The Washington herald., 1911-08-04

responsibility:
while 1 am Of the opinion that you
oid not properly obey the instructions
Of your superior officer In the particular
instance which led to your previous sus-
pension, prefer not to comment upon
that matter at this time, but to leave
II TO be considered as you have re-
Quested. in connection with the final de-
termination of the matters you have
brought to my attention with respect
to Commissioner Valentine"
You here state that had requested you
TO leave at least one of Mr. Valentine S
charges to be considered at a future
time, and yet my request. as conveyed
TO you by my attorney, whose language
you quoted in your letter, was that you
\ DOW decide whether or not Mr.. Valen-
! tines charges have been sus-
tanned" Your statement needs no further
comment from me. but your explanation
or the Intellectual process by which you
reached 1t, or now Justify it. would prob
ably be interesting at least, If not edify-
ing.
Completely Disproved Charges.
In your interview with me on May l,
you Expressed your positive conviction
tha/ had been guilty of direct dis
obedience of orders on the Lac du F1am-
: beau Reservation. and it was evident
that nothing that 1 could say in that
brief interview could in any manner
snake your conviction. For this reason,
l analyzed and discussed this charge in
all its bearings, and all the facts in any
manner connected with it. with the
greatest care in my sworn answer, clear
iy and completely disproying the charge.
But this answer evidently had no effect
whatever upon you, probably because
you did not give it any consideration, if
q @l,,-1 II,
] seriously doubt.
In the conference July "a YOU re-
peatedly reiterated the statement that
had not made a personal examination"
OF allotmentS, saying to my attorney that
you wanted to get 1t into his head" as
well as into mine. that this was direct
disobedienCe of orders. But, ignoring
your manifest and persistent discourtesy
TO him, my attorney patiently insisted
upon explaining the situation until you
fnally recognized that the Immediate
personal examination upon which you
laid such stress was not only impossible
at that time, but owing to an essential
change subsequently arising in the situ-
alton, was entirely unnecessary for the
purpose for which ii was ordered, and
that I actually did completely cover the
situation and report upon ii with the
utmost promptness, explaining it fully
and making recommendation to cover
every feature of it, on which I request
ed action by wire which action could
have been taken before it would have
been a possibility to begin the said
personal examination in any event, and
that such action by wire had not been
taken. That, therefore, l had not been
guilty of disobedence or insubordination
in any sense.
Question of "PrOper'' Obedience.
Until then you had apparently freely
admitted that what l had done might
have been the best thing that could be
done. and in fact, intimated that you did
not care whether it was or not, inasmuch
as it was not exactly what l had been
told 70 DO; and. therefore, you steadfastly
maintained that l had, nevertheless, been
guilty of dir ect disobedienCe and in
subordination in failing to do the par
tiCUlar thing which l was specifically di-
reCted to do. But now, being forced at
last to admit that | was not guilty of
the direct disObedienCe" with which you
have been charging me, you have taken
refuge in the opinion" that Il did not
properly obey the Instructions of my
superior officer.
Your use of language is too elusive TO
enable me TO determine with certainty
just what you mean by proper obe-
dcnce in this connection. In view of
your GNlltLt PREF OSdllNt Ol ttllIlluS Nlll
your own mind. however. and without
notice to Interested parties) the terms
which you use. the attempt would be
hopeless. But the only thing which l
could have done under my instructions
in this case, other than what l did do,
would have been to wire the office and
remain at Lac du F'lambeau in practical
idleneSS for an indefinite period awaiting
change OF conditions and further in
structions and Information, meantime
disregarding instructions previously re-
ceiVed in other matters of pressing I'M
portance. From the discussion" in your
office on July "a, however, it would seem
that this is what you would have con-
sidered a more proper" obedience than
TO handle the matter promptly and COM
pletely in the best possible way under
the situation which confronted me, re-
port thereon fully, putting the office in
q position to approve or disapprove my
action by wire, and proceed to other
important work without any waste OF
time. as | did.
But YOU were clearly bound to make
some sort OF finding AGAINST me on this
charge. for my dismissal had long been
decided upon. and you knew that not
even any colorado evidence of any OF
the. other "harges had ever been sub |
mittcd. on June the Indian Office |
wrote me in relation to my final ac-
count SllilCL6nt lnulCallOn, surely, !
that your decision was then clearly |
known there On June 13 you told two |
congressman that in your Judgment the !
record clearly established the charge of !
disobcdenCe and INSTRUMENTATION, and |
that my guilt not open to question: |
and the impression they received from |
you in the interview was that the mat |
ter had already been fully heard and !
decided.
1t is easy to see, Therefore how you !
might feel that you had put yourself in |
O. position where you could not frankly |
dismiss this charge even though you !
knew that II was false; nevertheless |
under the circumstances, apparently the
best you could do toward saving your
face was to express the opinion that
had at least been guilty of improper
obedience.
Wanted His Official Scalp.
The whole record clearly justifies the
Inference that In the beginning you prom
ised Mr. Valentine my scalp, on his as
surance to you that you would be able TO
deliver it to him on the charges which
he had made against me. But he knew
that you could not do this unless you
would also deny me any fair hearing:
therefore he urged this upon you at the
first and has urged 1t ever since. At va
rious stages in my three months plead
ing for a hearing, when 1t seemed impos-
sible to find any further excuse for re-
fusing to hear me in my own defense, II
happened to be reported that Mr.. Valen-