Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-27
BRYAN REPLIES TO
ROOSEVELT LETTER
Continued From First Page.)


vention. because the suit was begun while
he was at Denver, and, as a matter of
fact. 1 did not know anything of the ma
ture 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
examination of the provisions Of the en-
abling act passed by a republican Con-
gress and the provisions of the license of
franchise issued to the oil company by
your administration.
II need hardly refer to the newly found
evidence upon which you lay so much
stress, viz: The article in the Outlook Of
September s. My attention was never
called to that article until 1 read the
published copy Of your letter. and while
have great respect for the Outlook. and
suppose 1 have for the writer (although
you do not give his name), 1 would
hardly feel justified in deciding as prompt
ly as you do on an ex parte statement
without investigation.
How About Your Platformp"
you present an indictment against our
platform declarations on the trust ques-
ton. but you do not refer to all of the
planks, and do not deal justly with those
to which you do refer. Our platform de-
clares in favor of the vigorous enforce
ment Of the criminal law against guilty
trust magnates and officials. Your
platform does not contain any such de-
mand. Will you say that your platform
Is better than ours in that respect? Our
platform demands that corporations be-
yond certain size be compelled to sell
at the same price in all parts Of the coun-
try. due allowance being made for the
cost OF transportation. Will you deny
that this Is in the interest of the con-
sumner. and in the interest Of the smaller
competitors? We present a plan under
which no corporation will be permitted
to control more than one-half of the total
product
1T has been stated that the Steel Com
pany, with your express consent, pur-
chased one of its largest rivals, and thus
cent Of the total output. Will you insist
that in permitting this you showed less
favor to the monopolistic corporations
than 1 do In opposing 1t? You quote at
length from speech made by Gov.
Hughes in which he ridicules one Of our
antitrust remedies Is this the same Gov.
Hughes, who was counted as one OF the
''allies" who endeavored to defeat Mr..
Taft, when. as you insisted, Mr.. Taft rep
resented the ''reformers' of your party
and his opponents the reactionary ele-
ment? Did not Gov. Hughes have the
support of the New York delegation in
the convention. and Is not New York city
the home Of many of the republicans most
law-defying corporations?
Mentions Some Contributors.
"You are certainly aware of the fact
that in the statement filed by George r.
Sheldon then treasurer of the republican
state committee, two years ago. after
Mr.. Hughes election, it appears that the
following contributions were made to the
campaign fund: J. P. Morgan. $2ooOO;
John D. Rockefeller. 5000: Andrew Car
negie, 5000: Charles M. Schwab, $1,000;
John w Gates. $1,000; w. E. Corey.
81. 600: w. Nelson Cromwell 81 GOO; w. r.
Havemyer, $500; B. NJ. Duke. $500 Sew
eral of these men are known to be offi-
cially connected with the trusts. Would
the fact that these gentlemen contributed
to his campaign fund strengthen or
weaken his testimony against the reason
ableness of our antitrust remedy?
You cannot have failed to notice that
Gov. Hughes In his speech assumed the
role of the critic and not that Of the con-
structive statesman. Any one possessing
a vivid imagination and pen can fnd
objections to remedial measures Lord
Macauley is quoted as saying that eio-
uuent and learned men could be found to
dispute the law of gravitation~ II there
were any advantage to be gained by It,
But when Known abuses are to be
cured. an ounce Of remedy is worth q
pound of fault finding.
"Isn't Taft Satisfactorily"
LAS you quote from Gov. Hughes, I
take 1T for granted that Mr.. Taft has
not yet expressed himself in as salts
factory manner on the subject. for you
would naturally prefer to quote from the
presidential candidate wherever pos
sible.
You say: Let us repeat that no law
defying corporation has any other rea-
son to fear from you save what it will
suffer in the general paralysis Of bust
nes.' etc.
referring to the last part of SEN
tence first. 1 might question your abiI-
ity to act as an expert as to panic pre-
ventfves since you now have one on
your hands, but as to your charge that
no law-defying corporation has reason
10 fear the direct effect Of the antitrust
which / favor. permit me to
suggest that your testimony on this sub
ject Is not conclusive. You are wit
ness, to be sure. but your interest in the
result Of the election must be taken
into consideration in Weighing your tes-
There Is better evidence. The
trust magnates know their own interests,
and they are supporting Judge Taft.
Not one of the trust magnates helped to
secure my nomination. while 1t is a mat
ter Of common notoriety' that they were
In the republican conven-
ton, and it is equally common notoriety
that they are supporting your party in
this campaign. If you will name q sim
gle official connected with a law-defying
monopoly or trust who has
declared or will declare that he is sup
porting me will publicly warn him that
l will enforce against him the present
criminal law, and will enforce against
him also the laws demanded in the DEM
ocratic platform as soon as these laws
can be enacted.
How About Publicity Plank
But there Is another fact, which
raises a presumption in favor OF our
party and against our party. / re-
ferred to it In my former let
ter to you. but you Inadvertently over
looked it in your reply. and the members
Of your cabinet, called in for consulta-
ton. evidently did not notice it. I stated
that we had not knowingly received a
dollar from any one connected with a
known as trust, and that
any money so received would be returned
as soon as We received knowledge of the
fact. l now remind you that your con-
vention deliberately rejected. by a vote
OF to l, the plank favoring publicity
as TO campaign contributions. Mr.. Taft
has repudiated the action of the conven-
ton and rebuked the members of the
by declaring himself in favor
of publicity law but he favors pub
licity after the election. while we favor
you regard as the better plan-to let the
people know before the election what
influences are at work or to let them
know after the election?