Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Sunday Oregonian. (Portland, Ore.) 1881-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 23, 1908)
TIIE SUNDAY OREGOXIAX, PORTLAND, FEBRUARY 23, 1908. SENATOR FULTON MAKES SPECIFIC DENIAL OF HENEY'S CHARGES 10 (Continual From First Page. sensational statement mode, by Mr. Heney that nieht. which was to tlie effect that In the memorable Senatorial campaign o 1S97. Senator Fulton acted as the "sackholder" for John H. Mitchell at Salem and used money to corrupt legislators for the purpose of bringing about Mitchell's election to the Senate. In his church speech Mr. Honey cre ated a profound sensation and one R-hl. h extended boyond the boundaries of the Mate ot Oregon, by reading an affidavit made by one J. S. Smith, who had been elected to the legislature of 1R!7. to the effect that Senator Mitchell, since deceased, and Senator Fulton, then a private citizen, in rrosence of one James Powell, offered the affiant, who had not than taken his scat. $3000. one-half down, on condition that affiant (Smith) would qualify, take his peat, make a speecli against further delay in organization, . and advise the lealslators assembled to elect Mitchell; that affiant told Mitchell and Fulton to eive the money to Powell for him, nn.l that ehortly after Powell brought affiant the money, that the next morn ing when affiant Smith was in the State House lobby In presence of a large number of other persons, Fulton approached affiant and demanded that nfliant go upon the floor of the House and carry out his agreement, and upon affiant's refusal, in a loud voice and in u manner which attracted, the at tention of the crowd, demanded the money back and threatened affiant with violence. Set Trap for Mitchell. Smith .concluded his affidavit by stating that he had deliberately sought the opportunity to be offered a bribe, and had acted for the purpose of en trapping Mitchell and his campaign managers. having no Intention of carrying out his agreement to support Mitchell. It is to a complete and unequivocal denial of the charge contained in the Smith affidavit that a large part and by far the most- interesting part of 1 lie Fulton statement Is devoted. In asmuch as In course of his denial Senator Fulton mentions prominently the name of George E. Chamberlain, now Governor of Oregon and Demo cratic candidate for the United States Senate in opposition to Senator Fulton and other Republicans. Tn substance Senator Fulton charges that two years ago, when it became apparent that there was no hope of in volving him in a criminal prosecution, Heney, acting as the tool of the com bine, resolved to play a desperate game and to enlist the aid of. Governor Cham berlain in a political conspiracy. Heney himself being at that time a lifelong Democrat. Then, adds Senator Fulton, "there was nothing left to do but to hire a hall, tap the Bewer and turn the stream on Fulton. Thereupon this poor creature Smith was brought upon the stage." Smith &lo Fulton's Enemy. Explaining further the facts under lying the affidavit. Senator Fulton as serts that the animus of Smith's charges was that he had once sought to prevent Smith's appointment to a Job at the State Penitentiary, and as proof of his charge that Smith was a grafter and unfit for the position had Informed Governor Chamberlain that Smith had deliberately filched money from John H. Mitchell by accepting a bribe and then refusing to keep a corrupt agreement. Senator Fulton goes on to say that this charge against Smith was made to the Governor in confidence in the "Winter of 1903, at the time that the senatorial campaign that resulted in Senator Fulton's election was in full swing, and six years after the alleged Incident in the lobby of the Statehouse. The alleged facts concerning Smith's treachery. Senator Fulton says, were told him by a friend some time after the occurrence. As to whether the story was true, Senator Fulton expresses no opinion. He merely says that It is ab lolutely untrue that he was an actor In the drama as charged in Smith's affidavit. Wonders at Moderation. 'T am not surprised at what I am charged with," he adds, bitterly. "The wonder to me now Is that I am charged with so little. When I consider Mr. Hency's methods of obtaining testimony I wonder at his moderation." In this connection Senator Fulton Intimates that Smith was the political creature of Governor Chamberlain, who not only gave him the Penitentiary of fice, but also approved his conduct and honored him in robbing Mitchell. In cidentally the Senator scathingly re bukes the Governor for making pub lic what any man of honor would have treated as private conversation and in condoning Smith's admitted crime. Senator Fulton dismissed concisely the charge made by Smith. He points out that It is manifestly false that he should have gone into the public lobby of the Statehouso to berate Smith for breaking a corrupt agreement, or should there have demanded the return of a bribe, or threatened a bribe taker with violence. He pointedly states that had ho been engaged in bribing legislators for Mitch ell, as he was not, it was hardly possi ble that a bribe would have been offered through Powell when Smith was in the room eager and willing to accept the money at first hands. Further, ho refers to the fact that he "referred his own "charges against Smith at the very time that he himself was in tho heat of Ilia own Senatorial campaign. The very fact that at such a time he went on such an errand to a Democratic Governor, he says, should convince tho most skeptical that he himself was not involved in the Smith affair, then six years past. Where Were Newspapermen? Lastly, among other pertinent com ments on the manifest improbability of Smith's story, Senator Fulton asks those who have heard Hency's charges whether they believe that a sensational Incident such as his own alleged encounter with Smith in the crowded lobby of the State house would have been overlooked when the Capitol was thronged with bright, vigilant and active newspaper reporters and correspondents. Yet not a word about such an encounter was ever pub lished In the newspapers at the time. Tu prefacing his statement,' Senator Fulton- refers to the fact that not until Hcncy began his campaign ot slaiid.cE was his own personal integrity ever as sailed, and also declares, with pride that his own election to the United States Sen ile was accomplished without the use of i dollar in an illegitimate manner and after a fight a.s clean and honest as the State of Oregon ever knew. Does not. therefore, tho dragging out of a slander of the nature of the Smith story, after a lapse of 11 years, indicate the straits to which Mr. Heney and Governor Cham berlain have been reduced in their part nership campaign of slander? asks Sen ator Fulton. Tho Senator closes his answer to the Smith chargo by referring to tho dis graceful conduct of numerous old-time Senatorial elections, and declares that he Is heartily glad that the old-time boodle, campaigns are a thing of tho past. Not Hammond's Lawyer. Another charge made by Mr. Heney in his