Newspaper Page Text
THE HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL LETTERS
New Evidence of Dealings for
Cash With Legislators Elected
by the People, With Corrupt
corporations, Revealed in
Black and White.
Archhold, the Present Standard
Oil Head. Wrote Instructions
Regarding Legislation to
Foraker and Others, and
Then Paid Royally.
r-r-* HIS is a plain, straightfor
ward narration of facts.
Some of these facts are
well known; many of
them have not been made public
before. Taken altogether in the
light of later events, they made it
possible for the first time to write
a clear, connected history of a
crime against popular govern
ment. William Randolph Hearst,
who first made public the facts of
this Standard Oil conspiracy,
aptly characterized it as an “OUT
RAGE AGAINST THE SANCTI
TY OF OUR CITIZENSHIP,
AGAINST THE INTEGRITY OF
OUR GOVERNMENT.’’
There is no greater danger to
our Republic,’’ he said, “than this
mighty power of money exercised
for evil.’*
The duty of telling the truth,
and the whole truth, in a matter '
of this kind, is far from being a pleasant one,
but it is a duty that ought to be performed.
It will lead into some dark labyrinths of
American politics. It will involve the careers
of many who, equally with Foraker and Sib
ley and Bailey, have been trusted by their
neighbors and honored by their country. It
will, in some cases, involve the names of men
now dead. But it will recite nothing but ab
solute facts, nothing without author
itative data, based on documentary evidence,
and reveal such truths as ought in honesty
and propriety to be revealed.
*• * *
Joseph B. Foraker, Senator from Ohio, was
shown to be taking money from Archbold;
Joseph C. Sibley, a representative from
Pennsylvania, was shown by correspondence
to be, in the words of Mr. Hearst, “a wretch
ed little political spy, introduced into Con
gress by the Standard Oil Company to re
port to them on all legislation in which they
had an interest.”
* * *
Joseph Bailey, Senator from Texas, regard
ed by many as the most brilliant man in the
tipper House, and hailed, in this same oil-be
daubed correspondence, as the coming leader
of his party, was placed on the rail of public
obloquy and ridden outside the bounds of na
tional honor. Mr. Hearst disregarded party
lines in making these disclosures.
Each of these three men was shown by
documentary proof to have been taking mon
ey secretly to represent interests opposed to
those that he was sworn publicly to uphold.
Each, in his own way, paid the bitter penalty.
But what about John D. Archbold, the man
who "handled the money;” the man who
with such amazing ease and frequency drew
SIO.OOO certificates of deposit by which elec
tions and even laws were influenced What
penalty was placed upon him?
* * *
Chance has placed in my way some ex
traordinary documents. It happens that
those documents consist almost entirely of
the surreptitious correspondence of John D.
Archbold—who was a Methodist deacon on
one hand, and a purchaser of unscrupulous
politicians and corrupt laws on the other. In
the conspiracy against popular government
that these letters reveal, the personality of
Archbold becomes too trivial and unimpor
tant for consideration.
® * *
When Hanna made his Napoleonic entry
into national politics and took the control of
the State machine away from Foraker, th*
Oil Trust, with characteristic breadth of
mind, kept both factions in its way and is
sued orders simultaneously and with equal
grace to both of the leaders. Let us, for th*
(FROM HEARST’S MAGAZINE FOR MAY)
By J. E
FACSIMILE OF MARK HANNA LETTER ASKING FOR STANDARD OIL MONEY TO HELP HIS PERSONAL CAMPAIGN
UsrJTBD States Senate, . C
0 '-P ,9 • * /— *- / */ Z*7"~' , Jp" <
CZ Tx^c (j—&> y 4-*'*■*-• A S"“" ' u ' a *
Z&m. /I *
J -f4>. ——*>
*o t5-x? 4*T4-*£rZ.
J —>>. 75- i ’ .
John D. Archbold, Esq.—My Dear John:
lam in receipt of yours of the 18th inst., with enclosures as stated, for which lam obliged. lam “holding the bag,” and this is going to be an expensive
campaign. I can see where I will land before the thing is over, so I have no doubt I will have to call again. I feel a delicacy about this, as it is my funeral. I
can beg for others better than when I have a personal interest.
There are many important interests in this fight. Should Johnson carry the Legislature, corporations will catch it, as I am their representative so called.
Sincerely yours, M. A. HANNA.
The year does not appear in the date of the above letter, but the letter was probably written in the Ohio State campaign of 1903.
These Letters Prove That Senator J. B. Foraker, of Ohio, When a Leading Member of the U. S. Senate, Was Paid in One Year at
Least $44,500 by the Standard Oil Trust. His Salary as Senator at the Same Time Was $5,000. The Bible Says “No Man Can
Serve Two Masters.” Which Master.DO YOU THINK Senator Foraker Really Served?
sake of historical accuracy, take Archbold’s
letters to the two Ohio Senators at this
period in their chronological order: The first
is to Foraker:
26 Broadway, New York.
January 20, 1899.
