The Washington herald., 1908-02-10
LETTER TO PRESIDENT.

February 3. 1908.
The President
! Sir; On January l3 ] laid before you
an article in the Indianapolis News Ia
paper supporting the candidacy of Mr..
Fairbanks) accusing you of using the
! Federal patronage 10 secure the nomina-
! ton of Mr.. Tart, and naming the post
offices i'm particular. / spoke Of the fact
that certain Taft men had been nomi-
mated in Ohio, and you answered that
/ that was true; that you would be very
weak If YOU allowed the power of ap-
| pointment in that State to be used only
/ as "a means of attack upon the admin
istration.
! On my return home I observed other
articles making similar charges. in va
rious papers; for instance, the following
in the New York Evening Post of Jan
uary 16:
/ We are now getting daily lessons in
/ Iciyil-seryice reform from the White House
which ought to attract national atten-
/ tiJn. The appointment OF Taft workers
( to post-ofiices in Ohio. and Of the totally
]
/ praiser of this port is now followed by
/ the Presidents refusal TO reappoint a
good Hughes man as collector Of customs
at Plsttsburg
/ On January Il an article charging you
with similar abuse of the patronage ap-
peared in the Indianapolis Star, paper
also supporting Mr.. Fairbanks. and re-
puted to be owned principally by Mr..
Daniel q. Reid, "A gentleman represent
/ ing important Wall street interests. This
article inclosed in a letter to you, in
/ which ! said:
/ No man can be a more unqualified
supporter of MI Taft than J. yet
realize that any use Of the patronage
TO aid him. especially IL coercion can be
/ implied, is likely 10 iujuTe you very seri-
ously. The use of any public ONCE for
! this purpose is fraught with the greatest
/ danger and subject TO unanswerable criti-
| cism."
To this YOU answered January l9.
'Will you produce the name of a single
man whom l have coerced or influenced?
VIII YOU give me the name of any Off
cial who has been controlled by threat
OF dismissal or implied threat OF dismis-
sal. or from whom l have demanded sup
port for Taft2
In short, viii you give me one particle
Of justification for the fears you ex-
pressed Name the man whom / have
removed because he was not for Taft.
or threatened to remove because he was
not for Taft. You cannot do so; and as
you cannot. why do you not repeat this
challenge 10 the newspapers in question.
assert that their words are absolutely
false. ana challenge them TO make goOd?'
Challenges the star.
] accordingly wrote the Star asking
| it to name a single case of coercion re-
ferred to in its previous issues. II pub
lished an answer TO my letter. but failed
to name any instance Of the kind. then
wrote again. calling attention to this fail
ure and asking II l were not forced TO
conclude from its silence that its own
charges were absolutely without founda-
tion. This second letter, however. il
would not publish, though it still con
tinues 10 repeat its general charges Of
abuse OF the patronage.
These charges also continue TO be cir
cuIated by other newspapers in all parts
Of the country. Thus the Boston Herald
Of January . says.
Federal officeholders may be com
manded TO use their influence and their au-
thority i'm behalf OF a candidate. such a
command has been issued, and the Presl-
lent should know Of it, Somebody has
instructed pOstmasters that they must
obtain from their subordnates either
their designations or their pledges Of sup
port for Taft delegates TO the convention.
Even in Massachusetts efforts Of this kind
have recently been made, bat happily
they have been stopped partly because the
pOstmasteTs on whom the attempts were
made have the courage TO resist, and
partly from other causes"
In view of these reiterated complaints
would not a detailed statement Of your
recent appointments the men by whom
they were recommended, your reasons.
and the principles upon which you have
acted in making them, as well as a state
ment in regard TO the alleged coercion. be
the best method OF exhibiting the facts.
Yours respectfully,
WILLIAM DUDLEY FOULKE