University of South Carolina Libraries
YORKVILLE ENQUIRER. ISSUED SEMI-WEEELT. l. m. grist's sons. Pnbii?her?. [ % Jumilg ifieirspaper: Jjfor the promotion of the political, Social. Agricultural and Commercial -Interests of the jpeople. {T"K,0'".1 pVVi** 14AVCK established 1855. ? YORK vfLLE S~. C., TUESDAY, SKPTEMBER 29, 1908. NO. 78. GREEK ME] Bryan and Roos Newspaper < POLITICAL LIGHT" Democratic Nominee Rep side?The President Trust Question Get Milwaukee, Wis., September 26.?Defending his knowledge of Governor Haskell against the charges .vhich have been brought against him "until the charges can be examined in some court where"partisanship does not bias," Wm. J. Bryan. Democratic candidate for president, on his way from Madison to j this city, today gave out for publication his reply to President Roosevelt's recent letter in response to his telegram on the subject. Mr. Bryan speaks of the election of Mr. Haskell as governor of Oklahoma, and says that "the constitution was adopted and that Gov ernor Haskell was elected in spite of the efforts.of your administration and in spite of the speech made in Oklahoma by Mr. Taft." Mr. Bryan charged among other things that the Steel Trust, "with your express consent" purchased one of its largest rivals and thus obtained control of more than 50 per cent of the total output. He asks the president if he will insist "that in permitting this you showed less favor to the monopolistic corporations than I do in opposing it?" Mr. Bryan abruptly charges that Governor Hughes, quoted by President Roosevelt as having "riddled the Democratic trust remedy," was himself the beneficiary of the trusts, and cites the campaign contributions to the Hughes election fund two years ago. Among these are J. P. Morgan. J. D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie and Wm. Nelson Cromwell. Pursuing this subject further, Mr. Bryan says that as the president quotes Governor Hughes he takes it for granted that Judge Taft has not expressed himself satisfactorily on the trust question. Mr. Bryan's Letter. The letter of Mr. Bryan is as follows: "Milwaukee. Wis., Sept. 26, 1908. "Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States. Washington, D, C.?Dear Sir: While I have not yet received your letter and shall not until I reach home next week, I have read a copy of it in the press and beg leave to submit the following reply: "Mr. Haskell having voluntarily resigned from the committee that he might be more free to prosecute those who have brought charges against him, I need not discuss the question of his guilt or innocence further than to say that the public service which he has rendered and the vote or connaence which he has received from the people of his own state ought to protect him from condemnation until the charges can be examined in some court where partisanship does not bias, and where campaign exigencies do not compel prejudgment. I would not deem it necessary to address you further but for the fact that you seize upon the charges and attempt to make political capital out of them. You even charge that my connection with Mr. Haskell's selection as a member of the resolutions committee and as treasurer of the commit- | tee raises a question as to my sincerity as an opponent of trusts and monopolies. As an individual and as the candidate of my party, I resent the charge anr repel the insinuation. I have been in public life for eighteen years and I have been sufficiently conspicuous to make my conduct a matter of public Interests. I have passed through two presidential campaigns in which party feeling ran high and epithet was exhausted. I have no hesitation in saying you cannot find an act. a word or a thought of mine to justify partisan charge. High Tribute to Haskell. "I had never been informed of any charge that had been made against Mr. Haskell connecting him with the Standard Oil company or with any other trust. I had known him as a leader in the constitutional convention of Oklahoma. and had known him as one of trie men principally responsioie ior me excellent constitution which has since been adopted?and adopted by a majority of over one hundred thousand, seventy thousand of which was furnished by Republicans. I had known of his election to the governorship of that great young state by a majority of some thirty thousand. I had known that the constitution was adopted and that Governor Haskell was elected in spite of the efforts of your administration and in spite of the speeches made in Oklahoma by Mr. Taft. "You say that it was a matter of o?mmnn nntnriofv that Mr. Haskell Was connected with the Standard Oil company. I have a right to assume that if so serious an objection had existed to Mr. Haskell's election and had been a matter of common notoriety in Ohio, as you say. Judge Taft would have felt it his conscientious duty to warn the people when he spoke in Oklahoma. If he did not have the knowledge, why can it be assumed that I had it? And. if he had it. how can you excuse his failure to communicate the information to the people of Oklahoma? "If you feel it your patriotic duty to denounce Mr. Haskell when he is only a member of the national organization, how much more would Mr. Taft have felt it his patriotic duty to denounce Mr. Haskell when he was aspiring to be the chief executive of a great nation? Knew of No Suit. "I could have no knowledge of the suit to which you refer when he was appointed chairman of the resolutions committee of the Democratic national convention, because the suit was begun while he was at Denver and. as a matter of fact. I did not know anything <?f the nature of the suit until after he was made treasurer of the national committee, and no fair-minded person can decide upon the merits of your charge without an examination of the provisions of the enabling act, passed by a Republican congress and the provisions of a license franchise issued to the oil company by your administration. ETS GREEK. evelt In a Great Controversy. FOR ALL PEOPLE. lies to President's BroadComes Back and the s Thorough Airing. "I