New-York tribune., 1908-09-28


speech. in which he maintained that the Demo
cratic party and platform were not getting the
square dear' in the campaign that the Presi-
dents professions OF fair treatment entitled them
to. Mr. ROOseveIt's reply deals particularly with
Dir. Bryan's assertion that the administration
has been neither sincere nor effective n the
prosecution Of trusts.
Mr. Roosevelt combats this charge with char
acteristic emphasis and sets forth in detail whar
has been done under hts direction toward curb
ing the tendency OF capital 10 centraIizs with a
view to destroying competition. The Presidents
letter follows:
Dear Sir. I have seen your letter published
in this mornings papers As TO most OF what
you say about me personally 1 do not regard
any answer as necessary When you say that
am unfair to your platform you refterate certain
opinions with my hearty approval, as 70 which
had quoted Governor Hughes in ny first letter;
and these therefore, II is also unnecessary 70
answer. You have not answered the Hughes
speech. and in my Judgment you do well not 20
make the attempt You say that your platfoETu
declares in favor Of vigorous enforcement OF th9
law against guilty trust magnates and officials,
and that the platform upon which NJ. Taft
stands makes no such declaration II was not
necessary That platform approved the policies
Of this administration and promised to continue
them, and here, as usual have only 20 compare
your words with the deeds Of the administration
and Of Mr.. Taft You merely promise in your
platform that you intend 70 do Just what this
administration has actually done and IS doing
To show the difference between deeds and
words l viii compare the record OF this admin
fstratfon with the record OF one OF your most
prominent supporters at this moment. Mr.. Ofneys
Attorney General under the last Democratic ad-
mfnistration While Mr. Olney was Attorney
General cases whatever were brought under
the antitrust law against combinations OF cap
ital, the only new case which he brought being
directed against combinations Of WOrktngr1e2-
During that entire admins ration the only cases
brought against combinations Of capital under
the antitrust act were four in number, two OF
which were unsuccessful. one Of the other two
being the case which was decided by Judge Taft
in favor Of the government
Under this administration a mass OF such
cases has been brought including the case
against the Northern Securities Company.
against the beef packers. against the Federal
Salt Company. against the General Paper Com
pany. against the Otis and other elevator COM
panies. against the American Tobacco Company.
against the Powder Trust against tne Virginia
Carolina Chemical Company. against the stand
ard Oil Company. and others.
In a number Of these cases the government has
already succeeded by injunCttOns and otherwise
Some Of the cases are now pending In hardly
any important case against great law breaking
corporations has the government suffered final
defeat
INDICTMENTS FOR REBATING
As regards suits to suppress railway abuses.
under the last Democratic administration there
were no indictments against shippers for secur-
ing rebates or secret rates Under my ADMIN
fstration there have been forty-nine indictments
for secret rebates. resulting IN eighteen cCnv1c-
tons, and n only four cases nave tnese lhclcI-
rnents failed The other twenty-seven cases are
still pending Among the railroads which have
been convicted are the Chicago & Alton. the
Chicago Burlington & Quincy. the New Toik
Central. the Chicago. Rock Island & Pacific and
the Chicago Milwaukee & St Paul. while scores
Of cases are still pending against leading rail-
roads
are some OF the greatest corporations in the
United States, for instance the American
Sugar Company, the aggregate fine actually paid
being more than $4,000 Swift & Co. Armour
Packing Company. the Cudahy Packing Com
pany Nelson Morris & Co. each OF whom were
fined $4,000. and the cases have now been car
rfed 70 the Supreme Court. The standard Oh
case is still pending. This is a record OF actual
achievement. and beside il mere promises are
empty indeed and they would not be made
if II were not for the achievement above rectted-
You state that the Steel company, with my
express consent purchased one OF its largest
rivals and thus obtained control OF more than
so per cent Of rhe total output. This action OF
the Steel company (which increased its share OF
the total output by only about per cent and n
way altered the standing OF the company
under the law may have been violation OF
your plan. the absurd1ry OF which mas been eX-
posed by Governor Hughes. But there was no
violation of the law. I was cOgutzant Of the en-
tire transaction. 1t was not entered into by the
eraeI C.orDora-fOn OF IT'S own desire bur solely
ar the urgent request Of the corporation pur-
chased ana Of the big banks holding that cor
porations securities in order 70 enable them 70
prevent a crash which would have turned the
panic Of last fall into the most widespread dis
aster. I should indeed have been derelct in
my duty II l had not so acted and efficiently
used all the power Of the government. where IL
could be legally and properly used tas IL vas IN
this caSe) 20 see tnat the panic was kept within
the smallest possible radius and the damage
caused as slight possible. You would better
understand the principle upon which I acted IL
YOU would rid yourself Of the idea that I am
trying 20 discriminate for or against any maa
or corporation because he OF il IS either wealthy
or not wealthy. I regard such discrimination IN
either direction utterly Incompatible with
spirit Of honesty and fair dealing I base NY
distinctions conduct, not on relative wealth
When the men who were leaders in the
Steel Corporation acted in connection with the
Northern Securities suit IN a manner which !
regarded as contrary TO the law. by my direction
a successful suit Immediately undertaken
against them II they violate the law IN con-
will Immediately proceed against them Until
they do violate the Law they viii be treated pre-
cfsely as any other corporation. great or small.
which Obey-s the laws is treated
TREATMENT OF HARTMAN.
treat each man and each corporation with
view solely as whether he or IL is acting
rightly on a given occasion Let me give YOU an
example 7 have proceeded against the corpora
tions OF which F. H Hartman is the head on
certain points where I believe they have vto-
lated the law But when. IN connection with the
brea king OF the Salton Sea dam. one OF the
Hartman corporations repaired the dam. last
winter did everything I could TO have Congress
reimburse Mr.. Hartman for 50 much OF the Obli-
CATION as 1 felt ought 70 come upon the United
States I would hold myself unfit 70 be Prest-
dent r. because Z prosecuted Mr.. Hartman
where I thought he had broken the law. yet
heSitated 20 do him Justice where thought the
facts required that Justice should be done him.
In exactly the same way have acted and shall
act as regards the Steel Corpora ton
You ask me 20 name a single Official connected
with a law defying corporation who has de-
clared or VIII declare that he is supporting you
In ST. Louis paper. which reaches az the
same time as the papers containing this pub
tished letter Of yours. I find a statement from
Judge Henry s. Priest attorney for the Waters
PeirCe oil Company. the Western subsidiary or