The Washington herald., 1912-10-13
Clapp Senate Committee Rakes Over
Old Bones, but Produces
Little that h New.
CONNECTION OF 'B1G
BUsMEsS' IS SHOWN
Efforts TO Get Campaign Material
for Respective Parties
Are Futile.
BY JOSEPH p. AMIN.

"u2t IL al aDOuts what are they try
Ing to get at?
This question is p>-haps the best mean,
OF describing the site Of mind the ma.
1ority Of those who have followed the
hearings Of the Clapp investigating com.
mittee for the past two weeks find them.
selves in. 1t Is as clear as Pittsburg-
just about.
To answer the first part OF the ques.
ton. it il about campaign contributions,
supposedly. What they are tying to
get at is the greatest amount Of good
campaign material at the expense of the
other fellow. What have they gotten!
Partial and very unsatisfactory figures on
some OF the campaign funds Of Taft and
Roosevelt.
The real object of the investigation. as
Tar as the resolution authorizing II welt.
was to learn If possible what part big
business has taken in recent political
fights through contributions OF large
sums Of money to the various candidates.
and what big business has received in
return in the shape Of favorable legisla-
tion and policies. Without unjust dis
paragement to the committee, 1t can be
said truthfully that they are just about
as far from their ostensible goal as when
the investigation started. lot Of old
bones have been raked over. lot of
unkind things said by and about the diff
charges touched on, and neither COM
pletely disproven or partially proven.
As for figures, this is what has been
established pretty well:
Figures in Case.
In the 1904 Presidential campaign the
first fight into which the committee is
authorized to probe. the Republican
fund, totaling se,aSS, ,53S57, was con-
tributed to the extent of 73ls per cent by
big corporations. Among the larger
mites turned in We're 500. 900. each from
John d. Archbold. vice president of the
Standard Oil Company: J. Pierpont Nor
gan, H. c. Frick. the steel magnate.
and George ]. Gould, the railroad and
traction king: s500C0 each from H. Nick.
Twombly, OF the New York Central Sys-
tenn; Z. H. Hartman. Of the Union and
Southern Pacific systems: ]. Pierpont
Morgan, and possibly w. X. Vanderbilt,
also of the New York Central.
For the same fight the Democrats be-
hind Alton B. Parker claim to have col
lected and disbursed only $24s. .5S7.55. None
of the names of contributors TO this fund
has been brought out.
In 1908. the first campaign after the
law prohibiting contributions by big cor
porations went into effect. the Repub-
licans limped along on sl,6s5,5ls. to which
pile Charles P. Taft. brother of the
President, contributed sl5s. 1880 net.
having given nearly twice that amount,
and received a refund of the balance at
the conclusion of the campaign. ]. P.
Morgan contributed $4,000 to this
amount.
The Democrats in 1905. under the lead
ership Of Bryan, gathered together about
s620, SAT- to lose with.
The figures SO far developed for the
preconvention campaign of 1912-which
ha Taf PnnSevalt
Wilson hgures-are just about as salts
factory as a pipe without tobacco. Just
enough has been learned to show that
vast sums were spent in arousing spon-
taneous enthusiasm for Taft and Roose-
relt-nothing has been learned about
the Wilson expenditures as yet-and to
indicate that the moneys expended from
the various national headquarters was
not the greatest part of the total. With
the exception of three States in the Taft
campaign-New York (parO. Ohio, and
Illinois and a like number in the
Roosevelt cause-Pennsylvania, Massa-
chusetts, and Ohio-nothing has been
learned as to the amounts raised in the
various Commonwealth and expended
without the direct knowledge of the ma
tional committees.
Charles r. Taft's Donation.
Representative William B. Mckinley,
who managed the Taft bureau during
the preconvention fight, received and
distributed between So65OCO and $500 600.
OF this amount, $780, U0C0 was given by
the Taft family, Charles P. Taft him
self sending $125.000 to the fund; SIS coo
each by Andrew Carnegie, John Hays
Hammond, and E. T. Stotesbury, of
Philadelphia, and the balance distributed
among perhaps twenty other friends of
Mr
pretend to remember all the contribu- |
tors, as he had made no permanent list |
The national fund for Roosevelt was |
divided between and expended by Sen
ator Joseph n. Dixon, the Roosevelt
manager and director Of the WASHINGTON |
bureau. and E. H. Hooker, Of New York. |
treasurer of the provisional committee.
MI: Hooker received and expended
HA.s3o.l. and Dixon about $4,000, the
latter, like Mckinley. having kept no
record OF his receipts To this. fund Dan
R Hanna. Of Cleveland; Frank Munsey
and George W. Perkins, of the Har-
vestee Trust. were the strongest con-
tributors. 4unsey gave $4,000; Perkins.
$4,000. and Hanna, $4,000
While the contributions to the Taft
national fund constitute the princinaI
part Of the total which testimony be-
fore the committee so far has rolled up.
contributions to the Roosevelt cause in
Pennsylvania by William Finn, ana
Ohio. by Dan r. Hanna, add very ma
terialiy to the Roosevelt total. In ad
dition to the $4,000 sent the national
provision committee, Hanna contributed
$127.0o0 in Ohio. Of which amount about
10000 is charged against the Roosevelt
cause as having been used directly in
the election of Roosevelt delegates and
the remainder. ZOO. is set down as
having been used in the fight to over
turn the old Republican machine there.
In Pennsylvania, Finn gave $4,000 for
the election Of Roosevelt delegates, and
about $4,000 additional to overturn the
Penrose machine in the Keystone State.
In addition to the $125.00o he gave toi
the Taft bureau in Washington, Charles
p. Taft contributed S64,sO0 in Ohio. and
ts.7s2 in various other quarters.
Other State Figures.
The other State figures which have
been brought out are $4,000 raised in and
about New York County for Taft; $25,-
300 raised in Illinois for Taft, and 81.
~ In Massachusetts for Roosevelt. Inl
some quarters the 100000 which Thomasl
". Lawson is alleged to have boasted
he expended for advertising the Roose-
velt cause Is get down against the
colonel. but in view Of history, It would
seem to be fairer to place that against