MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
It has been said that Charles Sumner considered the chairmanship
of the Committee on Foreign Relations as the highest honor that
could have been conferred upon him by the United States Senate.
I have been chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations for a
longer consecutive period than any man in our history, aside from
Mr. Sumner, who served as chairman for ten years. If I continue
as chairman during the remainder of my term, I shall have exceeded
the long service of Mr. Sumner.
The Committee on Foreign Relations was among the first of the
permanent standing committees of the Senate. Prior to 1816, there
were no permanent standing committees, the custom being to appoint
select committees to consider the different portions of the
President's messages, and for the consideration of any other subject
which the Senate might from session to session determine necessary
for committee reference. On December 13, 1816, the Senate, by
rule, proceeded to the appointment of the following standing
committees, agreeably to the resolution of the tenth instant, which
was as follows:
"Resolved, that it shall be one of the rules of the Senate that
the following standing committees be appointed at each session:
a Committee on Foreign Relations, a Committee on Finance, a Committee
on Commerce and Manufactures, a Committee on Military Affairs, a
Committee on the Militia, a Committee on Naval Affairs, a Committee
on Public Lands, a Committee on Claims, a Committee on the Judiciary,
a Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads, and a Committee on
Pensions."
It will be noted that under this rule, the Committee on Foreign
Relations was named first, and Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, was its
first chairman. Whether it was at that time considered the most
important committee, I do not know; but I do know that from the
date of its formation, the Committee on Foreign Relations has been
among the most important committees of the Senate, and at times in
our history it has been _the_ most important committee. It has
been from the beginning particularly noted for the high character
of the men who composed its membership, and we find in the archives
of the Senate the names of some of the greatest men in our national
history, who have from time to time acted as its chairmen.
Barbour of Virginia, Henry Clay, James Buchanan, Rives, Benton,
King, Cass, Sumner, Windom, John F. Miller, John T. Morgan, John
Sherman, and Cushman K. Davis are a few of those who have at
different times occupied the position of chairman of the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
My predecessors, as their names will indicate to those familiar
with American history, have been noted for their conservatism in
dealing with matters pertaining to our foreign relations, and there
is no position in the Senate where conservatism is so essential.
My ambition has been so to conduct the business coming before the
committee as to keep up the high standard set and the high standing
maintained by the distinguished statesmen who have preceded me in
the position.
The work of the Foreign Relations Committee is almost exclusively
executive and confidential, and consists largely in the consideration
of treaties submitted by the President to the Senate for ratification.
Very little important legislative business comes before this
committee, although it has jurisdiction over claims of foreign
citizens against the United States, and all legislation that in
any wise affects our relations with other nations.
It was almost, I might say, by accident that I became a member of
this important committee. I had been a member of the Committee on
Commerce for a number of years, and took quite an interest in the
very important legislation coming before that committee; and the
improvement of rivers and harbors was a subject in which Illinois
was greatly interested.
The late Senator Mitchell, of Oregon, was in 1895 chairman of the
Committee on Organization, having in charge the make-up of the
committees of the Senate, and he wanted a place on the Committee
on Commerce for some Western Senator. He came to me and explained
his embarrassment, and asked me if I would be willing to be
transferred from the Committee on Commerce to the Committee on
Foreign Relations. I wanted to accommodate Senator Mitchell, and
I told him that I would consent to be transferred, but at the same
time I was not at all anxious to leave the Committee on Commerce.
The transfer was made in due course, and I have served continuously
on the Foreign Relations Committee since that time, 1895.
John Sherman was chairman of the committee when I became a member
of it. It was at a period when there were very few material foreign
matters to engage the attention of the Senate. Sherman served as
chairman of the committee, at different periods, for nearly ten
years. He was a wise, conservative chairman; not especially
brilliant, as was Senator Davis, or Senator Sumner; but every one
had confidence in him and felt that in his hands nothing unwise or
foolish would emanate from the committee.
I was chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce at that
time, and the work of that committee, added to the work devolving
upon me as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, engrossed
most of my time; and while I regularly attended the meetings of
the Committee on Foreign Relations, I cannot say that I took a
prominent part, or, indeed, a very deep interest, in it until I
became its chairman, succeeding the late Cushman K. Davis in 1901.
