The sun., 1908-02-10
PRESIDENT ANSWERS CHARGES
NO PATRONAGE USED IN AID
OF TAFT,S CANDIDACY.

! pulOus and UntruthEuI"-Dut IEc
Cuts Out the shorter ana UgAIer
Term-Lctters Revised In Cold Blood.
WASHINGTON. Feb. Elm a long letter
written to William Dudley Foulke Of Rich
mOnd. Ind. President Roosevelt avoids
denOuncing the widespread statements
that he has made Use Of his power Of ap-
pointment to further the Presidential can
didaoy of Secretary Taft. This letter.
which was made public tonight. Is a doc,l-
ment Of comparatively mild rhetorical sx-
preston. much milder in fact than a
previous letter on the same subject to Mr..
| Foulke. Apparently the original letter
was regarded by the Presidents advisers
as not entirely suitable for the pernsal
Of the country at time when there was
disposition to regard the language OF
his recent special message as unnecessarily
| Incorporate. So the President. it is sup
posed. gave way to cooler judgment and
rewrote his letter TO Mr.. Foulke. the rs-
written version being that presented below.
On January 81 The Sun printed Wash
ington news despatch in which 1t was said
that the President had written a letter 10
a close friend in Indiana, supposed to bs
William Dudley Foulbe, denying that he
had misussd Federal patronage in Mr
Taft's behalf and characteriSing this charge
as "An unqualified lie" In the rewritten
or revised letter to Mr. Foulke, dated Feb
ruary 7, the longer and prcttier expression
that the charge sis both false and mali
cious" is used. There is evidence from
the late date Of the communication signed
by Mr.. Foulke and made public to-day that
Mr.. Foulke's original letter was either re-
written or related.
Here is the correspondence given out a.
the White House, beginning with the fol-
lowing letter from Mr. Foulke to Mr.. Roose-
welt:
FoULKEs LETTER TO ROOSEVELT.
RICHMOND. Ind, Feb 5. 1908
The President
SIR: On January 10 laid before you an
| article in the Indiana polls NeTs IA paper
| supporting the candidacy Of Mr.. Fairbanksl.
! accusing you of using the Federal patronage
to secure the nomination OF MIR. Taft and
| naming the post offices in particular.
| spoke Ol thc TACT thbH CeTtatn ldlJ Lncn hAu
been nominated in Ohio and you answered
that that was true that you would be very
weak il you allowed the power OF appoint
| ment in that state. to be used only as Q
means Of attack upon the Administration.
On my return home ] observed other
articles making similar charges in various
/ pa peTs for instance the following In the New
! York EreRiHg Post OF January 10:
We are now getting daily lessons In civil
service reform from the White House which
ought to attract national attention. The
| appointment Of Taft workers to post offices
! in Ohio and of the totally unfit George W.
! Wanmaker as appraiser OF this port Is now
! followed by the Presidents refusal to re-
appoint good Hughes man as Collector
! OF CustOm at Plattsburg.
on January II an article charging you with
| similar abuse OF the patronage appeared ~
, the Indianapolis star. a paper aIso support
! ing Mr.. Fairbanks aud reputed to he owned
principally by Mr. Daniel q. Reid. gentle
/ man representing important Wall street
| interests This article I enclosed in letter
/ to YOU. in which said:
! No man can he a more unqualified sup
/ porter of Mr.. Taft than !. yet ] realize thBi
any u-e Of the pairona 60 TO rid him, especially
! if coercion can be- implied. II likely to iniure
/ yOu very seriously The u-p OF any public
, Office for ihis purpose il fraught wirh great
J danger aud subject to unansW Werable criti-
! ClSa."
10 this YOU answ cred on January 10.
viii YOU produce the name Of a sing"
, man whom have COerCed or Influenced, viii
/ YOU give me the name Of any official who baN
/ been controlled by threat Of dismissn or
! implied threa, Of dismissal or from whom
! have demanded support for Taft? In short
will you give me one particle of justification
] for the fears you eNpressedl Name the man
. whom I have removed because he was not
( for Taft or threat cned to remove because n"
IT. Il. ua.N
: YOU cannot. why do you not repeat this
I challenge to the newspaper in question. 2s-
! seTt that their words are absolutely false and
/ challenge them to make good!'
! ! accordingly wrotc 10 the star. asking y
/ 10 name a single case Of the coercion Teferrej
! 30 In rs previous issues II published an
answer to my letter but failed TO name anv
! instance Of the kind. | then wrote again,
, calling attention 10 this failure and askin~
, II we're not forced to conclude from ts own
/ silence that its own charges were sbsolut civ
! without foundation This second letter.
however, II would not publish. though H.
4 still continues TO repeat its general charge
| OF a buse OF the patronage.
| These charges also continue 20 be cirC'i-
| lated by other newspapers in all parts OF the
country. ! bus the Boston Heruid Of s. nuary
| 70 saws:
Federal oniceboders NAV he comm4udN4
| to use their influence and their authority IN
! has been Issued aud the President should
! know OF IL. Somebody has instructed post
masters that they must obtain from their
subordinates either their designations or
their pledges OF support for Tan delegates
| 70 the convention. Even in Massachusetts,
Efforts Of this kind have recently been made
but happily they have been stopped, partly
because the postmasters 90 whom the at
tempts we're made have the courage to re-
! sist. and partly from other causes"
| In view Of these reiterated complaints
/ would not a detailed statement OF your re-
! cent appointments. the men by whom thay
we're recommended. your reasons aud the
| principles upon which you have acted In
| making them, a. well as 4 statement In re-
! gard TO the alleged coercion. be the best
] method OF exhibiting the facts? Yours re-
/ spectfully. WILLIAM Dudley FoULKE.
To this letter Dir. Roosevelt sent tn
following response:
| THE p RESIDENTS LETTER TO FoULKE
February 7. los.
aaN.-