Newspaper Page Text
4
(FROM HEARST’S MAGAZINE FOR MAY)
THE LESSONS OF THE STANDARD OIL LETTERS
B y W I L L I A M RANDOLPH HEARST
“I Do Not Consider Letters
to Public Men Threaten
ing Public Welfare
as Private.”
“Washington Plotted to In
tercept a Letter From
Andre, Written to a
Political Traitor.”
X September 17. 1908, in the presidential
campaign of that year. I was to speak at
Columbus, Ohio. I had been campaigning
o
for reforms in political conditions.
I had been urging a restoration ot the control
of government to the people ami had been asserting
that the government was more in the control of
great financial interests than in the control of the
mass of the citizenship.
1 had cited more or less familiar instances to
prove that many so-called representatives of the
people in public lite generally, ami in the national
congress particularly, were in reality representa
tives of powerful corporations, and I declared my
belief that these mis-representatives of the people
■were under greater secret obligations to the finan
cial interests than they were under open and ac
knowledged obligation to the voters.
If the old parties could not be purified. I was
urging the formation of a new party that should
be free from corporation control and from trust
domination.
On the afternooy of the day on which I was to
speak at Columbus a gentleman called on me at my
hotel and submitted to me a number of letters which
have since become known as the Standard Oil let
ters.
These letters were mainly to and from certain
well-known representatives of the Standard Oil
Company, and tended to prove positively all the
assertions that I had been making in regard to the
improper interference of great privilege-seeking
corporations in the politics and government of the
country.
There appeared to be no doubt about the genu
ineness of the letters, and the only question then
was the propriety of making them public.
’ A close study of the contents of the letters con
vinced me immediately that it was not only right
and proper for me to make them public, but it was
my duty as a citizen Io apprise my fellow citizens
of the existence of a conspiracy to betray them in
their government.
If I had found a document which showed that
our country was about to be invaded by an enemy,
and if I failed to deliver that document to the con
stituted authorities and to those responsible for the
protection of the country, I would have been little
better than a traitor.
I felt then, and I have always felt since, that if
1 had failed to apprise the citizens of the conspir
acy against them. 1 would have failed in my duty to
my fellow citizens and would have been little better
than a traitor to their interests.
Os course, the organs of special privilege, una
ble to deny the letters and unable to defend the
writers of them, had nothing left to do but to at
tack the propriety of their publication.
These attorneys of the trusts declared that the
letters were private letters, and that to make them
public was to betray a private correspondence. In
answer to those critics 1 published the following re
ply and 1 have nothing to add to it:
If I discover any more letters which tend to
show that the people's representatives are In the
pay of the privileged interests and are traitorous
ly betraying the people to these privileged inter
ests. 1 will certainly inform the people of these
dangerous and disgraceful conditions.
There has been a great deal of hypocritical
cant, chiefly from those whose rascality has been
exposed, about the impropriety of publicly reading
private letters. Ido not consider that letters writ
ten to public men on matters affecting the public
interests and threatening the public welfare are
private letters.
1 do not consider that the offer of a $15,000
bribe by a privileged corporation to a public serv
ant to betray a public trust is a private transac
tion.
If any man found a letter which indicated that
an official of the government was betraying the
interests of the government to a foreign enemy, it
would b< his duty to make it public, and he would
be faithless to his duty if he did not make it
public.
If any man finds the proof that an official in
public fife is betraying the trust that the people
repose in him to any criminal corporation for any
corrupt compensation, it is the duty of that man
to inform the citizens of the fact, and if I find such
proof I will surrender it to the citizens and do
my best to help the citizens bring the guilty culprit
to justice.
I hav< a letter in my possession written by
George Washington to th< nun who wore plan
ning to capture Major Andre and expose Benedict
Arnold. George Washington plotted to Intercept a
private letter on this very public question.
Tin Amir, letter was not Intended to be read
by General Washington.
The Andre letter was a private letter, but writ
ten by a public, nemy to a political traitor.
G.-org. W ashington intercepted it. made it pub
ic li.mg. ■! Andr. ami would have hanged Benedict
Arnold if h, could have caught him.
He did not seem to think that there was impro
priety in exposing and punishing treachery and
rascality wherever he found it and however he
found it. He did not seem to think that there was
any violable secrecy in the private letter of a public
scoundrel.
I think I can safely follow George Washing
ton's example.