need hardly refer to the newly found evidence upon which you lay so much stress, viz., the article In the Outlook of September 5. My attention was never called to that article until I read the published copy of your letter, and while I have great respect for the Outlook, and I suppose I have for the writer, (although you do not give his name.) I would hardly feel justified in deciding as promptly as you do on an ex parte statement without examination. The Truat Question. "You present an indictment against our platform declarations on the trust question, but you do not refer to all of the planks and do not deal Justly with those to which you do refer. Our platform declares in favor of the 'vigorous enforcement of the criminal law against guilty trust magnates and officials,' Your platform does not contain any such demand. Will you say that your platform is better than ours in that respect? Our platform demands that corporations beyond a certain size be compelled to sell at the same price in all parts of the country-, due allowance being made for the cost of transportation. Will you deny that this is in the interest of the consumer and in the interest of the smaller competitors? We present a plan under which no corporation will be permitted to control more than one-half the tota' product. It has been stated that the steel company, with your express consent, purchased one of its largest rivals and thus obtained control of more than 50 per cent of the total output. Will you insist that in permitting this you showed less favor to the monopolistic corporations than I do in opposing it? Steel Men Helped Hughes. "You quote at length from a speech made by Governor Hughes, ^n which he ridicules one of our anti-trust remedies Is this the same Governor Hughes who was counted as one of the 'allies' who endeavored to defeat Mr. Taft when, as you Insisted. Mr. Taft represented the 'reformers' of your part" and his opponents the reactionary element? Did not Gov. Hughes have the support of the New York delegation in the convention, and is not New York city the home of many of the Republicans most conspicuous in their connection with the law defying corporations? You are certainly aware of the fact that in the statement filed by George R. Sheldon, then treasurer of the Republican state committee, two years ago, after Mr. Hughes's election, it appears that the following contributions were made to the campaign fund: J. P. Morgan, $20,000; John D. Rockefeller, $5,000: Andrew Carnegie, $5,000; Chas. M. Schwab, $2,000; John W. Gates. $5,000; W. E. Corey, $2,000; W. Nelson Cromwell, $1,000: W. F. Havemyer, $800; B. M. Duke, $500. Several of these men are known to be officially connected with the trusts. "Would the fact that these gentlemen contributed to his campaign fund strengthen or weaken his testimony against the reasonableness of our antitrust remedy? Hughes a Fault Finder. "You cannot have failed to notice that Governor Hughes in his speech assumed the role of the critic, and not that of the constructive statesman. Any one possessing a vivid imagination and a pen can find objec tions to remedial measures. Lord Macaulay Is quoted as saying that eloquent and learned men could be found to dispute the law of gravitation If there were any advantage to be gained by It. But when 'known abuses' are to be cured, an ounce of remedy is worth a pound of fault finding. "As you quote from Governor Hughes, I take it for granted that Mr. Taft has not yet expressed himself In a satisfactory manner on the subject, for you would naturally prefer to quote from the presidential candidate wherever possible. You say: 'Let us repeat that no law defying corporation has any other reason to fear from you save what it will suffer in the general paralysis of business,' etc. Trusts Supporting Taft. "Referring to the last part of the sentence first. I might question your ability to act as an expert as to panic preventives, since you now have one on your hands, but as to your charge that no law defying corporation has reason to fear the direct effect of the anti-trust remedies which I favor, permit me to suggest that your testimony on this subject is not conclusive. You are a witness, to be sure, but your interest in the result of the election must be taken into consideration in weighing your testimony. There is better evidence. The trust magnates know their own interests, and they are supporting Judge Taft. Not one of the trust magnates helped to secure njy nomination, while it is a matter of 'common notoriety' that they were conspicuous in the Republican convention, and it is equally common notoriety that they are supporting your party in this campaign. If you will name a single official connected with 'a law defying corporation' monoply or trust who has declared or will declare that he is supporting me. I will publicly warn him that I will enforce against him the present criminal law, and will also enforce against him also the laws demanded in the Democratic platform as soon as the laws can be enacted. Campaign Publicity. "But there Is another fact which raises a presumption in favor of our party and against your party. I referred to it in my former letter to you. but you Inadvertently overlooked it in your reply, and the members of your cabinet called in for consultation. evidently did not notice it. I stated that we had not knowingly received a dollar from any of those connected with a corporation known as a trust, and that any money so received would be returned as soon as we re reived knowledge of the fact. I now remind you that your convention deliberately rejected by a vote of 9 to 1 the plank favoring publicity as to campaign contributions. Mr. Taft has repudiated the action of the convention and rebuked the members of the convention by declaring himself in favor of a publicity law. but he favors publicity after the election, while we favor publicity before the election. Which do you regard as the better plan?to let the people know before the election what Influences are at work or to let them know after the