The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-23
PENRosE's HOT EXPLANATION

-
, Penrose of Pennsylvania. Of the $4,000
contribution which he received from
Mr.. Archbold of the Standard Oil Com
pany in the political campaign OF 1904
bears every evidence Of truth. Mr.,
Archhold contributed $l25,000 in all
to the Republican campaign fund that
year; 100000 of this went to the Ma
tional Republican Committee, and S25,-
600 Of ii went direct to Mr.. Pen
rose, then chairman Of the State Re.
publican Committee of Pennsylvania.
Senator Penrose explains that this
money was taken for use in The
Pennsylvania campaign by reason OF
the fact that the contributions from
i Pennsylvania had up to that timc been
delivered to the Republican National
Committee, and the State party funds
were depleted, This Is the reason, as
he explained, that this money went to
the Pennsylvania campaign fund.
The Senator's attack upon Mr..
Fliun and Mr.. Van Yalkenburg was
very direct and damaging. But they
can make no complaint about this, be-
cause they themselves began the fight;
but his reply is no less damaging to
them on that account. They have been
assailing him mercilessly for long
time, and their assaults eliminated in
| the publication in the Philadelphia
North American OF a letter (stolen
from private papers five years ago)
frn L. oh hhn1 W.
transmitting a certificate of deposit for
5000, the amount which Senator
Penrose admits he received for the
Pennsylvania campaign. The whole
narrative from Senator Penrose IS
straightforward, detailed, and evident
ly in good faith. He shows how Mr..
Van Valkenburg spent $4,000 to have
libel suit stopped, and how Finn
offered TO pay anywhere from $1,000
900 to $2,000,000 to be appointed SEN
ator on the death of Mr.. Quay, but
that Penrosc would not even consider
the application.
In attempted reply to this, Mr.. Finn
admits that he was candidate for
the appointment, and undertakes to
show that Senator Penrose had no voice
in the appointment of Quay's successor
by Governor Pennypacker, who named
Mr.. Knox, now Secretary Of State, as
such successor. In making this state
ment Mr.. Finn shows that he had a
wrong idea of the political situation in
Pennsylvania at the time that he made
his application to Mr. Penrose, Cor that
he has even a worse one now,) an ap-
plication which he appears to deny, as
he claims that the appointment of Mr..
Knox was made at the dictation Of
Archbold, Frick, Cameron, and Cassat;
that is, the STANDARD Oil and Pennsyl-
vaDia railroad interests. This sort Of
rejoinder made by Mr.. Finn might
have been expected, being merely a
retort, and not an answer. His denial
that he ever applied to Penrose for
support for Senator is absolutely dis
posed of in the letter which Senator
Penrose quoted from Finn to Arch
bold, where his application for help
from Penrose to get this position is
plainly admitted.
Mr.. Van Valkenburg's reply to Sen
ator Penrose is equally Ineffective. 1t
is vituperative, and undertakes to set
forth lot Of matters relating to a
number of libel suits brought against
him: but he in no wise denies the state
ment by Senator Penrose that he set
tied libel suit as stated.
Colonel Roosevelt assumes in his re-
ioinder to Senator Penrose that he has
been attacked. AS a matter Of fact,
be himself has been attacking Senator
Penrose right along as political crook,
and applying to him other opprobrious
epithets. And now, when Senator PEN
rose makes reply, Roosevelt complains
that he is attacked! With regard to
the Archbold contribution Of 100000
to the Republican National campaign
fund in 1904, Colonel Roosevelt con
fines himself TO consideration of the
Standard Oil contribution as reported,
quoting two letters which he wrote in
October, 1904, TO Mr.. Cortelyou, who
was then chairman of the Republi.
can National Committee, these letters
being in fact proof that he knew of
the 100000 contribution. In those
letters he refers to rumor that the
Standard Oil Company had contributed
100000 to "our campaign fund.- and
he requested that this money be re-
turned if the report was true. Reply
ing, Mr.. Cortelyou disclaimed all
knowledge of contribution from the
Standard Oil company; and so the mat
ter dropped.
Mr.. Cortelyou s. testimony on this
point, given last July before the Sen
ate Committee on Privileges and Elec
tions, was that at the time he wrote
his reply TO Colonel Roosevelt he did
not know Of any contribution from any
of the Standard Oil people, but that he
understood later that Mr.. Rogers chad
made some contribution, but The
amount Of it he did not know.
There is clear JnggIery here with
names. Colonel Roosevelt repud,ateC