davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
DECLARED FALSE

Fortunately / have the original Of
the letter of which Mr.. Storer says he
kept no copy. and IL shows that MI
Storer's statement is false. This letter
was in answer to letter of mine which
he quotes IN part. but which in its en-
tirety is as follows:
Personally The White House.
Washington, Dec. 80. 1853
'- My Dear BeIlamy:
In my last letter TO Won | wrote vo,l
as To a report I had heard about YOUR
writing a letter concerning the disTrifs-
sal OF Hurst. This came TO me from an
outside source, and / did not credit It.
Since then Secretary Hay mas sent me
over letter tof yours to Senator Han
na. which the latter put before The de-
partmeut with "a request shat he be
given Information in order TO answer
You. Secretary Hay feels. OF course
exceedingly indignant over your having
written in such a manner 10 auv ont
si4er, ana feels that there should be
some official Tebuke. Because of o5Ir
personal relations I write IN This way 10
You instead
- hardly think you could have
thought exactly what You were writing
You say, for instance, about rne dis-
miSsal Of Hurst. Il do know lie
manner of Hjs removal in a way
ShoYid be ashamed to employ win a
common servant. " have
known. if what I hear is the case. If A
more sudden or unexpected action of
any administration. Ii NAV f,a
none OF Eour business nor mine, but /
know you 10 not like Injustice" ="
OF course this amounts to a bitter
attack UDOn the administration. OF
which you are a part You make
charges OF q grave nature against the
Secretary of State and the President
under whom you are serving II these
charges were true that would not In
my opinion. justify YOU in writing 10
the Senator IN such fashion. As il han
pens, they are absolutely without foun-
datiOn. No case was gone into more
carefully than this. I have reports he
fore me from Ambassador McCormiclz
and from a special and trusted agent
Of the Department. man in whose
Judgment the department has absolute
confidence. No other action was pos
sible in view of these reports.
1 know, my dear Bellamy that Won
have not intended to do anything dis
loyal or improper, but surely on think
ing over the matter you will see that
there would be but one possible con
stTUctiOn TO be put upon such letter
from You. Think of the effect if your
letter we're made publici
80 'I.Ht me repeat to yOu that in refer
ence to matters affecting the Catholic
Church, events have conclusively shown
that while you are ambassador you
must keep absolutely clear Of any deed
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
EXPLANATION WAS EXPLICIT.

Following this conversation. IN my
letter 10 Mrs. Storer. OF November q,
1900, quoted by Mr.. Storer in his
pamphlet. / stated with absolute clear
ness my position. and why 1t was out
of the question for the President 10
try TO get any archbishop made cardi-
nal; and all the letters quoted by Mr.
Storer as having been subsequently,
written by me TO him or To his Wife.
take precisely the same position.
explained repeatedly that my friend
ship and admiration for Archbishop Ire
land (Which is like my friendship a. i
admiration for Bishop Laurence, of the
Episcopal Church, and Bishop Grams
ton. of the Methodist Church; like my
friendship and admiration for many
Baptists. LutheTans Congregational
lists. Presbyterians, and others would
make me pleased 10 see any good for
tune attend him. OF any ChuTChmau Ike
him. Of any creed; but that / could not
interfere for his promotion, or. indeed.
i'm any way In the ecclesiastical affairs
of any church
This was also the position I took
in all private conversations. and the
assertion that IN any private conver-
satiOn ] took an opposite position from
that which 1 was thus repea tedly eX-
pressing in writing Is not only an un-
truth. but an absurd untTuth; for I
would. of course. not say privately 10
any one the opposite of what / was
repea tedIv writing TO that same per
son. Mr.. StOrer asserts that he and
Mrs. SCurer and various other people
memoranda as to what they remembered
/ had said.
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
PLEADED FOR ADVANCEMENT.

