BRIBERY: THE ARCHBOLD LETTERS
The Standard Oil people have undoubtedly practised bribery throughout
a long series of years and on the most comprehensive scale, and that
not merely to avert a temporary danger or get themselves out of an
unexpected scrape, but as a matter of ordinary business routine.
They bribed high and low, in season and out of season. How real the
evil is was revealed in a dramatic manner in the famous Standard
Oil letters which Mr. Randolph Hearst read during the American
Presidential campaign of 1908. The genuineness of these letters was
never questioned, although the persons implicated made some feeble
attempts to put a less invidious explanation upon them. It was stated
that one of the Standard Oil Company’s letter-books had been stolen,
and the _Times_ editorially remarked that there had been “nothing
approaching the disclosures in sensational rapidity of action in the
history of the American Presidential elections.” The principal figure
in these epistles of corruption is Mr. J. D. Archbold. The first letter
was addressed to Mr. J. B. Foraker, Senator for Ohio, and one of the
leading members of the Republican party. It was as follows:--
26, BROADWAY, NEW YORK,
_March 9, 1900_.
MY DEAR SENATOR,--I have your favour of last night with inclosure,
which latter, 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 objectionable clause
occurs. Am glad to hear that you think that the situation is fairly
well in hand.
Very truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
Hon. J. B. Foraker, Washington, D.C.
[The Mr. Elliott referred to was M. F. Elliott, general counsel for
the Standard Oil Company.]
Here are some more letters of this series:--
26, BROADWAY, NEW YORK,
_March 26, 1900_.
Hon. J. B. Foraker, 1500, Sixteenth Street, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR,--In accordance with our understanding, now beg to
enclose you certificate of deposit to your favour for $15,000. Kindly
acknowledge receipt and oblige.
Yours very truly,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
26, BROADWAY, NEW YORK,
_April 17, 1900_.
MY DEAR SENATOR,--I enclose you certificate of deposit to your favour
of $14,500. We are really at a loss in the matter, but I send this,
and will be glad to have a very frank talk with you when opportunity
offers, if you so desire. I need scarcely again express our great
gratification over the favourable outcome of affairs.
Very truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
Hon. J. B. Foraker, 1500, Sixteenth Street, Washington, D.C.
_January 27, 1902._
MY DEAR SENATOR,--Responding to your favour of the 25th, it gives me
pleasure to hand you herewith certificate of deposit for $50,000 in
accordance with our understanding. Your letter states the conditions
correctly, and I trust the transaction will be successfully
consummated.
Very truly yours,
JOHN D. ARCHBOLD.
Hon. J. B. Foraker, Washington, D.C.
26, BROADWAY,
_February 25, 1902_.
MY DEAR SENATOR,--I venture to write you a word regarding the Bill
introduced by Senator Jones, of Arkansas, known as “S. 649,” intended
to amend the Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful
restraints and monopolies, introduced by him December 4th. It really
seems as though this Bill was very unnecessarily severe and even
vicious.
Is it not much better to test the application of the Sherman Act
before resorting to a measure of this kind? I hope you will feel so
about it, and I will be greatly pleased to have a word from you on
the subject. The Bill, I believe, is still in committee.
With kind regards, I am, very truly yours,
JOHN D. ARCHBOLD.
Hon. J. B. Foraker, Washington, D.C.
Senator Foraker, when these letters were published, explained that
the 50,000 dollars was sent to him in order to carry out the purchase
of an Ohio newspaper, and that when the deal fell through he returned
the money. The American public received this explanation coldly, and
the Republican party managers forced Mr. Foraker to retire from the
campaign in order to try and get rid of so embarrassing an association.
It will be noted that while these large sums were being sent to the
Senator he was being asked to oppose anti-trust legislation in the
interests of the Standard.
But even the Bench itself was not secure from the influence of Mr.
Archbold. “Th’ Supreem Court is full of Standard Ile,” says Mr. Dooley,
the American humorist, and two other letters addressed by Mr. Archbold
to Senator Foraker show how that consummation has been reached:--
26, BROADWAY,
_December 18, 1902_.
MY DEAR SENATOR,--You, of course, know of Judge Burket’s candidacy
for re-election to the Supreme Court Bench of Ohio. We understand
that his re-election to the position would be in the line of usage
as followed in such cases in Ohio, and we feel very strongly that
his eminent qualifications and great integrity entitle him to this
further recognition.
We most earnestly hope that you agree with this view, and will favour
and aid his re-election. Mr. Rogers joins me most heartily in this
expression to you.
