Part 18 (1/2)
Senator Edmunds is still living, and he has been for many years regarded as one of the foremost lawyers of the American bar. I know that in the Senate when I entered it, he was ranked as its leading lawyer. He was chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and, with Senator Thurman, of Ohio, dominated that committee. I became very intimately acquainted with him. He was dignified in his conversation and deportment, and I never knew him to say a vicious thing in debate.
I believe I had considerable influence with Senator Edmunds. He always seemed to have a prejudice against appropriations for the Rock Island (Illinois) a.r.s.enal. He had never visited Rock Island, but he seemed to think that the money spent there was more or less wasted, and he was disposed to oppose appropriations for its maintenance. One day we were considering an appropriation bill carrying several items in favor of Rock Island, and I antic.i.p.ated Senator Edmunds' objections. Sitting beside him, I asked him not to oppose these items. I told him that I did not think he was doing right by such a course. He asked me where they were in the bill and I showed them to him without saying a word. Just before we reached them I observed him rising from his seat and leaving the chamber. He remained away until the items were pa.s.sed, then he returned, and the subject was never mentioned between us afterwards.
Senator Edmunds resigned before his last term expired. There were two reasons for his resignation, the princ.i.p.al one being the illness of his only daughter; but in addition, he had come to feel that the Senate was becoming less and less desirable each year, and began to lose interest in it. He did not like the rough-and-tumble methods of debate of a number of Western Senators who were coming to take a more prominent place in the Senate. On one occasion Senator Plumb, of Kansas, attacked Senator Edmunds most violently, and without any particular reason.
During his service in the Senate, Senator Edmunds seemed to be frequently arguing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. His ability as a lawyer made him in constant demand in important litigation before that court. Personally, I do not approve of Senators of the United States engaging in the active practice of the law or any other business, but his practice before the Supreme Court did not cause him to neglect his Senatorial duties.
Justice Miller, one of the ablest members of the court, was talking with me one day about Senator Edmunds, and he asked me why I did not come into the Supreme Court to practise, remarking that Edmunds was there a good deal. I replied that I did not know enough law, to begin with; and in addition it did not seem to me proper for a Senator of the United States to engage in that kind of business.
Justice Miller replied that Senators did do so, and that there seemed to be no complaint about it, and he urged me to come along, saying that he would take care of me. But needless for me to say, I never appeared in any case before the Supreme Court of the United States during my service as Senator.
Senator Edmunds' colleague, Justin S. Morrill, was one of the most lovable characters I ever met. I served with him in the House.
Later he was a very prominent member of the Senate, when I entered it, and was Chairman of the Committee on Finance. He was a wonderfully capable man in legislation. He had extraordinary power in originating measures and carrying them through. He was not a lawyer, but was a man of exceptional common sense. His judgment was good on any proposition. I do not believe he had an enemy in the Senate. Every one felt kindly toward him, and for this reason it was very easy for him to secure the pa.s.sage of any bill he was interested in.
While Senator Morrill was chairman of the Committee on Finance, owing to his advanced age and the feeble condition of his health the real burden of the committee for years before his death fell on Nelson W. Aldrich, of Rhode Island. He was prominent as far back as the Forty-eighth Congress, and was a dominant unit even then. His recent retirement is newspaper history and need not be aired here.
Senator Aldrich has had a potent influence in framing all tariff and financial legislation almost from the time he entered the Senate. Personally, I have great admiration for him and for his great ability and capacity to frame legislation, and it is a matter of sincere regret with me that he has determined to retire to private life. His absence is seriously felt, especially in the Finance Committee.
The Hon. John Sherman, of Ohio, was one of the most valuable statesmen of his day and one of the ablest men. He was exceedingly industrious, and well posted on all financial questions. Toward the close of his Senatorial term, he failed rapidly, but he was just as clear on any financial question as he was at any time in his career. He was Secretary of the Treasury when in his prime, and I believe his record in the office stands second only to Hamilton's. He was of the Hamilton school of financiers, and his judgment was always reliable and trustworthy. He was a very serious man and could never see through a joke. He was one of the very best men in Ohio, and would have made a splendid President. For years he was quite ambitious to be President, and the business interests of the country seemed to be for him. His name was before the National Convention of the Republican party many times, but circ.u.mstances always intervened to prevent his nomination when it was almost within his grasp.
I have always thought that one reason was that his own State had so many ambitious men in it who sought the honor themselves, that they were never sincerely in good faith for Sherman. At least twice he went to National Conventions, apparently with his own State behind him, but he was unfortunate in the selection of his managers, and, really, when the time came to support him they seemed only too ready to sacrifice him in their own interests.
I have always regretted that he closed his career by accepting the office of Secretary of State under President McKinley. It was unfortunate for him that it was at a most trying and difficult time that he entered that department. The Spanish-American War was coming on, and there was necessity for exercising the most careful and skillful diplomacy. Senator Sherman's training and experience lay along other lines. He was not in any sense a diplomat, and his age unfitted him for the place. He retired from office very soon, and shortly thereafter pa.s.sed away. His brief service as Secretary of State will be forgotten, and he will be remembered as the great Secretary of the Treasury, and one of the most celebrated of Ohio Senators.