LAS soon as 7 became President l be-
gan to receive letters from Mrs Storer
asking for the promotion of Mr.. Storer,
and letters from both of them complain
ing that the work in Madrid was u.con-
genial, and complaining also Of the
character and standing Of various people
in the public service. On September %,
1901, eight days after President Mckinley
died, Mrs. Storer wrote me urging trat I
should appoint Mr. Storer 10 the Labi-
net. and specifying as a desirable place
the War Department. of which you
were the head: the letter running.
Please give him either the Navy or
War I pray that Bellamy. who
so richly deserves it, shall have a cf ance
for honorable service a home Il, his
country. When l explained that [ did
not intend to remove anyone. or make
any changes in the Cabinet at the time.
she wrote me on October IL, suggesting
the embassies at London and Paris as
fit places for her husband, and stating
that Mr.. ChOate and General Porter
were not proper persons to be ambassa-
dors.
IN view Of the intense indignation Cf
Mr. and Mrs StOrer at his being re-
moved from office now, there is n GER
tain element of the comic IN ,heir at
you OF Mr.. Choate. or AIR. Porter for
the purpose Of giving Mr.. Storer either
q Cabinet position or the embassy in
The Washington times., 1906-12-10

accession TO the Vice Presidency I wrote
at President McKinleys request TO Mr..
or Mrs. Storer that the President de-
sired me 10 say that Mr. Storer was
ultimately TO be made an ambassador.
Mr.. and Mrs. StoreF were greatly inter
ested in securing the promotion Of
Archbishop Ireland To be a cardinal.
1 had. and have, a sincere respect ana
admiration for Archbishop Ireland, a
respect and admiration which 1 have
often publicly expressed. The letters
from me 10 Mr.. and Mrs, StOrer quoted
CislOn my views both upon Archbishop
Ireland and upon the possibility or
propriety of my taking in his behalf the
steps which the StOrers asked, and /
can add nothing 70 what these letters
themselves show.
When they first wrote 10 me on the
subject / WAS governor OF New York.
Not being President myself and no.
having thought out with clearness the
exact situation. l asked President Nc
kInley whether he could properly do
anything to help Archbishop ireland.
He responded that il was not matter
with which We could with pTopTleIy
interfere, although he expressed HIM
self as having the same high opinion
of the archbishop that / had. I had
further conversation with the Pres
ident on the subject. either just be-
fore or just after my election as Vics
President. in which he stated what
he felt was the proper position. posi-
ton with which l absolutely agreed.
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
DEPLORES THE DISCUSSION.

1T Is never pleasant to have to dis
Cuss personal affairs. or to quote or ex-
plain from personal correspondence; ;
which is one reason why il is held to
be a peculiarly ungentlemanIy thing to
publish private correspondence. But as
Mr. StoTer in his extraordinary
pamphlet prints various letters written
by himself by me. and by Mr.. Storer,
/ small set forth briefly the fact of the
case. giving certain letters which are
necessary In order to understand clear
~ those which lie prints
II first met the Storers while was
civil Service Commissioner. and he had
come 10 washington as "a Congressman
Ihey were then kind and friendly in
their relations with me and my family.
! retained a lively recollection of this
kind and friendly attitude. and because
of the affection It inspired / submitted
TO conduct from Mr.. and Mrs. Storer
TO which l would have submitted from
no other ambassador and his wife. and
I did not resent their actions untU it
became evident that they were IiI-alv
TO damage American interests Mrs
Storer insisted 10 me often that their
change of creed had proved a deadly
blow To her husbands s career and fbat
they were suffering for conscience Lxa
/ accepted this statement as true and
il gave me a certain chivalric feeling
that / ought 10 do what i could To bei9
them. and be as patient as possible with
them.
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
WEAT PRESIDENT WROTE.

LAS for Mr.. Storer's assertion that I
authorized him 10 make such a state
ment as he says he was authorized 20
make to the Pope 1t Is untrue. I gave
him no such authorization Mr.. Storer
proceeds to say that he at once wrote
me a letter giving a fun account OF his
visit to the Vatican. and Of the mes
sage he personally gave the Pope
careful search of the flies in nv Office
fails to show any such letter from him.
and neither ! nor nay secretary, Mr..
Loeb who receives and examines all
my correspondence, have any remen-
branCe of ever receiving such "A letter:
and had it been receiv We could not
fail % remember it. j never received
from him any letter giving any such ac-
count of his visit to the Vatican and his
conversation with the Pope as he now
says he sent me- and this is evident
from the letters which he gives as writ
ten by NE To him on December y and
Decembe 30. in which as YOU will see
l specifically state that ] did not know
whether or not he had even called at
the Vatican. and that he might merely
have seen some cardinal privately
statement wholly Incompatible with nv
having received such letter as that
which he says he seat. In his answer
to this Letter he never trdVeTsed or in
any way alluded to, this statement of
mine; which he could hardly have failed
to do had he already written me such
a letter as he now describes.
"On December IS I had written him
anent verbal request made TO me bv
an ecclesiastical friend that I should
write a letter for Archbishop Ireland:
Il told him. OF course, that / could
not interfere in such a matter, as il
was none Of my business who was cardi-
nal; that personally L had very
strong friendship and admiration for
the archbishop, and that individually 1t
would please me greatly to see him
made cardinal, just as il pleased me
when Dr. Satterlee was made bishop of
Washington: but that I could no moro
interfere in one case than ia the other
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
CALLS IT DISHONORABLE.

