Los Angeles herald., 1908-09-28
BRYAN STIRS
ROOSEVELT TO
LONG ANSWER
PRESIDENT MAKES RESPONSE
WITH MUCH DETAIL
IN CHARACTERISTIC STATEMENT
HE DEFENDS ACTS
Democratic Candidates. Strong Argu-
ments Bring Letter Which Asserts
Republican Deeds Are Free
from Wrongdoing
Continued from PAGE one,

Continued from Page oneI
because he or it is either wealthy or
not wealthy. / regard such discrimt-
nation in either direction as utterly
incompatible with a spirit of honesty
and fair dealing. I base my distinc-
tions on conduct not on relative
wealth. When the same men who were
leaders in the steel corporation acted
in connection with the Northwestern
Securities suit in a manner which l
regarded as contrary to the law by
my direction successful suit was i'm
mediately undertaken against them.
If they violate the law in connection
with any act of the steel corporation
I will Immediately proceed against
them. Until they do violate the law
they will be treated precisely as an
other corporation great or small, which
obeys the law, is treated.
Refers to Hartman
IT treat each man and each corpora
tion with a view solely to whether he
or it is acting rightly on a given oc-
casion. Let me give you an example:
I have proceeded against the corpora
tions of which Mr.. e. H. Hartman is
the head on certain points where l
believe they have violated the law.
But when, in connection with the
breaking of the Salton sea dam, one OF
the Hartman corporations repaired
the dam, I last winter did everything
to have congress reimburse Mr.. Har-
riman for so much of the obligation as
[ felt ought to come upon the United
States. l would hold myself unfit TO
be president IT, because 1 prosecuted
Mr.. Hartman where 1 thought he had
broken the law, I yet hesitated to do
him Justice where I thought the facts
required that justice should be done
-. n,4J %1aa II 40
acted and shall not act as regards the
steel corporation.
"You ask me to name a single Off
cial connected with a law defying cor
poration who has declared or will de-
clare that he is supporting you. In a
st. Louis paper, which reaches me at
the same time with the papers con-
tanning this published letter of yours,
find a statement from Judge Henry
s. Priest, attorney for the Waters
Pierce Oil company, the western sub
sidiary or representa- tive of the Stan
dard Oil company, in which he an
nounces that he is for Bryan and states
that Wall street believes Bryan will
be elected. In response to the ques-
ton as to whether he could quote any
of the Standard Oil magnates as feel |
ing that way, he answered:
L did not say l saw any OF the |
officials of the Standard Oil company. |
l am giving you what found was the !
drift of opinion among well-posted
politicians as well as bankers:
I guess Governor Haskell is all
right. They have not proved anything
on him, have they?'
1.-THE newspaper clipping goes on to
say that Judge Priest was one of the
lawyers who fought Attorney General
Hadley in the states custer suit against
the Waters Pierce and the Republic
n l.. oAsr Dc,
chiefly with the big corporations and
his firm is counsel for the United
States company and the North Ameri- |
can interests in st. Louis.
Judge Priest is credited with origi- |
mating the phrase: Bribery is a con-
ventional offense,' which he used in an
argument at the trial of R. M. Snyder, !
the Kansas City millionaire now dead Al
"You say that the trust magnatesi
know their own interests and are sup
porting Judge Taft. So far as their
interests are simply interests of the
business community and especially of
the wage workers, 1 believe they sup
port Judge Taft. So far as their spe-
cial interests, which are to them more
important than general business well
fare, I believe they will support you.
base this belief on what happened in
1896. Your success then would then,
in my belief, have been a calamity for
the country from the standpoint of
the welfare of the business men, farm
er and workingmen just as, III my be-
lief, your success now would be a |
calamity to the country both from the |
standpoint of business (and especially !
of the interests of the wage worker) |
and from the standpoint of morals.
"I come to what you have to say
about contributions, and here you fur
nish your own answer. You state that
it appears 'front.' published state=
ment of the contribution for Mr.. |
Hughes campaign for governor two |
years ago that various men of wealth, |
some of them connected with big cor
porations whom you name to the num-
ber of nine, contributed from 100000 to /
$500 apiece. You ask, Would the fact |
that these gentlemen contributed to his |
campaign fund strengthen or weaken |
his testimony against the reasonable
ness of our antitrust 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 commit |
tee by Mr.. Hartman and those collect
ed by him for others?'
"Are you willing to say that the !
publication before election of contribu-
tions then made would have no effect? |
You then propose to publish the names
of contributors before election and ask |
us to do the same. The amounts you |
mention as contributed to Mr.. Hughes |
are utterly trivial compared to the |
amounts l have already mentioned as
contributed to your campaign in 1885,
but in my judgment the amount con-
tributed has nothing whatever to do |
with the point at issue. The question |
was, for instance whether Mr.. Clark |
of Montana, when he contributed |
heavily to your campaign fund, had a |
proper motive and whether your ac-
influenced properly or improperly by
that contribution, and the same ques-
tion 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 knew
or ought to have known before writing
that In not one instance has Mr.
Hughes, as governor, done one thing
of any kind, sort or description for
any one of the contributors you men
tion or for 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 Influenced by the fact
of these contributions having been
plication either straightforward or sin
cere?
you have quoted the subscriptions
furnished to Governor Hughes as rea-
son to distrust Governor Hughes atti-
tude toward corporations and I am