Mr. WHITE. Well, I would like to clean it up. But, gentlemen, the trouble with the administration end, in my judgement, is that there is not enough latitude to the different districts. It is too much confined to bureaus.

Chairman WALSH. The authority looks very much scattered. Easy to dodge responsibility.

Mr. WHITE. Absolutey so; absolutely so, and it destroys initiation-destroys individual responsibility.

Chairman WALSH. What could you suggest with reference to the fixing of the responsibility in a way that would minimize the selling of favors, etc.?

Mr. WHITE. It seems to me this-I don't know, but I have felt this-I thought that if I allowed Tape to continue in the service as he was and didn't know what his income was, and a man would come here from Washington and investigate, and find out what he was doing, and make that report and show that I hadn't done anything with the matter, that I ought to be fired. other words, I believe we ought to hold the man in charge responsible for what is done under him, and not alone the man who does the unlawful act.

In

Commissioner GARRETSON. On the other hand, let us take the other side of that, Mr. White. Assume that the man who holds this power to discharge is the crooked fellow, what can you do to the honest man that stands against him to block his game under that situation?

Mr. WHITE. Well, I should say

Commissioner GARRETSON. He can weed every honest man out.

Mr. WHITE. I appreciate that. Assume that the commissioner in this district is the crooked one. He, then, is responsible to the bureau, and if the bureau don't ascertain that and fire him they ought to be fired. In other words, there ought to be minute investigations. Those investigations should be known, should be carried on without the men in the field knowing; and when they come here they should make a careful investigation of the man in charge, and hold him responsible up to the extent that he can be fired for not doing his duty or for sins of omission as well as commission, because it strikes me that there is more graft in the department by reason of not doing a thing than there is by reason of doing them.

Commissioner GARRETSON. Sins of omission are as great as sins of com

mission.

Mr. WHITE. But that is not true as I see it in this service. As I see it in this service we simply go along. If a man gets better results by reason of his salary-as I see it in this district-those that have done the least have gotten the increase in salary over those that have been active. And that is the way

I have seen it. I don't know, I may be wrong about it.
Chairman WALSH. What are Taylor's headquarters?
Mr. BUSIEK. Washington.

Chairman WALSH. You have his history in the record here, have you?
Mr. BUSIEK. Yes.

Commissioner O'CONNELL, We have got his special investigation.

Mr. WHITE. He is in Los Angeles now.

Mr. BUSIEK. He left here just before I got here.

Chairman WALSH. Could you wire him and get him up here?

Mr. BUSIEK. I think we might.

Chairman WALSH. All right. Much obliged, Mr. White. Very much obliged. We may want to see you a little later..

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Mr. BUSIEK. I will furnish you with a copy of that right after lunch.
Mr. Bonham.

TESTIMONY OF MR. RAPHAEL P. BONHAM.

(The witness was not sworn.) Mr. BUSIEK. Take that chair.

a wire from the department?

Mr. Bonham, before we proceed, have you got

. Mr. BONHAM. No; I have not. I just wired them five minutes ago asking them to rush their answer.

Chairman WALSH. I want to make a little statement. I have taken this matter up personally, as well as Commissioners O'Connell and Weinstock, with the department and Secretary Wilson, and we have a general understanding of cooperation, you understand, an absolute one.

Mr. BONIAM. Yes,

Chairman WALSH. Now, of course, this matter of yours has come up, as many others have, as we go around, you see. We have been in Boston. We have had our investigators, and we have succeeded every place in not crossing lines anywhere. Now, this is the only thing that we are doing in executive session, and as I have said here to the others, to Mr. White, and as we were compelled to explain in Boston where a removal was made during the time of our session of the commissioner there, why this is not only confidential so far as the public is concerned, but it is confidential so far as the individuals are concerned who are connected with the Government. So you see if there is anything in here now that you subsequently may believe would affect your investigation or affect your relations with the department or anything, why you have our pledge that it may be withdrawn, you see, and expunged from the record. We have to have the cooperation of every person. Now, you are the first one we have met that has been so active in the thing, you know, or that really has turned up so much. Now, much of our private investigation has met your lines, and we are going to supplement what you do, perhaps, you know, involving persons considerably higher up, and it all comes to this, that we would like you to be just as free as you can with your information, understanding that you have the commission's pledge, and my pledge representing the commission-I am the chairman of the commission-that if there is anything afterwards that you think will interfere with the investigation, why we are going to take you for it individually and you can take us, and take it out of this record.

