The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-09-03

N1SSV4Ne lue 0tdHOaTu VII company
Senator Jonathan Bourne on three or
four occasions brought Mr.. Archbold
into see me. Two letters to Senator
Bourne were written by me after the
first and the last of these interviews.
and explain themselves"
These letters were. in part, as fol-
lows:
"Sagamcre Hill. Feb. %. 1905.
My Dear Senator: As to what you
Standard Oil people: do remember
that while m proposals they make
will be considered in an entirely frank
and honorable spirit. yet these pro-
posals must be conducted on absolute
obedience to the law and must be laid
in detail before the attorney general
and Frank b. kellogg before 1t would
ion upon them. know you UNDER
stand this. but I want you to he sure
that the Standard Oil people do not
misunderstood 1t and do not get the
impression that 1t is by my desire or
on my initiative that negotiations have
been entered into with them by you or
by any one.
Sincerely yours.
-"Theodore Roosevelt"
Oyster Bay. n. Y. July 5. 1905.
My Dear Senator: In my judg-
ment 1t Is not only a waste Of time.
out inadvisable to try to carry on the
negotiations through you as intermedi-
airy. Let the Standard Oil lawyers.
any or all Of them as MIR. Archhold or
Mr.. Rockefeller or any one else may
choose. decide as to the course they
direct with MIR. kellogg or the attor-
ney gencral.
"Sincerely ours
Theodore Roosevelt"
Hearst Letters.
Mr.. Hearst has published much in
'eresting and important correspond.
ence OF the Standard Oil people, es-
pecially Mr.. Archhold. with various
public men. have in time past cri-
he has rendered a public service Of
high Importance; and l hope he will
publish all the letters dealing With this
matter which he has in his possession.
II Mr.. Hearst or anybody else has any
letter from me dealing with Standard
Oil affairs I shall be delighted to have
1t published; and If any one can sug.
gest any question as to n letter 1
have ever written or received on the
subject and will give me the approxi-
mate date. l will at once try to look it
up. and if I can find it will publish it.
Il wish to emphasize the fact that
the testimony OF Mr.. Archbold and
Mr.. Penrose in this matter is an at
tack on Mr.. Bliss. who is dead. and is
also unwittingly he severes. possible
reflection on themselves.
Mr.. Bliss never asked me for a ia
Ncr of any kind. and all his public and
private acts so far as I had knowledge
of them. were on the highest plane Of
Just and honorable dealing. Mr.. Bliss
never even asked me this about the
standard OH company to me. never
heard Mr.. Archbold's name mention
ed in connection with Mr.. Hiss. But a
year or so after the election l heard a
report that Mr.. Bliss had accepted a
contribution from Mr.: Rogers. alleging
as his justification that this was not
money from the Standard Oil COM
pany. but from Mr.. Rogers personally.
Mr.. Rogers being an old friend and
party associate Of his"
Colonel Roosevelt here quotes a
lengthy extract from an interview with
Mr.. Bliss on the Hartmann Roosevelt
controversy. published in the New
York Herald on December "a. 1911,
Bliss a few months before his death.
He follows this with a tribute to Mr..
Bliss for his services to the party in
lrksome. d~isagreeable and laborious
t:sks which bring no rewards, but
" Which 1t :s entirely indispensable to
have DONE" and warmly defends his
character. He then continues:
Archbold Expected Favor.
MI. Archbold's testimony can only
mean that Mr.. Archbold had made
his contribution in the hope Of get
ting some special consideration to
which as a matter Of fact he was not
entitled. that he believed that II he
had made the extra contribution he
would have had this special consid.
Grafton. and that Mr.. Bliss thought
so too.
mfr. Penrose says that he, a mem.
Der Of the national republican COM
mittee and a United States senator,
advised Mr.. Archbold that 1t would
be a mistake for the Standard OIL
company not to contribute. and II
they did not make liberal contrtbu-
tons they might incur hostility in
certain quarters. Surely no more ex-
t~raordinary testimony was ever sub
der the impression that he was ties.
tifying in his own behalf. 1t en-.
bodies a far worse accusation against
him than I ever should have dreamed
Of making.
This language is precisely the lam
guage that might be used by a black
mailing police officer in a big city in
advising the conspirator Of a law
breaking saloon or a gambling house,
to contribute literally because other.
wise he might incur hostility in GER
tain quarters. If this language were
proved against the policeman, he
would be removed from the police
force and as 1t is admitted by the
senator. he should be removed from
the senate.
In concluding. I want to say a
word about my connection with Mr..
Perkins. I have known him about
fourteen years. I have never in my
life. directly or indirectly, asked him
for a contribution, or asked him to
assist me in n shape or way. He
has always assisted me and backed
me up Of his own accord. Until aft
er the statement of Mr.. Penrose in
the senate. I never asked him II. he
had contributed to my campaign
fund at any time, although I was
morally certain that he had done 80.
During the past fourteen years,
as far as I remember. he has but
twice spoken to me of any matters
IN which he was interested. The first
time was at the very beginning Of
our acquaintance. when I was COVER
nor Of New York. He then came to
Albany and protested against my
signing a. certain bill for the limita-
ton Of the aggregate amount of in
surance that an insurance compay
could ssum After Investigation /
came to the conclusion that his pro.
test was just, and refused to sanction
the bill.
o n other occasion he came TO
me to ask that ! consider the report
OF the bureau Of corporations az we'll