My Dear Senator:
I have your very kind note of the
18th, for which please accept thanks.
I am sure that you will watch care
fully every phase of the matter, and
will leave nothing undone. We may
want to talk with you regarding a
special feature of the case within the
next week or so. Will it be at all pos
sible for you to come here for a short
interview? Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. J. B. Foraker,
Senate Chamber,
Washington, D. C.
This letter, according to the position taken
by Foraker when Mr. Hearst first made it
public, merely proved that in January, 1899,
Senator Foraker was working for the Oil
Trust.
‘‘That I was so employed and presumably
compensated for my services was common
knowledge at the time,” said Foraker; “at
least, I never made any effort to conceal the
fact. On the contrary, I was pleased to have
people know that I had such clients.”
As a matter of fact, on the Bth of March,
1899, less than two months after Foraker’s
receipt of instructions from Archbold to
“watch carefully” and “leave nothing un
done,” the following dispatch, sent out by
the Associated Press, had been published in
the New York newspapers:
Cincinnati, 0., March B.—A report
reached here from Columbus today
that Senator Foraker had been re
tained by the Standard Oil Co. as one
of the counsel for the trust.
Senator Foraker showed much irri
tation tonight when asked if the re
port was true.
“It is impertinent,” he declared.
“You might as well ask me how much
money I have in my pocket.' The re
port is not true.”
There we see just how “pleased” Foraker
had been to have people know that he had
such “clients.”
« # »
From his desk at No. 26 Broadway, New
York, Archbold continued to pull the wires,
to write the letters and to send out the cer
tificates of deposit with which legislatures
were controlled, Congressmen were elected,
Senators were chosen, and Judges were ap
pointed. As the Standard Oil Company was
Democratic in the South, and Republican in
Pennsylvania, so, in Ohio, it was strictly non
factional. At the same time that it was giv
ing money and orders to Foraker, leader of
one group, it was giving orders—and as we
shall see later, money also—to Hanna, leader
of the dominant faction. Witness the follow
ing letter to Senator Hanna:
26 Broadway, New York.
January 19, 1900.
Dear Senator:
The matters regarding which I
THE ATLANTA GEORGIAN AND NEWS. SATURDAY", DECEMBER 28, 1912
wanted to talk with you this after
noon are those of threatened and very
objectionable legislation at Columbus.
The first is a bill introduced by Mr.
Russell, of Meigs, amending the so
called “anti-trust” law in away that
would be most objectionable to every
corporate interest in the state. Prob
ably you are familiar with this bill.
The second is a most malicious
resolution for an investigation com
mittee to be headed by Griftin, of
Lucas, giving them power to investi
gate pretty much everything within
the state, from the supreme court
down. The resolution does not limit
the expense of the investigation, and
authorizes the employment of coun
sel. It is said to be the intention of
the committee to employ Mr. Monnett
as its counsel. We want to enlist you
actively and promptly to the defeat of
these measures. They are undoubted
ly inspired by Monnett and his follow
ers, and their purpose is unquestion
ably of the most vicious character.
That appointment of the “maraud
ing” committee comes up by agree
ment on the 25th, so that it, as well
as the other, should be attended to
very promptly. Will you do every
thing possible to compass their de
feat? Shall be glad to hear from you
promptly.
I enclose you clipping from the
Plaindealer describing the Willis reso
lution. Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. M. A. Hanna,
Washington, D C.
* * *
Act “actively and promptly,” Senator
Hanna, “leave nothing undone,” Senator
Foraker, “to compass the defeat” of such
honest measures. The edict of Archbold has
gone forth!
* # *
Hanna was an important general upon the
field of action, but he was not the only one.
He was not even alone in his own depart
ment. Read this letter to Foraker, written
four weeks later, during that same session of
congress and of the Columbus legislature:
26 Broadway, New York.
(Personal) February 16, 1900.
My Dear Senator:
Here is still another very objection
able bill. It is so outrageous as to be
ridiculous, but it needs to be looked
after, and I hope there will be no dif
ficulty in killing it.
Am anxious to hear from you as to
the situation as a whole.
I Very truly yours,
Jno D. Archbold.
Hon. J. B. Foraker,
1500 Sixteenth St.,
Washington, D. C.
The bill here mentioned, being both “out
rageous” and “ridiculous” in the eyes of the
Standard Oil Company, was probably another
bill empowering the people to participate
somewhat in their own public affairs and
limiting somewhat the absolute control of
public officials, courts and legislatures by
criminal corporations.
* * *
In regard to this next letter, however,
there! is less doubt and more definiteness.