Commissioner GARRETSON. Or that will interfere with your tenure of office.
Chairman WALSH. Yes; or that will interfere with you personally.

Mr. BONHAM. Gentlemen, my tenure of office does not bother me as much as it does some people. Of course, if this commission comes to an end and I am stranded somewhere, I can go back on the farm if it is necessary.

Chairman WALSH. That is all right. I want you to know that so far as you are concerned now, any information that you consider might involve you in any way that you give to us from which we might pick up a thread at some other place away from here, why you can be sure that subsequently if there is any question raised about it, it will be expunged from our records and given back to you, that is all.

Mr. BONHAM. It is not my own fate that makes me have any reluctance, it is simply that I was sent here directed to make a confidential investigation. Now, it is more a matter of etiquette with me. I think it would be much better if the department would instruct me to give you every assistance.

Chairman WALSH. Yes.

Mr. BONHAM. And I wired them.

Chairman WALSH. You see how they can't do that. They don't know all of our investigators, for instance, and you see what you have run into here, people you would be guided to as being absolutely worthy of confidence, you see, so that it is impossible for persons as far off as they are in Washington not to have that sort of sustaining proviso, that it will not hurt your work?

Mr. BONHAM. My work is finished here, so that I don't see how it can possibly hurt it.

Chairman WALSH. You can go on with perfect freedom, as I say, and be sure if you want it taken out of this record, we will do so.

Mr. BUSIEK. The only limitation put upon Mr. Bonham testifying under the wire from Commissioner Caminetti is: It should not be incompatible with public interests.

Chairman WALSH. There is nothing we are doing that is incompatible with public interests.

Mr. BONHAM. That telegram does not apply to me. It applies to Mr. White and his subordinates; I am in another district.

Chairman WALSH. You can go the whole length with this commission; we are going further than you can possibly do, or Mr. Caminetti can possibly do. Mr. BUSIEK. Please state your full name.

Mr. BONHAM. Raphael P. Bonham.

Mr. BUSIEK. How long have you been with the immigration department?
Mr. BONHAM. Since November 30, 1903.

Mr. BUSIEK. Where are you now stationed?

Mr. BONHAM. Portland, Oreg.

Mr. BUSIEK. When did you come to Seattle?

Mr. BONHAM. I think it was the night of the 16th of last month.

38819-S. Doc. 415, 6-1-1--vol 7-10

Mr. BUSIEK. Did you come pursuant to orders from Washington to make a certain investigation here in Seattle?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. And that investigation was of Mr. Tape?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Prior to that time had you ever made any other investigation of any other officer in the service?

Mr. BONHAM. I only recall of one. The inspector in charge of the district of Oregon, where I am stationed, made a trip to China, leaving about the 30th of December, being gone three months. During his absence I had charge of the Oregon district, and I had an occasion during his absence to investigate. Inspector Riley, of Astoria, whom I had directed to arrest a certain Hindu who had surreptitiously entered from Canada. This inspector reported he could not find this Hindu. I found the Hindu was still in the neighborhood and got hold of him and eventually I learned that the inspector had found him and released him for $200. I finally, after 11 days' persuasion, induced the Hindu to confess his part in it and was able to corroborate those statements of his to a very remarkable degree. I know that Inspector Riley retained as his counsel Fulton Bros.-one of the Fultons is an ex-United States attorney-and when he came to Portland from Astoria and read the record he left me his badge and resignation and told me he didn't think the United States marshal would follow him to St. Louis where his home was, and he packed and left and didn't wait to hear the results from Washington. That investigation was completed a few months ago.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did Mr. Riley make any proposition to you in regard to holding up the investigation, and if so, tell the commission just what that was and what passed between you.