church speech was that Senator Ful ton had been the tool of the Hammond lumber Interests at Astoria in shady tim- S.VL1ENT SENTENCES VROM SEN ATOR FULTON'S LETTKR. If I have sinned as h (Heney) would have the people believe. It has not been for my own advantage or profit, but to aid a friend. Well, I much prefer It so. Heney is a man of most accommo dating and adjustable principles, ob sessed by an irrepressible ambition to stand in the limelight. Heney's motive Is twofold: Revenge and politics. Governor Chamberlain approved and honored him (J. S. Smith) for bis admitted, deliberate filching of Mitchell's money. The (Smith) story Is a deliberate and malicious falsehood, -so far as my participation In that transaction is concerned. -' So far from being Mitchell's sack holJer. I never knew he had one. I never was the legal adviser of the Hammond Lumber Company. It never at any time paid me a dollar. I have never been attorney for any person, company, firm or corporation engaged In acquiring timber lands, or other public lands. For two years hefnre the rate law containing the anil-pass provision was enacted I declined to ride to and from Washington on a pass. Men under indictment, yes, under conviction, have been assured of immunity and pardon would they but -testify to something that would crim inally Involve me. The assertion that I was present when any Buch (bribery) proposition was made to Smith is absolutely false. I am proud of the fact that the campaign for my own election is known as one of the cleanest ever made in Oregon. Brownell testified for immunity, and I pity him. It is a.sLrange na ture that in order to save himself he Is willing to bear false witness against another. ber land deals. Senator Fulton dismisses this chargo briefly. Ho says that Mr. Heney deliberately misstated the facts to suit his own purposes and that there is not a word of truth in the accusations made in the church speech. He flatly declares that he was never attorney for the Hammond Lumber Company or for any other timber land purchaser or dealer, individual, firm or corporation. He says that he was attorney for one of the numerous Hammond corporations and one only. This was the Astoria & Columbia River Railroad Company, and Senator Fulton denounces as unqualified falsehood Mr. Heney's charge that this company was a large purchaser of tim ber lands. Mr. Heney's utter disregard for facts is well proved In this matter, says the Senator, for this company does not own, and never did own or purchase, even so much as an acre of timber land. At no time. Senator Fulton asserts, did he ever oppose the administration's for est reserve policy on account of his in terests In timber lands, though he ad mits that ho did oppose the policy of ad ministering the forest reserves, for good and legitimate reasons. With equal brevity the Senator dis misses Mr. Heney's charge that he is tha tool of the railroads. He ceased the prac tice of law, he says, when he entered the Senate and even resigned as attor ney of the Astoria Railroad, although It was a purely local corporation. Further more, he says, two years before the rate bill was passed he refused railroad passes to Washington for himself and family and forbade his clerks to accept railroad passes. As to Brownell's Letter. ' The remainder of tho Senator's state ment is devoted to a discussion of the celebrated Brownell letter and the kindred matter of the Butte Creek fenc ing case, recently tried in the Federal Court in this city, in which Brownell and ex-District Attorney John H. Hall were involved. As to tha Brownell letter itself. Senator Fulton says that he has heretofore fully stated his position. As to Mr. Heney's charge that he was Implicated in a con spiracy to secure the reappointment of Hall as District Attorney, Senator Fulton makes a strong denial and backs up his statements by reproducing some hitherto unpublished letters and telegrams that passed between himself, Brownell and Hall during the time that the conspiracy was alleged to have been on foot. This correspondence, appears to dis prove absolutely Mr. Heney's contention, since it shows, on its face at least, that Senator Fulton never pledged himself to support Hall for appointment, and never did, in fact, work for Hall, though requested so to do by Brownell, who was a candidate for District Attorney to suc ceed Hall, but who withdrew from the field In Hall's favor, as Mr. Heney charges, because Hall had threatened him with Indictment in connection with cer tain land frauds. Mr. Fulton denies absolutely that he had any contemporary knowledge of Brownell's fear of Hall, and shows by the correspondence he quotes that he favored Brownell's appointment until the latter was out of the race, then "switched" to the side of Campbell, another candidate, not to that of Hall. Heney Worked for Hall. - Senator Fulton frankly admits that later, in the Summer of 1904, he voted several times for Hall at a meeting of the Oregon delegation at the Hotel Port land, but he points out the fact, which Mr. Heney has admitted, that when Hall wag finally reappointed, it was at llr,. Heney's request, and on Mr. Heney's re quest only, tho Oregon delegation being ignored. Senator Fulton admits that some time prior to Hall's appointment, when Hall was in Washington for tho purpose of fixing up his political fences he talked with Hall about the story that Brownell had been threatened with Indictment. Senator Fulton says that Hall at that time spoke most kindly of Brownell. The inferenco to be drawn from the corre spondence Senator Fulton quotes' is that if Brownell feared Hall he concealed the fact from Senator Fulton. In the matter of the Butte Creek fenc ing conspiracy. Senator Fulton unhesitat ingly admits that he did just what Mr. Heney charges him with having done; that Is, ho advised Hall, as District At torney, to bring a civil suit, and not a criminal prosecution, if the interests of the settlers who had complained could be equally well subserved. If this simple act to protect reputable citizens from shame and disgrace was a crime. Senator Fulton says he Is willing to stand con victed of it. In like circumstances, he says, he would do exactly the same thing again. In connection with the trial of the criminal case that was later brought, and In which 'Hall was convicted of conspir acy. Senator Fulton says, more in sor row than In anger, that both Brownell and W. W. Steiwer, who took the im munity bath and testified for the Gov ernment, garbled the facts in their testi mony. There was nothing in the truth. Senator Fulton says, that would have re flected upon him. Appended is the full text of Senator Fulton's statement. TEXT OF FUIiTON'S STATEMENT Senator Answers Charges Made by Francis J. Heney. For over S2 years, near a third of a cen tury, I have resided in the State of Oregon. During 14 years of that time I was a mem ber of the State Senate, and for A quarter of a century more or less active in the politics of the state. During most of that period the Republican party was rent and torn by internecine struggles and factional strife, yet