The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-09-27
BRYAN REPLIES
 TO ROOSEVELT
(Continued From Page One,

| | (Contfnued From Page Onel | writer (although you do not give his name). would hardly feel justified in deciding as promptly as you do on an ex-parte statement without investiga- | tion.
 You present an indictment against our platform declarations on the trust l question. but you do not refer to all | Of the blanks and do not deal justly | with those to which YOU do refer. Our platform declares in favor of the wig orous enforcement of the criminal law | against guilty trust magnates and of- | fcials. Your platform does not con- tain any such demand. Will you say | that your platform is better than ours | in that respect? Our platform de- | mands that corporations beyond a cer- tain size be compelled to sell at the same price in all parts of the country, | due allowance being made for the cost | of transportation. Will YOU deny that Is in the interest of the consumer and in the interest of the smaller compet- itors? We present @ plan under which no corporation will be permitted to | control more than one-half of the total product. It has been stated that the steel company, with your express per- mission, purchased one of its largest rivals and thus obtained control of more than 50 per cent. of the total out put. Will you insist that in permit | ting this. you showed no favor to the monopolistic interest?
 You quote at length from a speech made by Governor Hughes in which he ridicules one of our antitrust reme- dies. Is this the same Governor Hughes who was counted as one of The allies who endeavored to defeat Mir. Taft when, as you insisted, MT. Taft rep resented the 'reformers' of your party, and his opponents the reactfonary ele- ment? Did not Governor Hughes have the support of the New York delega- tion in the convention and is not New York City the home Of many Repuon- cans most conspicuous in their con- nection with the law-deferring corpor- ations? You are certainly aware of the fact that in the statement filed by George R. Sheldon then treasurer of the Republican State Committee two years ago, after MT. Hughes election, it appears that the following contri- buttons were made to the campaign fund:
 Hughes Campaign Fund.
 "J. P. Morgan. $20,00o; John R. Rockefeller, $5,000; Andrew Carnegie. $5, 900; Chas M. Schwab, $2,000; John W. Gates, s2,000; W. P. Corey. $2.- 900; W. Nelson Cromwell. s1.O0o; " F. Havemeyer, $500; B. M. Duke, $500. Several of these men are known to be oTsciaiiv conrected with the trusts. fWould the fact that these. Rentle- men contributed to his campaign fund strengthen OF weaken his testimony against the reasonableness or your antitrust remedyT
 that Governor Hughes in his speech as- sumeJ the role of the critic and not that of the constructive statesman.
 Any one possessing a vivid imagina- tion and a pen can find objections to remedial measures. Lord McCaulaey is quoted as saying that eloquent and learned men could be found to dispute the law of gravity If there were any advantage to be gained, but when
 known abuses are to be cured, an ounce of remedy is worth a pound of fault finding.
 AS you quote from Governor Hughes, take 1t for granted that Mfr. Taft has not yet expressed himself in a satisfactory manner on the subject for you would naturally prefer to quote from the presidential candidate wherever possible
 You say: let us repeat that no law defying corporation has any other reason to fear from you, save what 1t will suffer in the general paralysis of business etc Referring to the last part of the sentence, first, I might question your ability to act as an ex- pert as to panic preventives, since you have one on your hands, but as to your charge that no law w-defying corpora tion has reason to fear the direct ef- feet of antitrust remedies which favor, permit me to suggest that your testimony on this subject Is not con elusive. You are a witness, to be sure but your interest in the result of the election must be taken into considera- L. frrt,S kao
 Common NOtoriety."
 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 1t is matter of common notoriety' that they were conspicuous in the Republican convention and it is equally a matter of common notoriety' that they are supporting your party in this cam paign.
 If you will name a single official connected with a law-defying corpora tion,' monopoly or trust. who has de- clared or will declare that he supports me, will publicly warn him that will enforce against him the present crimi- nal law and will enforce against him also. the laws demanded in the Demo- cratic platform as soon as these laws 
 But, there Is another fact which raises a presumption in favor of our party and against your party. I re- ferred to it in my former letter to you. but you inadvertently overlooked 1t in your reply and the members of your cabinet. called In for consultation. evil dently did not see 1t. I stated that we had not knowingly received dollar from any official connected with a | corporation known as a trust and that any money so received. will be returned as soon as we received knowledge Of the fact. I now remind you that your convention deliberality rejected by vote of to 1 the plank favoring pup licity as to campaign contributions: | Mir. Taft has repudiated the action or the convention and rebuked the mem hers of the convention by declaring 1 himself in favor of the publicity law but he favors publicity after election while we favor publicity before the election. Which do you regard as the better plan-to let the people Know before the election what interests are at work or to let them kno" atter the election?
 Pertinent Questions.
 "Are vou willing to say that any nublic interests were served In isV4 bv concealing until after the elections the contributions made to the Repup, lican committee by MT. Hartman ana | those collected by him from others?