election ? "Are you willing to say that any public interest was served in 1904 by concealing until after the election the contributions made to the Republican campaign fund by Mr. Harriman and those collected by him from others? "Are you willing to say that the publication before election of the contributions then made would have had no effecft on the election? As I have said, we shall publish the names of contributors above $100. Will you ask your national committee to publish before the election the contributions above $100? Or if you regard this as too small a sum, the contributions above a thousand dollars, or if this is also too small, the contributions above $10,000? If not, what what reason can you give to the public for not doing so? I insist that our willingness to let the public know the sources from which we receive contributions raises a presumption in our favor that must be overcome before you can ask the people to accept your statement that the law defying corporations have no more to fear from Republican success than from a Democratic victory. Bryan at Good as Taft. "In conclusion, you say that you ask support for Mr. Taft 'because he stands for the moral uplift of the nation; because his deeds have made good his words,' and because the policies to which he is committed are as Immeasurable consequence alike to the honor and the interests of the whole American people. I dare to compare my efforts for the moral uplifting of the nation with his efforts; my deeds with his deeds, and the pol iqies to which I am committed with the policies to which he is committed, and more than that, if I may assume that he will follow in your footsteps, I dare to compare my ideal of the presidency with his. I do not regard it as proper for the president to use his prestige, his influence or his patronage to aid one member of his party as against another who aspires to office. and I regard it as a violation of the obligation that the president owes to the whole people to use an office that belongs to the whole people as a party asset for the advancement of a personal friend and a political protege. Believing that the president should not be tempted to use that power for his own advantage, and It is equally repugnant to the spirit of our Institutions that he should use it for any one else's advantage?I tried to secure an amendment to the Constitution limiting the president to a single term and I have announced in three campaigns that if elected, I would not be a candidate for renomlnation. I believe that the occupant of so high an office, with such an enormous power at his command, should be absolutely free to devote himself unselfishly to his country's welfare, and I am sanguine enough to believe that entrust; ed with that power, I would be able to make my administration so successful, that the members of my par ty cou'd, without interference from me. select the one most worthy to carry on the work begun by me?so successful that the administration would speak for itself, and that it would not be necessary for me to defend it in bulletins or pronunciamentos, I think I could, in this way, give to the members of the opposite party as well as to the members of my own party, a 'square deal.' Very truly yours, "W. J. Bryan." Mr. Roosevelt In Reply. Washington, Sept. 27. ? President Roosevelt late tonight made reply to William J. Bryan's recent speech in which he maintained that the Democratic party and platform were not getting a "square deal" in the campaign that the president's professions of fair treatment entitled them to. Mr. Roosevelt's reply deals particularly with Mr. Bryan's assertion that the administration has been neither sincere nor effective in the prosecution of trusts. Mr. Roosevelt combats this charge with characteristic emphasis, and sets forth in detail what has been done under his direction toward curbing the tendency of capital to centralize with a view to destroying competition. The president's letter in part follows: Text of the Letter. Dear Sir: I have seen your letter published in this morning's papers. As to most of what you say about me personally I do not regard any answer as necessary. When you say that I am unfair to your platform you reiterate certain opinions as to which I had quoted, with my hearty approval. Governor Hughes in my first letter: and, these, therefore, it is also unnecessary to answer. You have not answered the Hughes speech; and in my judgment you do well not to make the attempt. You say that your platform declares in favor of the vigorous enforcement of the law against guilty trust magnates and officials, and that the platform upon which Mr. Taft stands makes no such declaration. It was not necessary. That platform approved the policies of this rdministration and promised to continue them; and here, as usual, I have only to compare your works with the deeds of the administration and of Mr. Taft. You merely promise in your platform that you intend to do just what this administration has actually done and is doing. Deeds and Words Contrasted. To show the difference between deeds and words I will compare the record of this administration with the record of one of your most prominent support , ers at the moment, Mr. Olney, attorney general under the last Democratic ad, ministration. While Mr. Olney was attorney general no cases whatever were brought, under the anti-trust law, against combinations of capital, the only new cases which he brought be. ing directed against combinations of workingmen. During that entire administration the only cases brought against combinations of capital under the anti-trust act were four in number, two of which were unsuccessful; one of the other two being the case which was decided by Judge Taft in favor of the government. Under this administration a mass of such cases has been brought, including the case against the Northern Securities company; against the beef packers; against the Federal Salt company; against the General Paper company; against the Otis and other elevator companies; against the American Tobacco