The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-12-19
SENATOR EXPLAINS LETTERS
 HEARST PUBLISHED
tContipned F'ro,u Page One,

Oht'
 ,->-------~"---~-0-'--- ----|--,-'-'------ their taking papers out, because they were always doing such errands.
 They would be photographed and re- turned. In all they received $3400, be- came bolder and bolder. and went through all the files of correspondence. Mir E1dridge asked them to secure two signatures of MT. Archbold's uncopied and original This they did, MT. Arch bold signing his name in two albums for them. For these two signatures they received S500 When they were finally apprehended they went into hid- ing, fearing arrest for the time being.
 When the storm had blown over they offered their entire batch of remaining letters to MT E1drdge for MT. Hearst for sl5,000. These negotiations finally fell through, except they sold a few Penrose letters for $4000 to repre- sentative of MT. Hearst Upon advice of Winkfield they decided to hold all of the remaining letters for s15,000.
 After the publication of a new batch of their stolen letters had raised such a furore they raised the price to $20,- 900. Becoming in dire straits they sold a few to a representative of Mir. Hearst for $3500 last spring. Negotia- tions have been begun for the sale of the remaining seventy odd.
 MT Foraker first took up the Arch bold letter favoring the nomina ton of Judge Burkett for the bench in Ohio. q was receiving hundreds of letters about whom we should nominate" said MT. Foraker. 'I was supporting Judge Burkett. than whom no more honor- able judge ever lived. I do not believe | ever answered MT. Archbolds letter. I was not influenced in the least by the letter. Another letter asked me to oppose the nomination of Smith Ben nett. l supported Mir Bennett, but he was defeated. I do not believe I ever answered that letter either. You sen- ators know how a person is flooded with mail about convention time"
 Tells of Price Letters
 MT Foraker next took up the let ters from MT. Archbold hostile to ths so-called Price corporation bills in the Ohio legislature.
 T do not remember talking with Senator Hanna but I probably did talk to him." said the witness. q did not know" he added, what was in the bills. Right here l might say that MT. Hearst did not produce here Tues day a scintilla of evidence that has not been produced over and over again ex- cept one letter which he confessed he had in his pocket the night he read the first letters. and which showed that l had returned the $50,000 to thu Standard oil people about which he testified. He concealed that one.
 MT. Foraker, taking up the two cer- tificates for deposit of $25,000 from the Standard oil company for himself, reit- erated the money was for services of at- torneys in Ohio litigation. He said any letter MT. Archbold has written since the Standard oil litigation in Ohio had been just as any one might expect, and as thousands do about legislation that af- fected them. MT. Foraker testified that the S50OOo sent him by Standard Oil of ficials was loan he had requested from several sources to enable him to buy the Ohio State Journal.
 No one ever got ahead of Senator Hanna, and as he wanted the State Jour nal he got it, and l returned the loan myself" said MT Foraker
 The senator with a smile told of his &C., tivity in framing the Elkins interstate commerce act. He said if he had been in the service of the Standard Oil company, q would not have advocated legislation so hostile to my employer" Among the letters produced by Foraker were some written in 1906 when the Standard Oil people sought to retain Senator Foraker in threatened criminal proceedings in Ohio, and in which Senator Foraker de- clined.
 Was Different Matter
 "The employment proposed was differ ent in it's character from that which 1 had previously accepted" witness add ed. 'Instead of being an employment, as the former employment was, to aid the company in complying with the statutes of the commonwealth, it was to be an employment to resist suits and prosecu- tons instituted. l submit these proofs should be sufficient to show to any fair and unprejudiced mind that l was never employed except prior to 1901 and that my tenure then had no relation to any thing that was in conflict with my public duties, but had reference solely to the reorganization of the company and it's Ohio affairs with which Congress had