The Washington herald., 1911-08-04

Interior, Washington, D. C.
Sir: 1 have received your letter. dated
July Is (mailed at p. m, July S, and
reaching me on the morning Of the Ath),
advising me of your decision that, for
the promotion of proper efficiency in the
service Of this department" I should be
dismissed from the position of general
superintendent of logging in the Indian
Service. While you do not state directly
the grounds of this decision further than
that 1t is based upon the entire situa-
ton disclosed in the record and upon my
conversations and conferences with
you" and you say that some Of the rea-
sons for It are correctly indicated IN
the opening paragraph of a letter to you
under date of July "A from my attorney
which on this point reads as follows:
To-day at the close OF the discussion
of the charges against Joseph r. Farr l
understood you to suggest that even II
the charges preferred by the Commits
sioner of Indian Affairs on April 20 be
not sustained, yet the orderly administra-
tion of the governments business under
your department would hardly permit the
retention in the same bureau OF two OF
your subordinates who bear such per-
sonal relations toward each other as are
apparently borne by Mr.. Valentine and
-
disclosed by his correspondence and man
ner and his preferring charges against
the commissioner was such as to indlcate
that he ought not to be retained
Dismissed without Hearing.
AS nearly, therefore, as your meaning
can be gathered from your letter, you
have decided to dismiss me from the pub
lie service. not on any Of the charges
which were preferred against me by the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs-which
fully answered in writing and under oath
more than two months ago, and for
fair hearing upon which 1 have been
waiting ever since in reliance upon your
promise that 1 should have such hear
ing-but you have dismissed me because
/ have preferred charges against Com
missioner Valentine and because OF the
particular manner in which 1 happen to
have preferred them, and also because
of something disclosed in the record
and in your conversations and con
ferences'' with me, but OF the nature OF
which you do not advise me.
You say however the mere prefer
. ring of charges by a subordinate against
his superior officer would not be suff1-
cient reason for such A conclusion. II
might, upon the contrary, be an entlrely
justifabIe and commendable view OF pub
. lie QutV. IN SUCH d case IL hON
show the personal animus contained IN
your communications" Apparently, there
fore, as you have not yet passed upon my
charges against Mr.. Valentine or taken
any action whatever upon them (although
they have been in your hands for more
than two months. and although you con-
cede in your letter that some OF them at
least are "of substance'D. the only re
manning ground for your action, aside
have intended
by your vague references to the record
and to your conversations and CON
ferences'' with me, is the personal AMI
mus connected with the bringing OF
those charges which you conceive to be
shown in my communications to you, and
that regardless Of whether or not the
charges which 1 have made be true.
An UnwnHfnnted Reference.
Your reference to the record" as the
basis for your action is entirely unwar-
ranted, for that record relates solely to
the charges made against me on April 20
by the Commissioner OF Indian Affairs
upon which have ever since been hon
estly, openly, and earnestly seeking the
fullest possible hearing in order to estab-
lsh all the facts, and to the charges
which I have necessarily made against
Commissioner Valentine in order to pre-
sent the true facts in my own defense.
But you have expressly refrained from
passing upon any of those charges and
therefore your present decision cannot
in any true or honest sense be based
upon that record or the situation dis
closed in It.
AS to my letters to you, I will submit
to any unprejudiced mind that they are
respectful in tone, proper in form, and
courteous in every expression in them.
Under such circumstances, If you saw In
them any evidence of personal anirnus"
toward Mr.. Valentine you must have 30
interpreted the bare fact that defended
myself against his attack upon my good
name, both as an officer and as a man.
and that in doing so fully and honestly.
in view OF all the facts. It was neces-
sary to state certain regrettable facts in
regard to his conduct and relations to-
ward me and toward the public service.
Offer to Prove Facts.
But these facts I stated temperately
and respectfully, as you will clearly see
II you will examine my communications
to you, and / have not enlarged upon or
characterized them, for the mere state
ment of them was a sufficient character
ization; and as I have in every case
offered to prove the facts which | have
stated, and in some cases have actually
submitted the proof In connection with
the statement. and as you have thus far
refused to give me the opportunity to
make further proof, and have not yet
passed upon or taken any steps to ascer-
tain the truth or falsity of my state
ments. although they were submitted to
you more than two months ago. It Is
clear that the only basis that there can
b for your allegation of personal ami
u1os'' I'm my letters ie the bare fact that
have made such statements, accom-
pahying them, however. with the offer Of
proof, And that too, Notwithstanding
the fact, as is clearly set forth in the
record, that it was impossible for me to
make a complete and true defense to the
charges against me without making those
statements.
As there Is no direct record Of the CON
versations" and conferences" which you
have had with me. you may seem 10 have
put yourself In a more secure position
In basing your decision upon them. But
the only ''conversations, and confer
ences'' which you have ever Mad with me
<.nraaEraH H4rtnR hFfaf fpfarvfaUV nm