company; against the powder trust: against the Virginia-Carolina Chemical company; against the Standard Oil company and others. What "My Policieg" Have Done. In a number of these cases the government has already succeeded by intnnotinns and otherwise. Some of the cases are now pending. In hardly any Important case against great, lawbreaking corporations has the government yet suffered final defeat. As regards suits to suppress railway abuses, under the last Democratic administration there were no indictments against shippers for receiving rebates or secret rates. Under my administration there have been forty-nine indictments for secret rebates, resulting in eighteen convictions; and in only four cases have these indictments failed. The other twenty-seven cases are still pending. Among the railroads which have been convicted are Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Burlington & Qulncy;. the New York Central: the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul; while scores of cases are still pending against other leading railroads. Among the shippers that have been convicted are some of the greatest corporations in the United States; as, for Instance, the American Sugar company, the aggregate fine actually paid being more than $150,000; Swift & Co.; Armour Packing company; the Cudahy Packing company; Nelson Morris & Co.. each of whom was fined $15,000, and the cases have now been carried to the supreme court. The Standard Oil case Is still pending. This is a record of actual achievement, and beside It mere promises are empty indeed; and they would not be made now with any possibility of performing if it were not for the achievement above recited. The Steel Trust Deal. You state that the steel company, with my express consent, purchased one of Its largest rivals, and thus obtained control of over fifty per cent of the total output. This action of the steel company (which increased its share of the total output by only about four per cent and in no way altered the standing of the company under the law) may have been a violation of your plan, the absurdity of which has been exposed by Governor Hughes, but there was no violation of the law. I was cognizant of the entire transaction. It was not entered into by the steel corporation of its own desire, but solely at the urgent request of the corporation purchased and of the big banks holding more corporations securities, in order to enable them to prevent a crash which would have turned the panic of last fall into the most widespread disaster. I should Indeed have been derelict In my duty if I had not efficiently used all the power of the government, where it could be legally and properly used (as it was in this case) to see that the panic was kept within the smallest possible radius and the damage caused as slight as possible. You would better understand the principle on which I acted if you would rid yourself of the idea that I am trying to discriminate for or against any man or corporation because he or it is either wealthy or not wealthy. I regard such discrimination In either direction as utterly incompatible with a spirit of honesty and fair dealing. I base my distinctions on conduct, not on relative wealth. When the same men who were leaden* in the steel corporation acted in connection with the Northern Securities suit in a manner which I regarded as contrary to the law, by my direction a successful suit was immediately undertaken agalr.st them. If they violate the law in connection with any act of the steel corporation, I will immediately proceed against them. Until they do violate the law they will be treated precisely as any other corporation, great or small, which obeys the law, is treated. Believes In Square Deal. I treat each man and each corporation with a view solely as to whether he or it is acting rightly on a given occasion. Let me give you an example. I have proceeded against the corporations of which Mr. E. H. Harriman is the head on certain points in which I believe they have violated the law. But when in connection with the breaking of the Salton sea dam, one of the Harriman corporations, repaired the dam, I last winter did everything I could to have congress reimburse Mr. Harriman for so much of the obligation as I felt ought to come upon the United States. I would hold myself unfit to be president if I prosecuted Mr. Harriman where I thought he had broken the law and yet hesitated to do him justice where I thought the facts required that justice should be done him. In exactly the same way I have acted and shall act as regards the steel corporation. You ask me to name a single official connected with a law defying corporation who has declared or will declare that he is supporting you. In a St. I.nnis niinpr whirh renrhes mp at the time that the papers containing this published letter of yours I find a statement from Judge Henry S. Priest, attorney for the Waters-Pierce Oil company. the western subsidiary or representative of the Standard Oil company, in which he announces that he is for Bryan and states that Wall street believes that Bryan will be elected. In response to the question as to whether he could quote any of the Standard Oil magnates as feeling that way, he answered: "I did not say I saw any of the officials of the Standard Oil company. I am giving you what I found was the drift of opinion among wellposted politicians as well as bankers. I guess Governor Haskell is all right. They have not proved anything on him, have they?" The newspaper clipping goes on to say that "Judge Priest was one of the lawyers who fought Attorney General Hadley in the state's ous ter suit against the Waters-Pierce and Republic Oil companies. "His legal practice is chiefly with the big corporations and his firm is counsel for the United Railways company and the North American interests in St. Louis." Bryan Idol of Special Interests. You say that the trust magnates know their own interests and are supporting Judge Taft. So far as their |interests are simply the interests of the business community, especially