The Washington times., 1912-04-26

long memorandum setting forth the
erai subjectr.ard that on November I,
he notified Mr. Perkins verbally, in ac-
cordance with my Instructions, that the
bureaus investigation would come first.
The letter continues:
"'Of course, should the matter be-
come one of public comment generally,
this bureau could be prima facie criti-
cized for taking 30 long to finish the
The fST dhs for mas
number Of other reports Of great mag,
nitude and difficulty, such as those OF
lumber, steel, etc, and the bureau had
to give so much time to the prosecution
of the Standard Oil case that the inter-
national Harvester Company investiga-
tion got sidetracked behind those other
ones. We simply have done the best
We could with the small force at our
disposal
No Report Made.
,"Mr Smith In a subsequent letter
says:
mo report Of any sort on the Inter
national Harvester Company was pre-
pared by this bureau during your Ad-
ministration. At the time you went out
of office, the bureau had done less than
10 per cent of the work necessary to
make even a partial report on this sub
port or any part thereof on harvester
had been written or drafted at that
time by the bureau OF corporations. 1
never received from you any 'instruc-
ttons In regard to any such report ex-
cept orders Intended to, facilitate its
preparation and publication
"Mr. Perkins and Commissioner
Smith called upon me in reference to
same time. I submitted all the papers
handed to me by Mr.. Perkins to the
Attorney General, and asked Commits
erai himself, and I asked the Attorney
General not to take up the case until
he had seen me. This was the request
invariably made in every case Of the
each Of my Cabinet officers to keep me
in touch with every important matter
in his office, and I assumed full re-
sponsibility for what was done.
Saw All Sorts of Leaders.
"Tn many scores of cases men Of
every description-trust magnates. Ia
Dor leaders. public officials. private
citizens-came to me when action
either had been taken or the possibil
ity of taking 1t was pending. in cases
in which they were interested, and
asked that. 1 look into the case per-
sonallY before permitting the action
to go on. In all such cases, unless 1
was already thoroughly familiar with
partment was concerned, or verbally
notified its head. to bring the case be-
FORE me and not to come to a decision
upon the matter until after consulta-
tion with me.
Dozens of letters to this effect from
me must be on file in the various de-
partments, and in addition to these
dozen of letters there must have been
the request orally, often by tele-
phone, where no written record ex-
lists. Among other cases. for instance,
remember thus seeing Pierpont Nor
ming the Northern Securities suit
against him, and Mr.. Hill and others,
and I saw a number of representa-
tives Of the Standard on people on
time that we began the suit against
the Standard Oil Company.
II saw various labor leaders at the
time of the proceedings against Meyer
men in cases that were pending or that
were about to be begun in the Depart
ment of the Interior, in the Treasury
Department and In the Attorney Cen
case acted precisely as I acted in all
the other cases and as under like cir
cumstances l should always act, and
any other action would have been gross
ly improper.
Cabinet Unanimous.
'In this case the Attorney General
brought the papers for discussion and
final settlement at a Cabinet meeting.
Mr.. Taft was one of the members of
the Cabinet present on the occasion.
The letter of Mr.. Smith and a letter
or letters indicating the approval of
Mr.. Smiths position by Secretary
Straus and by Lawrence Murray were
put before the Cabinet and Mr.. Bona
parte stated what had been done in
the Attorney Generals office. There
was full discussion of the matter in
which every member of the Cabinet
who was lawyer took part, and one
or two members who were not law
yers. 1t was unanimously agreed that
Quoted by the Commissioner of Cor
porations, under a resolution of the
Senate. the question of bringing, a suit
should not be decided until the tnvesti-
sponsibility for this decision, but
the entire Cabinet, including Mr.. Taft
heartily concurred in 1t.
THE talk about the suppression of
the report is nonsense. The Bureau oi
on the subject. The letter OF Commits
sioner Smith to me, protesting against
action by the Department of Justice,
followed exactly the same course as was
followed with all such letters that re-
ceived. 1t went to the Department OF
Justice a copy. I presume, being re-
tained in the Bureau of Corporations
l had no idea, and, as a matter of fact
never gave a thought to whether either
or both departments would or would not
at any time publish it, and until tlis
matter came up, was ignorant whether
or noISit had ever been published.
presume the usual custom was observed
In each department.
Sums up His Case.
Let me sum up:
Il. took precisely the action in the
Harvester trust case that l took in all
similar cases.
"2. 1 am entirely responsible for the
action taken, but It was taken with the
full approval of the entire Cabinet, in
Guiding Mr.. Taft. who was then a men,
| ber of the Cabinet.
'3-There remained at the time less
than year and half of my admins
| tration. During this time, for the rea
sons given by Mr.. Smith, he was MOI
! able to finish the report ordered by the
| Senate. During this period, as Mr.
| Smith writes me, the only instructions
l gave him in regard to the report were
| orders intended to facilitate its prepara
| tion and publication
| "EOver three years have elapseC
since Mr.. Taft became president. Dur
| ing this entire time the letter of Mr.
! Smith has been in the office of the At
| torney General, and Mr.. Taft canno
have forgotten the debate about 1t II
| the Cabinet meeting when he was