The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-05-24

during the months of May, June and July. 1905. which he says was not ask ed for or written until his (waIlace'sl testimony before the comnlittee had been printed, which indicates that It was prepared to offscet my testimony"
 He, therefore. asks the committee to put In the record all teleErams and so far as to make public personal and confidential correspondence on this sub ject."
 Denies Accuracy of Statement.
 The letter denies the accuracy of th, statement dictated by Secretary Taft and Mir Cromwell. from the converse ton between them at the Manhattan with criticizing Colonel Gorgas. chief sanitary officer of the rsthmns. He de- clares that his remarks were mainly the views of Governor Magoon and were SO stated. Continuing. the let ter says:
 "secretary Taft while rublishing in his appendix. my letter of March 15. 1905. in full, in his statemens proper, says:
 'Tn the letter of March Is, which MT. Wallace wrote, and which have al- ready introduced, he uses the express sion. I prefer to reamin on the firing line Indicating that at that time he had not thought of leaving where the post of importance was for the chief engineer. Secretary Taft does me ! gross injustice In extracting this phrase from a sentence with vital modifying clauses and emitting the context
 T desire to call the attention of the committee to the important words he omits: I prefer to be on the firing line, provided I receive proper sup port and an impossible situation Is not created in Washington This let ter was written prior to any thought or my part of leaving the servicel and prior to the reorganization of the com mission.
 The fundamental reasons for my de- sire for a personal interview with Sec retafy Taft are stated in that letter as with premonition of coming events. for I was not given proper support and an impossible situation was certainly created in Washington, for Mir Cromwell, allied to many opposing interests to those of the United States, was apparently permitted full control behind the scenes of the policy of the United States fin all Panama Canal af- fairs"
 "on the isthmus during Secretary Taft's visit in November 1904. Mr. Cromwell was recognized as the real 1y directing mind in all that took place. Secretary Taft himself says: The negotiations were really con- ducted between Mir. Cromwell and me and then Secretary Taft adds this statement: I never have had the slightest reason to suspect any othes motive on MT Cromwell's part than loyal desire to help along the con struction of the canal Yet Secre- tary Taft knew perfectly well that MT Cromwell was trying to secure the French canal company which he himself at one time reported upon adversely and which according to Mir. CromweIl's testimony the President finally disallowed on April IS, 1908. Mir. Cromwelrs pressing for claim of this character could hardly be n loyal desire to help along the con- struction of the canal
 Besides pressing the claim for his client he was acting, as Secretary Taft we'll know. as counsel for the Pan- anna Republic, just enriched by s10,o0o.- 900 from the United states, also as it's fiscal agent in New York. controIIing the investment of most of these mil lions of money and aiso as counsel for the Panama legation at Washington, and yet Secretary Taft permits himself to speak of Mir. Cromwell as receiving nothing but meagre compensation as ciunsel of the Panama Railroad. calm ly ignoring all his other probably more remunerative and apparently incom- patible professional relations. These facts have not been mentioned out of iIl-will to Mir. Cromwell, but to show an apparent bias on the part of Secre- tary Taft when dealing with facts he prefers not to recognize and with which he must be perfectly familiar"