation?
Know of no Suit.
II could have no knowledge OF
the suit to which you refer when he
was appointed chairman of the reso'
lutions committee OF the Democratic
National Convention, because the
suit was begun while he was at Den
ver and, as matter of fact, l dld
not know anything OF the nature
of the suit until after he was made
treasurer OF the national committee,
and no fair-minded person can de-
eide upon the merits OF your charge
without an examination of the pro-
visions of the Enabling Act, passed
by a Republican Congress and the
provisions of a license franchise IS
sued to the oil company by your Ad-
Ininistration.
II need hardly refer to the newly
found evidence upon which you lay
SO m"ch stress, viz, the article in
the look OF September 5. My
attention was never called to that
article until read the published