Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-09-26
SENATOR'S EMPIoYNENT.

might be entirely proper and lea Ultimate
W. SENATOR'S REINFORCEMENT.
! Under all the circumstances. an ex-
PLANTATION was REQUIRED and In former
4 statements Il made such explanation by
Showing that my employment was con-
fined to tho affairs of the company In
Ohio, and In its reorganization after
* the trust was dissolved by orders our
supreme court, and that my employ
+ nlent had no relation in the slightest
degree to anything In which the feder-
al government was then interested or
With respect to which the Congress was
then gislating. or at Il that time pros
posing to legtslate. and that the srn-
aploylnent was ended long before the
company was made the subject of any
special attention in Congress and long
\ er still before 1T was attacked In the
federal courts or proceeded against In
4 any way by the federal government;
and further, that the Semployme was
4 not to defend the company against
Il charges OF violation of the laws Of
Ohio, of tho United States or he or
4 ders of any of the courts, but only to
assist in executing the orders Of the
courts, and SO re-organizing as to con-
form to all laws. state and national,
and to fully comply with all the orders
4 OF the court that had been against IT.
a COMPLETE DEFENSE.
.If my statements in this behalf are
true, they make a complete defense
against MI. Hearst's charges and all
deductions therefrom of improper con-
duct, unless the ethics involved have
been radically changed from what they
have always heretofore been supposed
to be. From the beginning of our gov.
i ernment senators and congressman who
We're lawyers have been regarded as
Ia, he thnisl
profession IL they so desired during their
terms of office In SO far as they might
be able to do so without interfering
with their public duties: and in such
practise free to take any kind or en-.
!, ployment that was offered, which did
not in any way conflict with their due
ties as members OF Congress. Nobody
4 has ever before been criticized on such.
account The only question has been
as to the character of business Il sena-
S tor or member Of Congress was at
liberty to take and uniformly and uni-i
fyersally 1t has been considered that
there was no prohibition of any class
of business, outside OF those named in
tho statutes and such business as might
conflict with public duties.
When I accepted the 5ernploymentIo OF
the Standard, Oil company in 1899 1t
was not forseen by me, and probably
not by an ybody else, that 1t would
or Of federal prosecution or action of
any kind, and that employment when
4 the company decided to re-organfze un-
der the law of New Jersey, which was
before anything OF that nature oc-
Cured. .i5s s. RI
THAT 1 was not In the employment
OF the company after the services n
have mentioned were 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 enactment OF the
Elsins lay y, appr.yed Feb; 10 1893.
eral has brought and caused to be
brought, all the prosecutions against
the Standard Oil company, of which
we have read SO much, Including the
case in which Judge Lands Imposed
the fine OF. $40, 24o, 900.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
+ But IL that fact IS not. sufficient,
the following correspondence is not
only additional proof, but conclusive
in Its character, to the same effect:
9..'26 broadway, New York. May z,
ity OF an action being brought against
us In Ohio, are you In a position to I
accept "a retainer from JUS In; connec-
ton with such matter? 5g} AZ ga
Your early response will oblige,,
yours very truly. ,S3i 4; w
teenth street, N. w. washington p.
s'To which / answered as follows:
80 ~ Washington, D. c.. May 9. 1906.
{ - John ID. Archbbold ESD, No. IS
Broadway, New y orl.
1T --------------"