The Washington times., 1908-09-28

pie to either trade unions or cor
pOraSicns, for wish 20 acQuit him
Of being opposed on principle TO
anything
emphnticany approve OF the
publication Of campaign expenses
after the election, whether provided
for by law or not
riman where I thought he had broken
the Jaw, I yet hcsitated TO do him JUS
ticc where I thought the facts required
that justice should be done him. In OK
actly the same way I have acted and
shall act as regards the Steel Corpora
ton.
Trust Man for Bryan.
You ask me to name q single official
connected with a law-defying corpora
ton who has declared or VIII declare
that he IS supporting you. In St
Louis paper which reaches me at the
same time that the papers containing
this published letter OF yours, 1 find a
statement from Judge Henry S. Priest,
attorney for the Waters-Pierce oil Com
pany. the Western subsidiary or repre-
sentative OF the Standard OH Company,
in which he announces that he is for
lIeves Bryan viii be elected
In response TO the question as 70
whether he could quote any Of the
Standard OIL magnates as feeling that
way. he answered:
% I did not say I saw any Of the ofIi-
cials OF the Standard on Company I
am giving you what I found was the
drift OF opinion among well-posted pol
iticians, as well as bankers /
fErh
They have not proved anything on him.
have theyT
THE newspaper clipping goes on TO
say that Judge Priest was one OF the
lawyers who fought Attorney General
Hadlev in the States custer suit against
the Waters-Plerce and Republic OIL
companies. His legal practice Is chiefly
with the big corporations and his firm
IS counsel for the United Railways
Company and the North American in
terests IN St Louis Judge Priest is
credited with originating the phrase,
Bribery IS a conventional OHeuse,
which he used IN an argument at the
trial OF R. NJ Snydc-. the Kansas City
millionaire. now dead
You say that the trust maynateS
know their own interests and are SUP
porting Judge TAFT So far as their IN
terests are simply the interests Of the
business community, and especially OF
the wage-workers, believe they viii
support Judge TAFT So far as they
them more important than the general
business welfare. I believe they will
support you
Recalls 1896.
Il base This belief upon what hap
pened IN 1896. Your success then would,
IN my belief. have been q calamity for
the country from the standpoint Of the
welfare Of the business men, farmers.
and workingnen. just as, iE my belief,
your success now would be q calamity
TO the country, both from the stand
point Of business (aHd especially Of the
interests OF the W ge-WOrker) and from
the standpoint Of morals.
"One OF your supporters, the New
York World, IN February last printed a
list Of contributions TO your campaign
funds OF 1886. containing the names OF
individuals and corporations owning sill
yer mines, who made contributions 20
the aggregate amount OF $26S,OQO. ore OF
these contributions being OF Sl5J,gJO and
another Of $1,000. &c. &c
Now all the great financial maBnate5
who then contributed TO your campaign
fund would have preferred business
prosperity 10 business diversity, other
things being equal but they would
rather have had the immense profit that
would have accrued TO them from the
free coinage OF the 5l-Cent dollar than
the smaller profit which would have
accrued to them merely from the gen
eral industrial prosperity OF me country.
Because OF their personal interests,
and against the interest Of the com
munity at large, these trust maSuaJeS
then supported you My belief IL. and
the statement Of Judge Priest quoted
above, and the attitude OF many men
OF large financial interest warrant me
in expressing the belief that those trust
magnates whose fear OF being prose
cuted under the law by Mr. Taft is
greater than their fear of general busi-
ness adversely under you. win support
you, aHd not Mr.. Taft
Hughes Fund Small.
Il now come TO what you have to say
as TO contributions, and here you fur
nish your own answer. You state that
Il appears from the published statement
Of the contributions to Mr.. Hughes
campaign fund for governor two years
ago that various men Of wealth, some
of them connected with big corpora
Jions. whom you name, to the number Of
nine, contributed from $4,000 to $500
apiece.
The amounts you mention as contrib
uted TO Mr.. Hughes are utterly trivial
compared 10 the amounts I have already
mentioned as contributed TO your cam
paign IN 1886. but in my judgment the
amount contributed has nothing what
ever 20 do with the point at issue. The
question was. for instance. whether Mr.
Clarke, of Montana, when he contrib
Uted heavily to your campaign fund, had
a proper motive, and whether you ac-
tions would or would not have been in
fUenced properly or improperly by that
contribution. and the same question
applies TO BIr. Hughes and TO me. In
the case Of Mr. Hughes and myself the
answer is fortunately easy.
In a letter TO the chairman Of my
campaign committee on October 26, lS04,
1 specifically approved Of the conditions
under which the national committee
were accepting contributions, saying
that their acceptance was to be with
the explicit understanding that they
were given ard received with no
thought Of any more obligation on the
part of the national committee or Of
the National Administration than is i'm
piled in the statement that every man
shall receive a square deal, no more and
no less and that this I shall guarantee
him in any event TO the best Of my
aLilItM. !. Il -Lau aLLacrIha En-