of President Arthur but holding office under Mr. Cleveland. I immediately sought Mr. Bowers, stating to him that we were both serving under the same administration and under our oaths of office that I felt he should first turn his attention to my case, giving him my views as to our rights in the railroad limits, and stating that I should, until some adjudication was had, attempt to maintain our fences as they then existed, but that I could not hold an office under the administration if its views and mine were found to clash. I suggested that an agreed case be made up and submitted to the court. Mr. Bowers first looked over the fences of the Warren corporation and later on others similarly situated, and finally, after several months spent in the removal of fences outside the railroad limits-but ordering none down within-an agreed case was made up concerning a fence in Albany County and was tried before the court and the court found for the defendant. The Government took an appeal to the supreme court of the Territory; that court sustained the lower court (all of the judges being appointees of Mr. Cleveland). The Government again appealed, this time to the Supreme Court of the United States, but never passed this case before that tribunal. After that the fences within the railroad limits remained.

Years after this another suit was brought in the United States courts of Colorado regarding a fence case within railroad limits, and the court found against the defendant. This was carried up all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and finally there decided by an opinion of Mr. Justice Brown that such fences were illegal under the law, notwithstanding the checkerboard condition of ownership.

Following this decision the Warren Co. has torn down many miles of fencing and has undertaken to conform to the law. During these years many sales and purchases of lands were made and some of that bought had fences thereon differing from those above described. These have been, from time to time, removed. The company, by selling and buying lands, by renting school and other lands of the States, and by changing, trading, and consolidating, has undertaken to get its own land in solid bodies where under fence, leaving much of its full-titled land, upon which it has made costly improvements and paid annual taxes, outside of its inclosures.

The company believes that its present condition is entirely within the law. It is the company's desire to be strictly within the law, and if not already within as to any particular, it stands ready to fully comply therewith.

If a statement and maps were erroneously made up and presented by officers of the Government to the grand jury of the State of Colorado, where no counter testimony could be given, an indictment might be had where a conviction could not follow. The notoriety through newspaper dispatches and otherwise attaching to the indictment of a United States Senator reaches far and wide and, although it may not injure his standing in his own State, it is an unpleasant advertisement in the State of his birth and early environment, while the complete refutation of the charges and honorable acquittal never become equally notorious, and to the Messrs. Bangs, Davis, et al., the failure of suit is a matter of no consequence. Their pay goes on, and as it is scalps they are after instead of the removal of fences, and as they seem to be credited with as many points for indictments as if for convictions, the odds are in no wise even between the Senator and the alleged sleuth. There is a great deal more I would like to say, but your time and patience forbid.

Very respectfully,

The PRESIDENT,

White House.

F. E. WARREN.

That on October 6, 1906, and October 27, 1906, the President wrote Secretary Hitchcock as follows:

THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, October 6, 1906.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I inclose a letter from Senator Warren of October 5, in which he speaks of alleged proceedings against him and against the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in the matter of illegal fencing or land frauds in Wyoming. I presume that this is the matter to which you referred in your letter written to me some days ago, in which you stated that you would have to report to me about frauds in Wyoming which go very high up. My one object is to have any investigation into any alleged misconduct there fair and

impartial, and I care not a rap whether the man hit be Democrat or Republican, Senator or private citizen. It is necessary on every account, however, that no publication of these facts should be made until they are submitted to me, and if they are serious, not until they have been submitted by me to the Attorney General, and in view of the publications that have appeared in the past from the Interior Department I desire you to take particular pains to see that not an allusion of any kind is allowed to get out as to this case until it has been laid before me, and until I authorize whatever action is taken.

Sincerely, yours,

Hon. E. A. HITCHCOCK,

THEODORE ROOSEVELT.

Secretary of the Interior.

OCTOBER 27, 1906.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: I have received from Senator Warren a letter dated October 5, which I inclose, together with a copy of his proposed amendment to the joint-statehood bill and a typewritten comment thereon; and, furthermore, the eight-page copy of a statement admitted to have been issued on August 15 by the Interior Department in connection with this amendment and newspaper clippings commenting thereon.