''If such action was taken, it was, of
course. simply dishonOTable- No one Of
them ever showed me any such memoran-
da, and it is nonsense TO expect to bind
me by memorandum the existence of
which was concealed from me. The
StOrers were my guests at the time
when. as they assert, they made these
memoranda OF private conversation with
me. As a matter of fact, the state
ments they alege me to have made We're
not made. save in so far as what they
allege me TO have said agrees with what.
before and after. 1 wrote TO them. In
this connection. I call your attention
To the following statement. issued from
the White House on November 9, 1905.
eleven days before the StOrer pamphlet
was received by me, or that 1 had any
knowledge whatever of it:
For many years il has been the in
variable practice never TO attempt 10
quote a private conversation with the
President. 1t has been found that as d
matter of fact the man who quotes such
conversation usually miSQuotes IT,
whether consciously or uuCOnsciOusly:
and such an alleged conversation is Un-
der no circumstances to be held as call
ing Tor either explanation or denial by
the President. The President Is respou-
slble only for what he himself saws in
public for what he writes. or for what
ne eApllcltl$ authorizes Lhe proper Gov
eminent oTnclals TO state in his behalf
Mrs StoTer wrote me with great free
oOmt and sometimes ii was difficult to
know quite how TO answer her Both
she and Mr.. Storer continually made
attacks upon all sorts of people. espe-
cially olgnitarles of her own church. At
one time she wrote me with great bit
teTness against the Protestant mission
aries who were being sent to the Philip
pines. at the same time requesting me
to champion Archbishop Ireland because
he had been loyal TO the United States
during the war with Spain, which she
asserted was not true as to another
Catholic archbishop whom she named.
While l was always reluctant to write
in a way that would hurt the feelings
Of either Of the Storers, on this occasion
I thought it necessary to write inst
what my position was and accordingly
replied as follows:
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
SEE NO EXPLANATION.
'' September To- 1906.

september ~ 1sJps
4" Hon. BeIlamy Storer, Paris, France
'' Sir: Your letter OF August 3 does not
require any comment as a whole. but
by direction of the President I answer
It as regards one point
" You assume that in the letter OF De
Cember Il the President wrote you not
as one official of the United States 10
another but a purely personal and pri-
Vate letter, and you state that this let
ter shows on its face that no answer
from YOU was asked for. suggested, or
expected.
" Tt is hard TO understand your max
ing such a statement. in view of the
fact that the letter you quote derives
its entire Importance from the accom-
panying letter. which you We're asked
TO read and hand to Mrs. Storer. in
which Mrs. Storer was Informed that
unless she took certain definite action
your connection with the diplomatic
service would have TO be severed. It is,
of course. unnecessary TO discuss. and II
/ ought to be unnecessary even TO alIude
TO. any proposition so absurd as that
this severance OF ycu from the service
would be asked for not by the PTesi-
dent as President. but In his private ca
paCity. The President was anxious to
treat both you and Mrs. Storer with the
utmost genteness and consideration and
II seemed TO him that his end could be
achieved In the way easiest for you by
following the course which he actually
did follow. The letter TO Mrs Storer
of course became part OF the matter
OF which you were required to take
cOgnizance. In it Mrs StOrer was asked
to fulnl certain conditions. failure To
fulfil which would require, she was In
formed, your severance from the ser
vice. which condition she never ful-
filled. You were requested TO read this
letter and hand il TO her It Is difficult
to stigmatiZe merely as folly the prOpO-
sition that under these conditions the
Presidents letter required no answer
4 have the honor TO be sir, your
Obedient servant.
ROBERT BACON.
- Acting Secretary
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
PROUD AND GLAD"
Because Mother Looked So Well After
Quitting Coffee.