Having decided upon the genuineness of the let-
ters and the duty I had of making them public. I determined to
read some of them that very evening in the speech I was to make
at Memorial Hall. A great many of the letters referred to indi
viduals and forces in Ohio. This was natural enough, as the Stand
ard Oil Company operated in a business way largely in Ohio, and
had evidently introduced their business into the politics of Ohio
and into the government of the United States through representa
tives from Ohio.
Senator Foraker figured conspicuously in the Standard Oil
letters, and as he also at that moment figured rather conspicuously
in the news, I determined to begin the reading of the Standard Oil
letters by reading a letter referring to Senator Foraker, and show
ing the influence which controlled him and his actions in the United
States senate.
I resolved to make the exposure which the Standard Oil letters
disclosed a matter, not of political advantage, but of patriotic ne
cessity, and as the Standard Oil letters involved both the Demo
crats and Republicans, I decided to read them in such away as to
deprive either party of any undue advantage and to fasten upon
both parties the guilt which both parties almost equally shared.
The majority of the letters were, however, addressed to Re
publicans or received from Republicans, but I believe this to have
been due in part to the fact that the Republican party was the party
in power and the party from which special privileges could best be
secured, and also to the fact that the Republican party had come
in late years peculiarly to represent the privilege-seeking trusts and
monopolies.
From time to time during the campaign I read Standard Oil let
ters to illustrate the points that I was making in my speeches and
to convince the public that both of the old parties were largely con
trolled and improperly controlled by privilege-seeking interests. 1
did not read the letters in any consecutiveness, but merely as they
applied appropriately in certain states or in illustration of cer
tain particular occurrences.
If there is any negro thief, and any other thief, who
can more fully establish the genuineness of the
Standard Oil letters and the guilt of Mr. Archbold
and Mr. Foraker, by all means let them be
called to testify.-—Says Mr. Hearst.
The following statement was
made by William Randolph
Hearst in relation to Senator
Foraker's attempt this week to
justify himself before the senate
investigating committee:
Ex-Senator Foraker appeared
Wednesday before the senate com
mittee Investigating the secret cer
tificates of deposit sent to Stand
ard Oil statesmen, and made an
other frantic and futile effort to
distract attention from his own
guilt.
Ex-Senator Foraker’s ex-reputa
tion is too completely compromised
to need any further attention from
me, but there Is one suggestion
made by ex-Senator Foraker that
is worthy of the senate committee’s
consideration.
Senator Foraker alleges that the
Standard Oil letters which convict
him and other statesmen of his
character were stolen from Mr.
Archbold's office by one negro and
one other thief, and the ex-senator
suggests that the senate commit
tee summon these two worthies to
learn whether the letters really
came direct from Mr. Archbold's
office.
This is an excellent suggestion,
and should be acted upon. Nothing
could better establish finally and
forever the absolute genuineness of
the Standard Oil letters than con
vincing proof of the fact that they
were secured directly frdm Mr.
Archbold, and the more the abso
lute genuineness of the Standard
Oil letters is established the more
Senator Foraker and Senator Pen
rose and Senator Bailey and Mr.
Sibley and the rest of the Standard
Oil tn public life are convicted of
their Standard oil connection.
To be sure, Mr. Archbold has at
various times directly and indirect
ly admitted the genuineness of the
letters. To be sure, Mr. Foraker
and other Standard Oil stipendi
aries have on various occasions
confessed to tile receipt of secret
certificates of deposit. But the
.vords of men of this character
need substantiation, and the public
would probablj put a great deal
more confidence in the statements
of the negro and the other thief
than they repose in the utterances
of some of the gentlemen Impli
cated in this Standard Oil corre
spondence. .
The negro and the other thief —if
he be a thief —have committed a
small crime compared with the
treason of those highbinders of high
finance who seek to enricll them
selves and their corporations
through the governmental favors
secured by the subsidizing of pub
lic men.
If there is anv negro thief, and
any other thief, who can more fully
establish the genuineness of the
Standard Oil letters and the guilt of
Mr. Archbold and Mr. Foraker, by
all means let them be called to
testify.
For the more the Standard Oil
letters are shown tv be absolutely
THE ATLANTA GEORGIAN AND NEWS.SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1912.
true the more some of Senator
Foraker’s testimony under oatli be
fore tlie senate investigating com
mittee is shown to be absolutely
false.
