New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-08-24
THE ARCHBoLD TESTIMONY.

THE ARCHBoLD TESTIMONY.
Mr.. Archbold testifes that the stand
ard Oil Company did contribute SID
600 to the Roosevelt campaign in i9ot
S1OOOO0 through Cornelius y. Bliss,
treasurer of the national committee,
and subsequently $4,000 through Sen
ator Penrose. He told Mr.. Bliss that
the standard Oil Company wished ITS
contribution to he known. to and ap-
proved by President Roosevelt ana Mr.
Bliss assured him thereafter that Ootn
the President and Mr.. COrtelyou hau
been informed Of it. lie also testi1es
that after the first contribution Mr..
Bliss asked for $4,000 more, made an
appointment to call with Mr.. CorjelIou
mon him. but actually came alone, say
ING that Mr.. COrtelyou did not think 1t
wise to come. but that he was author
lied to speak for the national chair
man. Mr.. Archbold says the standard
Oil people declined to make the second
contribution, were told by Mr.. Bliss
that they were making a mistake ana
soon after felt the pressure of gov
eminent attack. "A year later, Mr..
Arcbbold testified, mir. Rogers and !
spent the evening with President
Roosevelt in the White House. Roose-
welt made no especial reference to our
contribution. but said there had been
'some criticism of campaign contribu-
"tions. but that was to be expected
Mr.. Archbold has not been able TO
Law hand on Mr. Bliss receipt, which
would put the matter beyond all dis
uute We hope that it viii be found
and that the whole subject will be
probed to the bottom. The other
Standard Oil men who can confirm the
fact Of the contribution and relate the
circumstances should he examined.
Pending such confirmation. however.
lhere will b. little disposition to doubt
tie truth of Mr. Archbol'~ statement
that the 100000 Of Standard OIL money
went. as is stated into the Boose-
welt campaign fund through Mr.. Bliss
Mir Roosevelt. however. denies that he
knew Of any such contribution, and so
far there is no proof that he did. Ii Is
perfectly possible that his campaign
managers. being in need of money, got
il where they could without telling him
anything about it, either because they
feared he would disapprove of activi-
ties which they considered essential or
because they wished him 70 be in q
position of innocence and irreSponsi-
bility.
Mr.. ROosevelts letters Of October 2G
and 81, 1904, tend to show his desire TO
be free from Standard Oil entangle-
ments 1t is true that Mr.. ArchbOld's
contribution was made in September,
and the request for a second COntribu-
zion also came, he says, in September,
and Mr.. ROosevelt's rejection Of Stand
ard Oil support was somewhat belated
to accomplish its Ostensible purpose.
Also these letters were written just
after the Democrats had begun the at
tack on the Roosevelt campaign collec-
lions and just as Judge Parker was
taking the stump with the sensational
charges Of corruption and blaCknail
which he was unable to make good.
1t is impossible to doubt that this
sequence will make a strong impression
on the public mind and secure some
credence for the insinuatiOn already in
circulation that Mr. ROOSevelt'S letters
were written. when he knew Of the
Standard Oil contribution and the i'm
possibility of returning it, simply for
the purpose of making a record. No
such conclusion. however, is warranted
by present evidence Mr. ROOSeyelt's
unfortunate habit Of attributing the
worst motives to all who disagree with
him is not one 10 be emulated 1t may
well be that Mr. Rooseyelt'S attention
was never seriously directed TO cam
paign funds and their possible abuse
until almost the end Of his campaign
and that ne then took such action as
seemed sufficient to him TO preserve his
entire independence. In the absence Of
any proof that be knew Of the Archbold
contribution it is not to Re assumed in
the face of his denialS that be did know
Of It and that in 1904 be was and ever
since he has been playing a part Of
elaborate and sustained hypocrisy