Dennett Testifies in "Dick to Dick" Scandal

The House Committee on the Interior Department Expenditures heard testimony from Land Office Commissioner Fred Dennett today in what has been called the "Dick-to-Dick" scandal in Washington.  The scandal began several days ago when it came to light that Charles Taft may have asked his brother, the President, to remove Controller Bay in Alaska from the Chugach National Forest at the request of Richard Ryan, likely promoter of the Guggenheim interests in the territory, though Ryan has denied the allegation.

The story came to light in the July 7 Washington Times when the paper reported the discovery of the "Dick-to-Dick" letter by newspaper writer, Miss M. F. Abbott.  The letter sent last July from Ryan to then-Interior Secretary Richard Ballinger, a known Guggenheim collaborator, purported that Ryan would approach Charles Taft in order to change the president's opinion of Ryan:

Dear Dick: I went to see the President the other day about this Controller Bay affair. The President asked me whom I represented. I told him, according to our agreement, that I represented myself. But that didn't seem to satisfy him. So I sent for Charlie Taft, and asked him to tell his brother who it was I really represented. The President made no further objection to my claim. Yours, DICK.

Several months afterward, the President did remove Controller Bay from the National Forest through a secret Executive Order.  The order was sent to the General Land Office six days after it was issued.  That delay, between October 28 and November 3, 1910 allowed Ryan to get his paperwork together to establish a claim to enough property in Controller Bay to establish supremacy in the area.

Ryan has denied that he part of the Guggenheim Syndicate, a group led by Daniel Guggenheim, who are trying to establish control to coal fields in the Chugach National Forest.  After another scandal which led to Secretary Ballinger's resignation, their claims to the coal fields were rejected.  Controller Bay would be the natural harbor from which to ship material to and from the coal fields.  Ryan instead claims that he represents a competitor to the Guggenheim's in Alaska.

Commissioner Dennett's testimony focused on the legality of surveys conducted by the Ryan group shortly before the Executive Order was issued.  Unsurveyed lands are not subject to entry, and Dennett would comment on whether surveys conducted illegally could be submitted to the Interior Department.  The surveys had been approved, and were the basis on which Ryan submitted his claims.

In a related story, both the President and the current Interior Secretary, Walter Fischer, are back in Washington to deal with this growing scandal.  Both the Taft and Fischer deny knowledge of any "Dick-to-Dick" letter.  Secretary Fischer further stated that he and his staff searched all the files in the Interior Department and could find no such letter.  In fact, he believes that no such letter exists.

Miss Abbott's article on the Controller Bay scandal can be found in the May 21 issue of Collier's.

Link: House Committee Starts Hunt for "Dick-Dick" Letter [The Washington Times]
Link: The Latest in Alaska: Controller Bay and Its Control of the Alaskan Situation [Collier's]

Taft Promotes Arbitration Treaty in Atlantic City

The President was in Atlantic City, New Jersey to give a speech at the convention of the Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor at the Million-dollar Pier, a sea-side amusement park in the resort town.  The main hall at the Pier was filled to capacity with 14,000 spectators there to see the President speak.  Another hall nearby was filled with 6,000 more who were at least able to see the Chief Executive, even they couldn't be at his speech, but they did see Booker T. Washington speak.  At the main, after being introduced by the Christian Endeavor President, the Reverend Francis Clark, President Taft spoke at length about the impending arbitration deal with the country of Great Britain and how treaties just like around the world could reduces the changes of war in our lifetime.  Here is a section of his speech published in the Washington Herald:

We have ameliorated in many ways the ancient cruelties of war by Red Cross agreements, and by the immunity of private property on land from destruction. Now we are agreeing upon what is called the Declaration of London, which, if confirmed, as it seems likely to be, will take away from war on the sea those principles of lawful piracy that have always characterized in a naval war the dealing with the private property of the citizens to our enemies.

By negotiations and mediation and the formation of arbitration agreements wars in the last decade have been stopped in Central and South America in a most gratifying number of instances. I am glad to say that today we have reached such a point in the negotiation for a treaty of universal arbitration with one of the great European powers that we can confidently predict the signing of a satisfactory treaty.

Just today four great powers, England, Russia, Japan, and the United States, signed a fur seal treaty, by which we agreed in effect to abolish the shooting of seals at sea in order to preserve the valuable herds on the land and to allow them to propagate in such a way as to maintain the fur seal industry and to secure for human use the valuable furs that such seals furnish. It is the beginning, I hope, of useful game laws for the open ocean, which has heretofore been subject to the wanton and irresponsible use of men of every nation. It is the settlement by treaty of a controversy that has troubled these four nations for several generations, and it out to be the cause of great congratulation.

The arbitration treaty heretofore with Great Britain and other countries has excepted form the causes which may be arbitrated those which involved the vital interests of either party or its honor. The treaty which we are now closing with Great Britain eliminates those exceptions and provides that all questions of international concern of a justiciable character shall be submitted to the arbitration of an impartial tribunal, and that whenever differences arise befoer they are submitted to arbitration at all they shall be taken up by a commission composed of some representatives from each government that shall investigate the controversy and recommend a solution without arbitration, if possible, and then shall decide whether the issue is capable of arbitration, and if so the arbitration shall take place.

In this way the treaty in one sense, instead of making arbitration necessary, interposes mediation of a year between the happening of the differences and the bringing of the matter to arbitration, with the growing possibility that the ruffled feelings of the nation may be smoothed out by time, that the differences maybe adjusted by mediation instead of judicial action, but holding judicial action as the ultimate resort to prevent war.

