Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 2, 1908)
DCTOBHR 2, 1101 The Commoner. 5 FORAKER In July, 1 907, Taft Wrote That He Would Not Compromise With Foraker Because of Foraker's Affiliations and in September, 1908, the Two Men "Harmonized Their Dif ferences" But When the Standard Oil Letters Are Made Public Foraker is Abandoned In his statement printed In the newspapers of Tuesday, September 22, Mr. Roosevelt pre oented a letter, which It Is alleged Mr. Taft wrote on July 20, 1907. The name of the gen tleman to whom this letter was written is not given but Mr. Roosevelt said that it was to one of Mr. Taft's friends in Ohio. In that let ter Mr. Taft said: "I don't care for the presi dency if it has to come by compromise with Senator Foraker;" also: "It is not on my part a question of personal feeling with respect to Senator Foraker. It is really a question of po litical principle." Now that it has been shown to the public that Senator Foraker had dealings with the Standard Oil trust, this July 20, 1907, letter of Mr. Taft's is printed in the hope of persuad ing the American people that Mr. Taft is thor oughly devoted to the public interests. LOOK AT THE RECORD But let us take a look at the record be tween July 20, 1907 tho date upon which it is said Mr. Taft wrote a letter declaring ho would not compromise with Foraker and Tues day, September 22, 1908, the date upon which Mr. Roosevelt made the Taft letter public. Just -twenty days prior to the Roosevelt statement, Taft and Foraker met at Toledo, Ohio, and It was announced that their differ ences were at an end. From that moment un til the Standard Oil letters to Foraker were made public, republican papers were filled with congratulations upon the fact that harmonious relations lmd been established between Foraker and Taft. CONGRATULATIONS ON THE COMPROMISE Some of tho newspaper comments upon tho Taft-Foraker compromise at Toledo, will be in teresting, The Baltimore American (rep.) said that tho settlement of the Taft-Foraker differences "assures such a sweeping majority" as will "over top most likely even the magnificent plur ality which Ohio gave Roosevelt in 1904." Tho Pittsburg Chronicle-Telegraph (rep.) said: "The way is now clear for the rolling up of such a majority for Mr. Taft as Ohio right fully owes to her favorite son." The Chicago Post, however, an independent republican paper, did not become enthusiastic over tho Taft-Foraker settlement. The Post said: "The west will have some difficulty in forgetting that the Ohioan alone of all the re publicans in tho senate voted against railroad rate legislation. It also will have some trouble in washing from the memory recollections of tho fact that pretty nearly everything Mr. Roose velt suggested in the way of legislation was anathematized by Mr. Foraker." The Boston Herald, a Taft organ, printed this illuminating editorial: "The 'reconciliation' between Mr. Taft and Senator Foraker is everywhere commented upon as an incident which will greatly strength-en the republican ticket in Ohio. But 'reconciliation' is hardly the right word. There has been no personal quarrel between these two eminent men, whatever may havo been the caBe with some of their supporters. And there is noth ing new in the announcement that Senator For aker will heartily support the republican ticket. He announced that fact himself months ago when he said that he would abide by whatever decision the Chicago convention might make. He repeated It as soon as the convention had nominated Mr. Taft. One of the first messages of congratulation received by Mr. Taft, imme diately after his nomination, was from Senator Foraker. And no ono who knows the senator ever supposed that he would give less than his hearty and whole support to his party's nominee for the presidency. Matters remain where they wore, with this difference: while Senator For aker yields nothing in the courageous stand he has so long maintained for Independence of thought and action in tho upper chamber Qf congress, and while Mr. Taft, as a candidate for tho presidency, abstains from taking any side on the question of Senator Foraker's re-election, tho public has had an outward, visible demon stration that the presidential candidate and tho senior senator from Ohio understand each other very well, are on cordial terms, and that any idea there may have .been that Mr. Taft would lend himself to tho 'elimination' of Senator For aker is eliminated." That harmony meeting took place at tho Grand Army reunlon,in Toledo, Ohio, September 2, 1908. Tho Associated Press reports of that day tell tho story of how Taft and Forakor met, clasping hands in full sight of tho audience and greeting one another like old timo friends. Did that look as though Mr. Taft was NOT willing to compromise with Foraker when For aker was strong and powerful and had votes to deliver? But let it be remembered that when Taft clasped hands with Forakor at Toledo, THE STANDARD OIL LETTERS TO FORAKER HAD NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. Did Foraker's sin, In tho eyos of tho re publican candidate for president, consist in be ing found out? Before these Standard Oil letters to For aker had been made public several meetings had been arranged for Cincinnati Ohio, on Tues day, September 22. It had been arranged that at tho evening meeting where Mr. Taft was to be the principal speaker, Senator Foraker was to preside. And republican papers all over the country were filled with articles congratulating the party that TAFT AND FORAKER HAD COMPROMISED THEIR DIFFERENCES. Did