26 Broadway, New York.
My Dear Senator:
Attorney General Sheets has written
a letter to Mr. Kline, in-which he asks
to have a time fixed for the oral argu
ment of the contempt case. If this ar
gument is to be simply a formal mat
ter, we have no objection to it; other
wise, it might be well to have it post
poned as long as possible, especially
until after the next national and state
conventions.
We thought you should know about
this before going to Ohio.
Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. J. B. Foraker,
1500 Sixteenth St.,
Washington, D. C.
Nine days later Senator Foraker had an
other “very objectionable” bill to “take
care of. ” A senator had to work to earn his
certificates of deposit. Serving the Standard
Oil was no sinecure.
* * ♦
March 8, 1900.
My Dear Senator:
I beg to enclose you herewith letter
from our counsel, Mr. Elliott, with
copy of another very objectionable
bill recently introduced at Columbus.
There will undoubtedly be a uniform
sentiment against it in the oil section.
Hope you can take care of it with the
others. Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. J. B. Foraker,
Senate Chamber,
Washington, D. C.
The very next day he received another let
ter from Archbold as follows:
March 9, 1900.
My Dear Senator:
I have your favor of last night with
enclosure, which letter, with letter
from Mr. Elliott commenting on
same, I beg to send you herewith.
Perhaps it would be better to make a
demonstration against the whole bill,
but certainly, the ninth clause, to
which Mr. Elliott refers, should be
stricken out, and the same is true of
House Bill No. 500, also introduced
by Mr.. Price, in relation to foreign
corporations, in which the same ob
jectionable clause occurs.
Am glad to hear that you think
that the situation is fairly well in
hand. Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Another bill was so “objectionable.” The
people had become so meddlesome in their
own business that Mr. Archbold advised busy
Senator Foraker to “make a demonstration”
and also to have certain clauses stricken out
and generally to look alive.
* * *
Three days after writing the letter to For-
19
I—MAGAZINE SECTION
•‘Gratification Over Favorable
Outcome of Affairs” Meant
in One Case a Certificate of
Deposit of $14,500 to Ex-
Senator Foraker. x
Mark Hanna “Held the Bag,”
“And as This Is Going To
Be an Expensive Campaign,”
He Tells Archbold He May
Have to Call Again.
•
aker that we have just read, Arch
bold sent the following letter to
Hanna:
26 Broadway, New York.
March 12, 1900. ,
My Dear Senator: ■>
I hope everything is go
ing well at Columbus.
There are a number of the
vexatious bills there and
we are resting on your
statement that they are all
well in hand. \
One of our people writes
that it is a little doubtful
as to how the Hon. Ralph
D. Cole, of Findlay, will
vote on the Russell bill.
He says that H. C. Crouse,
editor Findlay *' Republi
can,” and formerly chair
man Republican State Com
mittee, is very close to Cole,
and that Crouse is a warm friend
of yours. It occurs to me that if
you think it worth while, you might
ask Mr. Crouse to try and see Mr.
Cole immediately and persuade him to
vote against the bill. You will know
best, however, as to all matters per
taining to the different things there.
Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. M. A. Hanna, v
The Arlington, V
Washington, D. C.
Again “vexatious bills,” again an interfer
ing public, again legislators who are doubt
ful in their feudal thraldom to the trust and
who are exhibiting anarchistic indications of
independence. Up with the reserves. A Hai<
na to the rescue!
The simple sordid tale is best told in Aeoli
bold’s own language:
March 26,-1900. . ;r
Hon. J. B. Foraker, *
1500 Sixteenth St., ■
Washington, D. C. S
Dear Senator:
In accordance with our under
standing, I now beg to enclose you cer
tificate of deposit to your favor for
$15,000. Kindly acknowledge receipt
and oblige. Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
At the end of another three weeks we have
this:
April 17, 1900.
My Dear Senator 1
I enclose you certificate of deposit
to your favor for $14,500. We are
greatly at a loss in the matter, but I
send this, and will be glad to have a
frank talk with you when opportunity
offers, and if you so desire.
I need scarcely again express our
great gratification over the favorable
outcome of affairs.
Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. J. B. Foraker,
1500 Sixteenth St.,
Washington, D. C.
Later in the year comes this:
November 26, 1900.
My Dear Senator:
In pursuance of our understanding
in our talk over the telephone today, I
now beg to enclose your certificate of
deposit to your favor for SIO,OOO.
Truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. J. B. Foraker,
1500 Sixteenth St.,
Washington, D. C.
And again in this same year: »
December 11, 1900.
My Dear Senator:
Referring to our telephonic conver
sation today, I now beg to enclose you
certificate of deposit to your favor for
$5,000.
Very truly yours,
Jno. D. Archbold.
Hon. J. B. Foraker,
1500 Sixteenth St.,
Washington. D. C