I am exceedingly hopeful that other countries beside Great Britain will accept the form of the treaty or one like it, and that we may have half a dozen treaties with the European countries looking toward arbitration of international differences. This will not abolish war, but it will provide a most effective and forcible instrument for avoiding it in many cases.

Of course, war between Great Britain and the United States, between France and the United States, and between Germany and the United States is quite remote, but the adoption by other great countries of arbitration and mediation as a means of meeting all controversies must have the most healthy moral effect upon the world at large, and must assist all the friends of peace in their effort to make it permanent.

To this audience and this great society with its world-wide influence I do not hesitate to appeal to give the tremendous might of its support to such a cause.

Link: Thousands Hear President Taft Predict Peace [The Washington Herald]
Link: Taft Sure of Arbitration Pact [The New York Tribune]

Guggenheims Lose Alaskan Coal Claim

On the order of Interior Secretary Walter Fischer, Commissioner Dennett of the General Land Office (GLO), dismissed the claims by Clarence Cunningham to coal fields within the Chugach National Forest in Alaksa near the Bering River.  The action by the Interior Department comes after a scandal that led to the dismissal of the head of the Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot, and more recently, after an intensive congressional investigation, the resignation of Fischer's predecessor, Richard Ballinger.   According to the extensive Washington Times article, the decision is seen as a vindication for Pinchot and several members of the Interior Department including: Louis Glavis, who first brought attention to the possible illegality of the Cunningham claim; Overton Price, Pinchot's assistant, and Alexander Shaw.

In 1909, shortly after Taft took office, Louis Glavis sought the attention of Foresters Pinchot and Price regarding the Cunningham claims.  During his tenure as an investigator with the General Land Office, Glavis determined that claims, thirty-three in total, had already been combined and optioned to Daniel Guggenheim, a member of a rich, industrialist family, for the J. P. Morgan-Guggenheim "Alaska syndicate."  Once patented, a $5,000,000 company would be formed to process the claim, of which half the stock would go to the Guggenheim for a measly $250,000.  Stephen Birch, managing director of the Guggenheim interests in Alaska, told Congress last year that the claims were worth at least $500,000,000 and that additional claims in the Chugach National Forest could be worth billions.

However, such an arrangement, to combine individual claims even before patents are awarded, is illegal.  That is exactly what Glavis telegraphed to Pinchot in early July 1909.  Glavis also believed that then-Interior Secretary Ballinger was involved in the scheme, as he had previously favored trusts in water power cases while he was Commissioner of the GLO.  Ballinger had replaced Roosevelt's interior secretary, James Garfield, who had been seen as a friend to the conservation movement and the progressives in the Republican Party.  After convincing Pinchot and Price of the claim's illegality, they urged Glavis to take his case directly to the President.  He did so by giving Taft a 50-page report at the President's summer home in Beverly, Ohio.

Shortly afterward, on September 23, 1909, Taft sent a letter to Secretary Ballinger to fire Glavis, implying that Glavis was vindictive, untruthful, and incompetent.  Taft based his letter on a memo sent by Oscar Lawler, the assistant attorney general for the Interior Department, though it was reported that it was based on a letter from Attorney General Wickersham, but his department's report was not submitted until December.  While Taft wrote a letter to Pinchot that the matter would be dropped, Glavis in November 1909 wrote an article in Collier's Weekly about the situation in Alaska and D.C. titled, "The Whitewashing of Ballinger: Are the Guggenheims in Charge of the Department of the Interior?"  The article led to the Senate investigation.  Pinchot was later fired as well after he sent a letter to the late Senator Jonathan Dolliver, praising Glavis as a "patriot" and a faithful public servant, and said that the president had been deceived.  The letter was read into the Congressional Record.  The letter was in violation of an Executive Order forbidding subordinates in a federal department from communicating with congressmen directly and not through a superior. Pinchot's lieutenants at the forest service, Price and Shaw, were dismissed shortly afterward, though not denounced, as Pinchot had been by the administration.

The situation came to a head during the joint congressional investigations last year.  Glavis, despite intensive grilling by pro-administration Senators Knute Nelson and Elihu Root, was a strong witness, denouncing the actions by Ballinger and vindicating Pinchot and his subordinates.  His testimony swayed public opinion away from the Interior Secretary.  A stenographer working for Ballinger by the name of Kirby testified that Ballinger was in correspondence with representatives of the Guggenheim syndicate.  He had also seen Lawler and Ballinger burn the notes that served as a basis for Lawler's report to the president on the coal claims and Glavis, which served as a basis for the President's letter firing Glavis. 

The damning testimony (and brave testimony as it saw that young man get fired over it), and the fact that the Lawler memo to Taft was found by the committee, was enough to make it clear that Ballinger's tenure as Interior Secretary was untenable and after the end of the last congress, before the new Democrat-led House was seated, Ballinger resigned.  Ballinger would have had to resign earlier, but the final reports (yes, reports as the Democrats and Progressive Republicans wrote one report, and the pro-administration congressmen another) have still not been published [or have they], and it was expected that the new Democratic House would vote to release them.

To this point, the claimants had been waiting for the patents to begin working on the claim.  Secretary Fischer's decision means that Cunningham can't get the patents and therefore he can not turn the lands over to Guggenheim.  Fischer has also gone on to vacate nearly all the coal claims in Alaska, though Taft has stated that the Guggenheim's should get something for the millions they have invested in the territory.  This is seen as a major victory for the conservation movement that has been spearheaded by former President Roosevelt.  It should also be remembered that Pinchot was appointed to the new Forest Service by his close, personal friend, Theodore Roosevelt.  It remains to be seen how much an effect this case will have on next year's Presidential race, particularly as it seems more and more likely that Roosevelt may challenge his successor.

