OCR Text |
Show oo ONJTAND Explains Letters and Relations Re-lations Between Him and Archbold. Washington, Dec. IS The relations rela-tions between former Senator Joseph B. Foraker of Ohio and John D. Arch-bold Arch-bold of the Standard OU company, as touched upon In letters made public by William R. Hearst, was tho subject sub-ject or today's hearing by the senate committee investigating campaign contributions. Sonator Foraker requested an opportunity op-portunity to nppear before the Investigating Inves-tigating committee. Mr. Foraker first took up the Arch-bold Arch-bold lotter ravorlng the nomination of Judge Durhett for the bench In Ohio. "I was receiving hundreds of letters let-ters from people about whom we should nominate." said Mr. Foraker. 1 was supporting Judge Burkett, than whom no moro honorable Judge ever lived, and continued to do so. I do not believe I ever auswered Mr. Arch-bold's Arch-bold's letter. 1 was not Influenced in the least by the letter. "Another letter asked mc to oppose the nomination of Smith Bennett. 1 supported Mr. Bennett, however, but he was defeated. I do not bolleve I over answered that' letter either You senators know how a person la - v flooded with mall about convention time " Price Corruption Bills. Mr. Foraker next took up the letters let-ters from Mr. Archbold hostile to the so-called Price corruption bills in the Ohio legislature. "I do not remember having talked with Senator Hanna, but 1 probably did talk to him," said the witness. "1 did not know what was In the bills. Hearst Concealed a Letter, "And right here I might say that Mr. Hearst did not produce here yesterday yes-terday a single letter that had not been published over and over again, except one which ho confessed he had in his pocket tho night he read the first letters and which showed that I had returned the $50,000 to the Standard Stan-dard Oil company, about which he 'talked so much. Ho concealed that letter." Mr Forakor told ot another letter about a bill which Mr. Archbold wrote him should be strangled. Mr., Foraker For-aker then read a letter from former Representative Sheppard of Ohio, author au-thor of the bill. Sheppard wrote that he. knew of no reason why the bill Tailed except that It Tailed to get a majority voto, and that Mr. Foraker had not spoken directly or Indirectly Indirect-ly to him about It. Certificates of Deposit. Mr. Forakor, taking up the two certificates of deposit for $25,000 Trom the Standard Oil company to him, re-Iterated re-Iterated that the money wns for services ser-vices as attorney In Ohio litigation Senator Foraker repeated his previous previ-ous statements that the Standard OU "employment" had nothing to do with legislation In congress. He charged that Mr. Hearst in later produelns the Archbold letter to Senator Foraker. For-aker. about debating tiic so-called Jones corporation bill, garbled his statement in an attempt to show that Senator Forakor had said that the "correspondence" had nothing to do with legislation in congress. "Any letter Mr. Archbold has written writ-ten me since the Standard Oil litigation litiga-tion In Ohio has been just as any one might do and as thousauds have done about legislation that affected them," declared the witness $50,000 Was a Loan. Mr. Foraker testified that the $50,-000 $50,-000 sent him by the Standard Oil company was a loan he had requested request-ed from several sources to enable him to buy the Ohio State Journal. "No one evor got ahead of Senntor Hanna, and as he wanted the State Journal he got It and I returned the loan," declared tho witness with a smile. Pushed Elklns Act. The senator told of his activity in pushing the Elklns interstate commerce com-merce act. "If I had been In 'the employ of the Standard Oil company 1 would not have advocated legislation so hostile to it." Tho witness declared he would leavo his letters with the committee. commit-tee. "I am not dealing with fac simile photographs." he Bnapped. Among the letters produced were some written in 190C In which tho Standard Oil sought to retain Senator Sena-tor Foraker in threatened criminal proceedings In Ohio and In which tho senator declined. Conditions Have Changed. "The conditions had greatly changed," chang-ed," said the senator, "since my former for-mer employment,, largely becauso of the prosecutions against tho company compa-ny under tho Elklns law, which I had helped to Iramo. Furthermore, the employment em-ployment proposed was different In Its character from that which I had previously accepted. That is to say. Instead or being an employment, as tho former employment was, to alfi the company in complying with tho orders of the courts and the statutes of the state, It was to be an employment em-ployment to resist suits and prosecutions prosecu-tions Instituted by the state. Proofs Sufficient. "I submit that these proofs should be sufficient to show to any fair and unprejudiced mind that I was never employed, except prior to 1901, and that my employment then had no relation re-lation to anything that was In conflict con-flict with my public duties, but had reference solely to tho reorganization of the company and Its Ohio affairs, with which congress had nothing whatever to do " oo |