sever his connection either with the trust company or the government, no action seems to have been taken.

Charges were made to Secretary of the Interior previous to July 1, 1903, alleging the mismanagement of the Creek Indian Agency, and Clarence B. Douglas was dismissed from the employment at the Muscogee Agency "for the good of the service," and was refused an investigation.

On August 24, 1903, Benjamin H. Colbert, United States Marshal for the Indian Territory, was arrested charged with using his power for political purposes. Letting prisoners out of jail that they might vote was one of his pleasing pastimes; imprisoning Indians for not voting according to his wishes, another. These discharges and arrests by the Government did not, however, lead to a general uncovering of the land ring which has sought to profit by the allotment system, and no other information has been given to the public.

The almost universal charges of corruption against the government officials in Indian Territory would indicate that the Republican machine had dumped its most worthless and grafting partisans from all the States upon the unfortunate Indians and the numerous citizens of the United States who have made their homes there.

There is also on file in the Department of Justice a report made by Special Examiner Chalmers since deceased-regarding the rottenness of the officials of the government connected with the Department of Justice in the Territory. It is said at one town, Sapulpa, the United States Commissioner, the Deputy United States Marshal and the constable are all charged in this report with serious crimes and that these charges are supported by reputable citizens, but the report is kept secret by the department and no steps appear to have been taken to remove or punish the offenders.

THE EXECUTIVE PENSION ORDER.

On the 15th of March, 1904, Mr. E. F. Ware, Commissioner of Pensions, submitted to Secretary Hitchcock, of the Interior Department, the draft of an order which, omitting the preamble, is as follows:

"Ordered, 1. In the adjudication of pension claims under the act of June 27, 1890, as amended it shall be taken as an evident fact, if the contrary does not appear, and if all other legal requirements are properly met, that when a claimant has passed the age of 62 years, he is disabled one-half in ability to perform manual labor, and is entitled to be rated at $6 per month; after 65 years, at $8 per month; after 68 years, at $10 per month; and after 70 years, at $12 per month.

"2. Allowances at higher rate, not exceeding $12 per month, will be continued as heretofore when disabilities, other than age show a condition of inability to perform manual labor.

"3. This order shall take effect April 18, 1904, and shall not be deemed retroactive. The former rules of the office fixing the minimum and maximum at 65 and 75 years, respectively, are hereby modified as above.”

On the same day Secretary Hitchcock approved the foregoing order; and it is admitted by the President's friends that all this was done with the approval of Mr. Roosevelt himself, and was a part of his "policy."

The questions by Mr. Williams, of Mississippi, and answers by Mr. Grosvenor, of Ohio, while the subject was under discussion in the House of Representatives, plainly show that both Republicans and Democrats regarded the Order as a usurpation of legislative

power:

"Mr. Williams. Is not this the case-that we appropriate a certain amount of money, or so much thereof as may be necessary, and what we mean by that is, so much as may be necessary to carry out and execute existing law?"

"Mr. Grosvenor. That is correct."

"Mr. Williams. If by any executive legislation the amount made necessary by existing law is made larger, is not that a usurpation of legislative power?"

"Mr. Grosvenor. think so. I think everybody would say

that."

See the Congressional Record, 58th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 4763.

The law of 1890, section 2, puts every case on its individual merits, and leaves it to the person appointed to try the case, to determine when due proof of the fact of disability is made in each particular case. But the Order dispenses with proof of the fact of disability, whenever the applicant, who is under the law required to make it, shall have reached the age of sixty-two years. This amounts to a suspension and nullification of existing law by an executive order; for the law stands unrepealed and unmodified on the statute book. A ministerial officer, as such, has no authority to make any regulation dispensing with the taking of proof. That is a legislative function, and has always heretofore been exercised by Congress; as in the Act of March 3, 1885, when Congress enacted "That all applicants for pensions shall be presumed to have had no disability at the time of enlistment, but such presumption. may be rebutted"; and in the Act of March, 1896, when it enacted that continued and unexplained absence of an enlisted man or officer from his home and family for seven years, during which period no intelligence of his existence had been received, should create the presumption that he was dead; and, again, when Congress enacted that loss of the sight of both eyes, or the loss of both hands or both feet constituted total permanent disability. Congress has not the right under the Constitution to delegate legislative power to any ministerial or judicial officer; and such officers derive no legislative power from any provision of the Constitution, which separates the legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

Mr. Grosvenor, Mr. Dalzell, and other Republican leaders in the

House, acting in line with their partisans in the Senate and the Executive Department, maintained that any Department had the right to interpret the law as it chose, even so far as to originate, establish, change, or abrogate any rule of evidence whatever.

That this order was not an interpretation is conclusively shown by the third paragraph, which says, "This order shall take effect April 18, 1904, and shall not be deemed retroactive."

Mr. Grosvenor, having admitted, as we have seen by his answer to Mr. Williams, that the order amounted to "a usurpation of legislative power," and having plainly declared that "no such order as that could be issued by any Department without the approval of the President," still attempted to justify and uphold it on the ground that it was "a sensible, intelligent" usurpation.

These novel and dangerous doctrines were strongly combated by the Democrats of the House, as well as by the Senate Democrats. All of them took the ground that the Order amounted to an invasion and usurpation, by the Executive, of the powers vested by the Constitution in the legislative Department of the Government exclusively, and that it was especially an invasion and abrogation of the powers of the House of Representatives relating to revenues and expenditures.