With kind regards, I am, very sincerely yours,
JOHN D. ARCHBOLD.
26, BROADWAY,
_March 20, 1903_.
MY DEAR SENATOR,--We are surprised beyond measure to learn that
Smith W. Bennett, brother-in-law of F. S. Monnett, recently
Attorney-General of Ohio, is in the race for the Attorney-Generalship
of Ohio on the Republican ticket.
Bennett was associated with Monnett in the case against us in Ohio,
and I would like to tell you something of our experiences and
impressions of the man gained in that case. If you know him at all, I
am sure you will agree that his candidacy ought not to be seriously
considered from any point of view.
I would esteem it a favour to have a line from you on the subject.
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
Mr. F. S. Monnett, whose brother-in-law is attacked here, was one
of the public officials whom the Standard Oil Trust failed to
bribe--a most inconvenient record in Mr. Archbold’s eyes. He was
Attorney-General for the State of Ohio, and his activity in enforcing
the anti-Trust law of that State against the Standard earned him this
denunciation. Mr. Monnett described his personal experiences in the
matter to a representative of the Press in July, 1899, when on a visit
to London:--
It happened in this way: Mr. Chas. B. Squires is a well-known
business man in Cleveland, president of the Manhattan Insurance
Company, and in no way connected with the Standard. Owing to my
fighting the Insurance Trust in Ohio I saw a good deal of him. One
day a man called on Squires, saying that he represented Frank
Rockefeller (brother of J. D.) and Charles V. Haskell, both Standard
Oil men. This man asked Squires whether the Attorney-General could
be “reached.” Squires replied (according to his story to me) that if
anybody could “reach” him he could. This representative mentioned
the Trust names, and showed Squires a telegram stating that he had
authority to “reach” the Attorney-General, and that there would be
a liberal reward for him if things were dickered. The man offered
Squires $100,000. Squires said that would amount to nothing at all;
that he would not attempt such a job for less than $500,000. Finally
he was authorised to offer $400,000 (£80,000) to the Attorney-General
if he would let the case stand adjourned over his term of office
[this was the prosecution of the Standard by the State of Ohio as an
illegal Trust], and $100,000 was for Squires and the go-between. I
was at Washington, and got a telegram from Squires, “Do nothing till
I see you.” When I did see him he made this proposition.... This is
not the first case of the kind during this litigation, for one of my
predecessors, Mr. Watson, was offered $100,000 in much the same way.
It is, moreover, quite in accordance with the general policy of the
Trust.
In fact, in that year--1899--the Annual Report of Mr. Monnett to the
Governor of the State of Ohio contains detailed charges of _six_
deliberate attempts to bribe Mr. David K. Watson, his predecessor in
office, to withdraw suits entered against the Standard Oil Company of
Ohio. Mr. Watson, however, was not to be bribed; neither was he to
be intimidated, though Senator Marcus A. Hanna, the personal friend
and financier of President McKinley, and one of the most influential
Republican politicians in America, wrote to him stating that he had
always considered him “in the line of political promotion,” and then
went on to intimate that unless the suit against the Standard was
withdrawn Watson would be the object of vengeance by the Corporation
and its friends for ever after. As if to clinch his threat and
argument, Hanna wrote, “_You have been in politics long enough to know
that no man in public office owes the public anything._” This last
phrase remained a potent weapon in the hands of Mr. Hanna’s enemies
till the day of his death.
But the Hearst letters show that Judge Burket was not the only judicial
candidate Mr. Archbold favoured. The following letters were written by
him to the Hon. W. A. Stone, Governor of Pennsylvania:--
26, BROADWAY,
_December 5, 1902_.
MY DEAR GOVERNOR,--I am sure you will pardon any seeming presumption
on my part in writing you on a subject in which, both personally and
on behalf of my Company, I am greatly interested. It is to urge the
appointment, if at all consistent, of Judge Morrison, of McKeen, to
the Supreme Court Bench, vice Mitchell, deceased. Judge Morrison’s
character for ability and integrity needs no word at my hands, but
aside from these great considerations his familiarity with all that
pertains to the great industries of oil and gas in the important
relation they bear to the interests of the Western part of the State
make him especially desirable as a member of the Court from that
section.
Hoping that it may prove possible for you to favourably consider
Judge Morrison’s appointment.
I am, with very high regard, sincerely yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
Hon. Wm. A. Stone, Harrisburg, Pa.
26, BROADWAY,
_September 5, 1900_.
