Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-22


to be President-President Roose-
Welt on Taft's refusal to compro-
mise with Foraker.
OYSTER BAY. n. Y, September q
President Roosevelt added to the Hearst
Standard Oil-Foraker controversy late
yesterday afternoon by issuing state
ment in which he attacked both Senator
Foraker and Gov. Haskell, paid
high compliment to Mr.. Taft, and said
that Mr.. Taft had repudated PROPOSE
ton made to him by an influential poll
tician of Ohio in 1907 that he support Mr..
Foraker for senator in the interest of re-
publican harmony.
In his statement, wherein he also dealt
another blow at law-defying corporations,
Mr. Roosevelt embodied a letter written
by Mr. Taft July 20. 1907, to friend
prominent in Ohio politics. who wrote him
before the meeting of the state central
committee, asking whether he would OBJ
ject to the committee passing resolution
to indorse Mr.. Taft for President and Mr..
Foraker for senator in the interest of har-
mony. But Mr.. Taft, the President says,
declined for one moment to consider any
possible advantage to himself where
what he regarded as a great principle was
at stake.
The Presidents Statement.
The statement is as follows:
In view of Mr.. Hearst's disclosures
about Senator Foraker, i make public the
following letter, written by Mr.. Taft
July 20. 1907, to a friend in Ohio, promi-
nent in Ohio politics, who wrote him be-
fore the meeting of the state central COM
mittee asking whether he would object to
the committee passing resolution indorS-
ing Nr. Taft for President and Mr.. Fora
ker for senator, in the interest OF mar
mony. A copy of this letter was submit
ted to me at the time, but after the orlgi-
nal had been sent II was not intended for
publication, but it was understood that, If
necessary. 1t should be published.
Il personally know that the strongest
pressure by various party leaders was
brought on Mr.. Taft at that time to con-
sent to the proposed arrangement, and he
was informed by leading men from other
states that if he would consent to this ar
rangement all opposition on the part or
Mr.. Foraker and on the part of some or
Mr. Forakers influential friends in the
Senate and elsewhere would cease and
that Mr.. Tafts nomination for the presi-
dency would be assured. But Mr.. Taft
declined for one moment to consider any
possible advantage to himself where what
he regarded a great principle was at
stake. His attitude on this question. as
well as on countless questions, convinced
was the man prominently fit, In point OF
uprightness and character, of fearless and
aggressive honesty and of fitness for
championing the rights Of the people as
a whole. to be President.
Foraker and Haskell.
Senator Foraker has been leader
among those members of Congress of both
parties who have resolutely opposed the
great policies of internal reform for which
the administration has made itself respon-
sible. His attitude has been that of GER
tain other public men. notably Gas shown
in this same correspondence published by
Mr.. HearstJ Gov. Haskell of Oklahoma.
There is a striking difference In one re-
spect. however, in the present positions
of Gov Haskell and Senator Foraker.
Gov Haskell stands high in the councils
of Mr.. Bryan and is the treasurer of his
national campaign committee. Senator
Foraker represents only the forces which,
in embittered fashion, fought the nomna-
ton of Mr.. Taft. and which were def
nitely deprived of power within the re-
publican party when Mr.. Taft was nomi-
mated
THE publication of this correspondence
not merely justifies in striking fashion the
action of the administration, but also
casts a curious sidelight on the attacks
made upon the administration, both In
the Denver convention, which nominated
Mr.. Bryan, and in the course of Mr.
Bryans campaign. There Is but one way
to preserve and perpetuate the great re-
forms. the great advances in righteous
ness and upright and fair dealing which
have marked the management of the af-
fairs of the national government during
the last seven years, ard that is by
electing Mr.. Taft. To defeat him will
bring lasting satisfaction to but one Sc,
of men. namely. to those men who. a.
shown in the correspondence published by
Mr. Hearst, were behind Mr.. Foraker
80 NJ ror&
party. and who now are behind Gov
Haskell and his associates. the opponents
OF Mr.. Taft in the opposite party.
The Brownsville Agitation.
THE great and sinister moneyed inter.
ests which have shown such hostility tc
the administration and now to Mr.. Taft
have grown to oppose the administration
on various matters not connected with
those which mark the real point of diff
ference. For instance, the entire agita-
ton over Brownsville was, in large part
not a genuine agitation on behalf of col
ored men at all. but merely one phase
of the effort by the representatives OF
certain law-Gefying corporations to bring
discredtt upon the administration because
1t was seeking to cut out the evils con-
nected not only with the corrupt use o.
wealth. but especially with the corrupt
alliance between certain business men OF
large fortunes and certain politicians OF
great influence.
The venomous hostility OF these inter.
ests and OF their special representatives
in public life and in the press to ne
nomination of Mr.. Taft was merely the
natural sequence of their hostility to the
measures of the administration for the
regulation of great corporations doing Ar
interstate business and to the attitude OF
the administration in consistently prose.
cutting all offenders of great wealth pre-
cisely it has prosecuted all other of
tenders. Mr. Taft has been nominated
for the very reason that he is the antithe
sis of the forces that were responsible fol
Mr. Foraker.
Taft Declines to Compromise.
The letter of Mr.. Taft is as follows:
War Department, Washington.
'Pointe au Pic. Can, July 20. 1907.
my Dear Mr.. -:
In respect to one inquiry of yours
wish to express myself with as much EN-
phasis as possible; that is. whether
would object to a compromise resolution
which shall include an Endorsement o
myself for the presidency and Senate
Foraker for the senatorship. In my judg
ment IL would be not only a great mis-
take-something more. 1t would be &C
cepted necessarily as compromise oil