The San Francisco call., 1908-10-27
ELKIN MAKES A DENIAL
Supreme Court Justice Explains
the ArchboId Letters

PITTSBURG. Oct 26=Justice j. z.
Elkin of the supreme court of Pennsyl-
yania, who up TO this time has made
only general denial of improper re-
lations with John d. Archbold and the
Standard oil company, as inferentially
charged by w. r. Hearst through the
reading OF a number of letters from
Archbold to Elkin at a political meet
ing in New York last Saturday night,
presented a detailed statement to the
Associated Press tonight, explaining
the letters and the matters to which
they referred. Justice Elkin said that
he had not been able earlier to consult
his files and secure data Justice FL
kin's statement follows:
The evident intention of the pub
lication of the four letters read by
Mr.. Hearst in which my name appears
money was sent me to improperly in
fiuence legislation or for some other
unworthy purpose.
The first is a letter of introduction
TO Mr.. Twombley, dated September %,
1899. About that time the New York
Central, through its Beech Creek con-
nections, contemplated making exten-
sions into my home county, where,
with some friends, l was interested in
undeVeloped coal lands. We were
anxious TO get some definite informa-
gested to me that j take up the sub
ject with officials of the railroad sys-
tenn. L. did not know personally any
persons connected with the company,
known since he was struggling
young man in western Pennsylvania,
TO give me letter of introduction.
which was done. AS it turned out
afterward 1 did not use the letter, for
the reason that the desired informa-
tion was secured from other sources.
do not know Mr.. Twombley personal
ly, and never met him.
THE next two letters are dated Feb
ruary 8, 1900, and March 25, 1900, re-
spectively, and from these letters the
inference Is attempted to be drawn
that the money mentioned therein was
intended to secure the defeat OF certain
legislation which was deemed objec-
tionable. The Legislature was not in
session that year, there were no bills
pending, and the inference is mani
festly unfounded. The preceding ses-
sion of the legislature had expired
nine months before the letters were
written, the members of the succeeding
legislature had not even been nomi-
mated, and those subsequently named
were not elected until the following
November, eight months afterward.
While the drafts mentioned were for
warded to me they were not intended
for my use. They were contributions
for political purposes, and were by me
turned over TO the campaign fund. The
money was principally used in helping
to liquidate the Indebtedness of the
state committee incurred in prior cam
paigns. My sole connection with this
matter was to turn the drafts over for
the purpose intended. Not a penny of
this money was expended for the ben
ent or the advantage of myself
Beginning with the fall of 1895. for
period OF i've years i was engaged in
the management of political affairs,
either as state chairman or member
of the executive committee. Contribu-
tions for campaign purposes We're gen
orally addressed to me, but immediately
turned over to the treasurer of the
being no Legislature in session and no
official duties to be performed, l was
at home in the practice OF my profes-
sion and was not engaged in political
matters.
''As to the letter of May g. 1901. upon
which reliance is placed to connect all
these matters with the suggestion of
the improper use of money in influence
ing Legislation, it must not be over
looked that this letter was written is
months after the Twombley letter and
one year and three months after the
other two letters which could have mo
reference to any legislative matter AT
that time. 1t was supposed to have been
written just before the adjournment of
the legislature of 1901 and made in
quiry about some pending legislation.
The letter as published does not mem
tion the bill referred to nor the pro-
posed legislation objected to. 1t was
sumo was received by me, although I
do not recall the incident. AS attorney
general / received hundreds OF letters
from people throughout the Common
vice about pending legislation and
other political matters. These were
not confined to any particular class.
Indeed. farmers, businessmen, mechan-
les and laborers wrote me more fre
Quently than persons connected with
corporations and other large interests.
In every case / considered 1t my dutv
to reply and give such information as
l had on the subject about which in
quiry was made. And this is ali 7
could have done or did do in answer
to the letter of Mr.. ArchboId. He aid
not ask me to defeat any legisIs fion
nor did / make any attempt to do So