Link: Coal Claims in Alaska Lost by the Guggenheims [The Washington Times]
Link: Congressional Investigation Final Report

Tafts Celebrate Silver Anniversary

Sunday evening, more than 7,000 guests attended a White House event celebrating the 25th wedding anniversary of President and Mrs. Taft.  This morning's edition of the Washington Herald proclaimed the gala as the "Greatest Social Function in Washington's History."  The attendance figure of the party was certainly greater than any event at the White House in many years.  The celebration was also noted for its abundant use of artificial lighting from a great number of incandescent light bulbs.

President William H. Taft and Mrs. Helen Herron Taft were married on June 19, 1886 in Cincinnati.  Their 25 years of marriage have produced 3 children: Robert, Helen, and Charles.

A highlight of the feast was a reception line that queued up before 9 o'clock.  Despite the rigors of organizing the anniversary party, President and Mrs. Taft seemed enthused the entire night, despite the two hour line.  The was especially astonishing for Mrs. Taft, who had been ill in recent months.  There were many notables among the guests, including representatives of Presidential families back to the Lincolns.  Former President Roosevelt could not attend, but his double, Robert Crain, was.  "When did you get here?" asked the President before realizing his mistake.  The President's aunt Delia Torrey was also in attendance, escorted by Robert Taft.  Like the President and the First Lady, she was also seen to be full of energy throughout the event, despite her age.  It took the combined efforts of the First Children, Robert, Charley, and Helen, to keep the First Aunt out of trouble.

Also in attendance to the anniversary gala were ambassadors from many nations.  Noted in the Herald were ambassadors from France, Germany, Italy, and Great Britain.

Link: Greatest Social Function in Washington's History Celebrates Taft Anniversary [The Washington Herald]

Administration To Move Against Steel Trust

Following the successful prosecution of the cases against Standard Oil and the Tobacco Trust in the Supreme Court last month, it is looking increasingly likely that the Taft administration will move against the Steel Trust next. According to an article in today's Bisbee Daily Review, the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Corporations are finishing up their investigations into possible Sherman anti-trust law violations by the steel trust and could send the report to Taft within ten days. Attorney General Wickersham and the head of the Bureau of Corporations, Herbert Smith, have already visited the President to explain the substance of the report, but Taft is unlikely to take action, such as sending the report on to the Stanley Committee in the House.

In this matter, the Republican White House and the Democratic House seem to be in accord on taking action against U.S. Steel. The Stanley Committee has also been investigating the allegations that the Steel Trust has violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and have so far heard testimony from two executives on the board, Elbert Gary and John Gates. Elbert Gary is one of the key founders of U.S. Steel, along with J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and Charles Schwab.

The report from the Justice Department was held back in order to incorporate lessons learned from the Standard Oil and Tobacco Trust cases. The decisions in those cases were delivered last month, and both the Justice Department and the White House have been reading the decision carefully. The federal government in the case of Standard Oil succeeded in having the trust declared an unlawful monopoly, and the Supreme Court ordered the company to be broken up and dissolved within six months. However, the Supreme Court also inserted a "rule of reason" into their decision, declaring that the intent of the Sherman Law was to go after unreasonable monopolies, opening up a subjective element into future cases prosecuted under the anti-trust act.  A similar decision was handed out against the American Tobacco Company.

There is one potential hitch in the government's case. During testimony given to the Stanley committee on June 2, Gary testified that U.S. Steel and then President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Elijah Root had a "gentleman's agreement" regarding the formation of the current massive monopoly. During the banking crisis of 1907, U.S. Steel agreed, at the behest of J. P. Morgan, to buy the Tennessee Coal & Iron Company at a price higher than it was worth in order to stop a growing financial meltdown. Roosevelt consented to the purchase, even though it would make U.S. Steel a virtual monopoly, in order to save the United States financial system. He also stated that the American Iron&Steel Institute was attempting to steer a course between the "archaic" Sherman anti-trust law and "the old-time method of destructive competition, in order to operate for the public welfare."

Link: Three Forces Move Against the Combines [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: Sensational Roosevelt Exposure by Gary [The Bisbee Daily Review]

Roosevelt Attacks Successor's Foreign Policies

In this week's issue of Outlook Magazine, former President Theodore Roosevelt attacked his successor's plan to sign a general arbitration treaty with Great Britain (and France). The treaty would submit to arbitration any future disputes between the two nations, which Roosevelt argues restricts to harshly the sovereign rights of the United States. What follows is a excerpt from Roosevelt's article:

Hypocrisy never pays in the long run. Even if the indifference of the majority of the nation should permit such a specific agreement to arbitrate such vital questions, that same majority would promptly and quite properly repudiate the agreement the moment that it became necessary to enforce it.

No self-respecting nation, no nation worth calling a nation, would ever in actual practice consent to surrender its rights in such matters.

Take this very case of the agreement between Great Britain and ourselves. Thank heaven, it is now impossible-and I use the word literally-that there shall never be war between the English-speaking peoples.

If Great Britain now started to exercise the right of search as she exercised it 100 years ago, with its incidents of killing peaceful fishermen within the limits of New York Harbor, this country would fight at the drop of the hat, and any man who proposed to arbitrate such a matter would be tossed contemptuously out of the popular path.

We should be very cautious of entering into a treaty with any nation, however closely knit to us, the form of which it would be impossible to follow in making treaties with other great civilized and friendly nations.