And when the Standard Oil let
ters dre demonstrated to the com
plete satisfaction of the senate
committee to be absolutely true,
and absolutely accurate in every
particular, then Senator Foraker
should be called back to tire stand
and made to explain some of his
false statements.
Then Mr. Archbold should be
called back to the stand and com
pelled to throw light upon some of
his questionable utterances and pe
culiar transactions.
Then Mr. John D. Rockefeller and
Mr. William Rockefeller should be
called, if by chance that latter gen
tleman can be dug out of the place
of concealment lie has been occu
pying for the last six months.
Then we will get the truth about
all o£ this treasonable attempt to
influence the people’s representa
tives. of all of these campaign sub
scriptions for political favors, of all
of these secret certificates of de
posit to individuals for secret serv
ices to the trusts, of all this contra
diction and prevarication.
I am not satisfied with Senator
Foraker's various conflicting state
ments and contradictions, and I
personally would like to be present
at his next hearing and ask him a
few questions.
On March 9, 1899, the following
dispatch appeared in various New
York newspapers:
"A report reached here from Co- *
lumbus today that Senator Foraker
had been retained by the Standard
Oil Company as one of the counsel
for the trust.
•'Senator Foraker showed much
irritation tonight when asked if the
report was true.
" it is impertinent.' he declared.
'You ruiglit as well ask me how
much money 1 have in my pocket.
The report is not true.’ "
Did Senator Foraker on March 8,
1899. declare to a correspondent of
the Associated Press that lie was
not an attorney for the Standard Oil
Company, and did he, with "much
irritation." resent the report that
he was an attorney for the Stand
ard OU Company?
This is important, because after
tlie publication of the first Stand
ard Oil letter, dated January 20.
1899. addressed to the Hon. J. B.
Foraker, Mr. Foraker explained that
he received this letter from Mr.
Archbold because he was the attor
ney for the Standard Oil Company.
There is no other construction
to be placed upon the letter, for
Mr. Archbold writes: "We may
want to talk with you regarding a
special feature of the case."
If ex-Senator Foraker, then Sen
ator Foraker, was attorney for the
Standard OU Company on January
20. 1899, how could Senator Fora
ker deny on March s. 1899 that hi
had been retained by the Standard
I did not read all of the Standard Oil letters, but merely those
that seemed specially applicable to tile campaign and the issues of
the campaign. In some cases I did not read even all of certain let
ters, but merely the parts which were pertinent to the subjects un
der discussion.
Ln the series of articles now appearing in this magazine it is. I
believe, the purpose of the gentleman who furnished me with the
letters to take up the letters as a whole, to publish practically all of
them, to publish them consecutively and chronologically, to discuss
their bearing upon political events of the time, their effect in arous
ing the civic conscience, and their importance in bringing about the
reforms in the politics of the country which have since been ac
complished.
The Standard Oil letters have become famous, and their value
as a stimulating cause of reform has been generally acknowledged.
A president of the United States once said to me that the value of
the Standard Oil letters was not so much that they revealed any
thing new, but that they proved what everybody suspected but had
not before been able to establish.
Important as the Standard Oil letters are now recognised to
be, it is interesting to recall the fact that their importance was not
at all appreciated by the audience before whom the first ones were
read.
1 had prepared a more or less strenuous speech for Columbus
in the usual line of campaign oratory, but I thought that the appall
ing facts revealed in the Standard Oil letters were so important
and so impressive that it would be better to dispense with all rhet
oric and to read and explain the letters without bias or prejudice
or attempt at eloquence, or effort to sway in any way the minds
and judgment of the audience.
I produced the letters, therefore, before the audience as 1 -would
produce evidence before a court. I felt that the question involved
was, so vital a one to the country that any attempt to elaborate or
Oil Company and resent the impu
tation with “much irritation?"
Senator Foraker began to falsi
fy at the very beginning of this ex
posure, and has continued through
out the exposure to Invent a new
falsehood for every discreditable
situation in which he has been in
volved.
When the letter of March 26,
1900, written to Foraker from
Archbold and containing a cer
tificate of deposit for $15,000, was
produced, Senator Foraker declared
that, notwithstanding the secrecy
of his payments in certificates 'of
deposit from the Standard Oil Com
pany. he had never performed any
but legal services for the Standard
Oil Company and had never been
called upon to perform any politi
cal services.
