from you and Senator Mitchell quoted therein.  I do not at this time desire to discuss the report itself, which of course I must submit to the Attorney-General.  But I have been obliged to reach the painful conclusion that your own letters as therein quoted tend to show that you recommended for the position of District Attorney B when you had good reason to believe that he had himself been guilty of fraudulent conduct; that you recommended C for the same position simply because it was for B’s interest that he should be so recommended, and, as there is reason to believe, because he had agreed to divide the fees with B if he were appointed; and that you finally recommended the reappointment of H with the knowledge that if H were appointed he would abstain from prosecuting B for criminal misconduct, this being why B advocated H’s claims for reappointment.  If you care to make any statement in the matter, I shall of course be glad to hear it.  As the District Judge of Oregon I shall appoint Judge Wolverton.”  In the letter I of course gave in full the names indicated above by initials.  Senator Fulton gave no explanation.  I therefore ceased to consult him about appointments under the Department of Justice and the Interior, the two departments in which the crookedness had occurred—­there was no question of crookedness in the other offices in the State, and they could be handled in the ordinary manner.  Legal proceedings were undertaken against his colleague in the Senate, and one of his colleagues in the lower house, and the former was convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary.

In a number of instances the legality of executive acts of my Administration was brought before the courts.  They were uniformly sustained.  For example, prior to 1907 statutes relating to the disposition of coal lands had been construed as fixing the flat price at $10 to $20 per acre.  The result was that valuable coal lands were sold for wholly inadequate prices, chiefly to big corporations.  By executive order the coal lands were withdrawn and not opened for entry until proper classification was placed thereon by Government agents.  There was a great clamor that I was usurping legislative power; but the acts were not assailed in court until we brought suits to set aside entries made by persons and associations to obtain larger areas than the statutes authorized.  This position was opposed on the ground that the restrictions imposed were illegal; that the executive orders were illegal.  The Supreme Court sustained the Government.  In the same way our attitude in the water power question was sustained, the Supreme Court holding that the Federal Government had the rights we claimed over streams that are or may be declared navigable by Congress.  Again, when Oklahoma became a State we were obliged to use the executive power to protect Indian rights and property, for there had been an enormous amount of fraud in the obtaining of Indian lands by white men.  Here we were denounced as usurping power over a State as well as usurping power that did not belong to the executive.  The Supreme Court sustained our action.