THE PANAMA CANAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 332, 26 January 1909, Page 4

THE PANAMA CANAL.

ALLEGATIONS AND REPLY. The following passage from a characteristic letter by President Roosevelt serves to illustrate oolii the nature "f the News' charges and the cpialily of Mr Roosevelt's defence : "The News gives currency to the charge that the United States bought from American citizens for 111,0011,0110 (Ink property thai costs these eitizeiH only 12,000,000 ilols.' The statement is false. The United States did not pay u cent of the 40,(100,000 ilols. to any American citizen. 'The News says that there is no doubt that the Overiinicni paid 40,000,000 dois. for property, and continues: "Rut who got the money? We are not to know. 'The Administration and Mr. Tal't do not think it right that the people should know.' Really this is so ludicrous as to make one feel a little impatient at having to answer it. The fact has ken onic-ially published again and again that the (lovernmenl paid"40.000,000 ilols.. and that it paid this 40,000,000 ilols. direct to the French (JuvcriiiMclil gelling lite receipts of the liquidator appointed by the French (loyorninciit lo receive Ihe slime. The L'niled Slates (iuviTiiiiK'iit has not the slightest knowledge as lo the particular individuals among lilt French (iovernineiii to wh was distributed the sum. This was tile business uf the French (iuvernuienl. The mere supposition thai aa\ American received from the French (!overiiincnt a •rake oil" is too absurd to be discussed. It is an abominable ialsehood, and it is a slander not against the American Government, but against the French (lovernment.

"The Xews continues, saying that the President's brother-in-law is involved in 1 the scandal, but lias nothing to say. The President's brother-in-law was involved ill no scandal. Dchivan Smith and the other people who repeated this falsehood lied about tile President's brother-in-law : but why the filet that Mr Smith lied should be held to involve Mr liobiiison iua 'scandal' is dillicult to understand. The scandal all'ects no one but Mr. Smith, and his conduct has been not merely scandalous but infamous. Mr Robinson had not the slightest coiineetioii of any kind, sort, or description, at any time, or under any circumstances with the Panama matter. Neither did Charles Ta't. The News sins that Mr Taft was a n iber of the ■syndicate.' So far as I know there was no syndicate; there certainly was no syndicate in the United States that, to niv knowledge, had any dealings with the Government directly or indirectly, and inasmuch as there was no syndicate, Mr Taft. naturally did 'not belong to it. Mr Charles Taft, it may be added, is brother to the President-elect.