Mr. Cockran, of New York, introduced, and in a masterly speech supported the following resolution:

House resolution No. 278:

"Resolved, That the Committee on tne Judiciary be instructed to inquire and report to the House whether, in the opinion of said committee, there is any authority of law for a recent order of the Secretary of the Interior to the effect that all persons who served in the Army or Navy of the United States during the war of the rebellion and who have reached the age of 62 years shall be presumed to have incurred such disabilities as to entitle them to receive pensions under the act of Congress approved June 27, 1890; and if no such authority be found to exist, the said committee is instructed to report whether the issue of such order amounts to a usurpation or invasion by the Executive of the powers vested by the Constitution in the legislative department of the Government, and what steps, if any, should be taken to vindicate the constitutional authority of Congress, and particularly of this House, over the raising of revenues and the expenditure thereof."

This resolution was tabled by a solid Republican vote.

Later, when the deficiency bill was under consideration in the House, Mr. Moon, of Tennessee, exposed the false attitude of the Republicans by offering an amendment to the General Deficiency bill, making all three sections of the Order a part of that bill, and thus forcing their hand in such a way as to make them show whether they wanted the change made by the order as a law, or only as an executive regulation in violation of law; so that, as such, it might serve to forestall the passage of a service pension bill founded on the principle of equality and justice, which should supply the defects of the existing system, under which officers and favorites secure excessive pensions while the rank and file get little.

The Moon amendment was ruled out on the point of order, as

"not germane." There was an appeal from this ruling, but the Republicans voted to sustain it, and $1,500,000 was appropriated in the Deficiency bill to carry into execution an order made manifestly in violation both of the Constitution and the Statutes.

FINANCIAL LEGISLATION BY EXECUTIVE DECREE.

On September 25, 1902, Secretary Shaw misconstrued and misapplied the provisions of law which authorized him to "designate one or more depositories in each state for the safe-keeping of the public money collected by virtue of the internal revenue laws” (R. S., Sec. 3211), and "to designate national banks as such depositories of all public money 'except receipts from customs'" (R. S., Sec. 5153). These provisions did not authorize loans of money to banks, but were intended only to allow the revenue collectors to deposit their collections for safe-keeping until such moneys could be transferred to the Treasury or to some sub-treasury. Yet by an "emergency construction" the Secretary perverted these provisions in such a way as to place large sums of public money in the banks of New York and other cities, virtually as loans without interest.

In his decree of September 25 the Secretary held that while money which had once been paid into the Treasury, or into any subtreasury, could not lawfully be withdrawn therefrom and deposited in any bank, yet internal revenue and miscellaneous receipts, amounting to some half a million dollars a day, or $182,500,000 a year, might lawfully be deposited in banks selected by the Secretary, at his own unbridled discretion, and allowed to remain in them as long as he chose.

In this way certain favored banks were filled with public money and allowed to use it without interest, so that on the 5th day of December, 1903, just two months and ten days after Secretary Shaw's decree was made, these national bank depositories held to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States $158,614,757.

Having done this Secretary Shaw issued another decree, September 30, 1903, by which he suspended and, in effect, repealed the law requiring every bank designated as a depository of public money "to have at all times on hand, in lawful money of the United States, an amount equal to at least twenty-five per centum of the aggregate amount of its notes in circulation, and of its deposits" (R. S., Sec. 5191), and also the law requiring all such national banks "to give satisfactory security by deposit of United States bonds and otherwise, for the safe-keeping and prompt payment of public money deposited with them" (R. S., Sec. 5153).

This last decree disclosed the real design of the whole scheme, which was to allow the banks to hold and use the public money, not only without interest, but also without giving lawful security for its safe-keeping or "prompt payment."

Secretary Shaw in attempting to justify these decrees disregarded both reason and precedent by holding that the words "United States bonds and otherwise," which occur in Section 5153 of the Revised Statutes, imply that other bonds may be received in lieu of "United States bonds," and that when such other bonds had been deposited as security, he would no longer require the national banks to hold a reserve of 25 per cent. in lawful money against governmental deposits, but would regard their deposits of "bonds""United States bonds," or other bonds-as sufficient security under the law, and would accept State and municipal bonds for that purpose; entirely ignoring Section 5191, which requires depositories of public money to keep a reserve fund in lawful money. Section 5191 does not repeal Section 5153, or even modify it, except by adding another safe-guard against the loss of public funds held by the banks. The two sections are cumulative, and must obviously be, and always had previously been, construed together, as one law requiring two kinds of security

FIRST, "BY THE DEPOSIT OF UNITED STATES BONDS," AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 5153; AND

SECOND, "BY KEEPING ON HAND, AT ALL TIMES, IN LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO AT LEAST

TWENTY-FIVE PER CENTUM OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF ITS NOTES IN CIRCULATION, AND OF ITS DEPOSITS," AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 5191.

The language of Section 5191 being thus substituted for the words "and otherwise," the true intent and meaning of the law is perfectly manifest. Nobody ever before dreamed that those words could be so twisted as to give to the Secretary of the Treasury any authority or pretext to dispense with the security for public money required by the 25 per cent. reserve clause, or to nullify the clause requiring the deposit of "United States bonds," as distinguished from other kinds of bonds. But this wise law, precisely designed by Congress to prevent over-speculation and resultant bankruptcy on the part of banks holding Government deposits in trust, was wilfully set at naught in order to facilitate, at the risk and expense of the Treasury of the United States, those very evils.

The official report of the Treasurer of the United States for 1902 contains the following statement with reference to THE ACCEPTANCE OF STATE AND CITY BONDS IN LIEU OF UNITED STATES BONDS:

"Under a ruling of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department since October 1, 1902, has received from national banks tendering them, State and City bonds, as a part of the security for deposits of public funds, to release United States bonds, which were at once transferred to secure circulation. To November 15, State and City bonds were thus substituted to the amount of $20,338,500."

If these operations had not been sufficient to save the banks which had loaned their depositors money too freely and on insufficient security, there could be no reasonable doubt that a much larger