Evening journal., 1916-04-10
DU PONT CO. OFFICIALS DENY
USING INFLUENCE AGAINST
GOVERNMENT NITRATE PLAN

for commercial use the enormous
quantity Of nitric acid that tho United
states Government might require for
military use in times OF war. This
fact makes Il imperative that our
supply should b. made available 20
the United States. Whether other
auxiliary sources Of supply are OBJ
tanned or not is entirely apart from
the concerns OF our company on
this account we have crystalized our
ideas as quickly as possible and have
presented To the secretary OF war. and
at his assent TO the United States
Senate, through Senator salisbury. a
bill, the sole object of which is to
make IL possible for the secretary OF
war I'm conjunction with suitable
board Of engineers TO grant water
power rights for the production OF
nitric acid under certain conditions.
The bill gives 10 our company no
rights that are not open for acquisi-
ton by other citizens and does not
make il mandatory for the secretary
Of war to deal with us or any other
individual; nor does the bill interfere
with the development Of any other
source OF supply of nitric acid
nor with any other project at
hand now or in the future.
As a further safeguard the govern
ment is to have a call for the product
of factories licensed under this bill
either in times Of peace or times OF
war and by the profit allowed to the
manufacture is TO be decided by the
government alone. notwithstanding
these full powers the license is to pro-
vide all funds for construction under
plans TO be approved by government
officials. II is inconceivable that a
supply Of nitric acid could be more
favorably obtained.
You must appreciate that the above
presentation OF our case leaves little
cause for an accusation OF lobbying
that is, for underhanded promotion OF
individual interests. Our Company
has no desire other than to fully ex-
plot the information which IL has In
hand and has no wish to influence the
decision Of question in which it has
no right to interfere.
In closing ] must ask pardon for
making so lengthy an explanation OF
our affairs. 1 have thought It import
ant that you should be relieved Of a
misunderstanding which evidently eX.
lists in your mind. II any further in
formation can be rendered by this
Company we shall cheerfully accept
any calls made upon us.
Very sincerely,
Pierre S. dupont.
President.
His letter OF April is appended:
April 8. 1915.
| Honorable oscar W. Underwood.
United States Senate, Washington
d. c.:
My Dear Sir-Your letter OF April
is greatly appreciated not only because
you have taken the trouble to answer
at length my communication of Apri
1 but also because YOU have treate,
the subject in a way to invite reply
evidently with view to clarifying al
important problem now before tn
I United States.
In replying I must give a few word
in defense Of statements made i'm m.
last letter. viz:
'I regret to take exception TO you
statement on the floor that We hav'
endeavored to influence congressmei
against the Mussel Shoals PROPOSE
tion," and
you must appreciate that tn
above presentation of our case leave
little cause for an accusation of lob
bying' that is for underhanded promo
tion OF individual interests"
May l quote from your speech ap
pearing on pages 5000, 6O21 and 602
Of the Congressional Record Of Marc
I S1st. 1916?
II say, Mr.. President. without tn
expectation Of contradiction. that tina
B provision CSection So Of Bill Nc
! 1890 in the House Bill TO guard thi
country against the danger OF
foreign enemy in time Of war was de
featcd by the Powder Trust, the Re
b publican Party, and certain gentleme
who called themselves conservation
lists.
Il stated that IL was not only tn
Republican Party in the House an
the conservationists who voted agains
this measure. but it met with the OF
position OF the Powder Trust.
NOW, Mr.. President. who is thi
Hudson Maxim? We all know tina
he is a great engineer. great man,
great inventor; but we know anothe
thing. that he is one of the consult
ing engineers Of the dupont Powde
Company. which fought the Hous
provision.
The Powder Trust had othe
agents here acting for them. / wi
not call the names. Il is not necessar,
IL is my understanding that thes
accusations referred to the reiecte
Section 50 Of House Bill No. 12.76l
on reading the Record carefully Sc
that my second quotation refers TO
project which you name THE Coos
Dam proposition" The others do re
fer TO the above mentioned section 8
Of Bill No. 1876 which section ha
, rightly or wrongly been connecte
with the Mussel Shoals proposition
however. with respect TO one or tn
other Of these bills. you accuse =.
dupont de Nemours and Co., Of as
! sisting i'm the defeat OF a measur
/ deemed by YOU desirable.
With reference 10 the accusatio
: Of lobbying" I must confess that thI
, word is not used in the record Of you
{ speech but the quotations that / hay
cited above do constitute such
, charge; most pointedly the expression
b that provision in the House bill {
= guard this country against the dange
Of foreign enemy I'm time of war wa
= defeated by the Powder Trust"
Dl Surely no corporation interested
. the manufacture OF munitions cou
1 accomplish defeat Of so important
S bll without using underhanded {
-