New-York tribune., 1908-09-26
FORAKER MAKES REPLY
DENIES ALL CHARGES.
Ritter assaults on President Roose-
Uelt and Dir. Taft.

r-incinnati, Sept. Ex-senator Foraker to-
,,eht issued long and carefully prepared
.steuent replying TO President Roosevelt and
che charges made by William r. Hearst Mr.
Foraker explains his connection with the Stand
srd Oil Company. which he says only tenn
,orary and discusses the Brownviile incident
and the railroad rate bill. He bitterly assails
President Roosevelt and Mr.. Taft charging Mr.
Taft with consorting with Standard Oil men
and asserting that President Rooseyelt's action
indicates a guilty conscience. He declares that
the President showed bias in accepting all the
charges true. and denies that he acted i'm
properly in accepting employment from the
Standard OIL Company; says there was no Sc
cret about it and produces letters TO show that
sitter the government began prosecution of the
Standard OIL Company he declined TO accept
retainer from it He asserts that Nj Hearst
has other letters which. if made public. would
show how harmless was his connection with
Standard OIL. The statement follows:
The President begins his statement ,o.nocta1
with the publication OF Judge Taft's letter Uirb
biteT aTraigEment of because OF Nr H"arst,s
charges. which he appears TO have accented as
tuly proven made. lie does nor vii
fur proof or explanation. accept the same when
offered M Hearst's charges are simply that
was in the employment OF the Standard Oil com
pany and thai was paid for my services but that
purposes. and that the money received was paii as
compensation for improperly influencing leEisla-
ton By Congress in conflict with and in y, / tioo
q nv official duties He read a number OF letters
ana mad certain comments calculated i unan-
sgered OF unexplained 10 create the belief that his
That ! Eas employed by the company was never
ployrneut well known the time to all CON
cerned Only few days ago ex-Attorney General
Nonnett who prosecuting the proceedings
agains; the Standard Oil Company at the tim
tna thar had been retained by the company
II employed and rendering services. presumably
In -sra al.
ra loDirr +fa+ ,acai,-ai5 - ,,,,oE,. ~ ~
count no Information impaired by Mr Hearst
and no offence established. for il remained
thar such eInIlol1nent ana payment might he en-
fo-mer statements / made such exrlianation hv
showing that my employment was confined TO The
affairs Of the company in Ohio and its recrsaniza
ton after the dissolved by order Of our
Supreme Court, and that my employment had no
relation in the slightest degree TO anything in
or With respect 70 which the Congress was then
legisating or ct that time proposing to legtslate
ind that the employment was ended long before
The company was made the subject Of special
attacked IN The federal courts or proceeded against
il an way by the federal government. and. fur
ne. lna' ne trl W. 20 ..e!rnn Ilc
81 Ohio OF the United States the orders OF asr
orders OF he courts ana 50 reorgaTfiZing as 70 con
FORM 70 all laws state and national and fully 70
been made against II
II my statements in this behalf are true. they
charges and all deductions therefrom OF improper
conduct unless the ethics involved have been radi-
Cally changed from what they have always here
tofore been supposed 10 be. From the beginning
OF our government Senators and Congressman who
We're lawyers have been regarded free To oOntin
ue the practice OF their profession if they de-
sred during their terms OF Office in so tar as they
Inight he able &c do without interfering with
their public duties and in such practice free 10
tahe any hlnu "f employ ineIt mat Was oiiaTe0
which did not in any conflict with their duties
1oIs oeeli cTitlclseC on such account ne ollIl
question has been 10 The character OF business
a Senator member Of Congress was at liberty 10
take, and uniformly and universally II mas been
considered that there vas no prohblton OF any any
statutes and such business as might conflict with
When / accepted the employment OF the STANDARD
OIL Company in 1893 il was not loreseen by me and
probably not by anybody else that II would become
cution or action OF any kind and that employ mrnt
under the laws Of %e~ Jersey which was before
anything Of that nature occurred
That was not in the employment Of the com
Tany after the services have mentioned were rem
dered and that such employment did not aft"rward
Influence me 70 favor the company in egislaton is
shown by the part ! took in the enactment OF the
Elkns law approved February IS, 1903; Under this
statu'e he Attorney General has brought ana
caused 10 be brought all the prosecutions against
me otandard 'nl company u "nc9 We laF, 10 ~,
imposed the fine of so 2a0Go was one Of the sub
committee Of three-Scnators Elkns and Clapp |
pong The other two members VINO cnSla"fe cd llaI
hil In tho Interstate Commerce Committee Of the |
oof Judgment made il more enectFe Ttpor1ed u
fsvorably 70 the committee and then to the Senate
FIRST time in interstate commerce legislation the
shippers were made liable violators of law and
icting rebates Determinations Unul that tine !
only the carriers were liable for such offences TIE
BIZ especially aimed at the large corpora1ions
- ause Inea were fupLpI": pI p. Dc 1d "a ,d - I'll
force rebates and determinations which could not
be secured by their weaker competitors That |
statute has been put to the severest tests they
shown u
~ Interstate than all the other statutes
that have been enacted. Il makes effective al the
,ther provisions Of law against rebates and dis |
,rfTnina1ions and nobody has suffered more under
Indictments have been found by scores. containing
counts and charges amounting TO thousands in |
Much moro might be said as TO the character Of
his statute but IL is unnecessary for present pur-
! refer TO It and speak Of its general character
o frame and 20 enact. aimed directly at the stand
rd Ol Company and the other great corporations.
rot ern1ioyed ty the company at that time and |
hat was not Influenced in the discharge Of my |
'uehc duties by reason OF the employment that |
lad ended long before.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH ARCHBoLD-
But II that fact is not sufficient. the following |
orrespondence is not only additional PROOF. but |
oncluave in its character to the same effect;
NV e: BToad~ay y NE he" 6ssIfr 9oTk NAY Of " an I s
ION being brought against US in Ohio are you |
gs9n f to sooePt retainer Ta fre 1 US m o
vii oblige. Yours very truly.
JOHN D. ARCHBOLD.
TO the Hon J. B. Foraker, No 1900 10Th street |
". w, Washington
To which answered as follows
washington. May 9. 1896
John D. Archbold, Esq. No 2e Broadway, New |
York
Ny Dear Sir: Ny duties IN the Senate have so /
multiplied that found il necessary TO retire en-
rely from the practice Of the law. have not /
aiken any new employment for more than two |
ears past. On this account. well as because /
= my relations 10 the public service, cannot ac-
,ept a retainer in tie contingency named as
would be very glad 70 do IL il were otherwise