My course was to insist on absolute fitness, including honesty, as a prerequisite to every appointment; and to remove only for good cause, and, where there was such cause, to refuse even to discuss with the Senator in interest the unfit servant’s retention.  Subject to these considerations, I normally accepted each Senator’s recommendations for offices of a routine kind, such as most post-offices and the like, but insisted on myself choosing the men for the more important positions.  I was willing to take any good man for postmaster; but in the case of a Judge or District Attorney or Canal Commissioner or Ambassador, I was apt to insist either on a given man or else on any man with a given class of qualifications.  If the Senator deceived me, I took care that he had no opportunity to repeat the deception.

I can perhaps best illustrate my theory of action by two specific examples.  In New York Governor Odell and Senator Platt sometimes worked in agreement and sometimes were at swords’ points, and both wished to be consulted.  To a friendly Congressman, who was also their friend, I wrote as follows on July 22, 1903: 

“I want to work with Platt.  I want to work with Odell.  I want to support both and take the advice of both.  But of course ultimately I must be the judge as to acting on the advice given.  When, as in the case of the judgeship, I am convinced that the advice of both is wrong, I shall act as I did when I appointed Holt.  When I can find a friend of Odell’s like Cooley, who is thoroughly fit for the position I desire to fill, it gives me the greatest pleasure to appoint him.  When Platt proposes to me a man like Hamilton Fish, it is equally a pleasure to appoint him.”

This was written in connection with events which led up to my refusing to accept Senator Platt’s or Governor Odell’s suggestions as to a Federal Judgeship and a Federal District Attorneyship, and insisting on the appointment, first of Judge Hough and later of District Attorney Stimson; because in each case I felt that the work to be done was of so high an order that I could not take an ordinary man.

The other case was that of Senator Fulton, of Oregon.  Through Francis Heney I was prosecuting men who were implicated in a vast network of conspiracy against the law in connection with the theft of public land in Oregon.  I had been acting on Senator Fulton’s recommendations for office, in the usual manner.  Heney had been insisting that Fulton was in league with the men we were prosecuting, and that he had recommended unfit men.  Fulton had been protesting against my following Heney’s advice, particularly as regards appointing Judge Wolverton as United States Judge.  Finally Heney laid before me a report which convinced me of the truth of his statements.  I then wrote to Fulton as follows, on November 20, 1905:  “My dear Senator Fulton:  I inclose you herewith a copy of the report made to me by Mr. Heney.  I have seen the originals of the letters