Verbally, the statement is also made that there is a "bureau of publicity' run in connection with the Interior Department not merely with the purpose of furnishing the newspapers with facts to the credit of you and of the department, but also to furnish them with facts to the discredit of other officials of the Government. You doubtless remember the publication last spring of an entirely unwarranted attack on the Department of Justice in connection with the Oklahoma and Indian Territory affairs, the allegations being without base, in fact. The Associated Press people then told me that they had been furnished the statement by the Interior Department, making certain allegations in reference thereto which I was reluctant to go into because of the entanglement that might ensue (the statement being that you had personally given the information); and as Mr. Moody, on behalf of the Department of Justice, stated that he was willing to have the matter rest where it was so as to avoid causing trouble with a fellow member of the Cabinet, I decided to do nothing further. I have also, as you know, taken no action in the matter of the unwarranted publication, without authorization from me, of Gov. Higgins's letter to me and of your letter to me in answer thereto, though there is additional matter in connection therewith as to which I shall later in this letter submit a question. But in this instance, as the attack is made upon a United States Senator and inasmuch as no facts have yet been produced to justify the attack, while the manner of making the attack certainly can not be justified at all, I feel that I must ask for an explanation.

It appears that the amendment in question was introduced by Senator Warren at the request of a constituent of his, a Wyoming man, who had an interest in Oklahoma. It further appears that the amendment proposed to do for Oklahoma practically just what had been done in enabling acts for the Territories admitted as States under similar bills during the last few years-Idaho and Wyoming, for instance-and substantially what was provided in the same bill as regards Arizona. Unless some statement to the contrary is presented, there would therefore appear to have been nothing unusual in the amendment in question, and it would seem on its face (unless testimony to the contrary is produced), so far as Senator Warren is concerned, that his action was natural, and that no improper motives can be ascribed to him, although the special circumstances in the case made me feel at the time, and feel now, that it was, as a question of policy, inexpedient to adopt his amendment. It furthe appears that there was nothing furtive done in connection with this amendment; that it was openly introduced on February 26 by Senator Warren, was referred to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed. The Committee on Territories was then holding daily sessions, and the Senator has reason to suppose that the amendment was given due and usual consideration by the committee, and he also supposes, whether rightly or wrongly I do not know, that it was sent to the Interior Department for report. Eleven days afterwards, on March 9, when the statehood bill was under consideration, he again offered the amendment referred to. Senator Beveridge, on behalf of the committee, stated that the committee would accept it, and it was agreed to by the Senate. Shortly afterwards I was informed by several people that the

amendment in question was objectionable to Oklahoma, among these people being both Gov. Frantz, of Oklahoma, and you yourself. It appears that the bill passed the Senate with the amendment in; that then Gov. Frantz and representatives of the Interior Department, including, I believe, you personally, appeared before the conference committee objecting to the amendment, I having told both Gov. Frantz and yourself that on the information given me I sympathized with the objection. It is stated, furthermore, that at none of these hearings was any assertion made that the presentation of this type of amendment to such an enabling act was unusual, or that any question of the Senator's honesty, or, indeed, any other question but a matter of public interest and public policy was at stake. The Senator further asserts that he asked you if you knew the constituent for whom he acted-Mr. Walker-and that you responded that you did know Mr. Walker, and that he was a good and reliable man of honorable character, and that the same was true of Mr. Walker's attorney in Washington. Senator Warren further states that his interest in the matter was impersonal; that he did not appear in behalf of the amendment at any of the hearings, leaving the entire matter to the judgment of the committee, feeling that he had done enough in submitting the amendment. A substitute amendment was finally adopted.

The publication by the Interior Department, which I inclose, appeared on or about August 15. It is peculiarly drawn up. In form, to those who are not acquainted with the circumstances, it would seem not to be prepared in the Interior Department but by some disinterested person. It contains a very strong eulogy of you and grave reflections, by implication at least, on Senator Warren. It opens by saying:

"Facts have just come to light showing that there was a very bitter fight during the closing days of the last session of Congress over a provision of the statehood bill which has received little public attention. As a result of this fight, which was conducted by the Secretary of the Interior on one side and a number of attorneys representing an organized band of land speculators on the other, the new State of Oklahoma will be the recipient of school lands containing oil and other minerals which are estimated to be worth between one and two million dollars."

It continues that

#

"Early in March, however, Secretary Hitchcock learned that an amendment had been slipped into the statehood bill in the Senate (known as the Warren amendment). The Secretary, on looking into the matter, reached the conclusions that the claims of the parties who would benefit by the amendment were entirely without merit and that the whole scheme bore some resemblance to a raid upon the Treasury."

