The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-09-28
REPLY TO BRYAN.
Ccontinued from Page one.)

|
caused as slight as possible. You
/ would better understand the principle
i on which I acted il you would rid
/ yourself of the idea that l am trying
! to discriminate for or against any
| man or corporation because he or II is
| either wealthy or not wealthy. 1 re-
| gard such discrimination in either d.
| rectiou as utterly Incompatible Win
I a spirit of honesty and fair dealing
base my distinctions on conduct, not
| on relative wealth. When the same
men who were leaders in the steel
| corporation acted in connection with
| the Northern Securities suit in a man.
ner which 1 regarded as contrary to
| the law. by my direction. successful
| suit was undertaken against them
! II they violate the law in connection
with any act of the steel corporation
I will Immediately proceed against
them. Until they do violate the law
they will be treated precisely as any
other corporation, great or small
which obeys the law, is treated.
Gives an Example.
ct treat each man and each cor
poration with view solely to
whether he or it is acting rightly on
a given occasion. Let me give you
an example. / have proceeded against
the corporation OF which f. H. Harri-
man is the head on certain points
where I believe they have violated the
law. But when. in connection with
the breaking of the Salton sea dam.
one of the Hartman corporations re-
paired the damage, l last winter did
everything I could to have congress
reimburse Mr.. Hartman for so much
of the obligation as 1 felt ought to
come upon the United States.
would hold myself unfit to be, presi-
Hartman where 1 thought he had
broken the law, 1 yet hesitated to
do him justice where 1 thought the
facts required that justice should be
done him. In exactly the same way l
have acted and shall act as regards
the steel corporation.
You ask me to name a single Of
fetal connected with a law defying cor
poration who has declared or Will de-
clare that he is supporting you. In 4
st. Louis, paper which reaches me at
the same time that the papers contain
ing this published letter of yours 1 find
statement from Judge Henry s.
Priest, attorney for the Waters-Pierce
Oil company, the western subsidiary or
representative of the Standard OIL
company. in which he announces he il
for Bryan and states that Wall street
believes Bryan will be elected In re-
Spouse to the question whether he
could quote any of the Standard Oil
magnate' feeling that way he an
swered:
1 did not say l saw any of the Of
ficials of the Standard Oil company. l
am giving you what 1 found was the
drift of opinion among we'll posted
politicians as we'll as bankers. l guess
Governor Haskell is all right. They
have not proved anything on him, have
they2'
THE newspaper clipping goes on to
say that Judge Priest was one of the
lawyers who fought Hadley in the
states custer suit against the Waters
Pierce 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 interest in St.
Louis. Judge Priest is credited with
originating the phrase: Bribery is a
conventional offense,' which he used in
an argument at the trial of r. Nj.
Snyder. the Kansas City millionaire.
now dead.
Goes Back to 1895
you say that the trust magnates
know their own interests and are sup
porting Judge Taft. SO far as their
interests are simply interests of the
business community. and especially of
the wage workers, I believe they viii
support Judge Taft. So far as they
have special interests which are to
them more important than the general
business welfare l believe they will
support you. 1 base this belief upon
what happened in 1896. Your success
then would, in my belief, have been a
calamity for the country from the
standpoint of the welfare of the bust
ness men. farmers and workngmen,
lust as in my belief. your success
would be a calamity to the country
because from the standpoint of bust
ness land especially of the interests
of the wage worker) and from the
standpoint of morals. One of your sup
porters. the New York World. in Feb
ruary last printed a list of contribu
tions to your campaign fund of 1895
containing the names of individuals
and corporations owning silver mines
of $22S. 900, one of these contributions
being of $3.50 900 and another of $4,000,
etc. Now, all the great financial mag
mates who then contributed to your
campaign fund would have preferred
business prosperity to business -adver-
sity other things being equal, but they
would rather have had the immense
profit that would have accrued to them
from the free coinage of so cent dollars
than the smaller profit which would
have accrued to them merely from the
general industrial prosperity of the
country. Because of their personal in
terests and against the interest Of the
community at large these trust mag
mates then supported you. My belief
is and the statement of Judge Priest,
quoted above, and the attitude of many
men of large financial interest warrant
me in saying 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 bust
ness adversely under you will support
you and not Mr.. Taft.
Defends Hughes.
81 now come to what you have to
say as to contributions and here YOU
furnish your own answer. You state
that ii appears from the published
statement of the contributions to Mr..
Hughes for governor two years ago
that various men of wealth, some of
them connected with big corporations
whom you name to the number of
nine, contributed from $4,000 to $780,
900 apiece. You ask would the fact
that these gentlemen contributed to
his campaign fund strengthen or
weaken his testimony against the rea-