In this case [the killing and injuring of Americans on this side of the border due to fighting in Mexico] we have chosen to submit to such invasion, as is our right and privilege if we so desire. But it would be absolutely intolerable to bind ourselves to arbitrate the questions raised by such invasions.

If, for instance, instead of its being Mexican troops firing into our inland towns and killing our citizens, it happened to be an English or a German or a Japanese fleet which not once, but again, fired into our coast towns, killing and wounding our citizens, this nation would immediately demand not arbitration, but either atonement or war.

In the same way, if a dispute arose between us and another nation as to whether we should receive enormous masses of immigrants whom we did not desire from that nation, no one who knows anything of the temper of the American people would dream that they would for one moment consent to arbitrate the matter. In such a case we should say that our honor, our independence, our integrity, and our very national existence were involved, and that we could not submit such a question to arbitration.

The treaty should make no explicit declaration of a kind which would brand us with cowardice if we live up to it, and with hypocrisy and bad faith if we did not live up to it. Also, it is well to remember that as there is not the slightest conceivable danger of war between Great Britain and the United States, the arbitration treaty would have no effect whatever upon the armaments of either country.

In other news, Robert T. Lincoln, the only living son of Abraham Lincoln, resigned yesterday as the president of the powerful Pullman Company. He will now take up the newly created position of chairman of the company's board of directors.

In Mexico, 3,000 rebels under Madero are in Vera Cruz to prevent a landing by General Bernardo Reyes, who is thought to be taking up the War Minister position following the pending resignation of President Diaz. Reyes is deeply unpopular among the Madero's revolutionaries and believe that with Reyes in a cabinet, de la Berra will be interim president in name only, and Reyes will actually be pulling the strings.  President Diaz is expected to resign on May 24 or 25.

New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson was in Portland, Oregon yesterday to give an address at the Portland Commercial Club. Gov. Wilson praised the "Oregon system" of primary elections but he pointed out that he was against the ability for voters to recall judges. He said that during his stay he will be studying the "Oregon system" and he may introduce some of its good measures in New Jersey when he returns. On whether he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination in 1912, Wilson replied, "I certainly have not the audacity to seek the nomination, but no man is too big to refuse it."

Link: Roosevelt Hits President's Plan [The Washington Herald]
Link: Lincoln Resigns [The Washington Herald]
Link: Rebels Demand Head of Reyes to Bring Peace [The Washington Herald]
Link: General Madero will go to Mexico City to Confer with de la Berra [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: Wilson objects to Judges' Recall [The Washington Herald]
Link: Gov. Wilson not a Radical [The Bisbee Daily Review]

Link: The Arbitration Treaty With Great Britain by Theodore Roosevelt [The Outlook]

New York City and Washington React to Standard Oil Decision

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the Standard Oil case, declaring it a monopoly and ordering it to be dissolved within six months. Yesterday, with the ruling being the top story in all the major papers, official Washington and businessmen in New York reacted.

In New York, leading stocks rose between 1 and 3.5 points as much of the uncertainty appeared to have been lifted for many major corporations. Officials at these companies believe the settlement favors them in the long run as they can now decide how to proceed now that a distinction between "reasonable" and "unreasonable" restraint of trade has been made the law of land thanks to the Supreme Court and the legality of many of the trusts has been settled along the lines that a trust is only illegal if it was setup with the purpose of creating a monopoly of a market. Standard Oil itself initially rose 6 points to $685 a share before slipping to $665 during a reaction in heavy trading, a drop on the day of 2%.

The general counsel for the Standard Oil Company, M. F. Elliott, issued the following statement yesterday:

It may be now said that the Standard Oil Company will obey the decree of the court and that all the companies embraced in the court's decree will carry on business as usual under the direction of their own officers and through the their own organization. Having before us only the press reports of Chief Justice White's oral opinion and the remarks of Justice Harlan, and not yet having seen the opinion of the court in full, it is impossible to make any lengthy statement. The full opinion has to be read by my associates and myself before it can be intelligently dealt with.

William Rockefeller told reporters yesterday that any statements regarding the case would come from Elliot. The Board of Directors met in New York yesterday to discuss the ruling but none spoke with reporters about details of the meeting. Among those attending were John D. Archbold, vice president of Standard Oil of New Jersey, H. C. Folger, Jr., James A. Moffatt, Charles M. Pratt, Walter Jennings, brothers Alfred Bedford and Edward Bedford, and John G. Milburn, one of the special counsel for Standard during the oral arguments at the Court.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are expressing their opinions on the case. Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette shared the opinion of Justice Harlan that the majority opinion went too far, "usurping the functions of the legislative branch of the government by writing into the statute a differentiation between "reasonable" and "unreasonable." La Follette brought up the message to Congress submitted by the President in January 1910 on anti-trust laws:

It has been proposed, however, that the word "reasonable" should be made a part of the statute, and then that it should be left to the court to say what is a reasonable restraint of trade, what is a reasonable suppression of competition, what is a reasonable monopoly. I venture to think that this is to put into the hands of the court a power impossible to exercise on any consistent principle which will insure the uniformity of decision essential to just judgment. It is to thrust on the courts a burden that they have no precedents to enable them to carry, and to give them a power approaching the arbitrary, the abuse of which might involve our whole justice system in disaster.

The White House in a statement yesterday expressed its disappointment that the Court reversed its rulings on two previous occasions and included a "reasonableness" standard.  However, the New York Tribune have pointed out that Attorney General Wickersham's statement seemed to suggest that the administration concurred with the ruling, but he could have just been restating what the court ruled.  Taft, in his January 1910 message, also may have agreed with the Court's current ruling, stating "a mere incidental restraint of trade and competition is not within the prohibition of the [Sherman Anti-Trust] Act."