The Standard Oil correspondence
itself completely disproved that
Foraker falsehood, for the letter
written to Foraker as senator, and
in Washington at his home address,
on February 16, 19D0, from the
headquarters of the Standard Oil
Company, at No. 26 Broadway, New
York, marked personal, and signed
John D. Archbold, says:
“Here is still another very ob
jectionable bill. It is so outrageous
as to be ridiculous, but it needs to
be looked after, and I hope there
will be no difficulty in killing it.”
Another letter addressed to Sen
ator Foraker in the senate cham
ber at Washington, dated March
5 or 8 (the figure being not quite
clear), 1900, and signed John D.
Archbold, says:
"I beg to inclose you herewith
letter from our counsel, Mr. El
liott, with copy of another very ob
jectionable bill recently introduced
at Columbus. Hope you can take
care of it witli the others.”
Senator Foraker then declared
that he had never been called upon
to serve the Standard Oil Company
in his capacity as United States
senator, whereupon I produced a
letter dated February 25, 1902.
written to Senator Foraker at
Washington and signed John D.
Archbold, in which Mr. Archbold
says:
“I venture to write you a word
regarding a bill introduced by Sen
ator Jones, of Arkansas, known as
S. 649, intended to meet the act to
'protect trade and commerce
against unlawful restraint and mo
nopolies.' etc., introduced by him
December 4. It really seems to me
as though this bill is very unnec
essarily severe, and even vicious.
Is it not better to test the appli
cation of the Sherman act before
resorting to a measure of this kind?
I hope you will feel so about it. ami
I will be greatly pleased to have a
word from you on the subject. The
bill is still tn committee."
When letters of this kind are re
ceived by a senator. Interlarded
with secret certificates of deposit
for SIO,OOO, and $15,000. and $14,500,
and $5,000, amounting to a total
of $44,500, added to which is a loan
of $50,000, it is useless for that sen
ator to deny that he was looked to
for political services as well as le
gal services by the officials of the
Standard oil Company.
So much for Foraker, at least
for the present. The necessity of
substantiating his statements by
the testimony of the negro and the
thief will be sufficiently evident to
anybody.
Now for Mr. Archbold. Mr. Arch
bold declared when on oath before
the senate investigating committee
that he had contributed $125,000 to
Mr. Roosevelt’s campaign fund, and
that when he had contributed SIOO,-
000 of this to Mr. Bliss he told Mr.
Bliss that he wanted Mr. Roosevelt
to be informed of this contribu
tion. as he himself wanted to know
from Mr. Bliss that the contribution
was “gratefully received.”
Mr. Archbold further declared
that he made his contribution of
SIOO,OOO in bills.
Two things are plain from Mr.
Archbold’s testimony. First, that
he feels the need of secrecy in his
contributions and makes them in
bills or secret certificates of deposit
which can not be traced.
Second, that in return for his
contributions he expects political
gratitude resulting in political fa
vors from the men he subsidizes.
Mr. Archbold admitted, too, the
accuracy of these Standard Oil let
ters in general, and convinced his
hearers of his personal belief in
their accuracy when he said that he
had bought back the originals of
many of these letters from some
men, possibly Mr. Foraker's negro
and thief, who had them in their
possession.
Mr Archbold should be required
by the senate committee to pro
duce before that committee every
original that he bought back or has
in any way in his possession. Fur
thermore, he should be required bv
tlie senate committee to produce
every other letter that he has and
every copy of any other letter that
Fn by 111 to man
in public life, containing any refer
ence to any secret certificate of de
posit, or conveying any order to
any public man to prostitute his
public position in the service of th..
Standard OU Company. *
And as Mr. Archbold’s statements
have also been singularly contra
dictory at times, ft would certainly
be well for the senate committee to
summon the negro and the thief to
substantiate Mr. Archbold’s testi
mony.
I believe that I once saw in the
possession of Mr. Eddy a letter In
which Mr. John D. Rockefeller's
name was mentioned and another
n Lv’ ,!’ ■ whlch Mr ' William
Rockefeller's name was men
tioned. It these letters can be se
cured it would be well to have Mr
John D. Rockefeller appear 'before
tlie committee and Mr. William
Rockefeller appear before the com
mittee, and have both of them tes
tify to what extent they knew of
and approved and were responsible
forth? acts of their agent. Mr
Archbold, in subsidizing public of
ficials with secret certificates of
deposit.