of the wage workers, I believe they will support Judge Taft. So far as they have special interests which are to them more important than the general business welfare, I believe they will support you. I base this belief upon what happened in 1896. Your success then would. In my'belief, have been a calamity for the country from the standpoint of the welfare of the business men, farmers and workingmen, just as, in my belief, your suecess now would be a calamity to the ( country both from the standpoint of j business (and especially of the interests of the wage-earner) and from the ( standpoint of morals. , My belief Is, and the attitude of many men of large financial Interests warrant me In expressing the belief that these trust magnates whose fear of being prosecuted under the law by Taft, Is greater than their fear of general business adversity under you, will support you and not Mr. Taft. As to Contributions. I now come to what you have to say as to contributions, and here you furnish your own answer. You state that it appears from the published statement of the contributions to Mr. Hughes' campaign for governor two years ago that various men of wealth, some of them connected with big corporations whom you name, to the number of nine, contributed from $20,000 to $500 apiece. You ask, 'would the fact that these gentlemen contributed to his campaign fund strengthen or weaken his testimony against the reasonableness of our anti-trust remedy?" And later you continue by asking "Are you willing to say that any public interest was served in 1904 by concealing until after election the contributions made to the Republican campaign committee by Mr. Harriman, and those collected by him from others? Are you willing to say that the publication before the election of the contributions then made would have had no effect on the election?" You then propose to pub llsh the names of contributors before election and ask us to do the same. The amounts you mention as contributed to Mr. Hughes are utterly | trivial as compared to the amounts I have already mentioned as contributor! tn vnnr namnslen in 1895; hut in my Judgment the amount contributed has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. The question was, for instance, whether Mr. Clarke of Montana, when he contributed heavily to your campaign fund, had a proper motive, and whether your action would not have been influenced properly or improperly by that contribution; and the same question applies to Mr. Hughes and to me. In the case of Mr. Hughes and myself the answer is fortunately easy. You have nothing to do but examine our records in the offices to which we were both elected. You either know or ought to have known before writing that not in one instance has Mr. Hughes, as governor, done one thing of any kind, sort or description, for any one of the contributors you mention, or for any other contributor to his fund, which ought not to have been done, and would not have been done if no contribution had been made. Yet you clearly imply that he is and has been improperly influenced by the fact of ] these contributions having been made. Do you consider such an implication J either straightforward or sincere? I A Charge of insincerity. You have quoted the subscription 1 furnished to Governor Hughes as giv- 1 ing reason to distrust Governor Hughes' attitude toward corporations, ' and I am obliged to say that this cannot be sincere on your part for you know well what the governor's atti- ( tude has been throughout his term. ' You quote the subscription of Mr. Harriman to my campaign, although , you know well that it did not inter- . fere with any action taken by me as 1 against Mr. Harriman, and ask if it ' would not have affected the campaign if known. Thereby you have furnish- J ed an excellent reason for refusing to meet your proposal; for you make it evident that to adopt your proposal would give to every man who cared merely for ' partisan success, the chance, by precisely the argument you have now made, to create to more 1 purpose the false impression that you are now seeking to create. Mr. Taft's reputation. Mr. Taft's acts on the bench and in the executive service, show that he could not be swayed in I any shape or way by any considera- | tion save the public interest, and that the fact of any man's contribution or failing to contribute would in any way influence his action any more than it has influenced my action or the action , of Governor Hughes. I emphatically approve ol' the publication of campaign expenses after the election, whether provided for by law or not. | Condemned For Attitude Toward Haskell. I now come to the important part 1 of your letter, your attitude toward , Mr. Haskell. You state that Mr. Haskell has voluntarily resigned from the committee. You speak lightly of the public service he has rendered, and protest against any condemnation of him except such as may come in a court. Out of your own mouth you ' are condemned. You thereby set up < that standard of "law honesty" which has been the bane of this people in endeavoring to get equity and fair deal- ' ing?as they should obtain among high-minded men from great business i corporations, and from individuals , like Mr. Haskell. Apparently you disclaim even asking Mr. Haskell to re- 1 tire from the position in which you placed him. so that he retires of his own free will; ana you utter no wora of condemnation of his gross offenses against public decency and honesty. 