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