never at any time during all those stormy days did even my must bitter enemies bring in question my honor or integrity. During the 20 years previous to my election to the Senate every contested election of United States Senator was attended with numerous and notorious charges of bribery and lavish expenditure of money. My election occurred at the January session, 1903, and was. noted for having been conducted in a decent and honorable manner, without scandal and with out the use of money. It was so because I Insisted that It must be so. I stated many times that could I not secure the office with out the use of money, I did not want It. It is quite true that I had no money to spend, but my friends offered to provide money for me. I declined it, saying that It was my ambition to be elected without the use of money: to go to the Senate with clean hands and free of obligation to any and every Interest. I did so. It has been left to Mr. Heney to bring the first charge that baa ever been made against my character for Integrity. One thing ob servable, however, about his 'several charges against me is that I am accused in every instance of trying to help a friend. In not a single matter is It alleged that X was seek ing to advance my own interest or was in any wise to profit by the result. If I have Finned, as he would have the people believe. It has not been for my own advantage or profit, but to aid a friend. Well. I would much prefer it so. I confess to warm and strong friendships, and I have ever been will ing to do more for a friend than for myself. I am glad of It and It is the great solace of my life that, though I have not made money or accumulated wealth, I have made and I have my friends. Mr. Heney's Motives. But Mr. Heney contends that I have gone too far for my friends and have been guilty of conduct which renders me unworthy of the confidence of the people of Oregon, and he would have it appear that he Is actuated by a high sense of public duty in bringing this to public attention. It seems quite proper and pertinent, therefore, to inquire what his real motive Is. Those who have read Mr. Heney's biography by his chosen biographer, Mr. Steflens, will have discov ered that so far from being actuated by lofty motives throughout his career, he is a man of most accommodating and adjustable prin ciples, obsessed by an Irrepressible ambition to stand In the limelight. Whatever may have been his motive on other occasions, how ever, in the present instance it is idle for him to pretend to be animated by any mo tive that Is either creditable to him as a man or as an official. His motive, then, let it be known, is twofold, revenge and poli tics. Revenge because I opposed his ap pointment to the work of assistant prose cutor and insisted on the appointment of an Oregon man, Dan J. Malarkey, and because when Heney was appointed I wrote and pub lished a letter severely censuring the action. Later I had occasion to criticise the then Sec retary of Interior for his manner of adminis tering the irrigation fund. Thereupon Mr. Heney and Mr. Hitchcock decreed that I was to be destroyed, and the whole power of the Government was enlisted to that end. Spe cial agents and detectives were put at work to find something against me. and every few months some vile slander was published. I promptly met and ' refuted every charge. Finally, .realizing that nothing on which to base a criminal charge against me could be found, although my record had been searched with microscopic care, they directed their ef forts to the work of digging up some scandal wherewith to smirch by character and injure me before the people. This they began, it now appears, at least two years ago, for the Smith affidavit was taken before Neuhausen in January, 1906. It had nothing to do with the affairs or laws of the United States, hence why were Heney and Neuhausen devoting their time to that work? Revenge and poli tics. Was the affidavit then made public? No. It was too early. They must wait until near the primary election, when also it was known I would have to be absent from the state, attending to my duties in Congress. It evidently was also a part of the consplr ay that the Hall case should be used as a medium' through which to Injure ree by In sinuation and inuendo. Hence, although in dicted three years ago, or thereabouts. Hall was cot permitted to come to trial until now. It was advertised widely that in the trial of the Hall case the "facts against Fulton would come out." But no facts came. The thunder was all In the index. Governor Chamberlain's Interest. It then became necessary to play a des perate game. The object, as stated, was not only revenge, but politics as well, for Mr. Heney Is a Democrat. The politics, however, more especialy represented the Governor's In terest in the game. Evidently he did not like his hand and -did not wish to play it if possible to avoid so doing. But every other device and expedient had been exhausted. Every defendant in the fencing conspiracy case, excepting Hall, had been let off in con sideration of giving testimony for the prose cution; still nothing was forthcoming against Fulton. So. if tho conspiracy was to be car ried out and its purpose achieved, there was nothing left to do but hire a hall, tap tho sewer and turn the stream on Fulton. There upon, - this poor creature, J. S. Smith, was brought upon the stage. Had I not sought to prevent his appointment by the Governor to a deputy wardenshlp? Was not here an opportunity to get even? Certainly. Besides, he was helping the Governor, and the Gov ernor not only approved of that, but as well approved and honored him for his admitted, deliberate filching of Mitchell's money. There fore, what had he to fear? Manifestly noth ing to fear and revenge to gain. The Smith Incident. So on the stage came Heney. Smith and the Governor, and Smith told his atory, namely. that 1 1 years ago, six years before 1 was elected Senator, at a session of the Legis lature which was never held, because a suf ficient number of House members to consti tute a quorum did not qualify, the late Sena tor Mitchell and I. in the presence of one James Powell, offered him (Smith), a mem-, ber who had not qualified, $.1000. one-half ! down. If he (Smith) would qualify and take hie seat, niake a speech advising against fur ther delay in organization and advise the members to get together, organize and elect Mitchell, and that he told us to give the money to Powell for him, and that shortly thereafter the latter brought him the money. That the next morning he was out In the state house lobby, where many other people were, when I came out and Insisted on him going lnt.o the House, and on his refusal I, In a loud voice and In a manner which at tracted the attention of the crowd, demanded the money bark and threatened him with vio lence. That he had deliberately sought an opportunity to take the money, not intending to comply with his agreement. Such Is Smith's tat. Of course the telling and publication at this time of a transaction which it iss alleged occurred 11 years ago, when I was not even a