1 On the contrary you strive to make it appear that his misconduct in reference to the Standard Oil company Is all of which he Is accused; whereas, shameless as this particular act of his is. it is no worse than countless others of his career. I contrast your action in this case with that of Mr. Taft In reference to Senator Foraker. Mr. Taft's statemert when the question of his nomination was at stake was that he would rather not accept it at the price of sacrificing principle by supporting Mr. Foraker for senator. You do not venture in so much as the slightest possible manner even to censure Mr. Haskell for his manifold misdeeds; and you ask that he be held guiltless of them unless convicted in a court of law; although you well know that as regards the worst of . them no action in a court of law would lie. You ask that we leave the courts to deal with Mr. Haskell. As to some matters the courts have already dealt with him. As to others, various private individuals whom he has wronged. and the United States government on behalf of helpless Indians whom he has wronged, are striving to have the courts to deal with him. pisfrUanfousi grading. CAUSE OF BLOODY MURRAIN. Plausible Explanation of Facts That Have Puzzled Cattle Owners. Written for The Yorkville Enquirer: This disease has existed in South Carolina for several years, and even now causes the annual loss of more cattle than all other cattle diseases. As far back as the oldest inhabitants can remember, it was known that cattle from northern states succumbed to the disease when brought south. This cause was then unknown, but the deaths were attributed to change of climate and food. It has since been shown, however, that these factors had absolutely nothing to do with the outbreaks, which were caused by the "fever tick." After this discovery, the disease was called "tick fever," and is now known by that name. To persons who can remember when every cow carried large numbers of ticks, and yet seemed In perfect health, this assertion seems false, but the seeming contradiction can easily be explained. Before the stock law was passed, cattle ran at large, and practically every animal was Infested with ticks. As a result, the young calves were infested and suffered very mild ittacks of tick fever which rendered them Immune for life. Calves and young cattle under eighteen months of age seldom succumb to the disease: In fact, the attacks are jsually overlooked, owing to their mildness. This Is also true of northern calves, and If they are Imported before they reach the age of eighteen months, they usually survive. Since the passage of the stock law, most of our nlantatlons have become free from ticks, ind the cattle raised there, (never having been exposed to the fever tick), ire as susceptible as northern cattle. A typical example of this was seen it Anderson, S. C., In 1906, when over forty head of cattle died as a direct result of the Importation of one tick} cow from Georgia. This condition of premises In our state accounts for the levere annual loss due to the fever tick, and shows the Importance and lecesslty of eradicating the pest from ">ur state.?M. Ray Powers, State Veterinarian. HASKELL HA8 RESIGNED. Democratic National Treasurer Will Not Embarrass Party. Chicago, Sept. 26.?-Gov. Charles N. Haskell last night resigned as treasurer of the Democratic national committee. His resignation was announced ay himself three hours after his arrival In Chicago from Guthrie, and after he had conferred with officers at the Democratic national headquarters, [n giving out his decision, Gov. Haskell, in response to a question, dejlared that he did not desire to be responsible for any embarrassment vhich might result to the Democratic party by retaining the office of treasurer?? That his resignation is the direct remit of the charges made again.=t him by William R. Hearst and PreslJent Roosevelt, Mr. Haskell also admitted. A.t the same time he did not by his resignation intend to admit that any of the charges were true. When Mr. Haskell arrived in Chicago at 9 o'clock last night he declared that he had not then resigned and that Mr. Bryan had not asked him to resign. Speaking to reporters, he said: "If you have any questions to ask , put them on paper " He then went from the station to Democratic headquarters at the Auditorium Annex. When a list of questions was handed him, he retired to this room, saying he would give out an answer later. He was closeted for a long time with National Committeeman Martin J. Wade of Iowa and Josephus Daniels, chairman of the Democratic press committee. It was midnight when Mr. Haskell reappeared from the room. He had in his hands a written resignation, addressed to National Chairman Norman B. Mack and the answers to the questions which had been given him. "I have my answers," he said, 'they will explain themselves." After giving an affrmative reply to the question whether he had resigned, but denying that Mr. Bryan had asked for the resignation, the questions and answers read as follows: "Do you know whether Mr. Bryan knew of the charges made against you by Mr. Hearst before you were appointed treasurer?" "I do not see how he could have." "Do you think your further connection with the campaign, regardless of the truth or falsity of the charges, would tend to embarrass Mr. Bryan or Injure his chances?" "It might. At any rate I would not be a good citizen if I risked any embarrassment in the fight of the people against the special interests." "Do you intend to reply to President Roosevelt?" "I have not done so yet." "Do you intend to renew your demand for an investigation of the charges?" "How can I? Roosevelt admits he did not tell the truth." In answer to a series of questions as to his relation to the Citizens' alliance, said to have been organized at Muskogee, Okla., to fight the local labor unions, Mr. Haskell denied that the alliance was ever organized. In reply to questions concerning the Standard Oil company he repeated his former denials of ever having had anything to do with the- company. Mr. Bryan is due to arrive in Chicago at 6.47 a. m. today. When he and Mr. Haskell will meet was not officially stated at Democratic headquarters. Mr. Bryan is scheduled to remain here for only two hours before he is to leave for Madison, Wis. The resignation of Gov. Haskell as forwarded to Chairman Mack last night reads: "Hon. Norman E. Mack, Chairman Democratic National Committee, New York city. "My Dear Sir: In pursuance of Information as to your date for return here when I went home before, I assumed I would find you here upon my return today. I now learn that you will be detained In the east until