The San Francisco call., 1908-09-26
Foraker Replies to Charges
of Hearst and Roosevelt
Ohio Senator Quotes Letters to Show He
Refused Oil Trust Retainer in 1906

CINCINNATI. Sept. 25.-In a long and
carefully prepared statement, United
| States Senator ]. B. Foraker tonight
took UP recent charges made by Will
liam r. Hearst and President Roose-
welt, explaining his temporary connec-
ton with the Standard oil company, and
discussing the Brownsville incident and
his connection with the rate bill. The
statement says in part:
The president commences his statement con
nected with the publication of Judge Tafts letter
with bitter arraignment OF me because of Mr..
Hearsts charges. which he appears to have ac-
copied as fully proven as soon as made He does
not wait FOR proof or explanation nor accept the
same when offered.
Mr.. Hears1's charges are not simply that was
In the employment of the Standard oil company
and that 1 was paid for my services, but that
was secretly IN that employment for nlegitimate
purposes and that the money received was paid
as compensation Tor improperly influencing legis-
lation by congress In conflict with and in viola
tion of my official duties.
lie read number OF letters and made certain
comments calculated. If unanswered or mex-
planned, TO create the belief that his charges were
Under all the circumstances. an explanation
was required and in former statements made
such explanation by showing that my employ
men. tnenl was eonnned TO the auatrs or the company
IN Ohio ana In its reorganization after the trust
was dissolved by order Of our supreme court and
that my employment had no relation in the
slightest degree to anything IN which the federal
government was then interested with respect
to which the congress was then legislating
COMPLETE DEFENSE, HE SAYS
If my statements in this behalf are true. they
make complete defense against Mr.. Hearst's
conduct. unless the ethics involved have been
radically changed from what they have always
heretofore been supposed TO be.
When / accepted the employment OF the
Standard oil company in 1899 it was not fore
seen by me, and probably not by anybody else.
that It would becomee the object Of federal
lnpiC 1of Of faHa ov nff
OF any kind, and that employment ended when
the company decided TO reOrganize under the
laws Of New Jersey, which was before anything
OF that nature occurred.
That l not in the employment Of the
company after the services 1 have mentioned
were rendered. and that such employment did
not afterward influence me 10 favor the COM
pany in legislation. is shown by the part
took in the enactment of the Elkinss law. ap-
proved February 10. 1903. Under this statute
the attorney general has bre6ghs and caused to
be brought ali the prosecutions against the
Standard oil company. of which have read
so much, including the case in which Judge
Lands imposed the fine Of $29.240. 600.
RETAINER WAS REFUSED
But If that fact IS not sufficient the follow
ing correspondence is not only additional proof
but conclusive in its character. to the same
s..26 Broadway. New York, May :. 1906.
My Dear Senator: In the possibility Of an
action being brought against us In Ohio, are
you in q position to accept a retainer from Us
John D. ARCHBoID.
ITO Bon: J. b. Foraker. 1900 sixteenth
street n W.. Washington, D. c."
To which / answered as follows:
Washington. d. c., May 9, 1906.
John D. Archbold Esq. No. &c Broadway
New York-My Dear Sir: MY duties in the sen,
ate have so multiplied that l find IT necessary
TO retire entirely from the practice of the law.
than two years past
ION this account. as well as because of my
relations to the public service l can not ac-
cept a retainer IN the contingency named as [
would be glad TO do If it were otherwise.
Assuring you of my proper appreciation for
the compliment involved in the inquiry you
make l remain very truly yours, .o
For weeks prior to the date of these letters
the newspapers were filed with announcements
threatening the company with very serious liti-
CATION and with criminal prosecutions in the
courts OF Ohio. 1t was in view of these threat
ened proceedings that the company again sought
10 employ me; surely an idle and unnecessary
performance if already employed and these
letters further show that / declined such em-
ployment. among other reasons because |. could
not accept the same consistently with my re-
lations 10 the public service.
IMPROPER ACTS DENIED
submit that these proofs should be sufn
cient TO show to any fair and unprejudiced mind
that was never employed except prior to 1901
and that Ely employment then had no relation
TO anything that IN conflict with my public
duties. but had reference solely TO the reorgan-
with which congress had nothing whatever TO do.
While / have occasionally heard from Mr.
Archbold during the period that has elapsed
since the termination OF my employment In
the early part of 1901 in any event
he never addressed me on any subject since
my employment. except only any other citi-
zen with whom l was acquainted might have
done, and there never a suggestion from
him, from anybody else that / was under
the slightest obligation TO support OF oppose
any proposed legislation on behalf Of that com
pany. And what is true in this re-
spect as the Standard oil company is also
and equally true as TO other trust, corporation
or person.
Notwithstanding that the president says in
his answer TO Mr.. Bryan Of September % that
/ was the representative and defender of cor
porations in the senate, there is not word Of
truth in such statement. whether made by him
or anybody else, and there is not a scrap OF
evidence that can be produced supporting any
such charge that cannot be as fully and salts
factorily explained, as has been explained the
letter about the Jones bill and the proposed pur
chase Of the Ohio State Journal.
CONFLICT WITH TAFT
This brings me to Mr. Taft's letter and what
the president has said in his comments on tho
same.
When Mr.. Taft's candidacy for the presidenc,
was first announced / was surprised 10 learn from
the newspapers that the program Of those having
1T In charge involved my elimination" from
public life.
elimination proposition involved, naturally
brought controversy and strife, when there should
nave Deen only peace. flnally- Mr. COX an
nounced harmony propostion-Taft for presi-
dent Harris for governor and for senator.
He did that on his own motion; not only without
a request from me. but contrary to my desires.
Nevertheless, l at once publicly announced that
II Il expressed the wish of the republicans no
one would support Taft more than J.
Thereupon Mr.. Burton gave out interview
in which he stated that Mr. Taft would not ac-
cept from the republicans of Ohio any indorse-
ment Of the presidency If coupled with in
dorsement Of me for the senatorship.
This appeared to be such a gross public insult
and so uncalied for that hostilities imme-
diately resumed.
They continued until Mr.. Taft nominat ted.
then so far as ] concerned. they stopped
instantly and 1 supposed from the character of
Mr.. Taft's response to my note Of congratulation,
that they stopped on his part: at least, | was so
assured by his friends and managers and In that
connection I was also assured that Mr. Burton
had no authority TO give out his offensive inter-
view.
TAFT's STAND STATED
Much more of the same character might be
mentioned but 1 have said enough to show that
Mr.. Tafts letter performs the very important Of
fce Of exonerating Mr.. Burton from the charge
OF having spoken without authority, and fixes re-
sponsibiIity for his offensive utterances where It
belongs.
Now as 10 the letter itself
It gives the reason for Judge Taffs hostile