Link: Stock Goes Up as Suspense is Ended [The New York Tribune]
Link: Mr Taft Long Favored Reasonable Regulation [The New York Tribune]
Link: Court Arouses Progressives Everywhere [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: Oil Trust Plan is to Obey Law as Interpreted [The Washington Herald]

Secretary Dickinson Resigns; New York Progressive Stimson to Replace Him

Official Washington is stunned at the news of the sudden resignation of Secretary of War Jacob McGavock Dickinson.  According to the Washington Herald, Dickinson submitted his resignation on April 28 and it was approved by President Taft on May 8.  According to the published resignation letter, Dickinson resigned in order to deal with personal business matters in Tennessee.  Taft has chosen as his successor the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Henry Lewis Stimson.  Stimson ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York last fall.  It is not surprising that the President would pick Stimson as he tries to shore up the Progressive wing of the Republican Party in the run up to the 1912 campaign.

According to the Herald's front page article, Dickinson is resigning to deal with a coal company in Tennessee which he, his brother-in-law, and several other members of his family are heavily invested. The company is now in receivership and it is likely that he wants to return to his home state to prevent the company from falling into ruin.

While the White House insists Dickinson's resignation has nothing to do with the current Mexican situation, that has stopped speculation to the contrary, particularly in the Times, which has never been a friendly newspaper for the president.  The Times points out disagreements between the Secretary Dickinson and Army Chief of Staff Leonard Wood during the run-up to the decision to send troops to the border in March.  When disagreements on this policy did crop up in their discussions with the president, Taft sided with the military expert - Wood.  The Times also points out that when Taft and Dickinson were in Atlanta in mid-March, Dickinson addressed the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the commercial congress and announced that "on the honor of the S.A.E. that the troops were sent to the border on maneuvers only."  At the same time as Dickinson's speech, Taft released a statement to the press confirming newspaper reports that the mobilization was in response to the revolution in Mexico and that the maneuver report was a cover story.  Friends of the secretary speculate that his resignation may have something to do with the anger he felt at the situation the President put him in.  The President and Secretary Dickinson had a hurried conference at the time that Dickinson's friends insist was not as friendly as it could have been.

Stimson's appointment does not come as a surprise as his position within the Republican Party, particularly the progressive wing of the party has been solidly established.  Dickinson is a Free Trade Democrat and not likely to provide the President with much political support in the coming election.  Stimson on the other hand could shore up the President's support in New York State, particularly among the Progressives while Vice President Sherman can deal with the Old Guards.

Stimson is expected to arrive with Taft in Washington on Monday at which point Dickinson's resignation will take affect and he will return to Tennessee.

Link: War Secretary Resigns; Stimson Named Successor [The Washington Herald]
Link: Gossip Trails War Chief from Office [The Washington Times]

Fighting to Resume in Mexico

The two-week armistice that has brought a much needed reprieve to war-torn Mexico appears to have come to an end as Francisco Madero and his band of insurrectos prepare to assault the border city of Juarez.  Embattled Mexican President Porfirio Diaz yesterday rejected demands made by the rebel leader to resign his post.  With his chief demand rejected, Madero lifted the armistice that was put in place on April 23.  According to the Washington Times, rebels now control two-thirds of Mexico, with Diaz in firm control of only the capital, Mexico City, and the Gulf ports of Veracruz and Tampico.

However, Diaz does still have a significant force of federal troops inside Ciudad Juarez under the command of General Juan Navarro and they will face the more than 1,500 rebels outside the city.  An attack on the city is not expected, according to today's edition of the Bisbee Daily Review, for at least another 24 hours.  Yesterday, Madero made the following statement:

As it is well known, I invited the people of Mexico to take up arms against Diaz when all legal means to bring about the will of the people had been exhausted.  The war was unavoidable and indispensable and already we have begun to see its fruits, inasmuch as the principles which the revolution proclaimed have been accepted by Gen. Diaz, and the members of his cabinet.

But that is not enough, for while Gen. Diaz is in power, all laws will be a fiction and all promises tricks of war.  With that idea, and in order to obtain peace in Mexico, I asked him to make public the intention which he had manifested privately of resigning from the government.  In order that he might not feel humiliated or have any pretext to deny such a request, I proposed that I resign as provisional president, even manifesting to him that I would accept as president for the interim a member of his cabinet who occupied a post of much confidence, and who was correspondingly able to fill it.

It is not possible for me to do more for my country and if the war continues. it will be do solely to the inexplicable ambition of Gen. Diaz.  He therefore will be alone responsible to the civilized world and in history, for all the misery which the war may cause.

In the event of renewed hostilities, President Taft made it clear that the United States would not intervene in Mexico, even if Americans are killed fighting for the rebel cause.  The Bisbee Daily Review stated that the President was "'firm as a rock' in his purpose to live up the obligations of neutrality."  American officials, while disheartened by the end of the armistice, expressed hope that the warring parties would return to the negotiating table, but with Diaz stating that it is impossible for him to continue being involved in peace talks if the rebels continue to demand his resignation, short of a rebel victory, it seems unlikely.

Despite official denials, military officials are nonetheless preparing for a U.S. invasion of Mexico.  The War College has drafted plans for an invasion that would involve more than 200,000 regular troops and state militia.  The War College plans suggest that the U.S. should be prepared for a long, guerrilla war against the Mexican rebels.  The Army Chief of Staff, General Leonard Wood, told members of the House Committee on Military Affairs that an invasion of Mexico was "inevitable" and stated that 200,000 troops would be needed to pacify the southern republic, corroborating the War College's estimate.  Again, Taft has issues explicit denials, believing, as he told a caller to the White House yesterday, that "'blood would have to be so deep in Mexico that a man could wade through it' if the American army would cross the border."