The above quotations, of course, convey the most offensive implication as regards Senator Warren and as regards the people engaged in pressing the amendment. As the amendment had been defeated and the whole matter closed months before, I do not see what object there was at this time in using such language or making such a report about it. Moreover, the expression "slipped into" necessarily conveys the idea that Senator Warren was acting furtively. So far as appears from any facts before me, he acted with entire openness and in the usual fashion in which all those who were introducing amendments to the bill were at that very time acting.

The published memorandum then continues, describing your activity in opposing the amendment and the widespread indignation about it in Oklahoma, which, says the memorandum, "found vent in numerous letters, telegrams, and petitions to Secretary Hitchcock, to whom everybody seemed to look as the man who should lead the fight against the measure. Some of the letters were models of invective, and all seemed to be impregnated with caloric. The writers were evidently convinced that a big job was being worked against the Territory, and they did not hesitate to put their opinions into plain language, the terms ' graft' and 'grafters' being mild as compared to some that were used." The memorandum goes on to say that the department continued its fight against the amendment. It then says: "If Secretary Hitchcock thought the fight was won, however, he was mistaken, for the activity of the attorneys for the speculators increased every day."

This form is worthy of comment if, as alleged, the publication was submitted to and approved by you before it was issued.

The memorandum goes on to describe your personal efforts to beat the bill, no mention being made, for instance, of the fact that Gov. Frantz, of Okla

The mem

homa, among others, was taking a strong part against the bill. orandum sets forth your services at length. Toward the end it says: "When the people of Oklahoma were celebrating the passage of the statehood bill it is probable that they did not know how near the new Commonwealth came to losing some of its most valuable possessions, besides having a blot on its escutcheon, from having been made the victim of unscrupulous speculators upon its first entrance into the Union of States."

Let me repeat that from information given me by you or obtained by me through Gov. Frantz and others, I was against the adoption of the amendment. If those pushing it were unscrupulous speculators, were guilty of jobbing, grafting, or the like, then it would have been or was eminently proper to show this to be true before the committee at the time. I do not as yet understand what was the need of bringing up the matter afterwards when it was all past history, and the only object of the publication would seem to be to secure public credit for certain individuals and discredit for others. Of course, if any man had acted badly he should have been shown up, but I do not understand why he was not shown up at the time, and why, if not then shown up, the attack should afterwards have been made upon him anonymously. At the time of the hearing before the committee, and not later, was the time to attack Senator Warren, if he was to be attacked at all.

Assistant Secretary Ryan tells me that the memorandum in question was prepared by Mr. Acker, a clerk in the Interior Department; that it was submitted to Mr. Ryan, who forwarded it to you to find out if you approved of its form and desired to have it published; and that you returned it with your approval, after having, however, struck out a commendatory allusion which it contained to the action of Gov. Frantz, of Oklahoma, in opposing the amendment.

I call your attention to the inclosed clippings from such papers as the Providence Journal, the Denver News, the Erie Herald, and the Vincennes Sun. These are of importance because certain officials of the Interior Department, as I understand, have alleged that the published statement did not really contain an attack on Senator Warren. It will be seen, however, that all the papers treated it as a personal attack by you on Senator Warren. The Denver News says that you "roast" Senator Warren; that you have characterized his amendment as a deliberate steal; that the amendment was urged by an organized band of land speculators, resembled a raid on the Treasury, etc. The Providence Journal says:

*

*

"Another striking demonstration of the courage of the Secretary of the Interior-a courage most unusual in a public official dealing with the weaknesses of influential members of his own political party-is afforded by his ungloved attack upon Senator Francis E. Warren, of Wyoming. Without mincing words and in plain English he names Senator Warren as the power behind the throne, the conspicuous counsel, friend, associate, and, inferentially, beneficiary of the 'combine' of 'looters' and 'grafters.' Senator Warren may be innocent, but the case as it stands officially made up and publicly indorsed by Secretary Hitchcock looks bad for him, and seems to require at least a defense. He is a conspicuous target for a member of the Cabinet to shoot at."