candidate for the Senate, when I was not even, as Heney as serts, a member of the Legislature. Is pur suant to the aforesaid conspiracy to destroy me, and to elect somebody else. Now I say to the people of Oregon that so far as my alleged participation In that transaction is concerned, the story is a deliberate and ma licious falsehood. If the transaction ever oc curred, I had no part in it. I am not sur prised, however, when I consider the com bination against me, that I am charged with It. The wonder to me now is that I am charged with so little. When I consider Mr. Heney's methods of obtaining testimony. I wonder at his moderation. I know that men under indictment, yes. under conviction, have been assured of immunity and pardon would they but testify to something y that would criminaly involve me. Fortunately they failed to accomplish that, so the scan dal mill was started up. Why Smith Story Is False. Now I submit to any candid mind that there are at least three convincing and, I think, conclusive reasons why that story, so far as I am concerned is not true. 1. It ts manifestly false that I should have gone out into the public lobby of the state house and entered into an altercation with Smith about such a matter, or should there have demanded the return of the money and threatened him with violence. Second While possible, it la altogether improbable that, had we been engaged In such business, we would have taken Powell, a stranger and third party, into our con fidence, talked it over in his presence and sent the money by him and thus added to the dancer of detection, when Smith was there himself, willing and anxious to accept the money. Third The very fact that I. In after years, in the very midst of my own con test for re-elei-tlon to the Senate, namely, in January. 190:1. went to the Democratic Governor and told him anything about It, makes it clear that I. myself, was not im plicated, for surely I would not, in such circumstances have deliberately involved myself. Violation of a Confidence. And that brings me to a consideration of Governor Chamberlain's statement. I take it as he is quoted correctly in a Portland newspaper, and in -the Salem Journal. He says it was during the session of the Legis lature In January. 1903. hence whllo my contest for election was in progress, that I came into his office, where he and his pri vate secretary were. That I said I knew Smith to te a grafter; that he had taken Mitchell's money and violated his agree ment, placing stress on that fact; that I did not mention the amount, but Said I knew he bad taken the money. Heney quotes the Governor as saying that I said he was paid $1000 in my presence or short ly thereafter. The Governor In the inter view mentioned stated - that I only said that I knew Smith bad been paid money, but did not mention the amount, or say I was present when It was paid. However, he says I did not speakrto-him In confidence, and that he violated no confidence In tell ing about It. No one had yet accused him of violating confidence;: why hurry to assert that he had not Evidently there was an accusing conscience; a realization that it was rather small business, and still smaller politics thus to repeat what every body would instantly, know was a private conversation. I recall going to the Governor at ths time. I had heard that this fellow Smith was an applicant for the office of warden in the Penitentiary. I had heard sufficient about his robbery of Mitchell to satisfy me to a moral certainty that he had de liberately applied for and received the money. I thought and said to myself, the Governor ought ts know thiB. I felt that not only' was it my duty to tell him. but that he would be obliged to me for telling him. Therefore. I did go to him and I told him that I knew Smith to be a grafter and that he had taken money from Mitchell on a promise to go Into the House, qualify and assist in breaking the "hold-UD" and had kept the money, but gone back on ills promise. I did not say how I knew It. of course. Quite likely I did; not ask it to be treated as confidential, but does anyone believe the Governor did not so understand It? He seemed at the time grateful to me for having told him. I never heard from him again about it until now. As stated. I told him because I deemed It my dutv so to do. I certainly never dreamed that he would take advantage of it for politi cal purposes in order to play small poli tics. But let that pass. Governor. I will only say it would not be possible for me to do such a thing. I never could have be lieved heretofore that it would be possible for yon to do it. I did not know until I saw a copy of Smith's affidavit as pub lished that he had been appointed. I paid no further attention to the matter, feeling that I had done my duty. But the Gov ernor tells us that upon Investigation he learned that all Smith did was to secure the money on a promise to go in and break the hold-u." with a view not to comply with his promise, but to keep the money; this the Governor considered perfectly hon orable and manly so long as he did not keep his promise: hence he considered him a suitable man for the position of warden and appointed him. for the Governor is quoted as saying. "Smith had been guilty of no moral turpitude." But. manifestly. Smith's story on Its face Is false. He states that he. Mitchell. Powell and myself were present when I proposed to pay 3000. one-half cash, if he would go in and help organize. Is it probable that I would make such a proposition in the presence of so many persons? Further on he says that on the following morning, while he was in the state lobby, where there were evidently many other people. I came to him and demanded that he should go into the house and comply with his agree ment, and on his refusal I demanded re payment of the money and in a "loud voice" threatened him with violence and so con ducted myself as to attract the attention ot the crowd. Is not that utterly absurd? Is it possible that any person will believe that I would talk on such a subject In such a place and manner? Would I have so recklessly jeopardized my reputation and the cause I was supporting? Had such a scene occurred in that place would not the -newspapers of that evening and the following morning have been full of It as a great sensation? The lobby was. of course, as usual at that time, as the Capitol was. alivo with bright, vigilant newspaper re porters, and yet this remarkable scene escaped them. It may well be that I on some occasion talked with Smith in the lobby, possibly argued with and urged him to go in and qualify. At one time or an other I suppose I talked and argued with almost, if not every, member who waa staying out. But this story of Smith's Is an Impossible occurrence and stamps his whole tale as false. Conscious of His Innocence. Then Is not the fact that I went to the Governor as I did troof conclusive that I personally was conscious of Innocence? Would I otherwise have mentioned to him such a subject? Can any person believe that had I been a party to the payment of the money directly or indirectly. I would