The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-09-26
FORAKER BOMB
INTENDED FOR
THE TAFT CAMP
Senator Exposes Hypocrisy of
Republican Candidate and
His Sponsor.
EMPTY DINNER PALS
DUE TO THE PRESIDENT
TAFT'S LETTER CERTAIN TO
LOSE HIM VOTES OF SELF
RESPECTING NEGROES.

llnclnndtl, u, sept. 2o.-ln ioiS
and carefully prepared statement,
United States Senator ]. B. Foraker
tonight took up recent charges made
by Mr. Hearst and President Roose-
welt, explaining his temporary connec-
ton with the Standard Oil company.
and discussing the Brownsville incident
and his connection with the rate bill.
The statement says:
The president commences his state
ment connected with the publication of
Judge Tafts letter with a bitter ar
raignment of me because of Mr..
Hearst's charges. which he appears 10
have accepted as fully proven as soon
as made. He does not wait for proof
or explanation, nor accept the same
when it is offered.
Mr. Hearst's charges are not simply
that / was in the employment of the
Standard Oil accompany, and that | was
paid for my services. but that ! was
secretly in that employment for Illegal
purposes, and that the money j re-
ceived was paid as compensation for
improperly influencing legislation by
congress i'm conflict with and in viola
ton of my official duties
He read a number of letters and
made certain comments calculated, If
unanswered or unexplained, to create
the belief that his charges were true.
Employment Never Concealed.
That 1 was employed by the COM
pany was never concealed or denied.
On the contrary, such employment was
well known at the time to all con-
cerned. Only a few days ago eX-Attor-
ney General Monnett, who was pros
ecuting the proceedings against the
Standard Oil company at the time,
stated in a public interview that / told
him al the time that | had been re-
tanned by the company. If employed
and rendering services, presumably /
was compensated.
I'm announcing, therefore, the mere
fact that j was employed by the COM
pany and showing that / received pay
ments on that account, no information
was impaired by Mr.. Hearst and no
offense was established, for it remained
that such employment and payment
might be entirely proper and legiti-
mate.
Explanation Required.
Under all the circumstances. an ex-
PLANTATION was required, and in former
statements l made such explanation by
showing that my employment was con-
fined ORthe affairs of the company in
Ohio, and in its reorganization after
the trust was dissolved by order of
our supreme court, and that my en-
ployment had no relation in the slight
est degree to anything in which the
federal government was then interested
or with respect 10 which the congress
was then legislating, or at that time
proposing to legislate. and that the en-
ployment was ended long before the
he of
special attention in congress, and long
er still before ii was attacked in the
federal courts or proceeded against in
any way by the federal government:
and, further. that the employment was
not to defend the company against
charges of violation of the laws of
Ohio or of the United States or the or
ders of any of the courts. but only to
assist in executing the orders of the
courts, and so recognizing as TO con-
form TO all laws. state and national.
and to fully comply with all the or
ders of the court that had been against
1t.
Complete Defense Claimed.
IF my statements in this behalf are
true, they make a complete defense
against Mr.. Hearst's charges and all
deductions therefrom of improper con-
duct, unless the ethics involved have
been radically changed from what they
have always heretofore been supposed
to be. From the beginning of our gov
eminent senators and congressman
who were lawyers have been regarded
as free to continue the practice of their
profession If they so desired during
their terms of Office in so far as they
might be able to do so without inter-
fering with their public duties: and in
such practice free to take any kind of
employment that was offered. which
did not in any way conflict with their
duties as members OF congress. No
body has ever before been criticised on
such account. The only question has
been as to the character of business a
senator or member of congress was at
liberty to take, and uniformly and uni
versally it has been considered that
Continued on Page II.