Mr. BONHAM. Well, Mr. Riley did make a proposition to me. He suggested this, that inasmuch as I was the only Democrat in our district, and second in rank in the State, that if I would defer this investigation until the inspector in charge returned from China, which he said would give him a fighting chance, then in case the inspector in charge did not drop the investigation, he would in turn prefer charges against the inspector in charge, on whom he had, or thought he had, some unpleasant matters, if they were exposed, and in the event he went out he would take him with him and leave me a clear field, and in the event he could not take him with him-in the event the inspector in charge dropped the proceedings, then I would be in a very secure position, because I would have it on both of them, as it were.

Mr. BUSIEK. Then his proposition to you was that you should hold up the charges against him, Riley, until such time as Barber got back from China, and in the event he had enough on Barber, I think that is the way he put it, was it not, that he had enough on Barber to take him with him?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes, sir; he said he had, and said what he lacked in evidence he would manufacture.

Mr. BUSIEK. But you say you completed your investigation of him and made your report, and he turned in his badge?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes, sir; he was dishonorably dismissed from the service. He had taken the examination, and I understand passed the examination for pure-food inspector, and that was his secondary line of defense. He thought he could force the acceptance of his resignation in case he became involved in our office. He was going ahead with his graft and keeping that open as a retreat, and he thought he could so involve others-his object in the service seemed to be to get some indiscretion on some one else, particularly his superiors, and then if he was called to account he would put the screws on them and force them to let him resign, and then he had this pure-food inspection proposition that he intended to fall back on. In my report to the department I suggested that his becoming pure-food inspector would be of very doubtful benefit either to the Government or to the public. I felt I would have to quit even catchup or things of that sort.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did you report to the Government in full the facts about his taking this money from the Hindu?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes, sir; I substantiated it with very complete, convincing, and circumstantial evidence that I believe would have convicted him in any court of law.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did the department ever institute criminal proceedings against him?

Mr. BONHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Have you ever known of the department instituting criminal proceedings against anybody for aiding-for conspiring in smuggling Chinese or corrupting officers who have been accepting graft?

Mr. BONHAM. I have no personal knowledge of their taking such action against any of our own men.

Mr. BUSIEK. Have you ever known of them taking action-the department itself instituting proceedings against any man who was found guilty of aiding and abetting smuggling of Chinese and Hindus other than the one incident here in Seattle, which I will come to later?

Mr. BONHAM. No, sir; I haven't any personal knowledge of it.

Mr. BUSIEK. Have you ever heard of it?

Mr. BONHAM. I can not recall of any case.

Mr. BUSIEK. Have you ever had instructions from the department yourself to cooperate with the district attorney in cases where you had clear cases of smuggling?

Mr. BONHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Now, you made this report on Riley how long ago?

Mr. BONHAM. I beg pardon.

Mr. BUSIEK. How long ago was it you turned in this report on Riley?

Mr. BONHAM. I can't give you the exact date.

Mr. BUSIEK. What month, approximately?

Mr. BONHAM. It was in February or March.

Mr. BUSIEK. Of this year?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Then, when was it you were detailed to make this Seattle investigation of Mr. Tape?

Mr. BONHAM. I was detailed to make the investigation-I think the letter arrived in Portland about July 3. I had left that day with pack horses on a fishing trip, and they could not get in communication with me, and they had to wait until I got back 10 days later.

Mr. BUSIEK. You came up here then?

Mr. BONHAM. Then I came up here about the 16th of July.

Mr. BUSIEK. What assistance did the department furnish you in making this investigation? Did they outline the scope and give you any leads of any kind that you could follow up?

Mr. BONHAM. They simply told me to make a confidential investigation. I don't know just what they made by that. Before I got here the papers were full of the fact that Tape was under charges and that I was to make an investigation, so that the fact that I had been assigned was not confidential. I hadn't seen a reporter at that time or since, and I don't know where they got the information.

Mr. BUSIEK. Were you furnished with any sources of information by the department or any official thereof?

Mr. BONHAM. They instructed Commissioner White, of this district, to furnish me with a copy of the letter which he had addressed them, asking for the removal of Tape, in which he had set forth the reasons and grounds for the request.

Mr. BUSIEK. And did you have any assistance from one Richard Taylor in making this investigation?

Mr. BONHAM. No, sir; I didn't; certainly, although in fairness to Mr. Taylor I must say I didn't ask him to become my coworker in my mission. Mr. BUSIEK. Why not?

