Volume 14 , Issue 46

1908 - Counter Charges Are Made By Bryan

In The Washington Times, dated Sunday, 27 September 1908, in Washington, we found this front page headline concerning President Theo. Roosevelt, Steel Trust Deal and counter charges being made by William Jennings Bryan. It was continued on page 2.

Counter Charges Made By Bryan

Milwaukee, Wis., Sept. 26 (1908) -- Openly charging that Mr. Roosevelt was a party to the agreement by which the United States Steel Corporation secured control of the tennessee Coal and and iron Company, thus fastening its grip on the steel industry of the South, William J. Bryan addressed a letter to the President, in which he answered the charges made by the president and also attacked the antitrust beliefs of Governor Hughes of New York, who, he declares, was made governor by the trusts.

Bryan abruptly charged that Hughes was the beneficiary of the trust magnates, and that he owed his election to the members of the corporations, citing the contributions of the individual New York financiers, including J. P. Morgan's $20,000, as proof of the fact. In this list of contributors, according to Bryan, were John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Charles M. Schwab, and others, and he declared that several of these men were known to be officially connected wight he trusts.

The fact that Roosevelt quoted Hughes, Bryan insists, is proof that Judge Taft's attitude on the trust question does not meet with the President's approval. Bryan also gain assails the president and the Republican leaders for their attitude on the question of publishing campaign contributions, and challenges the Republicans to publish these before election. In conclusion, Bryan positively declared that the attitude of the President, in advocation of the election of Judge Taft, is a direct reflection on his conduct of the Presidential office and he intimates that such action is unworthy of the President.

Bryan's telegram is as follows:

"While I have not received your letter, and shall not until I reach home next week, I have read a copy 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 say that the public service which he has rendered and the vote of confidence which he has received from the people of his 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 prejudicement (sp).

"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 committee, 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 and 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 interest. I have passed through two political campaigns, in which party feeling ran high, and I have no hesitation in saying that you cannot find an act, word, or thought of mine to justify your partisan charge.

"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 and had known him as one of the men principally responsible for the excellent constitution, which has been adopted by a majority of over 100,000, seventy of which was furnished by Republicans.

"you say that it was a matter of common notoriety 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 Oklahoma, as you say, Judge Raft 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 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 chief executive of a great State?

"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 of 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 as examination of the provisions of the enabling act passed by a Republican Congress and the provisions of the license or franchise issued to the company by your administration. I need hardly refer to the newly found evidence upon which you lay so much stress, vix, the article in the Outlook of September 5 (1908). 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 yu do on an ex part statement without investigation.

"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 you do refer to. Our platform declares in favorr of the vigorous enforcement of the criminal law against guilty trust magnates and officials. Your platform does not contain any such demand. 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 interests of the consumer and in the interest of the smaller competitors; for it has been stated that the United States 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 i opposing it?

"You quote at length from a speech made by Governor Hughes, in which he ridicules one of our anti-trust remedies. Did not Governor Hughes have the support of the Republican delegation in the convention, and is not New York city the home of many Republicans most conspicuous in the campaign 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 after Mr. Hughes' election, it appeared that the following contributions were made to the campaign fund: J. P. Morgan, $20,000; John D. Rockefeller, $5,000; Andrew Carnegie, $5,000; Charles M. Schwab, $2,000; John W. Gates, $2,000; W. E. Corey, $2,000; W. nelson Cromwell, $1,000; W. G. Havemeyer, $800, and 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 strengthen or weaken his testimony against the reasonableness of our anti-trust leader?

"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 or 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 a general paralysis of business, etc.'

"Preferring 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 and the trust magnates know their own interests and they are supporting Judge Taft. Not one of the trust magnates ghelped to secure my nomination, while it is a matter of common notoriety that they were conspicuous in the Republican convention, and it is equally a matter of common notoriety that they are supporting your party in this campaign.

"If you will name a single official connected with 'a law-defying corporation,' monopoly, 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 enforce against him also the laws demanded in the Democratic platform as soon as these laws can be enacted.

"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 see it. I stated that we had not knowingly received a dollar form any official connected with a corporation known as a trust, and that any money will be returned as soon as we receive 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.

"Are you willing to say that any public interest was served in 1904 by concealing until after the election contributions to the Republican committee by Mr. Harriman and those collected by him from others?

"Will you ask your national committee to publish before election the contributions above $100, or, if you regard this as too small a sum, the contributions above $1,000, or, if this is too small, the contributions above $10,000.

"In conclusion you say that you ask support for mr. Taft, 'because he stands for the moral uplifting of the nation.'

"I dare to compare his efforts for the moral uplift of the nation with my efforts; my deeds, with his deeds, and the policies to which I am committed with the policies to which he is committed. And more than that, if I may assume that the 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, and his patronage to aid one member of his party, as against another who spires to office,a nd I regard it as a violation of the obligations that eh President owes to the whole people, to use an office that belongs to the whole people as a party asset. very Truly yours, W. J. Bryan."

Bryan spent the day in Wisconsin, addressing a dozen meetings. The best of those was in Madison, where before the National Farmers' Congress, in the presence of Senator R. M. La Follette, he advocated the publicity of campaign contributions and expenditure. On these two propositions La Follette nodded a vigorous assent.   |  View or Add Comments (0 Comments)   |   Receive updates ( subscribers)  |   Unsubscribe

---