The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-10-02
BRYAN ISSUES
 A STATEMENT
(Continaed from Page one.l


 thair own opinion as to the influences which are at work. They do not need guardian to protect them from the misuse of the knowledge which they may acquire, and they ought not to be required to employ, detectives to find out what the officials are doing after the election. Mir. Taft knows that a great many matters come before ex- ecutors and legislators. while 1t is dif- ficuit if not impossible for the aver age voter to investigate the facts.
 The Peoples Right.
 The people have eas right to know in advance of election whether those with special rights to look after are contributing sums larger than publie- spirit. patriotic motives and general interest would explain. If for in- stance. a candidate for Governor Is likely to have to pass upon railroad legislation the people have a right to know whether men largely interested in preventing railroad Legislation hays contributed libcrally to his cans- paign fund. If man aspires to an office in which. if elected. he will have to pass upon anti-trust legisla- tion. or enforce anti-trust laws. 1t is only right that the public should know. by what rights the trust mag mates are financing his campaign. And so. If q man Is a candidate for an office which brings him in official connection with tarif legislation, it is proper for the public to know whether he will be so obligated to the benehciaries of high tarin as to be embarrassed when he attempts to protect the consumers.
 "Mr. Taft represents what have said in regard to MT. Hughes. I called attention to some of the contributions that were made U MT. Hughes fund 4 e.. ~~f~ A-. Hughes attacks the remedies present. ed in the Democratic platform as a cure for the trusts with out advancing any remedies of his own. and in view of the further fact that this tcsti- mony was quoted by the President against me, I asked the President whether he thought that these contri- buttons by trust magnates would les sen or increase the weight of Mir. Hughes testimony on the subject of trusts. It will not do for Mir. Taft to put Mir. Hughes upon a pedastal and claim for him immunity from criti- cism. It Is net necessary for me to pass judgment upon Mir. Hughes or upon. what he has done in order to pass judgment upon the question un- der discussion. He Is only human and was one of the allies before the Chicago convention. We assume that public officials will be honest and yet we require bonds of those who handle money. no matter how much character they may have.
 Basis of the Law.
 The law will not permit a judge. a juror or an official to accept a gift if the gift is from one who has an interest in the official action of the official. and forbidding this, the law does not ask to the character of the official. The law is based upon hu- man nature and human experience. and 1t is not necessary to furnish specific proof of special weakness in ths man who receives the money or to prove that his decision was In any manner affected by the gift. No scales have yet been invented for the accurate weighing of the reasons which enter into an officials decision. Tt Is only fair. however, to assume that in using Mir. Hughes case as an argument. Mir. Taft means to say that he will not object to contributions from trust magnates, railroad mag mates and tarif benefciaries. no mat ter how much those contributions may be. even though he may, if elected, be compelled to pass upon questions where their demands may be on the o1e side and the interests of the gem eral public on the other He must not complain if he finds that many Republicans Of the rank and file will i differ from him on this subject. for