Mr. BONHAM. That is a difficult question to answer. In the first place, my instructions were to make a confidential investigation, and I wouldn't for that reason have asked him, except I did suggest to him if he knew anything I would appreciate it if he would give it to me unofficially, and he said if he did know anything he would.

Another reason was that the letter, which I had a copy of, written by Comsioner White to the Commissioner General, asking for Tape's removal, contained a paragraph in which he strongly objected to the assignment of Taylor to the investigation of Tape on the ground they were very strong personal friends. Mr. BUSIEK. Did Mr. Taylor substantiate that they were strong personal friends?

Mr. BONHAM. He spoke about their being friends, and I knew they were associated together. When I went down to call on Mr. Taylor he was out, and I

waited for him at his hotel, the Rector Hotel, and he finally came in Mr. Tape's machine. He said he used Mr. Tape's machine because it saved the Government expense and enabled him to get over the country rapidly, and he had every confidence in Tape.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did he say he had means of knowing whether Tape was straight or not. Did he ever tell you about having investigated him or having investigated the Seattle office and found Tape was 0. K.?

Mr. BONHAM. I think he mentioned once having investigated Tape in St. Louis and having found him all right.

Mr. BUSIEK. You knew Mr. Taylor had investigated the Seattle office, didn't you?

Mr. BONHAM. I knew he had made investigations up here; I didn't just know the scope of them.

Mr. BUSIEK. Your inference was that Mr. Taylor thought Mr. Tape was all right. Was that a fair inference from your conversation?

Mr. BONHAM. Oh, he said so very plainly.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did he tell you what he expected your findings would be, whether favorable or unfavorable?

Mr. BONHAM. No, sir; he didn't intimate at all.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did he ever attempt to justify anything concerning Tape? For instance, Tape's expenditures; did he ever attempt to explain to you where Tape got the money?

Mr. BONHAM. As I recall it, I wouldn't want to be positive, but, as I recall it, he said he had always understood that the money came from his wife, and that the statements as to his expenditures he thought had been largely exaggerated; as to Mrs. Tape's fine clothes and employment of a maid, and all that, he seemed to think it was not justified by the real conditions.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did Taylor ever speak to you about Tape's relations with these women he has lived with? Did you ever discuss that with Taylor-mention the fact that Tape was living in adultery, or had been, with women?

Mr. BONHAM. I have no recollection of having done so. I never discussed the matter with Mr. Taylor very freely, for the reason that my mission was confidential, and I didn't feel I should discuss matters with him which the bureau might not approve, and then possibly his attitude made me a little reluctant to be as free as I might otherwise have been.

Mr. BUSIEK. Mr. Taylor, of course, knew you were here making an investigation?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did he ever try to sound you out and find out what progress you had made?

Mr. BONHAM. Mr. Taylor never called upon me at any time. I called upon him once at the Rector Hotel, and I met him once for a few minutes at the immigration station.

Chairman WALSH, I believe we might shorten this by having Mr. Bonham state the substance of any conversation he had with Mr. Taylor with reference to Mr. Tape or any other Chinese matter.

Mr. BONHAM. I don't believe the commission would be particularly interested in any conversation had with Mr. Taylor, because, as I have related, I didn't feel Mr. Taylor was taking me into his confidence, and I didn't take him into my confidence for that reason.

Chairman WALSH. You did not have any conversations bearing on Tape's honesty or dishonesty, or the condition of the affairs of the department, so far as Chinese were concerned, or the smuggling of them, or the handling of Chinese; is that correct?

Mr. BONHAM. I think, as I recall it, Mr. Taylor asked me if my investigation so far had connected Tape up with smuggling of Chinese, and I told him I had nothing at that time definite on that subject.

Chairman WALSH. When was that, that that conversation took place?

Mr. BONHAM. I think I can give you the date, if you will wait a minute. I think that was on the 23d of July that I called on Mr. Taylor at the Rector Hotel.

Chairman WALSI. The 23d of July of this year?

Mr. BONHAM. Yes,

Chairman WALSH. Then you have never taken any written statement from Mr. Taylor?

Mr. BONHAM. Oh, no.

Mr. BUSIEK. You have investigated Mr. Tape's bank account, I believe?