The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-09-30


enforce them. not spasmodically and
internationally. but persIstently and
consistently: they will not be sus-
pended even for the protection of
CABINET omcers. You say the attitude
OF many men of large financial in
terests warrants you in expressing the
belief that those trust magnates whose
fear OF being prosecuted under the
law by Mr.. Taft is greater than their
rear or general business adversely
under me. will support me rather
Argument Is Unsound.
you have attempted to word that
statement in such way as to claim
the support of all the. trust magnates.
and yet put 1t on the ground that they
are supporting your party for political
reasons rather than for the promotion
of a selfish interest. That is ingenious,
but it is not sound. The trust mag
mates are supporting the Republican
party and the Bible offers an explana-
/ ton that the OK. knoweth his owner
and the ass his masters crib You
admit that you gave permission to the
steel trust to absorb a rival, and thus
increase its control of the output of
steel and iron products [ will leave
the American people to pass Judgment
upon that act and compare your posi-
ton on the trust question with mine.
1ou refer to our campaign fund in
1896 and accuse US of allowing two
fund with which the committee con-
quoted the campaign. / am not sure
about the figures, because 1 have not
seen an authentic statement of the
contributions, but / was informed the
largest of the two sums which you
mention was not all contributed by
the man to whom it was credited but
included contributions from others as
we'll as that which he cave himself.
"But If you want to be fair, why do,
you not give the amount of the Re-
publican campaign fund that year and
the sources of it? am willing to have
both funds published for you. If
some of those. who contribute to our
fund of less than 100000 had a Pc
cunfarya interest in the result of the
election. how Twill you explain the
| lfcan fund? If you will remember the
Democratic platform candidly de-
clared the party,s purpose. II the
carrying out of that policy would have
been of advantage to anyone the whole
public had knowledge of it and the
publication of the contributions would
not have affected the result Publicity
as to campaign funds is not needed to
make known that which is disclosed
by the platform. but to direct atten-
ton to. secret agreements expressed or
implied, which would otherwise be
concealed from the public.
The Mote and the Beam.
You certainly pay more attention
you find fault with our national cam
paign fund in 1896 and ignore the
llsigni6cance of a fund almost as large,
which. at your request, was collected
from few persons in 1904 and was
used in one state and was only small
item in the fund collected today. But
your letter presents a defense of your
party's position and an accusation
against the voters which emphasize an
issue already prominent You are the
first conspicuous member of your par
ty to attempt an explanation of the
party's opposition to publicity before
the election and the. admission which
you make will embarrass your party.
| associates. Your position is that the
publication before election of the con-
tributions made to your campaign
fund would furnish your political OPP
ponents an opportunity to give false
impression as to the fitness of the
candidates. You cite as Illustrations
| the contributions made to Governor
Hughes campaign fund. the contribu-
ton collected by Mr.. Hartman and
the contributions which are now be-
ling collected for Mr.. Taft's campaign
fund. You charge in effect that the
people are SO lacking in intelligence
that they might condemn as improper
contributions which you declare to be
proper. If the voters differ from you
on this question are they necessarily
ignorant or wrong and must the mem
bers of the party act as self appointed
from them what is going on, lest the
people be misled as to the purpose and
effect of large contributions. Is this
your explanation of the action of the
Republican leaders in the national
convention in voting down a publicity
plank? If you Will pardon the sug-
gestion, I believe that a better ex-
PLANTATION can be found in Holy writ.
for do we not read of men loving
darkness rather than light because
their deeds are evil?
Not Personal Question.
You attempt to make a personal
question of it and ask whether any one
Will accuse such men as you. Governor
Hughes and Mr. Taft of being inf1u-
enced by contributions. That is not the
question If. it is found a party to a
suit has given sum of money to one
Of the Jurors the court does not stop
to inquire whether or not the juror is
an :incorruptible man or whether in
accepting the money he explicitly sta
ted that it was accepted with the I'M
Outstanding that he was under no OBJ
legation to consider it in making up
his verdict. The court would hold the
giving of money by an interested party
or their receiving of money was a con-
tempt of court and an interference with
the administration of Justice. Public
officials occupy much the same position
as jurors. They are constantly called
upon to decide questions between the
favor-seeking corporations on the one
hand and the people on the other and
there is a very general impression that
officials of these favor-seeking corpor-
atoms do not put up large sums of
money from purely patriotic motives.
s'Mr. Havemyer testified before a
committee some years ago that the
sugar trust made 1t a business to con-
tribute to campaign funds and that it
was it's custom to give to the party in
power in the state. do not mean to.
say that Mr.. Hughes was Influenced
by the contributions made to him by
the trust magnates whose names were
given in the after-election report. 1
do not mean to say that you were in
huenced by the contributions that are
being made to his fund by the trust
rnagnates: but I do mean to saw that