In other news today, in the McNamara case, the Los Angeles District Attorney reported yesterday that prominent labor attorney Clarence Darrow will arrive in L.A. on or around May 15 to take over as lead defense council, representing the McNamara brothers.  The brothers will arraigned soon on charges that they carried out the October 1, 1910 bombing of the Los Angeles Times building which killed 21 people.

Link: Porfirio Diaz Calmly Refuses to Quit Presidency and Rebels Lift Armistice [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: Will Confer with Clarence Darrow About M'Namaras [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: Says Troops Must Cross [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: Invasion Plans are Completed by War College [The Washington Times]

Government investigating reports of American's Death

Mexican federal troops attacked the new rebel stronghold of Agua Prieta twice today and were repulsed both times.  The first attack, involving 1,500 trained soldiers, began at 6:30am local time and last for a few hours before the Moderists pushed them back around noon.  The Federals retreated in good order, though they suffered many loses during the battle.  1,500 to 2,000 rebels hold the town that is a few yards from the international border with the United States. 

At 1:30pm the Federals reformed along along a line east and south of Agua Prieta, and with three machine gun squads, advanced within a few hundred yards of the rebel fortifications.  Reports from on lookers in Douglas, Arizona Territory state that sharpshooters putting the Federals under punishing cross fire.  A reckless group of rebels were able to take out one of the machine guns by advancing to within 100 yards of the gun and killing its operators.  Diaz sent cavalry to drive off the band, but a hidden cannon and two machine guns trained on the federal line made their appearance to force Diaz's forces to retreat to a position six or eight miles south of Agua Prieta.  The Washington Times reports that both sides formed their lines so as to avoid stray bullets from landing in Douglas.

The Federal troops are led by Col. Reynaldo Diaz, a nephew of Mexican President Porfirio Diaz.

The attack comes just three days after insurrectos led by Arturo "Red" Lopez attacked and captured Agua Prieta, leaving three Americans dead and several injured, including Robert Harrington who died on the American side of the border in Douglas from a stray bullet.  During these latest battles, bullets again whistled through the streets of Douglas, despite the best efforts of the combatants to the south.  One American, Oscar Goil of Tombstone, Arizona, was shot in the head, though there is some question of whether he was north or south of the international boundary.  Early reports from the First Cavalry in town, led by Captain Julien Edmond Victor Gaujot, suggest that he was south of the border. 

However, still the fact that bullets flew through Douglas, despite Gaujot's warning a few days ago, does put the U.S. in the position that it could intervene in future battles along the border to protect American lives and property and possibly to intervene further to bring peace to war-torn Mexico.  According to the Washington Times, "Senator William Stone (D-Mo) introduced a resolution instructing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate conditions in Mexico, and to report without delay to the Senate."  President Taft has also instructed our ambassador to Mexico, Henry Lane Wilson, to personally inform the Diaz government that repetitions of the Douglas incident will not be tolerated, carrying the implicit threat of American intervention.

Link: American Shot in Federals' Attack on Border Town [The Washington Times]
Link: Federals repulsed, renew attack upon Agua Prieta [The Washington Times]

Taft Warns Warring Sides over Border Fighting

A day after fighting in Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico between rebels under "Red" Lopez and Federals resulted in the death of American Robert Harrington in Douglas, Arizona Territory from a stray bullet, President Taft and the State Department issued a warning to both sides of the Mexican conflict that they will be held responsible for the loss of American lives and property as a result of the fighting.  Both major Washington newspapers stated that this is the White House's strongest statement yet regarding the Mexican Civil War since Taft ordered 20,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border last month.

The battle in Agua Prieta began early on April 13 when "Red" Lopez attacked the town with 150 rebels who reach the town using a train the band captured the day before.  The forces loyal to rebel President Francisco Modero drove the train back to Agua Prieta and formed a firing line from the railway station to the American customs house.  After three hours of fighting, the Moderists took control of the town.  Much of the fighting took place mere feet from the international border, and a number of stray bullets hit structures and, unfortunately, people on the American side.  One American, Harrington, was killed and six injured.  Another American, J.C. Edwards, was killed fighting for the Insurrectos.

Soldiers from Troop K of the American First Calvary under Captain Julien Edmond Victor Gaujot rode to the international border, while under fire, to issue a warning to both sides to cease firing into Douglas, but it went unheeded.  The twenty-nine Federal troops in Agua Prieta, led by Captains Andreas Basuite and Jesus Vargas, broke from the town and rode across the border, where in accordance with international law, they were disarmed and detained.  They are being held in a ballpark in Douglas.  At the request of the detained captains, Gaujot and a civilian, Charles McKean, rode into Agua Prieta to secure the surrender of the garrison that remained behind.  With the acceptance of the rebel leader Lopez, the remaining garrison surrendered their arms and ammunition and were conducted to safe haven on the American side of the border.  Five Americans held prisoner by the Federals were also carried over to the American side.  At total of 15 were killed in the battle.

A statement issued yesterday by the White House called the situation "acute," highlighting the seriousness they are taking the situation.  With Americans on American soil now confirmed killed by the combatants in the Mexican conflict, Taft has made clear to the Mexican government our sides intentions to protect American citizens.  Further complicating the situation is news reached in Washington yesterday of English marines landing in San Quentin, in Baja California.  30 marines and a Maxim gun arrived in the town to protect it from Socialist rebels.  This is the first real evidence of another power interfering in the Mexican conflict.

