Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.