have mentioned It to Governor Chamber lain? Remember I was. then and there engaged in a contest for the Seuatorship and he was the Democratic Governor, whose election no one had more earnestly contested than I. Is it conceivable that had 1 been a Darty to the transaction I would hava spoken to the Governor of all men about It? I have stated, and I repeat that the asser tion that I was present when any such proposition was made to Smith, or that I was In anywise a party to it, is absolutely false. I knew nothing about it until long afterwards. I do not feel at liberty to state the source of niy Information, for much of It was confidential, but I was firmly con vinced that It was true and that it was my duty to tell the Governor, and I did so. The Governor has knows It then for five years. He did not deem Smith's conduct censur able. Inasmuch as he went back on his word and kept the money. Why is this matter now dragged out of the longpast to be made to do duty at this particular time? The answer ts patent. For political pur poses. I am proud of the fact that the campaign I made for my own election is known as one of ihe cleanest ever made in Oregon. No charge of the use of money therein was ever even whispered. Had I desired money I could have had It. for my friends offered several times to raise money for me, as I can. If necessary, prove. I declined to ac cept it, for I felt that If I could not be elected without its use. I did not want the office. Jt was my ambition to come to the Senate with clean hands and free of obliga tions to every interest. I so came. I do not claim to be perfect. I have made many mistakes, but I have never, to my knowl edge, done a dishonorable act. I have never approved of the use of money In politics, as all my friends know. The system of elect ing Senators by- the Legislature has always been objectionable to me because ot the fact that It invites ths use of money and affords too great an opportunity to use it. Ir one side employs It the other side is likely to feel that it must also, however greatly It may deplore it. Hence. I have always favored the election of United States Sena tors by the people. What Mitchell Used Money For. Now, It may be well to recall that the contest of 1S97 was exceptional. It was not a fight for votes for Senator, It was a fight for and against organization. Mitchell was seeking to secure organization and his op ponents were laboring to prevent it. What ever money was used was not used to pur chase votes, but either to Induce men who had been elected to the House to take their oath of office or to refuse to do so. Every body knew that Mitchell had sufficient votes to. elect him If ever a ballot should be taken, but until the House should effect a permanent organization no ballot could be taken hence the fight was. on o'ne hand to get 40 members to qualify, on the other hand to prevent those members from quali fying. The feeling was intensely bitter and no doubt many things were done by men on both sides which they regretted thereafter. It was a matter of common knowledge that -men -were, being . paid . large sums daily for remaining out and refusing to qualify, in order to prevent the assembling of a quorum in the House But nothing could bs done to prevent It. for it was not a violation of any law to pay a man not to accept an office to which he had been elected. Now, let us see what Smith charges in his affidavit Mitchell and I did. He says: "Fulton said to me In Mitchell's hearing and presence: T will give you $3000 and pay you $1500 of that amount down right now if you will go Into the House tomorrow and make a speech that you think there has been enough of this delay and urge that the members take action and vote for Mitchell for United States Senator.' and to this he says 'Mitchell added his assurance.' " So. then, he was not, according to his own statement, asked to vote for Mitchell him self, but he was going - Into the House that is, to take his oath of office and official seat and advise against further delay and recommend that the members at once end the "hold-up" and elect Mitchell. Well, even if Mitchell did offer to pay Smith and did pay him to qualify and take his seat so as to make a quorum, even to make a speech for him, it would not have been a violation of law. T do not defend such a transaction and I never engaged in one. But we all know how bitter were those old fac tional contests and we know by common re port that men of the highest character, whose honor in other matters was never questioned, went to lengths and did things which they no doubt regretted ever after. In the old Dolph-Mltehell contest of 189.1 and in the Mltchell-Corbett fights thereafter we all know what charges and counter charges were made. In the heat of such a contest honorable men often go too far. So in the contest of 1807 the most bitter ever waged In Oregon men were at white heat. That money- large sums of money was paid to members-elect In 1887. to induce them not to qualify and to absent them selves from the preliminary organization Mitchell well knew. Indeed current reports credited the supplying of the money, and the payment of it as well, toimen of high standing In the state. These are unpleasant things to mention, but I am obliged to pre sent the situation. It was rot a nice busi ness on-eitbeir side, and personally I never engaged In It and would not. as all my personal friends know, it was a deplorable condition, but probably inevitable under the system then existing. I am thankful the system no longer exists. Vrby Heney Changed ToUtlcs. But. does anyone believe for a single mo ment that the unearthing of these scandals of the olden time is being done for a pa triotic purpose? Is anyone so verdant as to suppose Heney alone Is concerned In It? Of course he was and is a willing tool. He saw an opportunity for revenge and sensation: that his part was an Infamous one mattered not to him. And then he is a Democrat, has been all his life. True, within the last few weeks he has announced that he has become a Republican. why so suddenly change? Ho did not even announce it until his recent visit to Oregon. Was it that he thought he could play the part better as a professed Republican? Or was It that he thinks he sees greater opportunity for po litical advancement as a Republican? Prob ably both. But is it not strange that this man who professes so much of lofty purpose and high ideals could see nothing to censure in the act of the Governor In appointing to a responsible office one who confessed he had deliberately promised to accept money to qualify for an office with intent to se cure the money and violate the promise? Could -see no moral obtuseness In a man who could see "no moral turpitude" In such act? Here was a man elected to the Legis lature who refused to qualify and take his seat lest by so doing he should contribute to the organization of the House to which he had been elected. Why he was so re fusing is an Interesting question. He had not the excuse of the Republican members for they were waging a factional war. He was a Populist having no Interest In the faction al contest. It was notorious' that large sums of money were being spent to influence members to remain out. He remained out. He understood money would be paid to one who woul.l go In. He wanted that monev. He. therefore, promised to go In and nn that promise got the money, so he himself savs, hut he did not Intend to go ,in. he only in tended to deceive In order toget the money The Governor could see "no mora! turpi tude" In that and no reason why he should not be appointed to office. Henev sees nothing wrong about it and approves the Governor's action. 