Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1912-09-03

coed only when it had become evil
dent that Mr.. Archbold had nothing
to tell me which would give any
warrant for directing the attorney
general not to act.
During all that time neither Mr..
Archbold nor anyone else ever hint
ed to me that the Standard Oil peo-
pie had contributed or that there
was any expectation by any human
being that 1 should show favor to
the Standard Oil.
Moreover, let it be remembered
that long before the campaign of
1904 had had sharp controversy
with Standard Oil, and had shown
them just what they could expect
from me. This was when we were
passing the bureau of corporations
act.
| found out that the Standard Oil
people were opposing the passage Of
the act; that two of their represen-
tatives had come down to Washing
ton to oppose it and that they had
sent kilograms to various senators
and representatives against it. / got
hold of these kilograms, published
some of them and forced the bill
through.
Mr.. Archbold shows his animus in
his rather ludicrous complaint that
darkest Africa never saw anything
like the prosecution of the Standard
Oil corporation by the Roosevelt ad-
ministration" and he proceeds, un-
unwittingly, to pay Garfield and
Smith the highest praise by his bit
, terness to them for their action.
I do not wonder that he feels bit
terly. The action in question dis
closed all kinds Of improper prac-
tees on the part of the Standard OIL
company and colossal series of re-
bates. A stop was put to these re-
bates because of the action of the
people in my administration and
through the action a fine was impos-
ed by Judge Lands on the Standard
Oil company, which if it had not
been reversed by the appellate d.
vision, would really have made that
corporation smart; and even as it
was, it forced them to act properly.
The reading public will readily
recognize the facts herein set forth.
The situation is already Clarity
ing itself. The Standard Oil company
had been for years purchasing i'm
munity from interference through
big campaign contributions. If the
company made the contributions to
the Roosevelt campaign which Mr..
Archbold says It did,, his own testi-
mony proves conclusively that the
favors which he and his friends an
ticipated were not forthcoming. Con-
corning the time when Roosevelt and
the corporation bureau which the
Standard opposed, got busy with the
work of Investigating, Mr.. Archbold
says in his testimony: n.
| went to Mr.. Bliss after President
Roosevelt and some of his bureau
heads began their line of unjust at
lacks upon us, Mr.. Bliss threw up
his hands, said that he saw the at
tacks were unjust, and said that he
sympathized with us, but that he
could do nothing. Mr.. Bliss said that
it was humiliation that he must say
that he had no influence with Mr..
Roosevelt.
mo influence with Roosevelt
Who had no influence with Roose-
velt?, Mr.. Bliss, treasurer of the ma
tional republican committee, when
seeking favors for the Standard Oil
company? This is not Bliss state
ment nor the statement Of any one
defending Roosevelt; it is Archbold's
testimony
Is it to be marveled, under these
circumstances, that Mr.. Archbold
/ has sailed for Europe and that such
excellent papers as the Des Moines
| Register and Leader are coming out
for Roosevelt?