Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-09-28

your campaign fund would have pre-
ferred business prosperity to business
adversely, other things being equal;
hut they would rather have had the
immense profit that would have ac-
crued to them from the free coinage
of the 5O-cent dollars than the smaller
profit which would have accrued to
them merely from the general indus
trial prosperity of the country.
Because of their personal interests
and against the interest of the COM
munity at large these Trust mag
rates then supported you. My belief
is, and the statement of Judge Priest
quoted above, and the attitude of
many men of large financial interest
warrant me in expressing the belief
that those trust magnates whose fear
of being prosecuted under the law by
Mr. Taft is greater than their fear OF
general business adversely under you
will support you and not Mr.. Taft.
Referring to what you have to say as
to contributions, and here you furnish
your own answer. You state that it APP
pears from the published statement of
the contributions to Mr.. Hughes cam
raign for governor two years ago that
various men of wealth, some of them
| connected with big corporations whom
you name to the number of nine con-
tributed from $4,000 to $500 apiece. You
ask would the fact that these gentle
| men contributed to his campaign fund
strengthen or weaken his testimony
against the reasonableness of our anti
| trust remedy?' and later you continue
| by asking: Are you willing to say that
| any public interest was served in 1904
! by cOncealing until after election the
| contributions made to the Republican
| campaign fund by Mr.. Hartman. and
those collected by him for others? Are
you willing to say that the publication
before election of the contributions
tEen made would have no effect on the
election" You then propose to publish
the names of contributors before cleo
| ton and ask us to do the same.
The amounts you mention as con-
| tributed to Mr.. Hughes are utterly
trivial compared with the amounts
have already mentioned ats contributed
| to your campaign in 1896, but in my
! judgment the amounts contributed
have nothing to do with the point at
| issue. The question was, for instance.
whether Mr. Clarke of Montana when
he contributed heavily to your cam
paign fund, had a proper motive, and
| whether your actions would or would
not have been inferred properly or i'm
| properly by that contribution; and the
same question applies to Mr. Hughes
| and to me.
| In the case of Mr.. Hughes and my
self, the answer is fortunately easy.
| You have nothing to do but examine
| our records in the offices to which we
| were both elected. You either know or
ought to have known before writing
| that in no instance has Mr.. Hughes
| rs governor done one thing of any kind
sort or description for any one OF the
| contributors you mention, or of any
| other contributor to his fund which
| ought not to have been done, and would
| not have been done if no contribution
had been made. Yet you clearly imply
that he is and has been improperly in
| huenced by the fact of these contribu-
| items having been made. Do you con-
| slider such an implication either
| straightforward or sincere?
| In letter to the chairman of my
| campaign committee on October 80
| 1904, l specifically approved of the con-
| ditions under which the national COM
mittee were accepting contributions
saying that their acceptance was to
| be with the explicit understanding
| that they were given with no thought
| Of any more obligation on the part of
| the national committee or of the ma
tional administration than is applied
| in the statement that every man shall
| receive square deal. no more and no
less and that this l shall guarantee in
| any extent to the best of my ability
If they subscribe for the pur-
pose of securing such national well
fare and with no thought of personal
favors to them. why they are acting
as Is entirely proper. l continued: an
returning the money to them (Any
! contributors l wish it made clear that
there is not the slight personal feeling
| against them. and that they can count
| upon being treated exactly as well by
| the administration exactly as fairly.
! as if we had accepted the cOntrbu-
| tions. They shall not suffer in any
| way because we refused them, Just as
they would not have gained in way
| if we had accepted them" No MEM
Der II the national committee has ever
| directly or indirectly suggested to me
| that should either do)or leave undone
| anything whatever because anyone
had contributed or had failed to con-
| tribute.
These are the facts. now for your FRO
posnl. You have yourself Furnished it's
condemnation. You have quoted the sub
scr!ptions furnished to Gov. Hughes as
giving reason to distrust Gov Hughes at
ttude toward corporations. and I am
obliged to say that this cannot be sincere
on ycur part for you know well what the
governors attitude had been throughout
his term. You quoted the subscription of
Mr.. Hartman to my campaign although
you know well that it did not interfere
with any action taken by me as against
Mr.. Hartman. and ask if it would not
have affected the campaign If known
Thereby you have furnished an cxce.ent
reason for refusing to meet your pro-
posal: for yor make it evident that to
adopt your proposal would give to every
man who cared merely for partisan sue
cess the cEanca nv preciSelx no