The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-21

passed without further action by Mir. Hay (which by implication at least looks as If MT. Bowen were accusing MT. Hay also of misconduct) In this same communication of May 10 MT. Bowen goes on to say: That was Justified in. doing so tthat is. in secur- ing the publication of the attack on MT. Loomis) I have but to show how MT. Loomis abrogated the agreement that President Roosevelt and Mir. Hay had authorized me to make with the Vene- zuelan Government; how he thus ruin ed our whole case; and how he seemed likely to bring further disgrace on our government
 Complaint at "ProtecoI."
 MT. Bowen then goes on to state that after he had received by cable January 10th from MT. Hay one tele- | gram of which he approved, 8. protocol arrived by cable from MT. Lcomis' and that this protocol, as he calls 1t and of l which he complains. he answered by a 1 telegram to MT. Hay. He adds. was of course even more astounded than the | Venezuelan Government was that MT l Loomis should thus criticize my work and. fin fact, override the decision of i President Roosevelt and Mir. Hay and detract from our prestige as strong and straight nation | And he ends his letter by the follow I ports were influenced by me I was justified in trying to influence them, ! because Mir. Loomis was dishonest while minister at Caracas and as As- sistant Secretary of State was guilty l of abrogating the agreement President Roosevelt and MT. Hay had authorized 1 me to make with the Venezuelan Gov I ernment and because he decided and seemed likely to continue to deceive the government and people of the United 1 States
 Tt Is disingenuous for Mir. Bowen l repeatedly to use such lang iate cnd at l the same time to insist that he has made no charges against Mir. Loomis. | Moreover 1t Is quite impossible that Mir Bowen can believe that the tele- gram signed by Mir. Loomis as the Act I ing Secretary of State which he calls protocol, really proves that MT. Loomis was guilty of 'abrogating the agree ments President Roosevelt and MT. Hay had authorized me to make with the Venezuelan Government
 Statement Not True. Mir. Bowen's statement is shown to be absolutely untrue by the statement of the solicitor of the department of State, Mir. Penheld. But his own state ment bears within itself it's own refu- tatfon on this point. He shows in this statement that he at once answered this cable of MT. Loomis by cable to MT. Hay. who would thus have had his attention specifically called to the Loomis protocol" even If he had not known of 1t before and even if he had been SO neglectful of his duty as not to inquire what cables had been sent in the matter with which he was deal- ing As a matter of fact. the Loomis cable in question was sent by direction of Mir. Hay, with the assistance of MT. Penfield and was signed by Mir. Loomis simply because on the day that it was sent it happened that MT. Hay was confined to his house and could not get down to the State Department. It is on its face an absurdity to suppose that Mir Hay, who returned to his duties in the State Department within day or two, and who was repeatedly going over this whole Venezuelan matter and cabling to Bowen about 1t and re- ceiving cables from him in return. could have been 4gnerant4 or such 8 cable as had been sent by Loomis dur ing his (Mr. Hay's) absence. Mir. Bowen's allegation on this point Is in reality a charge against Mir. Hay rath- CT than against Mir. Loomis.
 MT. Bowen furnished his charges against Mir. Loomis and some of the documents In reference thereto to rep resentatives of New York. newspaper The names of the representative of the newspaper to whom he furnished this information were John Grant Dater and Nicholas Riddle.
 ''Mr. Dater testified as follows:
 Dater's Testimony.
 Secretary Taft-That you subse duently saw Mir. Bowen and that in the course of the conversation Mir. Bowen, possibly without your invitation. con- ffrmed the statements that you had heretofore heard rumored with respect to MT. Loomis and his relation to the asphalt company?
 Mir, Dater-Yes, sir; and other mat ters.
 Secretary Taft-That Mir Bowen was very full of the subject?
 Mir Dater-Absolutely.
 Secretary Taft-And talked IL with a great deal of oarnestness
 Mir Dater-He certainly did.
 Secretary Taft-And he expressed the hope that some day his side of the story would be printed?
 MT Dater-Yes. sir.
 Secretary Taft-Mr. Bowen showed you no letter?
 MT Dater-No. sir: he showed me no letters.
 Secretary Taft-Did he show you a copy of the letter which he sent to me?
 MT Dater-He did not.
 Secretary Taft-Or any documents upon which he based his claim of Mir. | Loomis's guilt?
 MT. DaIer-l not JnIHk l COulu answer that directly. I would rather not answer
 The testimony of MT. Riddle is as follows:
 Biddle's Testimony.
 Secretary Taft-In one of those ar | ticles you wrote appeared a statement concerening a letter written by Mir. | Lomis asserting ar interest in the Mercado claim, which was published in The Herald?
 MT Biddle-Yes, sir.
 Secretary Taft-Did you get that from Mir. Bowen?
 MT Biddle-I did.
 Secretary Taft-You requested 1t from him, or did he hand it to you in the course of a casual conversation?
 Mir. Biddle-I spoke to MT. Bowen | about the charges in a general way and | he told me he would give such infor- nation as he had and set me right on | the entire thing; and he would show me certain letters. that he had forward cd to the State Department.
 Secretary Taft-And they included | the Mercado letter-the letter of May | CTS to Loomis?
 MT. Biddle-Yes, sir.
 Secretary Taft-I suppose you saw | the same letters that Bowen gave me | -one was the Mercado claim; second, | the Mayors letter and the third has | slipped my mind. There was a letter | to MT Hay written by Bowen
 MT. Biddle-I. saw that at different | times.
 Secretary Taft-Just run your eye | OVer these letters. U.Ptter9 of Mir |