The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-08-02

But TINS dlu1t 'rem To satisfy him so I
sent for Charlh' Taft and asked him to
tell MS brother. the president who II was
l really represe.lted The president made
no further objec ton to my claim Yours
DICK.
The postscript is not now on the files
of the depaTm ant. If il were. 1t would
be my duty Il transmit it under THIS
resolution. WHO, is really responsible
for It's wicked 'abrication. if it ever ex.
listed. or for the viciously false state.
ment mpde a. to its authenticity is
1mmateria fol the purposes Of this
communication The purport Of the al
legged postscript Is and the intention of
the fabricatOr was to make Mr.. Rich.
ard s. Ryan t, stify through its words
to the public shat although | WIS at
first opposed ill the public interest 10
granting the & mination which he re-
quested. neverl heless through the un-
due influence of my brother Mr.
Charles L. Taft. and the disclosure of
the real prrSolS in interest was in
duced improperly and for the promo
ton Of their private gain TO make the
order
The statemen in so far as my brother
is concerned; -;nd that is the chief
feature OF the IoStscript-is utterly I'm
founded He lever wrote to me or
spoke TO me in reference TO Richard =
Ryan or on th' subject Of Controller
bay or the gra lting of any privileges
or the making Cf any orders in respect
to Alaska. He has no interest In
Alaska. never tad and knows nothing
OF the circumS ,anceS connected with
this transaction He does not remem.
Der that he eve met Richard s. Ryan
He never heard Of the Controller Bay
railroad until my cabegram of inquiry
reached him
Mr.. Balinger says In q telegram In
answer to my inquiry that he never
received such postscript and that he
was in Seattle On the date Of July 13.
when IT was Sc id to have been writ
ten
Mr.. Richard 5. Ryan, In a letter
which he has Sc ut me without solicita-
ton. says that he never met my broth
er, Mr. Charles +. Taft. and that so
far as he knows Mr. Charles Z. Taft
never had the 81 ghtest interest in Con-
troller bay, in the Controller Railway
and Navigation company or In any
Alaskan company. and he utterly de.
MES writing OI signing the alleged
postscript The utter improbabiity of
his writing Sucl a postscript to Mr.
Ballinger at Washington when the
latter was AVA. for his vacation for
two months mus impress every one
The fact is that Mr.. Ballinger never
saw the letter or July l3 1910. to
which this postscript is said to have
been attached 1t was sent to me by
Mr.. Carr. Secretary Balingers pri-
vate secretary. at Beverly. on July
1.-THE next day | read the letter at
Beverly in Augl st with other papers
and sent them to the White House
1t was placed uJOn the White House
files and remaiI ed there until April
22. 1911. when It was. by request of
Secretary Fisher for use in connection
with his answer to Il senate inu;liry.
returned to the interior department
and ii was afte' this that the corre-
spondent is said to have seen the let
ter with the pos script attached. Mr.
carr saw no such postscript when he
sent the letter 10 me. | did not see il
when read 1t. No one saw it In the
executive office. hut il remained to ap-
pear as posts ript when il is said
that the correSpt ndent saw the letter
in April or May IN the files OF the IN.
terror department. All others were de
MED the sight
The person on whose statement the
existence "f VIII; I has been property
characterized as an amazing post
script is based l.; writer for news
papers and maya lines. who was given
permission by Sc 'retary Fisher. after
consultation with me. to examine all
the files In resp. ct TO the Controller
bay matter and his under the super
vision of Mr.. Bro yn. then private sec
retary to the seer atary Of the interior
After the eXamin ttion. at which it is
alleged this post script was received
from the hand Of Mr.. Brown. the cor.
respondent prepar ed an elaborate arti-
Gle Oh the subject of this order and
Controller bay. which was submitted
TO Mr.. Fisher and which was discuss
ed with Mr.. Fisher ut length. but nev.
er In the cOnvers ltiOn between them
or In the article =, omitted did the cor
respondent mention the existence of
the postscript. NJ. Brown states that
there was no such postscript in the
papers when he showed them TO the
correspondent and that he never saw
such a postscript. Similar evidence is
given by Mr.. Carr and other custo-
dians of the records in the interior de-
Dartment.
Stronger evidence of the falsity and
maliciously slande rous character of
the alleged postsC ript could not be
had. Its only sign ticance is the light
it throws on the bi terness and venom
or some Of these W no take active part