And let us have the negro and
the thief present on all occasions
impartially to substantiate all tes
timony.
Let us have the truth, and if we
can t get it from Mr. Foraker ami
Mr. Archbold let us get it from the
vari-colored gentlemen with whom
Mr. Foraker exhibits so great an in
timacy and in whom he reposes so
great a confidence
WILLIAM RANDOLPH HEARST.
“I Made the Exposure the
Standard Oil Letters
Disclosed a Matter of
Patriotic Necessity.”
“In These Letters There Is
Nothing Written of the
Dead They Did Not Write
in Their Own Hands.”
emphasize it would merely interfere with its es
feet.
Perhaps this estimate of mine was correct as
regards the whole public of the United States, hut
it was apparently not correct as far as it. referred
to this particular Columbus audience. They ex
pected a campaign speech and they received the
letters with very little interest. There was appar
ently no unusual excitement about the letters and
but little curiosity concerning them among the au
dience or among the newspaper men after the meet
ing was over. It was not until I arrived in St. Louis
on the forenoon of the next day that the tremendous
importance of the letters had become fully realized
by the press and the public. When I got off the
train at St. Louis it seemed to me that all the news
paper men in America were there to inquire about
the Foraker letters and to ask how many and what
kind of letters still remained to be read.
Foraker had admitted the genuineness of the
letter published. Not knowing, however, that there
were other letters to further convict him, he had
attempted explanations which, in the light of the
other letters, were obviously false. These state
ments of Foraker 1 refuted with documents at hand,
and Foraker retired from the discussion overwhelm
cd by the evidence from his own correspondence.
It was unfortunate for any one during that cam
paign to attempt to deny or explain the implica
tion of those Standard Oil letters because the evi
dence contained in them was generally sufficient tv
refute all details or explanations.
1 will not discuss further, however, the letter.-,
as they appeared in the campaign, but will allov.
r - ——. the writer of this series of articles, to
take them up, consecutively and chronologically
and completely. The first letters go back to the
time of Mark Hanna and Matthew Quay. They
tend to show the intimate relations of these Re
publican bosses to the Standard Oil Company anti
their dependence upon the Standard Oil Company
for the funds necessary to conduct their campaigns
Os course, those who were distressed not by tin
commission of an act of treason, but only by the
exposure of the act; those who were disturbed not
by the writing of the Standard Oil letters, but only
by their publication, will now.be outraged and of
fended that anything not wholly complimentary
should be printed of Standard Oil statesmen who
are dead.
“De mortuis nil nisi bonum” will be quoted free
ly by many who are not as anxious to palliate the
faults of the dead as to conceal the evil acts of the
living.
Nil nisi bonum sounds very well, but if all men
who are dead were to be esteemed equally, and if
nothing but good were to be spoken of all of them
then Aaron Burr would stand as high as Thomas
Jefferson, and Benedict Arnold would be as much of
a hero as George Washington.
Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold are just as
dead as such Standard Oil statesmen as Mark Han
na or Matthew Stanley Quay.
In point of fact, Aaron Burr and Benedict Ar
nold are deader, or at least have been dead longer,
and should therefore be entitled to more considera
tion and greater protection. Yeff history does noi
hesitate to tell the truth about them, to relate facts
frankly and to express opinions freely and to de
duce conclusions relentlessly.
All history is about men who are dead, and if we
are not to have accurate estimates of men who are
dead and not to tell the truth about men who are
dead, we are not to have knowledge which is accu
rate or history which is truthful.
' Let nothing be spoken about the dead except
that which is good” should be modified to read
’ Let nothing be spoken about the dead except that
which is TRUE. ”
The advantage of this latter phrase is that if cau
be applied with equal justice and benefit to the liv
ing also. Too many good men are traduced merely
because they are alive, too many bad man are ex
cused merely because they are dead.
And if all men, living or dead, were known at
their true worth and in their true character, were
praised only for what is good and condemned only
for what is bad, men would live more worthy H vet
and endeavor more earnestly to deserve and obtain
the good opinion of their fellow men.
Still in these articles, as far as I have seen them,
there is nothing written of the dead that they die
not write themselves in their own words and it
their own hands. And there is nothing related 1,1
the dead except that which is hoped will prove
useful lesson to the giving.