Senator George F. h.o.a.r, of Ma.s.sachusetts, was quite prominent at the beginning of the Forty-eighth Congress. He was jealous of New England's interests, and was always prejudiced in its favor, and in favor of New England men and men with New England ancestry, or affiliations. He opposed the Interstate Commerce Act because he thought it would injuriously affect his locality, although he knew very well it would be of inestimable benefit to the country as a whole. Senator h.o.a.r was a scholarly man. Indeed, I would say he was the most cultivated man in the Senate. He was highly educated, had travelled extensively, was a student all his life, and in debate was very fond of Latin or Greek quotations, and especially so when he wanted to make a point perfectly clear to the Senate. He opposed imperialism and the acquisition of foreign territory. He opposed the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain. When the Philippine question was up in the Senate, I made a speech in which I compared Senator h.o.a.r with his colleague, Senator Lodge, said that Senator Lodge had no such fear as did Senator h.o.a.r on account of the acquirement of non-contiguous territory, and made the remark that Senator h.o.a.r was far behind the times. He was not present when I made the speech, but afterwards read it in the _Record_.
He came down to my seat greatly out of humor one day and stated that if three-fourths of the people of his State were not in harmony with his position he would resign.
He was one of the most kindly of men, but during this period he was so deadly in earnest in opposition to the so-called imperialism that he became very ill-natured with his Republican colleagues who differed from him. I do not know but the pa.s.sing of time has demonstrated that Senator h.o.a.r was right in his opposition to acquirement of the Philippines; but at the time it seemed that the burden was thrust upon us and we could not s.h.i.+rk it.
Senator h.o.a.r was disposed to be against the recognition of the Republic of Panama, and it has been intimated that he was of the opinion that the Roosevelt Administration had something to do with the bloodless revolution that resulted in the uniting with the United States of that part of Colombia which now forms the Ca.n.a.l Zone.
President Roosevelt entertained a very high regard for Senator h.o.a.r, and he wanted to disabuse his mind of that impression. He asked him to call at his office one morning. I was waiting to see the President and when he came in he told me that he had an engagement with Senator h.o.a.r, and asked me if I would wait until he had seen the Senator first. I promptly answered that he should see the Senator first at any rate, as he was an older man than I, and was older in the service. Senator h.o.a.r and the President entered the room together. Just as they went in, the President turned to me.
”You might as well come in at the same time,” said he. I accompanied them. And this is what took place:
The President wanted the Senator to read a message which he had already prepared, in reference to Colombia's action in rejecting the treaty and the ca.n.a.l in general; which message showed very clearly that the President had never contemplated the secession of Panama, and was considering different methods in order to obtain the right of way across the Isthmus from Colombia, fully expecting to deal only with the Colombian Government on the subject. The President was sitting on the table, first at one side of Senator h.o.a.r, and then on the other, talking in his usual vigorous fas.h.i.+on, trying to get the Senator's attention to the message. Senator h.o.a.r seemed adverse to reading it, but finally sat down, and without seeming to pay any particular attention to what he was perusing, he remained for a minute or two, then arose and said: ”I hope I may never live to see the day when the interests of my country are placed above its honor.” He at once retired from the room without uttering another word, proceeding to the Capitol.
Later in the morning he came to me with a typewritten paper containing the conversation between the President and himself, and asked me to certify to its correctness. I took the paper and read it over, and as it seemed to be correct, as I remembered the conversation, I wrote my name on the bottom of it. I have never seen or heard of the paper since.
Senator h.o.a.r was very much interested in changing the date of the inauguration of the President of the United States. March, in Was.h.i.+ngton, is one of the very worst months of the year, and it frequently happens that the weather is so cold and stormy as to make any demonstration almost impossible. Inaugurations have cost the lives of very many men. I was looking into the subject myself, and I took occasion to write Senator h.o.a.r a letter, asking his views. He replied to me very courteously and promptly. I was so pleased with the letter that I retained it, and give it here.
”Worcester, Ma.s.s., _August 26, 1901_.
”My dear Senator:--
”I do not think the proposed change of time of inauguration can be made without change in the Const.i.tution. I prepared an article for so changing the Const.i.tution. It has pa.s.sed the Senate twice certainly, and I think three times. It was reported once or twice from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and once from the Committee on the Judiciary. It received general favor in the Senate, and as I now remember there was no vote against it at any time. The only serious question was whether the four years should terminate on a certain Wednesday in April or should terminate as now on a fixed day of the month. The former is liable to the objection that one Presidential term should be in some cases slightly longer than another. The other is liable to the objection that if the thirtieth of April were Sunday or Sat.u.r.day or Monday, nearly all persons from a distance who come to the inauguration would have to be away from home over Sunday.
”The matter would, I think, have pa.s.sed the House, if it could have been reached for action. But it had the earnest opposition of Speaker Reed. It was, as you know, very hard to get him to approve anything that was a change.
”I have prepared an amendment to be introduced at the beginning of the next section, and have got some very carefully prepared tables from the Coast Survey, to show the exact length of an administration under the different plans. The advantage of the change seems to me very clear indeed. In the first place, you prolong the second session of Congress until the last of April; you add six or seven weeks, which are very much needed, to that session. And you can further increase that session a little by special statute, which should have Congress meet immediately after the November election, a little earlier than now. In that case, you can probably without disadvantage shorten the first session of Congress so as to get away by the middle of May or the first of June and get rid of the very disagreeable Was.h.i.+ngton heat.
”I wish you would throw your great influence, so much increased by the renewed expression of the confidence of your State, against what seems to me the most dangerous single proposition now pending before the people, a plan to elect Senators of the United States by popular vote.