Tuesday and as I must be home Monday I leave tomorrow. "Since the president and his cabinet have Joined forces with Mr. Hearst and three Wall street brokers to make a personal fight against me, notwithstanding the president In his answer to Mr. Bryan's telegram abandoned his charge about Ohio Standard Oil cases, yet by all the means at the comipand of the government and the millions of Hearst and his Wall street allies, they persist In vicious, unwarranted and untruthful attacks on me. Personally, I welcome their attack and shall meet It with all the vigor at my command. I shall treat all as private citizens and subject to the penalties of the law which they merit. "In this I know I shall have the aid of my neighbors at home for all proper purposes, but my time must be free from other demands here. Again my heart Is full of hope for the election of Bryan and Kern. Honest government and rule by the people are at stake and Important beyond any battle at the polls In the last generation Is the pending contest. "I would not for one moment consider remaining In any way connected fK/v nnmmlftoA' thorofnno T horphv tender my resignation as treasurer of the Democratic national committee, that not the slightest contest of my own could In any way be used by the president to cloud the sky and shield our opponents from discussing the real issues and laying bare the Republican duplicity to the people. "Sincerely yours, "C. N. Haskell." HISTORY OF HASKELL. Some Particulars of His Varied Career. The New Yorkfl World of last Friday, gave In a dispatch from Guthrie, Okla., the following account of the career of Mr. Haskell: Charles N. Haskell came to Muskogee, then in Indian Territory, In 1901, from Fayetteville, Ark., and about the same time was at least for a while located in San Antonio, Texas. In defending himself against the attacks of William R. Hearst it Is admitted by Haskell that he was living in New York city when the alleged Standard Oil bribe was offered In Ohio, early in 1898. Between the time he left New York and located In Oklahoma he was for a time In Old Mexico, but that he lived there under the name of Brown is not corroborated. While In Texas he organized the Commercial Telephone company at San Antonio. The company later went into the hands of a receiver and was sold to satisfy claims against It. Coming to Oklahoma, Mr. Haskell, as he had been In Ohio, became prominent Immediately as a railroad promoter. He was president of the Indianola Contracting company, which built, besides various railroads, the Turner hotel at Muskogee, the Indlanola office building, three other business blocks and a $40,000 opera house. Recently Attorneys Bailey & Bailey, of Ottawa, Ohio, began proceedings In Muskogee for the appointment of a receiver for the contracting company, alleging that Haskell was drawing 16,000 a year as general manager. They also have sued him here for $9,900 attorneys' fees in representing him In various suits at Ottawa, his former home, for thirty years. Recently also he was sued for a $1,235.25 board bill for himself and family at the Turner hotel. As to this he declares in an Interview that "a large part of the hotel stock is owned by our family," and that the board was applied on the rent. Last Saturday the city of Muskogee took over the hotel for unpaid taxes. , On coming to Oklahoma, Haskell joined in the movement to organize single statehood for Indian Territory. Through Chief Pleasant Porter, now deceased, of the Creek Indians, Haskell Interested the chiefs of the other Indian tribes in this movement, and the Sequoyah constitutional convention was the result, with Haskell as the guiding star. He practically dictated the constitution drawn by the convention held in Muskogee in 1905. Later, when congress gave Indian Territory and Oklahoma joint statehood, Haskell was sent to the constitutional con ventlon in Guthrie from the Muskogee district. The polling list obtained through the election held in Indian Territory In the Sequoyah constitution was used by Haskell to obtain a mailing list for his newly launched paper, the Muskogee New State Tribune, a personal organ. Through this paper he was able to build up a strong following in old Indis.n Territory, and when the constitutional convention met in Guthrie there were 333 of his former associates there as delegates. With these he was able to control the convention. The prominence he obtained made him governor after one of the most bitter personal campaigns in the southwest's history. He is still under bond for criminal libel resulting from articles appearing in his Muskogee paper during the campaign. Being able to place in the state constitution and also on the statutes many of Bryan's ideas, Bryan made him a confidant in national politics, which later resulted in his selection as chairman of the platform committee at Denver, his declining from Bryan the management of the national campaign, and later his appointment as national Democratic treasurer. He turned down the vice presidential nomination as early as last April. As Governor Haskell obtained a writ of prohibition from the state supreme court to prevent Attorney General Charles J. West from prosecuting the Prairie Oil and Gas company (a Standard concern) for building additional pipe lines in Oklahoma without first domesticating, as required by the constitution. The company was operated with Mr. Haskell's consent when West commenced his suits. The state supreme court recently gave the governor supreme jurisdiction in initiating suits in the name of the state, thus nHAmmr trondro] f\t all Mlircll lllft HIC OUUl lie; [,^.