Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 9, 1908)
II The Commoner. 2 VOLUME- 8,. NUMBER is. MR. BRYAN TO MR. ROOSEVELT At Rock Island, 111., Mr. Brynn gave to tho press Ills reply to Mr. Roosevelt's letter made public Monday, September 28. Mr. Bryan s let tor follows: nnn TT Rock Island, 111., September 29, 1908. Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States, Washington, D. C Dear Sir: A brief reply to your last letter Is all that Is necessary to call attention to your attempt to shift tho issues raised. In your lotter attacking Mr. For aker you Inserted an attack upon Governor Has kell and attempted to use tho charges against him to connect tho democratic party and mo as Its candidate, with tho trusts. I asked you to name a tribunal before which the charges could bo Investigated, or, if you would not do that, offered to leave you to say whether, in your Judgment, the charges Justified Mr. Haskell's withdrawal from tho organization. You did not deign to suggest a tribunal, but proceeded to pass Judgment upon him. Ho immediately re signed his position that ho might bo more free to prosecute those who brought accusations against' him. Thus his connection with the or ganization ended. 1 had no authority to submit, and did not submit, to you the question of his guilt or inno conco for final decision. Even the president can not deny to the humbleBt citizen of the land the right to protect his reputation and vindicate his name in courts established for the purpose, where witnesses can be examined and evidonco submitted according to tho rules of law. .In my first letter to you I resented the im putation that any charges made against Governor Haskell could bo Justly construed as connecting tho democratic party, or mo as its candidate, with any trust or law-defying corporation. You replied that tho charges were a matter of gen eral notoriety, and I asked you-why Mr. Taft did not mention them when he made speeches against Mr. Haskell in Oklahoma You, at once endeavored to connect mo with now matters which arose after the Denver convention, and, conscious that those, charges were insufficient, you have since given wings to accusations that no disinterested party would make against an other without Investigation. - I am willing that all your charges against mo shall bo submitted to tho votefs of tho coun try, and with your charges-Ic submit my denial of any knowledge or information that could, in the remotest way, connect me with any trust; monopoly or "law-defying corporation."- My record is sufficient answer to your insinuation. I-have lived in vain if your accusations lose me 'a single friend. - I challenged you to name -a 'trust official who is supporting me, andt after searching' the country, you produce the name of one man, not a trust official, but tho local attorney of a trust. Without inquiring whether he votes for me be cause of his connection with a trust, or in spite -it it,, or because of his "fear of business adver W under Mr. Taft, you accept his statement that he will vote for me as conclusive proof that I am in lengue with the trusts, although you admit that trust officials are supporting tho republican ticket. You compliment mo when you measure me by a higher standard than you do your polit ical associates, for you insist that Mr. Rockefel ler's contribution to Governor Hughes' campaign fund was no reflection upon him, and I take it for granted that you do not criticise Judge Taft s recommendation of a Standard Oil attorney to the federal bench, a place where the Judge might have to pass upon charges against the very trust for which he had been attorney. While the trust attorney to whom you refer Is not an official of a trust, I will warn him and through him his clients that if I am elected, I will not only vigorously enforce against all offenders the laws which we hope to have en acted In compliance with the democratic plat form, but that I will also vigorously enforce existing laws against any and nil who violate them, and that I will enforce them, not spns modlcally and Intermittently, but persistently and consistently; they will not be suspended, even for the protection of cabinet officers. You say "the attitude of many men of large financial Interests" warrapts you "in expressing the belief that those trust magnates whose fear of being prosecuted under tho low by Mr. Taft is greater than their fear of general business adversity" under me, will support me rather than Mr. Taft. You have attempted to word that statement in such a way as to claim tho support pf aU tho trust magnates, and yet put it on the ground that they are supporting your party for patriotic reasons rather than for the promotion of a selfish Interest. That Is in&enlbuS, but it is not sound. Tho trust magnates aro supporting the re publican party and the Bible offers an explana tion "the ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master's crib." You admit that you gave permission to tho steel trust to absorb a rjval, and thus increase its control of the output of steel and iron products. I will leave the Amer ican people to pass Judgment upon that act and compare your position on the trust question with mine. . You refer to our campaign fund in 1896 and accuse us of allowing two men to contribute largely to the small fund with which the jcora mittee conducted the campaign. I am not sui .3 about the figures because I have not seen an authentic statement of the contributions, but I was informed that the largest of the two suras which you mention was not all contributed by the man to whom it was credited, but included contributions from others as well as that which ho gave himself. 