Richmond planet., 1908-10-17
(Continued From Last weeI..l }

Continued From Last Week.
Il submit that these proofs should
be sufficient TO show 10 any fair and
uuprejudiced mind that I was never
employed except prior TO 1901. and
that my employment then had no
relation to anything that was i'm con-
fict with my public duties. but had
reference solely TO the reorganization
of the company and fits Ohio affairs.
with which Congress had nothing
whatever TO do.
mir. Hearst. TO create a different
belief. read at St. Louis the follow
ing letter.
900 Broadway.
New York, Feb %, '02.
ITO Hon. ]. b. Foraker. Washing
ton. ID. c.
Dear Senator: Again, my dear
senator. ] venture 10 write YOU a
word regarding the bill introduced
by Senator Jones' OF Arkansas. known
as S. 649,' intended 10 amend the
act TO protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraints and mo-
nopolies. &C.. introduced by him De-
cember 8. IL really seems as though
this bill is very unnecessarily severe.
and even vicious. Is it not much
better to test the application of the
Sherman law instead of resorting 20
n measure of this kind? I hope you
viii feel so about IL. and ] will be
greatly pleased to have a word from
YOU on the subject The bill is, /
believe. still in committee With
evidences of regards. very truly
yours, JOHN ID. ARCHBOLD."
NO TRACE OF SUCH LETTER.
Il have no recollection of having
ever received such a letter, and
most diligent search fails TO disclose
any such letter on my files or any
copy of any answer 10 any such letter
in my letter book. But waving all
that, the letter shows on its face
that Mr.. ArchbOld did not pretend TO
have any right TO address me on any
such subject. except as any citizen
might have done
such requests are of daily occur
renee in the experience of every SEN
ator. II / ever received such let
ter, my inability 10 find IL or to find
any answer TO it is doubtless due to
the fact that / simply referred it to
the judiciary committee for consid-
GRAFTON in connection with the bill.
Such is the usual practice; particu-
ularly is it the usual practice of a
senator to make such reference to
such letters 10 committees of which
he is not "A member, and l know of
no reason why | should not have fol-
lowed such practice in this instance;
neither do / know of any other way
to explain my inability to find the
letter or answer to il, if / ever re-
ceived il.
The record shows that the bill
was never acted upon in the COM
mittee. Senator Hoar was at that
time chairman of the judiciary COM
mittee. He had with him on the
committee such associates as Senator
Platt, of Connecticut; Senator Fair
banks, Senator Nelson, and other
men of the highest character, to no
one of whom would any member of
the Senate or anybody else think of
making a suggestion of killing a bill
or to consider il in any manner ex-
cept only upon its merits.
EXPLAINS HIS LETTERS.
'I would not deem it necessary to
make any explanation of the receipt
OF such a letter If il were not that
MT. Hearst IN reading this letter
coupled it with the following letter:
"26 Broadway,
New York, Jan. 27, '02.
My Dear Senator: Responding to
your favor of the 25th, it gives me
pleasure to hand you herewith GER
tificate OF deposit for $4,000, in ac-
cordaDce with our understanding
Your letter states the conditions cor !
rectly, and / trust that the transac-
tion will be successfully consummat- |
ed. Yours, very truly.
JOHN d. ARCHBOLD.
Mr.. Hearst accompanied the read |,
ing of these two laffara fooefhar