The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1908-09-25

rious highways of the State for tho
purpose of laying its pipe lines. The
governor prevailed, the injunction
was permitted to continue It's work.
to use the words of the attorney gen.
eral, without any coIor&of law. I
call your attention to the fact that
the question is not whether or not
the Judge erred, or whether the in
junction was proper. The point is
that the governor was alert to take
out OF the hands Of the attorney gen.
eral what the attorney general felt
was his sworn duty to prevent, an
alleged instance of the breaking or
the law by this particular great cor
poration. 8
-" AS Tar as have seen. Governor
Haskell has not even attempted any
thing which can be called a defense
of this action of his. It thus ap-
pears that his action was as mex
cusable as it was wanton except on
the theory that in defiance OF the
attorney general of the State and at
all hazards, he intended for some
reason of his own to protect the
interest Of a. great corporation
against the law. 1t has been sugges-
ted on his behalf that after all he
did not favor the Standard Oil Com
pany but merely the Prairie Oil and
Gas Company This claim is dis
posed of by the testimony Of the
Standard Oil Company itself in the
latter part of 1907 in the suit now
pending in the United States court
against the Standard Oil Company.
In this testimony the Standard Oil
Company. upon being required by
the government to put in evidence
list of all the companies in which
lit held stock or in which its SUBJ
sidiary companies held stock. repre-
sented among the others the Prairie
Oil and Gas Company, total capital
$40, 100000, of which the National
Transit Company's proportion was
s9,999,500; and furthermore it ap-
pears that the National Transit Com
pany owned $25.451 $50. In other
words, this Prairie Oh and Gas Com
pany was owned, all except $500,
by the National Transit Comapny,
and this National Transit Company
was owned, all except about $3.50.
by the Standard Oil Company.
Now, contrast your action in this
case to Governor Haskell with Mr..
Tafts action as regards Senator
Foraker, as set forth in his letter OF
July 90, 1907, which quoted In
nv statement. 1t was matter OF
common notoriety about Senator
oraker. as it has .ong been mat
ter Of common notoriety about Gov
ernor Haskell, that he was the de-
fender and supporter of certain
corporate interests and therefore
hostile to the policies for which this
administration has stood There
was no such convincing proof against
Senator Foraker at that time. how
ever. as there is against Governor
Haskell, when, as you say. ne was
with your approval. made treasurer
of your campaign committee. l'nt
Mr.. Taft refused to be party TO
the denomination Of Senator Foraker.
even though it was reported thai
only thus could he advance his own
intcrcs:. showing hy AciuaI Gc"d%
that his words were true when he
said. do not care for the preS!-
dcncv if it has to come by comprU-
mise. With hundredfold clearer
evidence before you as TO the con-
nection of Governor Haskell with
the Standard Oil than Mr.. TAFT then
had as to the connection OF Senator
Foraker with any corporation. yoI
nevertheless. having secured Gov
ernor Haskell as chairmen OF the
committee To write the platform on
which YOU stand. put him III as treas
urer OF your campaign committee.
Let me add that Governor Has
kell's utter untitness for any public
position of trust or for ASSOCIATION
with any man anxious to make an
apDeal on a moral iSsue to the Amer
lean people has been abundantIv
shown, wholly irrespective of this
action of his in connection with
Standard Oil interests. AS an Amer
lean citizen who prizes his American
ism and his citizenship far abov"