It remains to be seen whether Taft intends to send troops across the border after the Battle of Agua Prieta.  Officals from towns near the border are demanding that Taft be more forceful toward the Mexicans in order to defend American lives and property.  From the secretary of the Douglas, Arizona chamber of commerce:

During an engagement between the federals and insurrectos at Agua Prieta, Mexico, yesterday, one mile from Douglas, two Americans were killed and eleven wounded, including some children attending to their own business here in Douglas.  Thousands of bullets fell in our city, passing through residences and endangering life and property.  Is there no way by which Americans can be protected in the peaceful pursuit of their affairs?  Expect more fighting along the line at any time.  Combatants fought within 10 feet of the American line yesterday.

Captain Gaujot issued a warning to both sides today about the fighting:

If so much as one single bullet whistles across the border line, between Texas and Mexico, and is close enough to an American citizen to be heard, United States soldiers will cross the boundary line at once and put down the rebellion.

Link: Taft Preparing to Send Troops Across the Border [The Washington Times]
Link: Taft Says Firing Over the Line Must Cease [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: President Warns Mexican Rebels and Diaz Party [The Washington Herald]
Link: Agua Prieta in the Hands of Rebel Forces [The Bisbee Daily Review]

Carnegie backs Taft's Bid for World Peace

As President Taft tries to work with Congress to push through reciprocity and arbitration agreements with Canada and Great Britain, industrialist Andrew Carnegie lent his support to the goal of world peace through arbitration in an interview published in the Washington Times this evening.  Carnegie, who shares his time between his castle in Skibo, Scotland and New York City, gave his full support to the views of Lord Admiral Charles Beresford that America and Britain could together make war between the great powers impossible.

Carnegie believes that if the U.S. and Britain, the two great English-speaker powers of the world, can overwhelmingly support an arbitration treaty than others powers will be so impressed that they will have no choice but to follow suit.  Other great powers would want to enter what Carnegie called the "brotherhood of peace."  Carnegie stated that a country like America, "where...any man's privilege is every man's right under the law," should push the concept of justice and liberty under the law toward perfection here and throughout the world.

The retired industrialist praised Admiral of the Navy George Dewey, the president of the General Board of the Navy Department, for his supported of arbitration and felt that he might one day live to see a world without war thanks to it despite Dewey's pessimism.  Carnegie also felt that right now, this country has no enemies, not even Japan.  He had been by a gentleman from Japan that his country desires friendly relations with the United States above all others.

Link: Carnegie Backing Taft's Peace Plea [The Washington Times]

NY Tribune: Taft's Mexican Policy Justified

Yesterday, President Taft clarified the position of his administration with regards to the current Mexican situation and his deployment of troops along the U.S.-Mexico border.  He reiterated that he has no intentions of sending those troops across the border unless the situation on the ground in Mexico provides him with no other alternative and even then, not without the consent of Congress.  The objective of the deployment was to protect the lives and property of American citizens in Mexico.  Taft believes that the the heavy military presence along the border has had a "sobering" effect on the combatants south of the border.  As a result, he feels that Americans in Mexico are now safer from attack than they were before this month's mobilization.

He reassured the Mexican delegation that the U.S. desires peace and friendly relations with Mexico and feels that this desire has not changed as a result of the mobilization of 20,000 troops along the border in Texas and California.  While the speed of the deployment raised alarm bells in Mexico City as well as here in the United States, that was not Taft's intention.  He felt that the reports of a chaotic situation in Mexico made it imperative that the United States respond and do so quickly to prevent the loss of lives and property of American citizens.  He also felt that it was his duty as commander-in-chief to have the army and navy prepared in case Congress decides to intervene in Mexico.

As far as how long troops will remain along the border, the president provide less specific answer.  While nominally the force is expected to remain there for four months, Taft also stated that he would keep the army there for as long as there was a possibility of danger and there would be a need to enforce this country's neutrality laws.

In other news, the secretary of state for the insurrecto government and the rebel secretary of the Mexican State of Chihuaha, Gonzales Garza and Braulio Hernaudom, stated that would not lay down their arms while negotiations took place with the Diaz government.  They believe that Diaz and his finance minister, Jose Limantour, are only talking about reform because of their armed rebellion, and that before, their demands were flatly rejected.  Their comments come after Limantour gave an interview in Mexico City yesterday where he stated that he felt that the rebels demands were reasonable and that Diaz could be convinced to institute the reforms the rebels are demanding, but also stated that the insurrectos must disarm before negotiations could begin.  With this impasse, it is unlikely that the optimism expressed here and in newspapers around the country earlier this week regarding the situation in Mexico will come to fruition.

Link: Taft's Mexican Policy Justified [The New York Tribune]
Link: Garza Throws the Gauntlet to Limantour [The Bisbee Daily Review]

Peace coming this week in Mexico as US troops head to border

The New York Tribune and Washington Herald both expect good results from an upcoming conference between Mexican President Porfirio Diaz and Finance Minister Jose Limantour this week.  It is hoped that cabinet changes and promises for more reforms from the Diaz government will appease the rebels.  At these meetings Limantour will present an explanation of the rebels demands.

These meetings coincide with a pair of developments on this side of the border:

The Washington Herald reports that most of the troops currently stationed at Fort Sam Houston are now headed to the US border with Mexico.  15,000 troops, under the command of Maj. General William Carter, will begin maneuvers along the border after leaving the fort tomorrow morning.  The first detachment, thought to be the 11th Calvary, are headed west via the Southern Pacific toward El Paso.  The other troops are headed to points unknown along the Rio Grande and as far west as Arizona.  The goals of this maneuver seem to be to cut the flow of arms and ammunition to the insurrectos in Mexico.  The troops will also be monitoring the border for incursions by rebels and federals after reports that some fighting along the border had leaked to the US side. 

