The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-25
PLAINLY A "FRAME-UP. "


There can be litt!o doubt in the minds
of practical men (and in his famous
letter to Mr., Hartman, Col. Roosevelt
dwelt upon the fact that he was prac-
teal many that Senator Penrose of
Pennsylvania has the Roosevelt letters
on the Standard Oil contribution in
1904 classified with precision when he
says that they are plainly " frame
up" Judge Parker comedies in this,
putting the case in legal phraseology.
The wording Of them stating that
| no contribution must be received from
the STANDARD Oil Company is really a
give-away Of the whole case, for there
was no proposition for the Standard Oil
| Company, as such, to contribute to the
Roosevelt campaign. On the contrary,
it was fully understood with all con.
cerned that there must not be any such
contribution by the Standard Oil Com
pany, or any of the other great corpo-
rations. 1t was for this reason that
Mr. ArchboId made the ribution of
800, 900 to the Roosevelt campaign
fund in his own name, and not in the
name of the Standard Oil Company.
Doubtless other large corporations con"
tributed in the same way.
In view Of the disclosures and Of the
adroit wording Of the Roosevelt letters
to Mr.. Cortelyou, the Interpretation as
indicated is unavoidable. Col. Roose-
welt evidently knew all about the con-
tribution Of Mr.. Arcbbold. and he
so worded his letter as to make it clear
that be did SO understand, and also to
Justify Mr., Cortelyou as Chairman of
the Republican National Committee in
retaining funds contributed by Mr..
Archbold. but not by the Standard Oil
Company. 1t was rather shallow,
tricky device, and is clearly Ill the ma
ture of what is termed manufacturing
evidence - to meet possible future dis
closures. Besides, the letters were writ
ten at time when Col. Roosevelt must
have known not only Of the receipt
some time before Of the Standard Oil
money, but must have known also that
this money had been distributed and
that its return was impossible. He took
no chances on the return Of that money.
Mr.. Archbold's testimony that Col,
Bliss, treasurer of the National Repub-
lican Committee, told him of the knowl
edge and concurrence of Col. Roosevelt
in this and in the solicitation of other
like contributions, must necessarily be
faI Oh ffo foo
that Col. Roosevelt will make bis pro-
testations and denial at this late day,
and especially is it in vain that he will
bring forward his letters Of October,
1904, as having any real application to
tho case. They were clearly intended
for blind. and to be used precisely as
Roosevelt is now trying to use them;
and his effort now to show that they
had an actual bearing On the situation
and were TO be interpreted as he now
endeavors to interpret them, simply fur
nishes a measure Of his hypocrisy
The Penrosc disclosures stand really
unchallenged, in spite Of Roosevelt 8
furious yituperation and purported de-
mails. Even though Roosevelt should go
upon the stand and deny everything,
his denial could hardly be accepted as
of much value when sized up with the
facts as disclosed. and compared with
the evident calculative designs shown
in the peculiar wording and evasive
phraseology Of the Roosevelt letters
themselves. 1t amounts to nothing for
him to get abusive and denounce every
body concerned as liars, for that is pre-
cisely what any such person as Roose-
welt would be expected to do when
caught, as he has been plainly caught
in the disclosures made by Senator Pen
rose. It is noteworthy also that he now
comes forward with reluctant willing
ness to testify before the committee,
being threatened with a subpoena if he
does not; but his testimony is not likely
| to be Of different character from the
evasive denials which he has already
made, and which are so clearly to be set
aside as in pursuance Of premeditated
scheme Of e1culpation which cannot pos
sibly be effective in view of the Pen