The daily sentinel., 1908-09-26


company was made the subject of
any special mention in congress and
longer still before il WAS attacked III
the federal courts or proceeded
against in any way by the federal
government: and further that the
employment was not to defend the
company against charges of violation
of the laws of Ohio or of the United
States or the orders of any of the
courts, but only TO assist in executing
the orders of The courts, and so re
organizing as to conform to all laws,
state and national. and 10 fully com
ply with AL The orders of the court
that had been against it.
IF my statements in this behalf
are true, they make complete de
fense against Mr.. Hearst's charges
and all deductions theretrom of i'm
proper conduct, unless the ethics in
volved have been radically changed
from what they have always here
tofore been supposed to be. Ftom the
beginning of our government sena-
tors and congressman who were law
ycrs have been regarded as Iirae to
continue the practice of their pro-
fcssion if they SO desired during fneir
terms of office insofar as they might
be able TO do so w,,hOut interfering
wit -ieir pupuc duties: and in sucn
pioyment that WAS offered, which
did not i'll any way conflict with
their duties ;is members of congress.
Nobody has ever before been criti-
cised on such account. ne only
question has been as to the char
acter of business a senator or mem
ber of congress was at liberty TO EalSe
and uniformly and universally ii has
been considered that there was no
- sI-.. H.,
outside of those named in the stat
utes and such business as might con-
flct with public duties.
When ! accepted the employment
of the Standard Oil company in 1899
it was not forseen by me, and prob
ably not by anybody else. that it
would become the object of federal
legislation or OF federal prosecution
or action of any kind. and that en-
ployment when the company decided
to re-organj2e under the law of New
Jersey, which was before anything of
that nature occurred.
THAT ! WAS not in the employment
of the company after the service
have mentioned wers, rendered. and
that such employment did NOT after
ward influence me to favor the COM
pany in legislation. is shown by the
part ! took in the enip;tment of the
Elkins law. approved February 10,
1903. Under this statute the attorney
general has brought and caused to
be brought all the prosecutions
against the Standard ON company, of
which we have read SO much. includ-
ing the case in which Judge Lands
imposed the fine of 29.23O. 900.
But if that fact is not sufficient.
the following correspondence is not
only additional proof, but conclusive
in its character. to the same effect:
Senator Foraker then proceeded to
make public in his statement a large
amount of correspondence. This
correspondence consists mainly of
letters that passed between John ID.
Archbold and Mr.. Foraker himself.
As he publishes the letters, Sen
ator Foraker comments op them in a
very interesting manner. He declar-
ed that he has no recollection of re-
cei, ing one or more of the letters
that Mr.. Hearst read. He further
declares that MIR. Hearst has failed
10 read II number OF letters which he
migia have secured that passed he
tween him and MIR. Archbold. and
which would have given II different
light To the situation.
Mr. Foraker also introd uced let
tiers TO verify his statement and TO
make clear his position regarding
newspaper proposals He makes
sarcastic comments on MIR. Hearst's
statement that gentleman fur-
nished him the letters which he. Mr..
Hearst, read.
MIR. Foraker deals ut length with
all charges made against him by MIR.
Hearst, President Roosevelt and Sec
rotary Taft. He practically declares
that the president has told false
hood, as follows:
Notwithstanding that the presi-
dent says in his answer To Mr. Bryan
of September .s:s that ! was Il repre-
sentative and defender Of corpora
tions in the senate there is not
word of truth in any such statement
whether made by him or anybody
else. and there is not n scrap of evil
dence that can he produced support
ing any such charge that cannot be
as fully and satisfactorily explained
ns has been explained the letters
about the Jones bill and the proposed
purchase of the Ohio State journal.
This brings me to Mr.. Taft's let
ter and what the president has said
in his comments on the same.
IF the president in publishing il
had not withheld the name of the
man to whom IL was written. 1t might
be easier for me to show that | am
not responsible for that mans ac-
tion.
The man himself would have re-
futed the impression the president
apparently seeks to create. that he
wrote either at my instance or IN my
interest. | have not at any time or
in any way sought MIR. Taft help for
reelection To the senate.
when MIR. raft's canuIdacy for
the presidency was first announced.
I was surprised to learn from the
newspapers that the program oi those
having il in charge, involved my