Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-09-26

very glad to do so If II we're other
wise.
Assuring you OF my proper appre-
citation of the compliment involved Ill
the inquiry you make. l remain,
Very truly yours.
u. b. FORAKER"
The conditions. he says. had greatly
changed since his former employment.
largely because Of the prosecutions
against the company under the Eiklns
law which he had helped frame:
furth he rmore the employment proposed
was different in its character from
that which he had previously accepted.
That Is to say, instead of being an
employment as the former employ
ment was, to aid the company i'll
complying with the orders OF the
courts and the statutes OF the states
it was to be an employment to Iesii;
suits and prosecutions Instituted by
the state.
Doesn't Remember Jones Bill Letter.
Referring to Mr. Archbold's letter
of February 25. 1902. regarding Sena-
tor Jones bill amending the Sherman
antitrust act. he says he had no rsco!-
lection of ever having received It. and
was unable to find 1t in his files.
But waving all that" he says. tine
letter shows on its face that Mr..
ArchtolI did not pretend to have any
right to address ME On any such SUP
ject except as any citizen might nave
done. Such things are Of daily oc-
currence in the experience o. ever!
senator.
The coupling Of the letter referring
to the Jones bill in the Senate with
Mr.. Archbold's referring to ceriin-
cate for $5O,0O0. dated a month pre-
yious. was intended. he says to con-
vsy the impression that they referred
to the same subject aud that the
money was to influence legislation
The dates of the letters. he says,
would disconnect them in the ordinary
mind.
Tells OF Big Loan.
He explains at length the reasons
fer borrowing the 5e.000 for friend
to purchase a newspaper. ana quotes
letters 10 show that it was in reply
TO his statement Of the terms OF the
loan that Mr.. Archboid wrote: your
letter states the conditions correctly
and ;rus, IN. transaction will b. sue
cessfuliy consumated.
/ Later. he explains. the transaction
fell through and the $4,000 was re-
turned to Mr.. Archhvid.
Another Letter Lost.
Until now Mr.. Foraker says. i
have not made any statement about
the lftter Mr. Hearst read at Coiuni-
bus from Mr.. Archeold 90 me date-
March . 1900. calling my attention
TO Two bills introduced in the Ohio
legislature by Mr.. Price. cannon
find am trace Of such letter on nv
tiies. or Of anv answer in my letter
bcoksys I have not been able TO com
nunicaie with Mr. Price. WHO intro
duced the bills. but be has stated N
n pubic interview that he abandoned
g., the bills because h. was told Senator
Hanna and were beth opposed to the
measures and that We feared IL might
damage President mckinley in the M
ticnaI campaign. which we were then
cpti ring. II their passage should be
insisted upon. Mr. Prices statement
suggests 20 nv mind that In all prosa-
biii;y ! refcTreI the letter to- Cover
nor Nash. Such a disposition Of the
letter would b. In accordance with
~hat I usually do with all such con
munlcatioEs.
4 While have occasionally heard
from Mr.. ArchboId during the period
that has elapsed siroc the icrmina'
, lion Of my employment In the early
part Of 1901. I DO not recall receiving
any Ie,icr from hin. except. u I rceciv'
cd u. the one relating to the IoncS
bill. which bad any relation TO IN"
Legislation pending w Congress. or
Anything with which had any Off
cial duty 20 perform. gntii bc wrote
me- the litter Of May Z, 1906 provos-