'But if you want to be fair whv do you not give the amount of the republican campaign fund that year and the sources of it? T am willing to have both funds published, are you? Tf some of those who contr'buted to our fund of less than $300,000 had a -pecuniary interest In the result of the election, how will you explain the enor mous contributions made to the republican fund? If you will remember, the democratic platform candidly declared the pnrty's purpose. Tf tho carrving out of that policy would have been of advantage to anyone, the whole public had knowledge and the publi.cptlon ,of. the, epntrlhu tlons wo,udt not have, affected the result..,, Pub lioltyas to ,camnalm fnn'cfa in pot, needed tp, make known that which Is disclosed by the plat-, fqrjn, but to,' direct attentipn '6 sqcret afSr?p'r, ments, expressed or implied, whVh would, other wise be. concealed from tho public. ' ',, ( .. You certainly pay more attention tp tho mote than to the henm when .you find fault with our national campaign fund injl8G and tgfore the significance of -a fund almost afc large. -which, at your request, was collected from a jfew,.per- snps in 1.904 and, was uee'd in one state pud was, only a small ijtem jn tho fund, collected that year. , . . ' - Jt ,', But your Jetter presents a defence of your party's position anil an accusation against, .thje voters which emphasises -an lpsue, already prowl-: uejit, .You ar.ethe. first conspicuous, member of your party to attempt an, explanation of the party's opposition to publWtv before' the elec tion, and the admission, which you make will embarrass your party associates. Your pogltlop is that the publication before election of the contributions made to your campaign fund would furnish your political opponents an oppor tunity "to-give a false impression" as to the fitr ness of the candidates. You cite as Illustrations the contributions made ,to Governor Hughes' campaign fund, the contribution collected bv Mr. Hnrriman and the contributions which are now being collected for Mr. Taft's campaign fund. You charge, in effect, that ..the people are so lacking in intelligence that fhev mteht condemn as Improper contributions which you declare to be proper. 1 If the voters differ from you on this ques tion are they necessarily Ignorant and wrong? Must the members of the- party orsron Nations net as self-appointed guardians of the people and conceal from them what Is going on, lest the people bo misled as to the purpose, and effct of large contributions? Ts this vour explanation of the action of the republlonn leaders In the national convention in voting down a publicity plank? "If you will pardon the suggestion. T believe that a better explanation can be found In holy writ, for we do not read of men loving darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil? You attempt to make a personal ouetior of It and ask whether anvone will ncenre such men as vou, Governor Hunop and Mr Tat of being Influenced bv contributions. That 1b not the question.- Tf It is found that a partv to a suit has jrivon a sum of monev to one of. the Jurors, the court does not stop to Inquire whoer or not the Juror Is an Incorruptible man or whothor In accepting the monev he evpliofrly stated that it was accepted with the understand ing that ho was under no obligations to consider it in making up his verdict. The court would hold that the giving of money by an interested party or the receiving of money was a' contempt of court and an interference with the adminis tration of justice. Public officials occupy much tho same position as jurors. They are constantly called upon to decide questions between tho favor-seeking corporations on the one hand and the people on the other, and there is a very gen eral impression that officials of these favor-seeking corporations do not put up large sums of money from purely patriotic motives. Mr. Havemeyer testified before a senate committee jsome years Ago that the sugar trust made it a business to contribute to campaign funds, and that it was its custom to give to tho party in po-er in the state. I do not mean to say that Mr. Hughes was influenced by the contributions made to him by the trust magnates whose names were given in the after-election Teport. I do not mean to say that you were influenced by the contribu tions collected by Mr. Harrlman, neither do I mean to say thatIr. Taft will be influenced by the contributions that are being made to his fund bv the trust magnates, but I do mem to say that the American people have a right to know what contributions are being made, that they may Judge for themselves the motive of the givers and the obligation imposed upon those who receive. The reflection upon the people involved in your charge that they would misuse the knowledge which publicity would give is un worthy of one who has been elevated to so high an office by the votes of the people, and I ven ture the assertion that you can not procure from Mr. Taft an indorsement of your defense. He is now before the people; he, is offering himself as a candidate for the presidency; he dare not tell the people to whom Tie' appeals that they have not sense enough to' form a Just and cor rupt opinion as to'.'the purpose which leads par ties interested in special legislation to make big contributions. ...You fear tljat -jve would . misrepresent tho motives pf those who are, contributing .to tho republican campaign fuuj'f and cast an funjust suspicion upon republican candidates J if the names' and amounts were made known before the election. Your' arufn.ent,', if sound, would jmcvj-iij. intmiviiHyn uhpj' uie election. Tor wny sb.onjd an Unjust suspicion be cast upon officials after the election anv more than before?' Does not, tho .secrecy .before the. ejection increase this suspicion? " ' " ' w ' . ,t'. e"'ore going to give you an .opportunity to 'mipreprepeni the motives p"f those who efve to o'ur campaign' fund, and to arouse all the suspnlon' von can; we are go'lp to prove to the people thtwe are rnnklnc: a flht 'or the whole people and not for tbope who hnvp been eniov ihr privileges and favors at the hands of the govern met. and we expect that the honest pen tient pf tho. conntrv will rebuke the p"rtv whppp convention recused to Indorse nrv Mud o' nuhllnftv and whoso can d! dates 'a re not willing tint the pope should know until after the neilg are eln'aed. what prorforv interests have been active In snnn-'t of the republican narty. With great respect, etc. Yours trulv, WTLLTAM J. BRYAN. SINCE WHEN? Secretary Loeb announces for Mr. "Roosevelt that he will not reply to Mr. Bryan's latest let ter. Mr. Loeb savs. that Mr. Roosevelt feels that "Inasmuch as Mr. Brvon's letter was simply an attack upon him' personally, was no reason why he should answer." Tt will be difficult for the average reader tb look at Mr. Brvan's letter in that wav. But It micht be. pertinent to ask since when did Mr, Roosevelt become so averse to personal con troversy? 5 t W w MR. TAFT AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS While at Lincoln, Neb Mr. Taft gave out the following statement In reply to Mr. Bryan: "Mr. Bryan challenges me to take the same position that President Roosevelt takes with ref erence to the . time when publicity should ho made of, campaign contributions, and I accept the challenge. T take exactly the same position that 'the president takes. , J have .always been in fayor of a. law which .will require publicity of both contributions and expenditures Imme diately after election. Mr. Bryan seems to favol 9 ETTTFgTM