Hon. Wm. A. Stone, Harrisburg, Pa.
MY DEAR GOVERNOR,--Will you permit me to say that if it seems
consistent for you to appoint Judge John Henderson, of Meadville,
Pa., to the vacancy on the Supreme Bench caused by the death of Judge
Green, it will be a matter of intense personal satisfaction to me.
I am sure I need not occupy your time with any argument as to Judge
Henderson’s fitness, either as to character or legal qualification.
With high regard, I am, very truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
Both Judge Morrison and Judge Henderson were appointed to the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, and the former’s familiarity with “oil and gas”
no doubt proved acceptable to Mr. Archbold. We shall see hereafter that
Mr. Archbold himself and other Standard Oil magnates had good reason to
appreciate in the famous Buffalo refinery prosecution the advantage of
having on the Bench a judge who was familiar with “oil and gas.”
These strange letters did not disdain other rising members of the Bar.
Here is a telegram and three letters addressed to the Hon. J. P. Elkin,
Attorney-General of Pennsylvania--the officer whose duty it is to act
as public prosecutor in his State in enforcing anti-Trust legislation.
Mr. Elkin’s merits have since raised him also to the Bench of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania:--
Telegram.
_March 15, 1900._
Hon. John P. Elkin, Indiana, Pa.
Telegram received. Will do as requested.
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
26, BROADWAY,
_March 15, 1900_.
Hon. John P. Elkin, Indiana, Pa.
Personal.
MY DEAR GENERAL,--In accordance with your telegraphic request of
to-day, I beg to enclose you certificate of deposit to your favour
for $5,000, in fulfilment of our understandings.
Very truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
26, BROADWAY,
_February 5, 1900_.
MY DEAR GENERAL,--In accordance with the request in your telegram
of to-day, I now beg to enclose you certificate of deposit to your
favour for $10,000, kind acknowledgment of which will oblige.
Yours very truly,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
To Hon. John P. Elkin, Indiana, Pa.
26, BROADWAY,
_May 9, 1901_.
MY DEAR GENERAL,--I enclose copy of a measure pending--I am not sure
whether in the House or Senate--being an Act to amend an existing
Statute, as stated. For reasons which seem to us potent, we would
greatly like to have this proposed amendment killed. Won’t you kindly
tell me about it and advise me what you think the chances are?
Very truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
To the Hon. John P. Elkin, Attorney-General,
Harrisburg, Pa.
This is the sort of campaign the Standard Oil Trust has been carrying
on in American Legislatures. How would the British people like it to be
extended to the House of Commons?
Of course, in such a campaign of corruption the Press is not
overlooked. Here are three interesting letters which show how public
opinion may be manufactured by that process:--
26, BROADWAY,
_October 10, 1902_.
Mr. H. H. Edmonds, Baltimore, Md.
DEAR SIR,--Responding to your favour of the 9th, it gives me pleasure
to enclose you herewith certificate of deposit to your favour for
$3,000, covering a year’s subscription to the _Manufacturers’
Record_.--Truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
26, BROADWAY,
_January 17, 1899_.
Hon. W. A. Magee, _Pittsburg Times_, Pittsburg, Pa.
DEAR SIR,--As per understanding, herewith enclosed find certificate
of deposit to your order for $1,250, the receipt of which kindly
acknowledge.--Truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
26, BROADWAY,
_December 18, 1901_.
Mr. Thomas P. Grasty, care of Buck & Pratt, Room 1,203, 27, William
Street, City.
DEAR MR. GRASTY,--I have your favour of yesterday, and beg to return
you herewith the telegram from Mr. Edmonds to you. We are willing to
continue the subscription of $5,000 to the _Southern Farm Magazine_
for another year, payments to be made the same as they have been this
year. We do not doubt but that the influence of your publications
throughout the South is of the most helpful character.
With good wishes, I am, very truly yours,
JNO. D. ARCHBOLD.
These sums are called “subscriptions,” but their real character appears
from the case of the _Southern Farm Magazine_, the price of which is
50 cents a year. Mr. Archbold was therefore “subscribing” for 10,000
years! We have only to remember that the anti-Trust feeling is very
strong in Texas and the other Southern States to realise why the
Standard Oil Trust was extending its patronage to the remote posterity
of Mr. Thomas P. Grasty, that publicist of such a “helpful” character.
ARSON AND ESPIONAGE
“The Oil Trust is evangelical at one end and explosive at the other.”
HENRY D. LLOYD _in_ “_Wealth against Commonwealth_.”