'ot Mitchell's Sackholder. It is not possible for me in this artlc'e to take up every Item of Heney's attack be sides much of the data I require is in Ore gon and cannot be had here. He charges that I was Mitchell's sackholder and as evi dence thereof presents an affidavit of one Mead, who states that he and others were sent by the Chief of Police of Salem to guard the assembly room and keep one Davis from occupying the chair: that they were told they would have to look to the Mitchell faction for their pay and that he came to me. demanded $10 per day and I allowed him but $8. I recall something of the mat ter, but had forgotten how the men were or came to be employed until I received a letter from Judge Henry L. Benson, inform ing me that he. as the temporary Speaker of the organization, seeking to secure perma nent organization, learning that those op posed to organization contemplated taking possession of and holding the room, called on the Chief of Police for protection and that he sent the guard. I had nothing to do with It. but I do recall s.me of the men coming to me about their pay. The Chief contended that he had no authority to pay or charge It to the city. I saw Mitchell arid he agreed to pay the men rather than have any. in feel ing over the matter. I settled the matter for him and he gave the money. I never heard of any dissatisfaction. So far from being Mitchell's sackholder. I never knew he had one. Indeed it was always my impres sion that he" had very little to start with and nothing to end with. I regret that I am compelled to answer Heney's attack at so long range. I find it Impossible at this distance to secure informa tion and data that would be at hand were I in Oregon. When I reach Oregon I shall take this matter up more fully. But. after all. It Is difficult to prove a negative. T shall venture to hope that the character and repu tation I have heretofore enjoyed will avail something against attacks that are so mani festly malicious. Indeed I shall but brlefiy answer any of Mr. Heney's charges, reserv ing further answer until my return, when I propose to go before the people of Oregon In defense of my name. I care little for the office of Senator. , I care everything for my good name. Briefly as possible I will now refer to the other charges. Hammond Lumber Company Case. Mr. Heney drags into this controversy the Hammond Lumber Co., and a case of the United States against William G. Gosslln, W. E. Burke et al. There Is absolutely no reason for it excepting the fact that these men were arrested in 1899 and I was retained to defend them. Heney asserts, without the slightest evidence on which to bass the as sertion, that I was the attorney for the lum- ber company, and implies that in Heme way I was responsible for any improper conduct pn the part of any representatives of that ! company in acquiring land. The fact is. I was not at any time in its history the attorney- for that company, except possibly In one case. I am not certain that I ever rep resented it to that extent, but I recall one case In which I appeared for a number of defendants, and am not certAin whether that company was one of them or not. I never advised -It or any- of Its officers in regard to Its purchases of land, and never saw one f Its deeds or abstracts. In fine, never was its 'legal adviser. It never at any time paid me a single dollar never. I can prove that absolutely. That Is not all. The same Is -, am -Lf. UaTifiw-inrl ntiit nil other rnm- I panles In which he has been or Is Interested, excepting the Astoria & Columbia River Rail road Company. In his speech against me. Mr. Heney talks of the railroad company as a land purchaser and seeks to give the im pression that it was a large purchaser of timber lands. It never In its history, to my knowledge, either directly or Indirectly pur chased any real estate whatever, outside of Its station grounds and terminals. It does not, either directly or indirectly, own and never has owned an acre of timber lands. Were it possible to make this statement in broader, more sweeping language. I would do so, for I have never been attorney for any person, company, firm or corporation engaged In acquiring timber lands or other public lands. The Gosslin-Burke case, of which Hney speaks, and tries to make so much, was a prosecution instituted against them for hav ing caused a number of persons to file on certain timber lands In Tillamook County. There was a race between them and the Northern Pacific Railway Company, it seems. HENEY'S CHARGES AGAINST FULTON. That Charles W. Fulton was Sena tor Mitchell's sackholder and dis tributor of funds during the Legis lature of 1897. That Fulton used his Influence as State Senator as attorney for the Astoria & Columbia River Railroad and corporations, as United States Senator to prevent enforcement of laws that he was sworn to uphold and to protect his friends from in dictment and prosecution. That he bought votes outright dur ing the "hold-up" Legislature of 1897. That in 1899 he did his utmost to defeat Justice and prevent the en forcement of law by aiding and abet ting the land frauds as attorney for the Hammond lumber Interests. That his connection with shady land deals continued aftervthat time, particularly In 1902. That he agreed with Senator Mitchell to shield Brownell from prosecution by the reappointment of Hall as United States District At torney. That ho represents the interests of the railroads and big corporations at Washington and not those of the people. as to which would first locate scrip thereon, and to hold the land until they could place the scrip thereon. It seems they had these filings made without any intention of proving up or attempting to acquire title to them. How far that was a violation of law is a question, but In any event Hall had them indicted. I bad known Gosslln. and Burke many yeans. Gosslln lived In Astoria, where my home Is, for several years and was an employe of the railroad there. I hap pened to be in Portland and some one came and asked me to look after tho case. I do not recall who it was. It has always been in my mind that it was Gosslln. but he In forms me that he was then absent from the state, so it must have been some ot Mr. Hammond-s office force. Be that as It may. I said I could not secure bonds for the par ties in Portland. Indeed, probably could not come up to defend them when the case came on for trial, and so suggested that Judge McGinn be retained, and I was authorized to see and retain him. I saw him and