New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1908-09-30

C~~~~~~>>~~~~~~~
In answer to Theodore Roosevelt's
letter to Mr.. Bryan on the Haskell
affair in which the president saw fit
to question the democratic nominees
sincerity as an opponent of trusts
and monopolies and ventured the state
ment that ''the law-defying corpora
tions had more to fear from Republi-
can success than from Democratic vic
tory" the Nebraska leader hurls back
the following:
AS an individual, and as the candi-
date of my party, I resent the charge
and repel the insinu alton. I have been
in public life for eighteen years, and
I have been sufficiently conspicuous
to make my conduct a matter of pub
lie interest. I have passed through
two presidential campaigns in which
party feeling ran high and epithet
was exhausted. I have no hesitation
in saying that you cannot find an act,
a word or thought Of mine to justify
your partisan charge.
You present an Indictment against
our platform declarations on the trust
question, but you do not refer to all
of the planks and do not deal justly
with those to which you do refer.
Our platform declares in favor of the
vigorous enforcement of the criminal
law against guilty trust magnates. and
officials" Your platform does not
contain any such demand. Will you
say that your platform is better than
ours in that respect? Our platform
demands that corporations beyond q
certain size be compelled to sell at the
same price in all parts Of the country,
due allowance being made for the cost
of transportation. Will you deny
that this is in the interest of the con-
sumner and in the interest of the small
er competitors?
We present plan under which no
corporation will be permitted to con-
troll more than one-half of the total
product. It has been stated that the
steel company, with your express con-
sent, purchased one of it's largest RI
walls and thus obtained control of more
than fifty per cent of the total output.
Will you insist that in permitting this
you showed less favor to the monopo-
listic corporations than I do in oppo-
sing it?
You quote at length from speech
made by Gov. Hughes in which he rid
icules one of our antitrust remedies.
Is this the same Gov. Hughes who
was counted as one of the "allies''
who endeavored to defeat Mr.. Taft
when, as you insisted, Mr.. Taft re-
presented the ''reformers'' of your
party and his opponents the reac-
tionary element? Did not Gov.
Hughes have the support of the New
York delegation in the convention,
and is not New York city the home of
many OF the Republicans most conspi-
cious in their connection with the law
defying corporations?
Would the fact that these gentlemen
contributed to the campaign fund
strengthen or weaken his testimony
against the reasonableness OF our
antitrust remedy?
AS you quote from Gov. Hughes, I
take it for granted that Mr.. Taft has
not yet expressed himself in as salts
factory a manner on the subject, for
you would naturally prefer to quote
from the presidential candidate wher-
ever possible.
You say: "Let us repeat that no law
defying corporation has any other
reason to fear from you save what it
will suffer in the general paralysis of
business.
Referring to the last part of the SEN
tence first [ might question your abil-
lty to act as an expert as to panic
preventives, since you now have one
On your hands, but as to your charge
that no law-defying corporation has
reason to fear the direct effect Of the