An ohio woman was almost diStra cted
with coffee dyspepsia and heart trouble
Like thousands Of others, the drug in
eofee-caEeine-wa slowly. but stead
ily. undermining her nervous system.
and interfering with natural digestion
OF food
For 80 years" she writes r have
used coffee. Have always been s,czlv-
had heart trouble and dyspepsia with
ulcers in stomach and mouth sn bad
sometimes. / was almost distracted and
could hardly eat "A thing for a week.
Il could not sleep for nervousness. and
when / would lie down AZ night I'd
belch up coffee, and my heart would
trouble me Al last. when / would want
10 drink coffee. il would gag me. 1t
was like poison 10 me. ] was thin
only weighed 125 lbs, when l quit coffee
ano began to use Postum.
From the first day that belching and
burning in my stomach stopped The
Postum went down so easy and pleas
ant could sleep as soiIndly as anyone
and, after the first month, whenever 1
met any friends they would ask me
what was making me so tlsshy and look
SO well.
Sometimes. before could answer
quick enough. one Of the children or my
husband would say, Why. that is what
Postum IS doing Tor her'-they were all
so proud and glad
When I recommend it 80 anyone I
always tell them to follow directions in
ma king Postum. as il is not good 10
taste IL weak. but fine when it is boiled
long enough TO get the flavor and rich
brown color" Name given by Postum
Co, Battle Creek. Mich. Read the lit
tie book. THE Road to Wellviiie," in
pkgs. There's reason"
The Washington times., 1906-12-10

in short. that my feeling for the arch
bishop was due 10 my respect fer aim
as a useful ana honorable man-iust
such q telling as 1 have had for Phillips
Brooks and for many other Clergymen
OF various denominations; but that /
could not as President. in any way try
TO help any clergyman OF any deuomina-
tion 10 high rank in that deuomina-
tiOn.
Il say that ] never received such a
letter as that which Mr.. StOrer alleges
he wrote me. 1 may add that Z am by
no means certain he ever sent me such
a letter: my doubt being-due 10 the facts
] am about to set forth. which show that
when he now attempts to describe the
letters he sent me, Mr.. Storer's memory
becomes maFVel0usly treacherous.
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
Says Publication of His
Private Letter Is Dis
honorable.
, TELLS WHOLE STORY
Declares Position of His
Former Friend Shows
Peculiar Perfdy.'

President Roosevelt has issued a
lengthy reply to the charges set
forth in the pamphlet of Bellamy
Storer concerning the relations of
the latter To affairs of the Catholic
Church while he was an ambassa-
dor.
The President fatty denies much
that Mr.. storer set forth, and as to
much that he does not deny indi-
Gates that it was unfairly set forth
and subjected to misconstruction.
The document follows:
The full text of the Presidents state
ment, which was put ia type at the
I Government Printing Ofice for conve-
nient distribution, is as follows:
'The White House.
Washington. Dec. ? 1896.
"My Dear Mr.. Root: In view OF the
fact that Mr.. Bellamy Storer has sent
10 each member OF my Cabinet, as we'll
as 10 myself. a pamphlet under date
of November. 1906, purporting to give
an account of those relations of his
with me which led up TO his removal
from the position of ambassador at
Vienna, I think It as well that you and
the other members OF the Cabinet,
should know certain facts which he
either suppresses or mistakes. AS 10
the necessity for removing him from
this position. suppose there is no need
Of discussion. An ambassador who re-
fuses to answer the letters o. the Pres
ident cannot remain an ambassador.
His statement that my letters TO him
We're OF a character such that he could
not answer them needs no further COM
ment than to point out that in such
ease it was his clear duty instantly to
resign. His publication of the various
private letters between his wife and
himself and ME would furnish any ad-
ditional Justification, We're such needed.
for his summary separation from the
service. He does not give the State
departments final letter TO him, which
runs as follows;
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
PECULIAR PERFLDY,
SAYS ROOSEVELT T

With peculiar perfdy Mr. StOrer this act
cordial think add generous, friendship my
into attack by treating refusal
his resignation Endorsement OF his position in the matter of
which absolutely
of Kind sort in his letter of resignation.
of In itself possible
o. disingenuOusness
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
INTERFERENCE IS RESENTED.

