The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-07-03
Accuses Bailey of Hunting for Trouble
and CurtIy AIIudes to the Big
Texans "Asinfnjty."
WAR COLLEGE ORDERS ISSUED
PLANS ABOUT COMPLETE FOR THE
NEW WAR VESSELS.
Tremendous Batteries TO Be Mounted
and Their ArmOr VIII BE Heavy
Other News of the Capital.
,eelaI to the INDIANAPOLIS Journal.

Special 70 the Indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, July 2.-Willam L. Pen
field. solicitor of the State Department, to-
day issued a statement, giving the origin
OF the trouble with Senator Bailey The
statement deals with the facts without
qualifying language. 1t Is direct to the
point of harshness, and unquestionably,
were it not for the gravity Of the offense
of Senator Bailey. would subject the au-
thor TO official censure. Such criticisms
are not uttered by executive officials ex-
cept under the most serious provocation.
There is no doubt that Judge Penfeld con-
suited his superiors before issuing his side
of the story 1t is follows:
"A judgment was recovered by Bielen-
berg against Scott in one of the Mexican
courts. Scott took the case to the Supreme
Court Of Mexico. where it is still pending
DR.. Scott and his attorney, supported by
Senator Bailey. requested me to draw an
instruction to Ambassador Clayton, de-
manding of the Mexican government the
reversal of that judgment. 1 refused to
draw the instruction, because no govern
ment ever did demand of another govern
ment that it reverse the judgment of one
of its lower courts. pending an appeal in
the Supreme Court; and because interven-
ton does not lie for judicial denial of
justice till there has been a final denial Of
Justice b. the court of last resort I went
10 the utmost limit of propriety in drawing
instruction to General Clayton that he
should request of the Mexican government
the use of its good offices with a view TO
fair and impartial determination of the
case pending in the Supreme Court If
had complied with Senator Bailey's request
II would have been a violation of all the
precedents. il would have been disrespect-
ful to the Mexican government and it
would have been an utter disregard OF
whatever rights BieIenberg had because
the demand was that Bielenberg's judg-
ment should be set aside on the mere ex
parte statements OF Dr. Scott and his at
torney and Senator Bailey without any
production of the record or any opportun-
ity to Bielenberg to be heard.
CHARGE NOT TRUE.
Senator Bailey's charge that / refused
10 furnish en- Office copy of a contract in
closed in one of General Clayton's dis
patches is in its substance and spirit un-
true. and he knew it perfectly well when
he made the charge in the Senate, for
he had letter in his possession, written
by Secretary Hay on April Is, saying:
In answer TO your letter requesting
that copy OF the -BieIenberg con-
tract inclosed in a dispatch from Ambas-
sador Clayton be furnished to Dr. Scott.
/ have the honor TO say that the solicitor
informs me that he did. at first, express
10 DR.. Scott some hesitation and some
doubt about the propriety of the depart
ments compliance with his request to
furnish 10 private parties copies of the
dispatches. or of their inclousres. from any
diplomatic officer of the United States, for
the mere purpose of an attack on him
through the newspapers; yet. upon re-
Election and after consultation with the
secretary as 10 the propriety OF such ac-
ton by the department. it was decided
and. in the solicitors Office, and before
your letter written, Dr. Scott was
plainly told by the solicitor that the copy
requested would be furnished The chief
clerk OF the department has been in
structed TO furnish to Dr. Scott a copy
OF that inclosure, which he can have by
calling or furnishing his address to the
department
About two weeks ago Senator Bailey
came TO the solicitors Office and COM
planned that General Clayton. in his note to
the Mexican government, had omitted a
portion of the instruction which stated
that there were some circumstances con-
nected with the case that seemed TO indi-
cate want OF disinterestedness and fair
ness in the proceedings of the lower courts.
Senator Bailey imputed the omission TO the
sinister design of the ambassador. I ex
planned that General Clayton had com
municated the real and essential parts OF
the instruction, ana that much was left 10
the discretion OF our representative in
dealing with a foreign government SEN
ator Bailey answered with some heat L
see that you are bound 10 stand by General
Clayton 1 replied that General Clayton 5
conduct was not shown by the record TO be
actuated by any unworthy motive, and that
/ would not censure him without givine,
him hearing I added: I will submit the
Y matter TO Secretary Hay and If he THINKS
, that the omitted portion OF the instruction
government l Will draw instructions 10
General Clayton requiring him 10 COM
municate it,.
BAILTY REFUSED.
Senator Bailey replied that he did not
want IL submitted to the secretary; that so
! FAR as he was concerned he would not see
the secretary or the President again about
the matter, and added that he was going
20 deliver a speech in the Senate touching
upon the President. the secretary OF state.
Ambassador Clayton and the solicitor The
truth OF the matter is that Senator Bailey
set out some months ago 10 remove Gen
eral Clayton from his office because Gen
eraI Clayton would not take Instructions
from him instead OF from the secretary, of
state II / had Joined with Senator Bailey
in his condemnation OF Ambassador CLAW
ton. whose record before the department
for adelity, discretion and efficiency is most
excellent he would not have made his as
sauit on me In the speech He SAYS so
himself IN his speech. as Exported In the
Congressional Record. a follows: Had