he secured bonds for the -parties. I suggested an Immediate cancellation of the filings and a compromise with the Government on those lines and took the matter up by letter with Mr. Hall and the Department of the Interior. I also personally saw Judge Bellinger and ex plained the case to him. He advised, under the circumstances, that the case be dismissed, and after some correspondence with the De partment, that was done. What Impropriety About That? Now I am at s.n utter loss to know what possible Impropriety there was In all that. The truth is I never thought I did enough in the matter to charge a fee. I felt per sonally friendly to Gosslln and who had often accommodated me, hence I never put in a bill either to him or Mr. Hammond, or any of his companies. I thought so little of my part in the matter. I never got a cent directly, or indirectly, out of It. That which I did I did In the utmost good faith. I have none of the correspondence. here; It is all In Oregon, but in one of the letters introduced by Mr. Heney written by me to Hall sug gesting the compnmise and dismissal I see that I said "if there is anything Inconsist ent with your duty in this. I will not ask it." Now why should such a matter be brought forward and flourished as an Indi cation of wrongdoing? Malice, nothing but purs malice, could prompt such action. It all occurred in 1899. years before I was elected to the Senate. I should state that the office of the Hammond Lumber Com pany was in Portland and alt Its business was transacted there, hence. If It had any lawyer attending to Its land business it was doubtless some Portland attorney. Heney's Disregard of Facta. Mr. Heney says, as Senator, whom do I represent? Then he answers by saying that I oppose the forest reserve policy because my cllnent, the Hammond Lumber Com pany, is purchasing timber lauds. That statement fairly Illustrates Mr. Heney's utter disregard for facts. He has no reason to make the statement, did not, could not. know it to be a fact, for It is not and never was a fact. I am not and never was at torney for the Hammond Lumber Company, or any other timber buyer. I have not op posed the forest reserve policy, but have opposed Its administration and also the in corporation into the reserves of untimbered lands. So far as clients are concerned I ceased the practice of law Immediately on my election to the Senate. I have since then tried but three or four cases, all excepting one, a murder case in which I accepted a upeclal retainer last Spring, being cases that had either been commenced before I was elected or bad arisen out of matters of which I had had charge for clients prior to my election, and my advice having been the basis of their action I was under obliga tions to try the cases. I resigned as attorney for the Columbia River Railroad Company immediately after my election, though It was but a local road and no matter In which It was Interested couid possibly come be fore Congress, but I wished to devote all my time to the duties of my office, as I have done When not attending Congress I have spent most of my time. In going over tho state, securing Information to aid me ip representing it. While I have never said anything about it, or sought to advertise it. yet it is a fact that for two years before the rate law containing the anti-pass pro vision was enacted I declined to ride to and from Washington on a puss, but paid for myself and family, not even permitting my clerks to ask for passes, as they will all testify, for It Is a matter they very dis tinctly remember. Hall-Brow nell Mutter. I have. In previous communications and Interviews, given the facts in regard to the Mitchell letter In which I concurred, hence will not take time or space here, to repeat. The entire burden of that letter relates to Brownell's candidacy for Congress and is devoted to explaining why we could not take part In it. I have no recollection of signing the letter, but doubtless did. When It was first made public only an excerpt therefrom was given and 1 had not the slightest recollection concerning it. When it was published In full, however, by The Ore gonlan, I recalled that Mitchell had told me of Brownell's request that we assist him in his candidacy for Congress. I told Mitchell I could not do it and suggested that he ex plain to him bow entirely Inad visable and out of the question H would be for us to do so. Mitchell wrote that letter and, no doubt, brought It to me and asked me to concur. It is my belief that I never read It. or I would more distinctly recall It, besides. It was not unusual for him to write a letter and come to me. telling me what, in sub stance, he had said, and asked me to Indorse thereon my. approval. Be that as It may it should be observed that the letter was written by Mitchell, speaking in the singular throughout.. The further fact should bs kept in mind In reading this letter, and it is true as well of all the Mitchell letters, namely, that It was In Mitchell s language, not mine. He was a most kind-hearted and Impulsive man. He had a deep affection for Brownell. I do not know, of course, all ho said to Hall. but'I do know that he never told me that he would support him for re appointment. On the contrary, he always averred that he was under a promise most sacred to stand by Moreland. I have never seen any of the Brownell-Mitchell letters, but from lite letters now given out. It ap pears that oh the 2Sth day of October. MO.t. Brownell wrote to Mitchell saying that Hill was threatening; to Indict him. etc.. and in that letter complained that I had not earn estly supported him. etc. on the same day Brov.-nell wrote me a letter as follows: "Oregon City. Oregon. Oct.. 2S. 190.1 My dear Mr. Fulton: I have been considering the matter of the appointment of a United States District Attorney and have con cluded that the .best and safest political course for you and Senator Mitchell to tuki will be to reappoint Hon. John H. Hall, the present Incumbent. He has made an exceptional record In the office. Then I think it will, outside of Its good effects In Multnomah County, tend to strengthen you and Senator Mitchell with the administra tion. This course being adopted will satisfy me. Hoping that you are well and succeed ing in your now life. I am sincerly yours. "GEO. C. BROWNELL." Observe that not a word did he say to me about Hall threatening to prosecute hint. On November 3. l'.iu:f. I received the above letter, ind answered it as follows: "Washington. I. C. Nov, 3. llto.t Hon. Geo C. Brownell. Oregon City. Oregon. My dear Brownell: I have Just received your letter of the 2Sth ult.. In w hich you request me to support Mr. John Hall for the po sition of United States District Attorney. I cannot understand your purpose In writ ing such a letter. Not that I am unfavor able to Mr. Hall for the position; on tha contrary there Is no man I think mom highly of than I do of him. But that is not the question. If you absolutely with draw from the race, as I assume you do by writing this letter, then I will have to consider the claims of all my friends who are applicants. Before