The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-01-11

/ III
possible that a postoffice inspector
would set about getting Photographic
copies of the letters of a United States
| senator and trying to convict him of
| lying if the orders did not come from a
| high source
Let us suppose for a moment that I
was guilty of a falsehood in declaring
that 1 had not undertaken to purchase
any land. What did that have to do
with DORIS transparent and open use
| of the mails to induce men to send him
money to purchase land? DORIS de-
claration that had paid the fees is an
absolute falsehood and the postoffice in
spectorS, While they searched the rec
ords for entries at 'Coquill' noted that
Reeder and Watkins had fled several
hundred applications. but nowhere men
toned that any had been filed in my
name or for. me. Therefore the false
hood is proven on Dorr and yet the pres
ident declared the assault which Sena-
tor Tillman made on Mr.. Dorr was ac-
cording to report of the inspector, a
wanton assault made to cover up Sena-
tor Tillman's own transactions.
No Such Statement Made.
mo such statement was made by the
inspector. In fact, so earnestly intent
on convicting Senator Tillman is the
president he actually commits himself
to this proposition towit: Tillman vol
unfairly and without any compulsion
from any source and with nothing to
ate which he need not have done to COW
er up transactions which were absolute
ly unknown to any one except himself
and his correspondents, Reeder and
Watkins, and were entirely honorable
and clean. Much exposure closed on the
swindlers. Dorr, when his mail was not
delivered. retired from the land bust
ness and became fruit grower as re-
ported by the inspectors. The swindlers
had secured a good many thousands of
dollars before the exposure in the SEN
ate stopped people from being duped,
and vet, Theodore Roosevelt who poses
as the only honest man in public life
in the face of these facts has felt called
upon to attack the character of a man
whose integrity had never been ques-
toned and whose official position is sec
ond only to his own. In doing this he
makes a false declaration for the in
spectors now here say no such thing as
above quoted, can be proven by an ex-
animation of their reports. Now about
the lying:
my letter of February Is of which
the president has secured a copy ante
dated by four days my statement in the
senate that had not bought any land
or undertaken to buy any and the presi-
dent considers this positive proof of
falsehood. I did not say I had not con-
sidered the purchase of land; did not
say 1 had not contemplated the pur-
chase of land because had done both
'sIn nv conversation with the attOr-
ney general 1t makes the resolution
which 1 introduced and which he him
self prepared after We had talked over
the whole land situation I distinctly re-
membered telling him that my interest
in the matter had been first aroused by
my desire to purchase some of the tim
Der land and that my coming to him
was due to the fact that I discovered
upon investigation that 1 could not buy
through any agency whatsoever that 1
could not buy it even bv lawsuit be-
cause I was advised by very able law
yers in the west, among them George
Turner of Washington, that in attack
ing the holders of those land grants no
one would have any standing in court
except the grantor the government it
self. I was perhaps disengenuous, but
a moments thought will convince any
honest minded man that as 1 had not
signed any papers, had not paid any
money, had taken nobody's receipt, the
usual process by which one undertakes
to buy land was. speaking accurately
and not falsely. Everything hinges on
the meaning of the word undertakes
and my use of it. Did I mean to con-
ceal the fact that 1 was anxious to buy
some of the land, not at all. Did mean
to attack Dorr as a Swindler when my
self was engaged in a dishonest and dis
honorable transaction? That is what
the president would have people be-
lieve, can be justly charged with false
hood when if I had told the senate of
the entire transaction it would have
made no difference whatever, while 1
would have been charged with introduce
ing my private affairs into a public dis
cussion. Just what law did l break?
What wrong did 1 do or contemplate?
According to the report Of the attorney
general in answer to the resolutions
which I introduced and which passed
the senate, Hartman, the presidents
dear friend, still holds in defiance of
law upwards OF two millions of acres of
the best land of Oregon and California
and refuses to sell them at any price
1T never expected and could not
under the terms of the law as I con-
strue it get more than seven quar-
ter sections for myself and family,
one for my private secretary and one
for Mr. Lee making nine in all. This
in the aggregate would mean that I
would obtain through my activity
here, as the president charges, nine
quarter sections or LAO acres at a
cost of $4,000. Will the president I'M
dertake to say that I have lost my
right to buy land because 1 am a SEN
ator. Can the president deny my ac-
tivity secured the passage of the
resolution instructing the attorney
general to bring suit for the recovery
of this land for the use of actual set
tiers II Mr.. Hartman and others like
him are made to disgorge by reason
of these suits shall the fact that 1
was endeavoring to buy a little pit
lance of the land be used as the basis
of a charge of being a liar and a cor
rupt senator to be disgraced?"
How 1t Started