New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-04-26
'CALLS HARVESTER
CHARGE NONSENSE
0niinued from first page.

simply have done the best we could with
the small force at our disposal
Mr.. Smith II! a subsequent letter says:
No report of any sort OF the lnterna-
uonal Harvester Company was prepared by
TINS bureau during your administration. Al
the time you went out of office the bureau
had done less than 10 per cent OF the work
necessary to make even a partial report on
trus subject Consequently, OF course. no
report or any part thereof on Harvester had
Deen written or drafted at that time by the
bureau OF Corporations. never received
rom you any instructions in regard to any
such report except orders intended to faCili-
tate IT'S preparation and publication
As In Every Case Of the Kind.
Mr. Perkins and Commissioner Smith
called upon me in reference 10 the Har-
Vester trust matter at about the same
ume. | submitted all the papers handed
10 me by Mr.. Perkins TO the Attorney Cen
etaI ana asked Commissioner Smith To see
the Attorney General himself, and ! asked
the Attorney General not TO take up the
case until he had seen me. This was the
IequeSt Invariably made in every case of
the KIND. While | was here / expected each
OF my cabinet officers TO keep me in touch
with every important matter in his office
ana assumed full responsibility for what
was done. In many scores OF cases men Of
every Qescription-truSt mdgnates, labor
leaders. public officials. private citizens
came to me when action either had been
taken or the possibility OF taking it was
pending, in cases in which they were in
terested, and asked that / look into the
case personally before permitting the action
to go on. In all such cases, unless ] was
already thoroughly familiar with the facts,
| wrote TO whatever department was con-
Cerned. or verbally notified its head. TO
bring the case before me, and not to come
10 a decision upon the matter until after
consultation with me. Dozens Of letters TO
tins effect from me must be on file in the
various departments, and i'm addition 10
these dozens OF letters there must have
been scores Of other cases in which ! made
the request orally, often BY telephone,
where no written record exists. Among
other cases, for instance, remember thus
seeing Mr.. Pierpont Morgan AT the time
that we We're beginning the Northern Sc
Curlues suit against him, and Mr.. Hill and
others, and ] saw a number OF representa-
tivcs Of the Standard Oil people on several
diHerent occasions AT the time that we
began the suit against the Standard Oil
Company. ] saw various labor leaders at
the time Of the proceedings against Meyer
and Haywood; again and again saw men
III cases that were pending, or that were
about TO be begun, in the Department OF
the Interior, in the Treasury Department
and IN the Attorney Generals office. In
this Harvester trust case ] acted pre-
cisely as ! acted I'm all the other cases and
az under like circumstances l should al
ways act. and any other action would have
been grossly improper.
Says Taft Concurred.
In this case the Attorney General brought
the papers for discussion and final set
tlement at Il Cabinet meeting. Mr. Taft
was one Of the members Of the Cabinet
present on the occasion. The letter OF Mr.
Smith, and II letter OF letters indicating
the approval Of Mr.. Smiths position Dy
Secretary Straus and by Mr.. Lawrence
Murray, were put before the Cabinet and
Mr.. BOnaparte stated what had been done
in the Attorney Generals Office There
was a iulI discussion Of the matter matt, In
was a lawyer took part and one or two
members who We're not lawyers. II was
unanimously agreed that as the investiga-
ton was being conducted by the Commits
siOner OF Corporations, under resolution
Of the Senate, the question Of bringing
suit could not be decided until the inyest-
cation was finished. l assume fun respon-
sibility for this decision, but the entire
Cabinet, including Mr.. Taft heartily con-
cured in il.
The talk about the suppression Of the re-
port is nonsense. The Bureau Of Corpora
tons has never made report on the SUB
iect. The letter OF COMMISSIONS Smith 10
me, protesting against action By the De
partment OF Justice, followed exactly the
same course as was followed with all such
letters that ! received. IT Went 10 the De
partmcnt Of Justice, a copy, ] presume,
being retained in the Bureau OF Corpora
tons. J had no idea, and as matter or
fact never gave a thought 10 whether either
or both Departments would or would not
at any time publish IT, and until this mat
ter came up was ignorant whether or not
II had ever been published presume the
usual custom was observed In each De-
partment.
Let me sum up:
% / took precisely the action In the
Harvester trust case that / took IN all
similar cases
~ am entirely responsible for the action
taken, but IL was taken with the tuI 40
prevail OF the entire Cabinet. including Mr..
Taft. who was then member OF the Cabi-
net.
60 There remained at the time less than
a year and half Of my administrator.
During this time for the reasons given by
Mr. Smith, he was not able TO finish the
report ordered by the Senate. During ms
period. as Mr. Smith writes me- the only
instructions I gave him In regard TO the
rorort were orders intended to facilitate It's
preparation and publication.
Turns Charge on Mr.. Taft.
tD over three years nave elapsed since
Mr. Taft became President During TINS
entire time the letter OF Mr.. Smith has
been i'm the office Of the Attorney General.
ana MIR Taft cannot have forgotten the
debate about II In the Cabinet meeting
when he was member OF ne cabinet. anu
In which he took part. During these three
wears Mr. Taft could at any Time nave
ordered the Attorney General TO proceed
against the Harvester trust without REGARD
10 the report. or have requested the ON
missioner Of Corporations either TO hurry
M the report or to give him the reasons
why il was impossible 10 hurry II ny.
80 Not only did / not suppress any paper
connected with the ease. but ! left every
paper on file either In the Department OF
Justice or in the Bureau or Corporations
and II ANYTHING wrong had been done
ether I'm the way OF omission or cOHfnlS-
sion. the administration had thre" years
and two months I'm which 10 correct the
wrong. ,- ..-,. H.
ie) Mr.. Taft has been over three years IN
tho White House During that period ne
has had ample time either TO publish tho
facts or TO take action against the itar-
yester trust He has taken no actlon eN-
cept that now taken. Ave days before the
Massachusetts primary. a..
"a This matter was brought UP III the
senate on the motion Of Senator Johnson,
yho as a member Of both committees 10
investigate Mr. LOrimcr, has been ms ear
nest supporter and advocate. The clrcuin-
stances under which IL was passed ana re-
snondcd to give ground for the bellef thdt
the pro arranged purpose was 10 SNOW thdt
for some improper reason ] had favored the
Harvester trust and the Morgan inter
ests when under my administration tne
Northern Securities suit was brought
against Mr.. Morgan, J was expecting 10
run and as q matter Of fact ola run lor
President In 1874. When this Harvester
trust matter came up II was certain thdt
I was not going TO run, and Mr.. Taft ex-
nocted to run. and ! expected that he would
run I'm 1906 The action that | took against
Nv Morgan was taken when I personally
was TO pay for any consequences resulting