leaving Oregon, however, at your very earnest request and representations that It would be to your Interest to have Mr. Campbell appointed. I met Mr. Campbell in your presence and assured him of my support. It Is true, he understood, and I understood, that it was to your interest and that you and ha were to be associated in some way, tho par ticulars of which I did not inquire about, nor did I care to be informed. I assume from your letter recommending Mr Hall that satisfactory explanations have been given Mr. Campbell, and yet I would like to have something from him showing that he has retired from tho field. Before tak ing further action In the matter I will write him. As I have said. I entertain a very high opinion of Mr. Hall. Ho is my personal friend, and he rendered me very valuable aid and support in my contest for the SenatorshiD. But thero are others to whom I am under great obligations also. For Instance, our friend Eddy, of Tilla mook, would like to have the eosltion. and you know what my obligations are to him. Then, there is Kelly, ot Linn, who Is also a candidate, and a warm friend of mine. Hence, in view of the fact that you have withdrawn from ths race, not only your self but have. I suppose arranged with Campbell satisfactorily so that he will not be a candidate, I cannot make any prom ise at this time as to what I will do In the way of supporting a candidate for the po sition. I must, however, have something from Campbell to show that he has abso lutely retired before I can discuss the mat ter ot supporting any other candidate, be cause I feel that I am under promise to support Campbell. Had you not brought him to me and secured my promise directly to him it would be different, for otherwise the promise would be simply to you, and that you could release. It Is true that In a sense my promise was only to you. even though Campbell was present, for be fully understood that it was for you and In your Interest that the promise was made. Ot course Senator Mitchell has mads Campbell no promise, as I understand, and conse quently he Is differently situated, and whll it Is likely you could secure Senator Mitchell's support, if you withdraw I do not know what Senator Mitchell- will do. "One thing I want to say to you. Brownell.- and that is that you are doing me a very great injustice by things that you ar- saying of me. I receive a letter every once In a whllo detailing statements of what you have said repeatedly. I cannot understand why you should make the state ments, as I have been very earnest In yoiiv snpport and have been willing to do any thing to secure your appointment, all of which is well known to the other members of the delegation, and. indeed. I think everybody who lakes any uart in politics In the State of Oregon. It is true that I feel under obligations to you for your sup port of me. but I had also supported you before. You could not have been elected President of the Senate without my sup port, and then 1 did many other things for you which you kn-.w and whicn it 19 un necessary to mention, all of which ought to be. I think, some evidence of my friend ship for you. Now. I do not think, that in view of what I have done yuu ought o accuse me of either want of earnestness in your support, or of having done anythlna against your interest, without some proof of it. Sincerely yours. "C. W. FULTON." Characteristic Hot Air From Brownell. Brownell answered, but said nothing about Hall. The following Is his letter: "Oregon City. Oregon. November 10. '0:1. Hon. C. W. Fulton. U. S. Senate. Washing ton. D. C : I have at all times, so far as I know, spoken very, kindly of you. ThcrJ was a few times in my talk with Sena.or Mitchell and Minto, about the time that you and I were being intervlevil in The Ore gonian. when I was worried to death and very much discouraged about my health, that I might possibly have said that I did not like the way things were going. With in my heart I have always felt very kindly to vou. and do now. It is sincerely iny liore and wish to do all I can In the fu ture fy" you and Senator Mitchell both. You must, my dear friend, make some allow ances for my nervous temperament and the way I have been used by many has m:ide me. at times, get very blue with every body. I understand the situation now. and you can simply forget those things as I have had to forget innny things from others. You certainly know that I would not Injure you knowingly for the world; no longer ago than yesterday I was tell ing Bulter and W. W. Cotton, and others, that you had been very true to me. and that I had tried to be to you. and I wanted you to be re-elected when the time comes; and I mean this as sincerely as anything I have ever said to you or Mitchell. I would suggest to you and I believe sincerely that whoever has written to you has very much exaggerated what I may have said. "The real truth is I am working for you and Mitchell every day. not only in my own county, but wherever I can build up sentiment for you both. I will admit.-however, that I was probably a little foolish last Summer before you left and might have talked too much, so let it go, and re member old times and we will begin over again. "With kindest wishes for your health nnd also Senator Mitchell's, I remain, sincerely your friend. "GEO. C. BROWNELL." It will be seen from the above how far I was from supporting, or proposing to sup port Hall. It is true that Mitchell told me afterwards, in substance, what Brownell had written him about Hall's alleged threats. I said to Mitchell that I did not believe a word of It. That In my Judgment, Brownell being frightened, thinking the Interior De partment was after him. wanted to court favor with Hall by making him think that he iBrownel!) had secured his (Mitchells) support for him and knowing that Mitchell was pledged to Morelnnd hud put up this story to induce Mitchell to abandon More land; that I recalled that for some rea son Brownell had all along been very anx ious, apr.arently, to conceal the fact of his own candidury for the attorneyship, when he was a candidate therefor: that Hal! had several times told me that Brownell had told him that he was not a candidal and that wlten I had told Brownell about It he had laugiied and said he did not want any one to know what he was doing. I stated that probably later Brownell had con cluded to get on the good side i.f Hall by supporting him. and adopted these tactlci to secure Mitchell's support. Such was tha view I trok. fr I could not and did not believe Hall guilty of the conduct charged. Indeed Brownell's course with me. rela tive to his own candidacy Justified that view, for he had ao vexed and annoyed me by his inconsistent and contradictory statements to others that I several tlmea remonstrated with him and. on one occa sion, addressed him the following letter on the subject: "Astoria, Oiegon. June 14. 1903, Hon. Geo. C. Brownell. Oregon City. Oregon My dear Brownell: I received your letter of ihe 9th Instant on my arrival home this morn ing. We reached no conclusion yesterday. You say you have had no conversation with