Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, September 29, 1908, Image 1
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.