Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1912-08-27

there had been contribution reache
me, / acted at once, reiterating my dc
mand again and again that the none
should be Immediately returned, If
had been given and being assured b,
! Mr.. Cortelyou that the money had no
been received and would not be re
ceived. Therefore, even on the as
sumption that Mr.. Archbold is tellin,
the truth, his testimony, so far as
am concerned, consists of the repeti
ton Of hearsay assertions which wer'
instantly disproved by the production
| of my letters and kilograms. wish
| to reiterate that until Mr.. Penros'
made his speech never heard it sug
gested that Mr.. Archbold had contri
buted to the campaign or been the
means through which any contribu
lions had been made.
But | do not for one moment be
lieve that Mr.. Archbold's testimony IL
truthful. He apparently possesses
such moral stand that he does not
understand the Infamous accusations
he is making against Mr.. Bliss. Mr.
Bliss is now dead. But during the
seven years that elapsed before Mr.
Bliss death after Mr.. Archbold claims
he made the contribution in question
Mr.. Archbold never brought up any
statement of this kind.
He now says that Mr. Bliss warned
him that he was making serious mis-.
take in not contributing the extra
amount of money and that later on
when the administration began to deal
with the Standard Oil company Mr.
Bliss said 1t would have been differ-
ent if they had done as he asked them.
This is an assertion that Mr.. Bliss
was deliberately trying to blackmail
the Standard Oil into contributing, by
scarcely yelled threats as to what
would happen il they did not con-
tribute, and that Mr.. Bliss in effect
told them afterwards that if they had
contributed the administration would
not have proceeded against them for
violating the law-for this was all the
administration did,
Colonel Roosevelt paid tribute to Mr..
Bliss as an honest man, and declared
he was incapable of conduct such as
Mr.. Archbold imputes to him"
The colonel said he does not believe
Mr.. Bliss made any such remarks to
Mr.. Archbold as Mr.. Archbold says.
He declares that when Mr.. Rogers and
Mr.. Archbold called upon him nothing
was said about campaign contributions
and that the object OF this call was
to protest against any government &C
ton being taken against the Standard
Oil company.
This" the colonel said, was one of
q number of calls Mr. Archbold made
on me to try to prevent action aaginst
the Standard Oil company by the
bureau Of corporations under the de-
partment of the interior and by the
department of justice. If Mr.. Archbold
had really believed that Mr.. Bliss had
told him that / knew of any contribu-
ton by Standard Oil or had felt that
he was jeopardized by having refused
TO make contribution or was entitled
10 immunity for having made one, he
would certainly in one Of those calls
have said as much. He never breach
ed the subject"
MED again and again that the Standard
OIL ever got any rebates or ever did
anything that was not absolutely prop
er. And he would keep on with these
lenials, even when ! would tell him
that I had in my possession reports
from the bureau of corporations and
Inc secretary Of the interior which
showed that the Standard
Oil had been taking rebates on the
largest possible scale"
Battle AGAINST Standard Oil.
Colonel Roosevelt repeated his denial
that Mr.. Bliss ever spoke to him about
skiing or receiving contribution
from any one.
Long before the campaign Of 1904"
Roosevelt said, Il had had sharp run
in with the Standard OIL, and had
shown them just what they could ex-
pect from me. This was when we were
/ found out that the Standard Oh
people were opposing the passage Of
the act; that two of their representa-
tives had come to Washington to OPP
pose it, and that they had sent tele-
grams to various senators and repre-
sentatives against it. l got hold Of
these kilograms, published some OF
them and forced the bill through"
1t was proved by the government,
was guilty Of improper practices and
a colossal series of rebates: that these
rebates were stopped through fine
imposed by Judge Lands, which If 1t
had not been reversed by the appellate
division would really have made that
smart: and even as 1t was,
it forced them to act properly"
1T seems to me that the course of
Mr. Penrose in this matter and the
in Of Mr.. Archbold to testify
bear close analogies, to what In the
New York police situation at this time
would be called frame up. and this
is shown by the questions which Mr..
Archbold is asked and those he is
not asked. He is allowed to testify
about dead mans statement and to
make cruelty unjust assault upon the
character of that dead man, who
believe to- have been one Of the most
honorable and highminded Of gentle
men, but he has not testified anything
about Mr.. Penrose. In that case he
would not be testifying about what he
had done and said about what Mr..
Penrose had done and said. 1t appears
that Mr. Penrose while member of
The industrial commission received the
check Of $4,000 from Mr.. Archbold,
and that he was serving on that COM
mission in a peculiarly confidential re-
Iation to Mr.. Archbold; among the in
stances of his position as Mr.. Arch
bold's representative on the committee
being that he communicated In advance