The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-09-27

these gentlemen contributed to his
campaign fund strengthen or weaken
his testimony against the reasonable
ness of our antitrust remedy?
You cannot have failed to notice
that Governor Hughes in his speech
assumed the role of the critic and not
that of the constructive statesman.
Any one possessing vivid Imagination
and pen can find objections to RENE
dial measures Lord Macaulay is quot
ed as saying that eloquent and learned
men could be found to dispute the law
of gravitation if there were any advan-
tage to be gained by it. But when
known abuses are TO be cured, an
ounce of remedy is worth a pound of
faultfinding.
AS you quote from Governor
Hughes, 1 take it for granted that Mr..
Taft has not yet expressed himself in
satisfactory manner on the subject,
for you would naturally prefer to quote
from the presidential candidate wher-
ever possible.
Sarcastic Shafts.
you say: Let us repeat that no law
defying corporation has any other rea-
son to fear from you save what it will
suffer in the general paralysis Of bus
mess, etc. Referring to the last part
of the sentence first, / might question
your ability to act as an expert as to
panic representatives., since you now
have one on your hands, but as to your
charges that no law-defying corpora
ton has reason to fear the direct eff
feet of the antitrust remedies which
favor, permit me to suggest that your
testimony on this subject is not con-
elusive. You are witness, to be sure,
but your interest in the result of the
election must be taken into cOnsidera
ton in weighing your testimony. There
is better evidence. The trust magnates
know their own interests, and they
are supporting Judge Taft. Not one of
the trust magnates helped to, secure
my nomination, while it is a matter of
common notoriety' that they We're
conspicuous in the Republican conven-
ton, and it is equally matter OF COM
mon notoriety' that they are support
ing your party in this campaign. If
you will name a single official connect
ted with "a law-defying corporation.
monopoly or trust, who has declared or
will declare that he is supporting me,
/ will publicly warn him that I will en-
force against him the present criminal
law, and will enforce against him also
the laws demanded in the Democratic
platform as soon as these laws can be
enacted.
But there is another fact which
raised a presumption In favor of our
party and against your party. I re-
ferred to ii in my former letter to you,
but you inadvertently overlooked it
In your reply, and the members of your
cabinet, called in for consultation, evil
IDENTIFY did not notice it. l stated that
we had not knowingly received a dollar
from any official connected with cor
poration known as a trust. and that
any money so received would be re-
turned as soon as we received knowl-
edge of the fact. 1 now remind you
that your convention deliberately re-
jected, by vote of 9 to l, the plank
favoring publicity as to campaign con-
tributions. Mr.. Taft has repudiated the
action of the convention and rebuked
the members of the convention by de-
claring himself in favor of a publicity
law, but he favors publicity after the
election, while we favor publicity be-
fore election. Which do you regard as
the better plan-to let the people know
before the election what influences are
at work. or to let them know after the
election?
"Are you willing to say that any
public interest was served in 1904 by
concealing until after the election the
contributions made to the Republican
campaign committee by Mr.. Hartman
and those collected by. him from 9TH
ers? Are you willing to say that the
publication before the election of the
contributions then made would have no
effect on the election? AS have said,
we shall publish the names of contribu-
tors above 500. Will you ask your ma
tional committee to publish before the
election the contributions above $100?|
Or, if you regard this as too small q