Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1908-10-02
BRYANs REPLY TO ROOSEVELT.
MILWAUKEE, Wis. Sept. 90. 1908.

| A0"' AHoOu0fe 1I00Sepett, fTeSt0eHt " W
United States, Washington, D. O.
"While have not yet received your letter
and shall not until l reach home next week
have read copy 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 prosecute those who have brought
charges against him, l need not discuss the
question Of his guilt or innocence, further
than say that the public service which he has
rendered and the vote OF confidence which
he has received from the people Of his State
ought to protect him from condemnation I'M
til the charges can be examined In some cour
where partisanship does not bias and where
campaign exigencies do not compel pre-
judgment.
81 would not deem 1t necessary to address
you further, but for the fact that you seize
upon the charges and attempt to make po'
litical capital out of them. You even charge
that my connection with Mr.. Haskelrs &c.
lection as a member of the resolutions COM
mittee and as treasurer Of the committee
raises question as to my sincerity as an
opponent of trusts and monopolies. AS ar
individual, and as the candidate OF my par
ty, resent the charge and repel the insinu
alton.
II have been in public life eighteen years
and l have been sufficiently conspicuous tc
make my conduct matter Of public inter.
est. have passed through two political
campaigns in which party feeling ran high
and epithet was exhausted. l have no hesita'
ton in saying that you cannot find an act
word, or thought OF mine to justify your
partisan charge.
81 had never been informed of charge
that had been made against Mr.. Haskell
connecting him with the Standard Oil Com
pany or with any other trust. l had known
him as leader In the legislative convention
and had known him as one OF the men prin'
cipally responsible for the excellent consti.
tuition which has been adopted by majority
Of over 100000, 10000 of which was for.
nished by Republicans.
"You say that it was matter OF common
notoriety that Mr.. Haskell was connected
with the Standard Oil Company. have q
right to assume that, If 30 serious an objec.
tlon had existed to Mr.. Haskelrs election
and had been matter Of common notoriety
in Oklahoma, as you say, Judge Taft would
have felt 1t his conscientious duty to warn
the people when he spoke In Oklahoma.
"If he did not have the knowledge, why
can it be assumed that had itP And If he
had it, how can you excuse his fault to COM
municate 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 organization, how
much more would Mr.. Taft have felt 1t his
patriotic duty to denounce Mr. Haskell
when he was aspiring to be chief executive
of great State. l could have had nc
knowledge of the suit to which you reieI
when he was appointed chairman OF the
resolutions committee Of the Democratic
national convention, because the suit was
begun while he was at Denver, and, as q
matter of fact, l did not know anything oil
the nature of the suit until after he was
made treasurer of the national committee
and no fair minded person can decide upon
the merits of your charge without an exam
ination of the provisions OF the enabling acl
passed by Republican Congress, and the
provisions of the license or franchise issued
to the oil company by your administration
II need hardly refer to the newly found
evidence upon which you lay 80 much stress
viz, the article In the Outlook for Septem'
Der 5. My attention was never called tc
that article until l read the published copy
Of your letter; and while have great re-
for the writer (although you do not give his
name), would hardly feel justified In de
Gliding as promptly as you do on an ex partt
statement without Investigation.
"You present an indictment against oul
platform declarations on the trust question
but you do not refer to all of the planks, ant
do not deal Justly with those you do rete
TO. Our platform declares In favor OF th
vigorous enforcement OF the criminal law
against guilty trust magnates and OFFICIALS
Your platform does not contain any sucl
demand.
"Our platform demands that corporation
beyond q certain size be compelled TO sell
the same price In all parts Of the country
due allowance being made for the cost @
the transportation.
"Will you deny that this Is in the interes
of the consumer and In the interest OF tn
smaller competitors
at has been stated that the United State
Steel Company, with your express consent
purchased one Of its largest rivals and thu
obtained control of more than 90 per cent
of the total output. Will You insist that II
permitting this you showed less favor TO TN
monopolistic corporation than do In oppos
Ing gv I.g ono,. :, ,o..,, ,,on . .D.oo, mad,
by Gov. Hughes in which he ridicules one o
our antitrust remedies. Did not Governor
Hughes have the support OF the Republican
delegation In the convention, and is no
New York City the home OF many OF thu
Republicans most conspicuous In their con
nection with the law defying corporations
"You are certainly aware OF the fact tina
In the statement filed by Geo. X. Sheldon, thu
treasurer OF the Republican State commit
tee two years ago, after Mr.. Hughes cleo
tlon, it appeared that the following contrl
buttons were made to the campaign fund
J. Pierpont Morgan, $4,000; John d
Rockefeller, 5000; Andrew Carnegie, IS,
600; Charles M. Schawb, $1,000; John w
Gates, $4,000; w. e. CORY, $1,000; w
Nelson Cromwell, $1,000; w. +. Have
meyer, $500, and b. N. Duke, $500.
Several of these men are known to b.
officially connected with the trusts. WoulC
the fact that these gentlemen contributed tt
his campaign fund strengthen or weaker
his testimony against the reasonableness o
our anti trust remedies
"As you quote from Gov. Hughes, tax,
II for granted that Mr.. Taft has not yet ex
pressed himself in a satisfactory manner or
the subject or you would naturally prefe
TO quote from the Presidential candidate
wherever possible. You say, Let US repeal
that no law-defying corporation has any
other reason to fear from you save what i
will suffer In general paralysis OF business,
&c.
"Refering TO the last part Of the sentence
first, l might question your ability 10 act Of
an expert as TO panic preventives, since you
now have one on your hands, but as TO YOU
charge that no law-defying corporation ha
reason 10 fear the direct effect Of the anti
trust remedies which favor, permit me Il
say your testimony on this subject Ia no
conclusive. You are q. witness, TO be sure
but your interest In the result Of the cleo
ton must be taken into consideration 10
weighing your testimony. There is bettel
evidence, and the trust magnates know
their own interests and they are supporting
Judge Taft. Not one Of the trust magnatei
helped to secure my nomination, while 1t Ii
a matter Of common notoriety that they
were conspicuous in the Republican con
vention, and 1t is equally matter OF COM