The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1908-09-26

cause Of the prosecutions against u
company under the Elkins Lay
which lhad helped TO frame; further
more, the employment proposed wa
different in It's character from tha
which ! had previously accepted. Tha
is to say, instead OF being an employ
ment, as the former employment was
to aid the company in complying wit
the orders Of the court and the sta
tutes OF the state, II was to be an em
Iployment to resist suits and prose
cutions instituted by the state.
Il submit that these proofs shoul'
be sufficient TO show 70 any fair an'
anprejudiced mind that was neve
employed except prior to 1901, an'
that my employment then had no re
lation to anything that was in con
llict with my public duties, but hac
reference solely to the reorganization
of the company and the Ohio affairs
with which congress had nothing
whatever to do,
"Mr. Hearst 10 create differen,
belief, read at Louisville the following
letter.
,26 Broadway, New York, Feb
rs, 1902.
TO Hon. J. B. Foraker, Wash
ington, d. c,
(" Dear Senator: Again my dear
Senator, | venture to write you a
word regarding the bill introduced by
Senator Jones, OF Arkansas, known
as IL. b. %, intended to amend the
Act to protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and mon
opolies, introduced by him. II really
seems as though this is very unneces-
sarily severe and even vicious, Is il
not much better to test the applica-
ton OF the Sherman Law instead OF
resorting to a measure OF this kind?
hope you will feel so about il and
will be greatly pleased TO have a
word from you on the subject.
With kind regards, Very truly
yours, John D. Archbold.'
Il have no recollection Of ever -e-
ceiving any such letter and a most
diligent search fails to disclose any
such letter in my files or any copy
of any answer to any such letter in
my letter book, But waving all that,
the letter shows that Mr.. Archbold
did not pretend to have an right 10
address me on any such subject, ex-
cept as any citizen might have done,
Such requests are OF daily occur
renee in the experience OF every sen
ator, il ever received such letter
my inability 10 find it, or to find any
answer, is doubtless due to the fact
that. ] simply referred il to the ju-
dietary committee for consideration
in connection with the bill
Il would not deem it necessary to
make an explanation if it we're not
that Mr.. Hearst, in reading this let
ter, coupled il with the following let
ter:
'26 Broadway, New York, Jan. n,
1902.
My dear Senator: Responding TO
your favor of the 18th, it gives me
pleasure to hand you herewith certi-
fcate Of deposit for $4,000, in accor-
dance with our understanding Your
letter states the conditions correctly
and trust that the transaction will
be successfully consumated.
Yours very truly, John D. Arch
bold
"Mr. Hearst accompanied the read
ng OF these two letters together with
calculated, if not intended,
10 convey the impression that the one
1ad reference to the other and that
hey constituted evidence that il was
or money received trying TO influence
legislation in accordance with the
,iews Of Mr.. Archbold. The dates OF
he two letters show that the money
vas sent almost month prior to the /
etter about the Jones Bill
This in itself would ordinarily be
.nough to disconnect the two, in the
Iverage mind, but | have already |
hown in former statement that the
certificate Of deposit was sent on ac-
ount of the proposel purchase Of the
ohio state Journal; and that the pro-
,osition to purchase being abandoned,
t was returned on the fourth day OF
february only week after it was re-
eived."
Mr.. Foraker, here introduces let
ers to verify his statment as to the
ewspaper proposal. He continues:
"If Mr.. Hearst had read these ac-