that look as though Mr. Taft was NOT willing to compromise with Foraker when For aker was strong and powerful and had votes to deliver? But let it be remembered that when Mr. Taft consented that Senator Foraker should preside at his Cincinnati meeting. THE STAND ARD OIL LETTERS TO FORAKER HAD NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. But when Taft clasDed hands with Foraker at Toledo and consented that Foraker should preside at Taft's big meeting at Cincinnati, was ho Ignorant of Senator Foraker's trust affilia tions? We have it upon the authority of tho president of the United States that TAFT WAS NOT IGNORANT. If. on July 20, 1907, Taft really wrote the letter attributed to him, then MORE THAN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE STANDARD OIL LETTERS WERE MADE PUBLIC, TAFT KNEW OF FORAKER'S TRUST AFFILIATIONS. Yet he joined In the Taft Foraker harmony meet at Toledo, and later con sented that Mr. Foraker should bo the presid ing officer of the Taft meeting at Cincinnati. But let it be remembered that when Taft clasped hands with Foraker at Toledo and when Taft consented that Foraker should preside at Taft's Cincinnati meeting. THE STANDARD OIL LETTERS TO FORAKER HAD NOT BEEN MADE PUBLIC. ' Now that Foraker's relations with tho Standard Oil trust have been made so clear that the people may no longer bo deceived, tho Taft-Foraker harmony is off; Mr. Foraker re tires as chairman of Mr.- Taffs meeting; and the president of tho United States, acting as Mr. Taft's campaign manager, prints a letter which shows if it shows anything at all that Mr. Taft knew it all tho time; and It shows also, in the light of his subsequent action, that Taft was willing to compromise with Foraker when Foraker was strong and powerful and had the votes to deliver. FORAKER'S SIN WAS IN BEING FOUND OUT At the Toledo, Ohio, meeting Mr. Taft, in the opening of his speech, spoke as follows: "It is a great pleasure for me to meet the gentle men who are here. The chairman of the meet ing said I have filled sevornl offices nlmoBt with out reward, but as Senator Foraker wlilspcrod to mo, there are some who would accept them on tho snino terms. It Is a groat pleasure for me to be hero with Senator Forakor, because when govomor ho gave mo what was really my first chanco and took a good deal of risk in putting a man of twenty-nlno years in tho su perior court of Cincinnati. We are In a grent electoral campaign and It is a. pleasure to think in this presence that wo arc going to stand-in tho campaign shoulder to shoulder with tho full strength of tho republican pnrty." Tho Independent (Now York), a Taft sup porter, in its issue of September 1 0, In referring to tho meeting between Messrs. Taft and For aker, said: "Tho meeting and tho addresses are re garded as of political importance, showing that there will be no foud in tho republican party In Ohio, and that tho Taft wing of tho party will favor tho re-election of Mr. Forakor to tho sen ate, although Mr. Taft has consistently refused to take, part In tho divisions in tho stato. Aftor Mr. Taft and Mr. Foraker had spoken Sonator Dick made nn address strongly supporting tho ro-olection of Mr. Forakor." Tho Indianapolis News (lnd. rep.) said: "FORAKER IS REPUDIATED AFTER HE WAS EXPOSED. COX IS STILL 'IN LINE' FOR TAFT. So wo submit that the PRESIDENT'S ARGUMENT DOES NOT REACH that TAFT'S LETTER of a YEAR AGO DOES not MEET the ISSUE. What the pnoplo want to know ia what his RELATIONS WITH THESE MEN ARE NOW, not what HE THOUGHT OF THEM IN JULY, 1907." THE INCREASING CONCERN OF THE PRESI DENT I Tho Cleveland (Ohio) Plain Dealer,'(ircd, dora.) prints an editorial entitled "Increasing concern of tho presidont." That 'editorial follows: - ' t " To fail to elect Mr. Taft would bo a ed lamlty to tho country. President Roosevelt (6 Congressman McKinley. Calamity, a grievous or widespread misfor tune or disaster. Standard Dictionary. President Roosevelt thinks it would bo a "calamity to tho country" were Taft defeated and Bryan elected to tho White House. So firm Is he In this belief that ho writes a letter to the public and addresses it to an Illinois member of congress. Nothing could be worse logic or poorer rea soning than tills medieval plea that tho safety of tho country depends on tho success of either the one candidate or the othor. Business inter ests of every section agree that the election of Mr. Bryan would not mean disaster; regardless of which of tho two leading candidates wins at the polls, the country will move on just tho same. The Bryan bugaboo was exploded twelve years ago. Then tho president might have found listeners to his plea that democratic success meant "calamity;" but today the voter scoffs at such statements and wonders what it is that has so badly scared the occupant of tho Whit House. A week ago the president, In writing the public through tho person of a Montana ranch man, said he had "a peculiar Interest In the suc cess" of Mr. Taft, but he said nothing about a threatened "calamity." What occurred during tho week to accentuate the Importance of tho Issue In the presidential mind? In his next let ter how will tho possible defeat of Mr. Taft bo characterized? What is the superlative of "calamity?" The president should be more saving of his ammunition, lest it be exhausted before the real battle begins. What Is imperatively required is a revision of the tariff such ns will modify the rates, or, better still, place upon the free lint all foreign goods that are the subject of domestic monopoly. Philadelphia Ledger. if M M . :. ! m 4 u