The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-07-25
Controversy Between Editor
and Senator Continued.
Curtis Accuses Editor of DELHI
crate FaIsehOOd.
GARBLED FACTS ON RECORD
Curtis Vote Was Sincere, but
White Twisted Meaning.
Why Doesn't White Keep Out
of the Game?

United States Senator Charles Cur
tbs today made public his reply to the
second attack on his official record by
William Allen White of the Emporia
Gazette. The senior senator charges
the Emporia publisher with a mali
cious Misrepresentation of the record
and deliberately misquoting his stand
on several public questions. Then.
too, Senator Curtis contaminates Bris-
tow and ~ther progreSsiveS with a.
stand with Lorimer, Aldrich and the
old line workers in the senate to whose
interests the record of Curtis was tied
by White.
Insinuations by White that Curtis
was elected by corporation influence,
by contributions from the railroads
and the big public service corpora
tions is branded as absolutely false.
Curtis also hits back at White con-
cerning the vote on the hides tariff
and insists that his vote against free
hides was in the interests of the Kan
sas stock producers and after per-
sonal requests by Thomas Potter. q
rabid reformer, and other prominent
are charged against White and per-
sistent claim is made that the pub
Usher ignorantly or wilfully garbied
the records.
Whites Letter Misleading.
my Dear Mr.. White:-
"I have just read your second let
ter and it is really unfortunate Tor
your friends that you will insist IN
writing about the action of members
of congress and their votes when you
have no knowledge on the subject and
seem to be too dull to understand the
Record when you read 1t. Your sec
ond letter is very misleading and in
many places clearly untrue.
81 am surprised that you should be
so indiscreet as to refer to the vote
49, fo pf6Ct-
ing senators by q direct vote, because
you compel me to show that your
friend voted on both sides on very
important amendment. The Congress
sional Record shows that 1 voted for
the Sutherland amendment and that
Senator Bristow voted against IL. (See
Congressional Record, February z4'
sft further shows that on May IS
1911, when the question was again
presented that Senator Bristow Of
fered the Sutherland amendment (the
one he had voted against in the pre-
yious SESSION. as his own and thls'
too. without change in the language;
and if you will examine the Heco[t
for June 12, 1911, you will md thar
we voted together for the amendment.
So YOU see I voted consistently whlIe wh
senator Bristow voted on potn sloes
of the question. He SAID ourlns 20
last session that he had been con-
x1inced that those of us who had VotSo
for the sutherland amendmeht Msn sS
right. Mr.. White, why can you ,si,,e go
the facts and stop trying to deceNe
tbe neopde as to my votes? 1 nave
voted to elect senators by a o olrecS
vote whenever the question mas e De
up during my service III DO'N
and senate. -. .~oss ~,
tbe fact that Senator Lorimer ana
voted together, you Intentionally Iall
state that he is Repubhcan' ina at
am a Republican, and that on the Votes
etto,oa6 we voted with the Republic
can majority in the senate
No Corporation Money.
s.T was elected as a Republican ana
have voted with my party ana snaI
continue to do so. You insinuate tnaI
/ voted as I did because the corpora
tens contributed to the campaign tuno-
Now desire you to understand that IN
he campaign ten years ago, when was
defeated for the United States Senate
md in the campaign six years ago
.lbe,, was elected to the senate, that
no CORPORATION directly or indirectly
a dollar to my campaign
,und and 1 did not receive a ooliaf
rom either the congressional or the
rational Republican campaign commit
ees in either of the contests, and that
n the present campaign not dollar
las been contributed by any corpora
ion or person. wish you could say
Is much for those you are supporting:
f YOU have the time you might ten
low much money that came from the
Perkins, Morgan, Finn,
Hunsey and Mccormick you have
,pent and are now spending.
when you allege that every railroad
Lttorney in the state supported me you
tnow you state a malicious falsehood-
You made this same false charge six
rears ago. You knew then that IL was
Untrue and know now that it is false
"In my open letter to you a few days
Lgo 1 fully covered the tariff question.
do not intend to go over 1t again ex-
ept to say, that 1 voted with the Re-
majority to get the best bill
possible, while your friend Bristow
'oted against his party one hundred
md one times. would not have re-
erred to Mr.. Bristow if you had not
,rought his name into this controversy.
That Free Hides Bill.
eff you could have read the letters
eceived from the farmers of Kansas
lrging me to vote against free hides
10 not believe you would have called
.ttention to the subject. Hon. Thomas
ootter, of Peabody, Kansas, who came
o Washington to oppose free hides can
ell you of the feeling and also that
stood by the farmers in that contest
did what I could to defeat the free
lides amendment and told the senators
hat free hides would not reduce the
rice of shoes or leather goods and my
has been verified.
You again deliberately attempt to
nislead the people on the income tax
uestion and I again repeat what you
now, but are not fair enough to tell,
hat is that the supreme court declared