May is. 1900
q" My Dear Mrs. Storer: Your letter
of the 4th has just come to hand. also
that of the 9th. I am very, very fond
OF you, and that is the reason your let
The Washington times., 1906-12-10
ADMIRERS OF IRELAND.

was made minister first to Belgium and
then to Spain, About the time Of my
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-18

humanity capable of stopping the fun each time
short of tragedy either to himself or anyone else
Jolly Eph was an inveterate thief, taking the
palm as a camp robber, from the chipmunks,
SQUIRRELS little black bears, foxes, and even from
our 1nalamute dogs, those passed masters in the
art of thievery. There not cache IN camp
that the old villain could not climb over and sew
eral times he did the other, dividing his
loot with the rest of his four footed fellows
1t seemed that association with civilization had
changed old Eph's nature somewhat, for from the
beginning of his friendship with the miners he gave
his long winter sleeps in the glacier, and with
the advent of that each year his familiarity
with the camp closely approached a state of
contempt.
One of Jolly Ephs most fragrant pranks was
perpetrated a bitterly cold night, so near the
Christmas holidays that the miners declared he
Christian bear and was celebrating the occa-
sion. Notwithstanding the intense cold of the
weather, some few of the miners lived in tents.
doubled in thickness, foored with hewed logs, and
banked up to the with snow.
On this particular night. while the miners were
cOngregated in the big log house of one of their
number Eph into the camp, walking right
through of these tents, and carrying away with
him the whole He must have got tangled
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-18

what the Inference is to Indians of
language. 1t is certain that the combined
vocabulary of the three divisions of Sioux who speak
different dialects of the tongue-the Teton,
Santee and YanktOn-covers in excess of thirty
thousand words and that division less
than eighteen thousand words
And how these words preserved BY oral
use, and in other way, for the Indians have
recorded speech of any sort. The fact that such a
volume of words has been preserved must furnish
absolute proof that it has been in common circula-
ton in the tribe, and if in circulation then
in the possession of individuals of the tribe,
else they could not make themselves understood in
their own language.
Another writer the same subject in a journal
of equal credblity has said that the plains Indians
piece out their limited vocabularies by means of
the sign language" to which he credits twice the
number of ideas developed by any Indian tongue.
Here again a well-known writer is dependent
for his information solely upon common report.
AS matter of fact there is little of the sign
language between members of the same tribe.
These have simply abundance of gestures by
which the spoken language is emphasized and
which has been mistaken by the uninitiated for
sign talk. The real sign language is in common
of intertribal communication ONLY
1t built up between the tribes and grew by use
as the sole means of enabling those of differing
tongues to understand each other.
There is, however, certain poverty in all Indian
tongues which arises from the lack of grammar
and logic in formation. But this very poverty has
resulted in rich multiplication of words until as
New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-18
By Franklin Welles Calkims
Author Indian Tales" Frontier Sketches"
bunting

feeling OF despair sometimes as he
questions whether this continually belttled race
will be properly understood. H must wonder
indeed whether the image of savage brutality and
ignorance conured through long series of frontier
and which had its basis in the bigotry of
hgIOuS intolerance, must loom large the
consciousness of the most enlightened. A credit
able writer in a credtabe journal has recently had
this to say OF the Indians command of language:
The number of words in an Indian language are
few Thus a brave like Black Chicken who wears
a war bonnet of feathers that resembles the shape
four hundred words, if he wishes to speak, whether
he be OF the Cheyennes Sioux or Nez Perces'
This, to who has spent years in trying to
master the intriCacies of the Dakota language is
astonishing assertion. Unquestionably the writ
believed that he telling the truth, and his
knowledge of Indian tongues limited by tradi-
ton. Dakota English dictionary published
by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1890. This was COM
piled by the missionary Stephen Return Riggs and
edited by James Owen Dorsey. In 1902 an
English Dakota edition published by the
American Tract Society and edited by the Rev
John T. williamson who is unquestionaby the
foremost authority this Indian tongue. The
least comprehensive of these dictionaries contains
fourteen thousand words and makes no pretense of
being exhaustive The infections of a single verb
would nearly cover the total vocabulary which the
writer in question has accorded to individual
member of the tribe
AS the facts stated proved merely by refer
ence to the works in questiOn-settng aside any
mans personal knowledge of the subject-et us