>v>u< ?. power. It is generally understood here that Haskell went from Ohio to New York with Cal Brice. This has never been denied by him, although frequently published. Charles E. N. Coles, who was with Haskell In New York and In railroad promoting deals, was brought here early this year by Haskell and made warden of the state penitentiary. The former business connections between the two have never been revealed. There Is now pending In the Federal court here a suit against Haskell, brought by Cornelius S. Loder, of New York city, to collect $42,235 balance due on a loan of $42,000 obtained by Haskell from the Illinois Steel company In 1898 while promoting the Detroit and Lima Northern. The suit is on a judgment obtained against Haskell in the supreme court of New York county. Haskell in his answer admits borrowing the money, but says the securities In the case are still owned by the company, and not by Loder, and he pleads also the statute of limitation. During the past week in Muskogee, Judgment was rendered against Haskell and Ira L Reeves for $500 for attorney fees du'i H. C. Meacham of Fort Smith, Ark., In obtaining a franchise there for an electric railway promoted by Haskell and others. In June of last year suits were instituted by the government against twenty-eight business men of Muskogee, including Haskell, for the recovery of town lots alleged to have been secured from the Creek Indian nation by fraudulent means. While Haskell was a resident of Muskogee In 1907 the city tax collector mode affidavit that Haskell refused to give a list of property for taxation, 'and that the city officers were compelled to make an arbitrary statement of $1,500, which Haskell permitted to go unchallenged. Former Attorney General Frank 8. Monnett of Ohio, came to Oklahoma City during Haskell's campaign for governor, and on September 12, In the Oklahoma City convention hall, he made a two-hours' speech, in which he said: "Charlie Haskell has -stood In my judicial district first as a young lawyer and then as a contractor. He went up against such men as Calvin Brice and Sam Thomas, and he asked no odds or quarter from them. Haskell never was a politician. Mr. Sheets has said that If I came here I would tell you what occurred in regard to the Standard Oil bribery matter, and I am only too glad to tell It. He has charged Char- v He Haskell, or says that I have charged him, through one Squires, with something which I have ever since tried to give him an opportunity to straighten out. From the very first moment the charge was made Haskell stood ready to straighten it out, but Sheets told you. and the records show, that the case was dismissed before he ever had a chance to testify. The charge was made on the answer of Squires. When they asked him whom he represented he said "Frank Rockefeller and Haskell." We named those Just as he gave them, and the name of Haskell appeared, nasKeu, or Cleveland. "Now, there Is another Haskell In Cleveland. I don't remember his Initials, but his name was Haskell. He lived in that city and he was often there. He was connected with the Rockefeller crowd and It was very easy to confuse the two. Charlie Haskell was not living in Ohio then; he was living In New York, and the moment he heard that the charge was made against him he offered to come back and face the charge; and Charlie Haskell was the only one of the bunch who ever was. Haskell deifflM that he had any connection with that charge, but we didn't get a chance to have him testify, because of the fact that the case was dismissed, and not because he was not ready to come." VIEWS ABOUT CRIMINALS Said to Be Changing, and Likely to Change More. "I think we are going to see a radical change of view during the hext decade on the criminal," said Rev. Dr. James Morton Dodge of Milwaukee. Wis., to a New York Telegram reporter. "Judicial authorities are already inclined to deal very leniently with the criminal. The idea of the indeterminate sentence Is spreading rapidly, but this scheme has Its defects and Its limitations. "One of the serious defects, it seems to me, Is the treatment of all offenders under the same general heading. This is no better than our present system. "We have our penal institutions filled with men and women who represent all classes of criminals. They are serving their sentences in the same way. They are regarded in the same light In the eyes of the law. The man who is behind the bars for his first offense is paying the same penalty as the man who is serving his fourth, fifth or sixth sentence. "They are both to be liberated on the same basis. The habitual or confirmed and hardened criminal returns to his old haunts and takes up with his professional pais in crime. The man who has served his first sentence returns to liberty, possibly intending to live a better life. "These two classes should be separated while they are in prison. Every chance should be given the first offender. Who is strong enough to say he will never sin again? The law should make repeated crime a greater offense than it does at present." A Young Man and His Mother. A young man, a graduate of one of our leading universities, put an end to his life last Tuesday in a Philadelphia lodging house. He had no money and was out of work. A letter found beside his body, addressed to his mother, begged her forgiveness and God's for a wasted life. The news dispatch laconically says, "His mother was informed of his death and is expected from New York tonight." Instead of writing that letter to his mother and giving his wrecked life back to the mercy of God, that young man should have prayed to God and gone home to his mother. He may nave naa no money ana no worn?ne had his mother. As long1 as he had her he had incalculable riches. He may have drifted, vagrant and derelict, down to the gates of hell; her motherlove would follow after him and find him there. Filled with the husks that swine rejected, a tatterdemalion, returning from a far country?she would have welcomed?not the prodigal son, but her son, the son of her loving life and living love. A son may forget that his mother loves him, but his mother does not forget. She will go as far as to the foot of the gallows tree with him, and after that will intercede with heaven. For she went to the very grate of death for him when he came Into the world?and when he comes to die, however shameful In the eyes of man may be his exit from the world, her soul goes with him as he goes, and speaks to God for him. ?Philadelphia Ledger.