*

These quotations show that the publication in question was construed--and I am bound to say that I think it could only have been construed as a deliberate attack upon Senator Warren for having in this matter of the amendment acted in the interest of grafters who were trying to loot the Treasury, and as having made the effort in their behalf in furtive fashion. Whether Senator Warren has been guilty of any misconduct in any other matters has nothing to do with that which I touch upon in this letter. I would like to know whether you intended to convey the impression about Senator Warren which the Providence Journal, the Denver News, and so forth, quoted you as conveying; and if they misrepresented your attitude I would like to know whether you ever made any statement to correct the impression, and if not, why such a statement was not immediately made. It seems to me clear that the published statement does contain a very severe attack on the Senator, and that it was due him either to give proof of its accuracy or immediately to explain that it was misleading and that no attack was intended. If Senator Warren has been guilty in this matter, then let his guilt be shown; but not by innuendo and not in such fashion as that which has been adopted.

I further call your attention to another publication in the New York Herald under date of August 19, This looks as if it were inspired from the same

sources as the memorandum to which I have been making reference, which is the reason why I speak of it. I especially call your attention to the closing lines, which state that there are even greater surprises in store than those to which the Secretary (that is, you) have treated the public this fall. This is apparently a reference to the investigations you have been making in Wyoming, of which you have since told me; in the West it has been so accepted; and it ought not to be necessary to say that until the matter is submitted to me no hint of it should be allowed to escape. It is eminently proper that the Department of the Interior should receive full credit for its work, but it is not proper that, as in this article, it should be said that it was you, the Secretary of the Interior, who "instituted" and "ordered" the prosecutions against Senator Mitchell and two Representatives in Congress from Oregon, "all of [your] own political party, and among the most prominent people in the State," as the article is careful to allege. As a matter of fact, while the officials under you did their full duty and were instrumental in securing testimony against Senator Mitchell and the two Congressman, their part was exactly the same as that played by the post-office authorities in the case of Senator Burton. You stood in the one case precisely as the Postmaster General stood in the other; or indeed, to be accurate, in the case of Senator Mitchell and the Oregon Congressmen the Department of Justice is entitled to an even larger share of the credit as compared with the Interior Department than it is in the case of Burton as compared with the Post Office Department. The vital matter in the Oregon prosecution was the appointment by Mr. Knox, then Attorney General, of Mr. Heney to prosecute the cases. It was Mr. Heney, of the Department of Justice, who carried these cases through, and on whose recommendations I consistently acted, and he was specially chosen for the work by Mr. Knox. Of course, he received loyal and invaluable aid from the officials of your department, just as under similar circumstances the officials of the Department of Justice received loyal and invaluable aid from the officials of the Post Office Department. I should most emphatically disapprove of the Postmaster General securing or promoting the publication of articles tending to exalt his own share in securing the conviction of Burton by slighting or depreciating the action of the Department of Justice, and I have the same feeling as regards this Oregon matter in the case of your department. Such an attitude tends to prevent the cordial working together of the departments which is essential if good results are to be secured. Thus in the article in question, in dealing with the Nebraska land frauds, no mention is made of the fact that the Attorney General, Mr. Moody, before any request was made by you, brought the matter of the conduct of the district attorney and marshal to my attention, both officials being thereupon removed. Anyone reading the article in question would believe that the Interior Department in these matters had acted with practically no support from the Department of Justice. I call your attention, furthermore, to the fact that in this article in the New York Herald it is again stated that Senator Warren's amendment was one in the interest of land speculators, and that you succeeded in having it struck out; so that the attack upon him was repeated in a form which, failing any public denial or repudiation by you, was inevitably accepted as being sanctioned by you.

I also call your attention to the pamphlet issued by the Department of the Interior upon the hearings before you upon the matter of the oil leases in the Indian Territory and in Oklahoma, these hearings running from May 8 to June 19 last. I have already written to you about the unauthorized publication by you of Gov. Higgins's personal letter to me, which I referred to you for comment, and of the unauthorized publication of your letter to me in which you gave me the comment requested; I need hardly repeat what I then said, that such action by a Cabinet minister is not only, as far as I know, unheard of, but, of course, completely destroys the necessary confidential relations between the President and the Cabinet minister. The President must be continually sending confidential matter to his Cabinet ministers for comment and return, if his work is to be well done; and it is out of the question thus to send these matters if they are to be published, without any authorization from him, together with the letters of the Cabinet minister in reference thereto. My attention, however, has been specifically called to two or three matters in connection with this pamphlet, which I did not know of or appreciate when I wrote you before. On page 49, you say, speaking of Mr. Barnsdall, that "he thought he would influence me, through the President, by politics. The Presi dent gave me Gov. Higgins's letter to answer, which I did." I desire to know whether this is to be construed as meaning that I was endeavoring to influence