Of particularly concern is a danger to a bridge along the Pecos River near Viaduct, Texas, less than 10 miles from the border.  The calvary detachment is thought to be moving to act as guards for the bridge which could take as much as a year to replace if damaged by fighting between the Mexican sides.  The military will also seek to cut off supplies to the rebel base at Presidio del Norte, just across the Rio Grande from El Oro, Texas.  El Oro, Del Rio, and Marfa, a Texas town 50 miles to the north, are thought to be supply conduits between the rebels and their supporters here in the United States.

President Taft returned to Washington this afternoon after spending some vacation time in Augusta, Georgia.  Immediately upon his return, he met with Mexican Ambassador de la Berra and War Secretary Jacob Dickinson as well as delivered a message to congress on his priorities for the special session that will start on April 4.  Taft made no suggestion that U.S. troops were poised to cross the border, and he and Secretary Dickinson referred to the new troops movements as mere "maneuvers" and that they were not ready to begin operations in Mexico.  The President said that he was meeting the Mexican ambassador this afternoon but provide no details on what was discussed.  Interior Secretary Fisher, Commerce and Labor Secretary Nagel, and Army Chief of Staff Leonard Wood also met with the president today to discuss the Mexican situation.

The president also delivered a list of his priorities for next month's special session of Congress.  He expects the Canadian reciprocity bill to be treated first with prompt approval followed by a new tariff commission.  Any other acts to reform the current tariff system will be met with prompt vetos unless they come via recommendations from the commission's reports.  Democrats have scoffed at this proviso, believing the president is merely stalling action on tariff reform as such committee recommendations could take months if not years to complete.  A report on wool tariffs is not expected until December and is the only report pending.

Link: Peace in Mexico May Come This Week [The New York Tribune]
Link: All U.S. Troops to be Rushed to Mexican Border [The Washington Herald]
Link: Confabs on Mexico Begin Immediately at the White House [The Washington Times]
Link: Democrats Gloat over President's Tariff Ultimatum [The Washington Times]

Taft Administration Clarifies Reason for Troop Movement

The White House yesterday clarified the reason behind the movement of 20,000 troops, Marines, and naval war ships to the U.S-Mexico border and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  When the mobilization was first announced on Monday evening, the War Department stated that these movements were conducted to support war games to be performed in Galveston and San Diego.  However, many in the press refuted these claims, believing instead that this was a prelude to the U.S. intervention in the Mexican insurrection.  It now appears that this is the case, after the German embassy sent a communique to several American newspapers stating that they had informed our government that they considered the U.S. responsible for the safety of their interests in Mexico, and that if the U.S. failed to uphold the Monroe Doctrine, the German government would have no choice but to intervene.  Quoting from the front-page article in today's Washington Herald, the communique from the German embassy states:

The Government has not yet received any news that would indicate that a dangerous condition of affairs exists in Mexico.  If, however, the government receives reports showing that German interests are menaced, Germany will certainly, without the least delay, take such measures as seem necessary for the protection of German subjects in Mexico.

This statement follows similar intimations from the British foreign office, as reported in the Washington Herald two days ago.  After this statement was released, the White House backtracked on their maneuver cover story, stating that in fact the mobilization was intended to prevent filibustering and the sale of weapons to the Mexican rebels.  Taft believes that by sending troops to the border and with the flow of guns into rebel hands curtailed, the rebellion will eventually die out and preserve the Monroe Doctrine in the process.  The president made the statements while stopped at Charlottesville, Virginia, on his way south to Atlanta and Augusta for several speaking engagements and for a short vacation.  According to the Associated Press:

The United States has determined that the revolution in the republic to the south must end.  The American troops have been sent to form a solid military wall along the Rio Grande to stop filibustering and to see that there is no further smuggling of arms and men across the international boundary.  It is believed that with this source of contraband supplies cut off, the insurrectionary movement which has disturbed conditions generally for nearly a year without accomplishing anything like the formation of a responsible independent government, will speedily come to a close...The Washington government unexpectedly found itself confronted by the necessity of throwing an army along the border line of Mexico to stop the source of supply of the revolutionists and to be in a position to invade Mexico at a moment's notice in the event of the death of President Diaz or an other untoward circumstance which might cause general fighting or rioting.

While Taft has stated that an invasion of Mexico would only occur as a last resort, recent reports late today from Mexico have made it clear that intervention by the U.S. is not welcomed and that such action, the crossing of the Rio Grande, would be considered an act of war.  Mexican Ambassador de la Berra stated that the government in Mexico City can take of itself and that his government would never entertain the notion of having U.S. troops on Mexican soil.  They are however not against a cordon being implemented, on American soil, to prevent the flow of weapons to insurrectionists.  Finally, the Ambassador and Mexican finance minister (in New York) Jose Limantour both denied reports that President Porfirio Díaz was near death and that the government was at no risk of tottering.

One Hundred Year Old News will have more on this developing story tomorrow with another editorial from Veronica Stirnitzke.

Link: Europe Made United States Guard Mexico [The Washington Herald]
Link: Troop Movement Means Intervention by U.S. [The Bisbee Daily Review]
Link: Mexican Officials Resent President Taft's Statements That Intervention May Come [The Washington Times]
Link: Resolved to End Revolt in Mexico [The New York Tribune]