Cushman K. Davis was a warm personal friend of mine. As the years
passed by and I grew to know him more and more intimately, I became
more deeply attached to him, and my respect for him as a statesman
constantly increased. He was what I would term a specialist in
legislation. He took little or no interest in any other subject
than matters pertaining to our foreign relations. He was a prominent
figure in public affairs for many years. A soldier in the Civil
War, serving in many prominent places in civil affairs in his State,
including the position of Governor, he came to the Senate as a
ripened statesman. He entered the Senate in 1887, and in 1891
became a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and very early
became one of its leading members. Succeeding the late Senator
Sherman, in 1897, he became its chairman and served in that position
until his death. Few more scholarly or cultivated men have ever
occupied a seat in the Senate.
He was a peculiar man in many respects, and did not court, or even
encourage, the advice of his colleagues on the committee, or even
of the Secretary of State. I had served on the Committee on Foreign
Affairs of the House when Mr. Seward was Secretary of State and I
knew what a help it was to the committee to have the Secretary meet
with us personally and discuss matters of more or less importance.
We all listened to Secretary Seward with the profoundest respect
and attention; but as I look back on it now, I think that Secretary
Seward probably entertained more than he instructed the members.
He seemed to enjoy attending the sessions.
I thought that it would be a help if we could have Mr. Olney, then
Secretary of State, before us. I suggested to Senator Davis at
one meeting, that Secretary Olney should be invited to come and
explain some question concerning which we seemed to be in doubt.
Senator Davis declined to invite him, and said so in so many words.
Apparently he did not desire any interference or information from
the Executive Department. I felt pretty free to express my opinion
to Senator Davis, and I told him that inasmuch as he did not care
to invite Secretary Olney, I would invite him myself, if he did
not object. I did so, and Secretary Olney, at a subsequent meeting,
met with the committee and very quickly explained the question
under consideration.
Senator Davis was a well recognized authority on international law,
both as a lecturer on that subject and a writer. Judging from his
display of ability, he ought to have been able to write a monumental
work on the subject. But he was an indolent man and contented
himself with publishing merely a little volume containing a _résumé_
of his lectures before a Washington college of law. The publication
of this work detracted from, rather than added to, his reputation
as a student and writer.
He was not an orator, but on occasions, in executive session, when
great international questions were before the Senate, I have heard
him deliver wonderfully eloquent speeches. He always commanded
the closest attention whenever he spoke in the Senate, whether in
executive or open session (which latter he only infrequently did,
by the way), and he always exhausted the subject.
President McKinley appointed him a member of the Paris Peace
Commission to frame the treaty of peace with Spain. How well he
performed that service those of his colleagues on the commission
who are still living, can attest. He returned from Paris and had
charge of the ratification of the treaty in the Senate.
I have always believed that Senator Davis's death was the result
of his indolent habits. I do not believe he ever took any physical
exercise; at least he did not do so during the time that I knew
him. He was so much of a student, and so interested in books, that
he seemed to think that time devoted to the proper care of his
physical condition was so much time wasted. The result was that
when disease attacked him he became an easy prey, and when he passed
away it was said that he bore all the marks of a very old man, even
though he was comparatively young in years. It was my sad duty,
as a member of the United States Senate, to attend his funeral in
St. Paul, in 1900.
The northwest section of the United States has not now, and never
had before, as capable a scholar and statesman as Cushman K. Davis.
I succeeded Senator Davis as chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations. I have enjoyed my work on the committee more than I
have enjoyed any other work that I have done in the Senate. There
are a number of reasons for this. First, the members of the
committee, during my service, have been particularly able and
agreeable men, and during those years some of the greatest men of
the Senate have been numbered among its members. Aside from one,
whom I have long since forgiven, I do not recall now that I have
had a single controversy or unkind word with any member. In
addition, the work is not only of the greatest importance, but it
has been very satisfactory, because partisanship has not at all
entered into the disposition of matters pertaining to our foreign
affairs. The members of the committee during my time have always
seemed to take a deep interest in the work coming before them, and,
unlike most of the committees of the Senate, it has never been
difficult to secure the attendance of a working quorum. In the
ten years that I have been chairman, I do not believe the committee
has ever been compelled to adjourn for want of a quorum when any
important business was before it.
Until his death in 1911, Senator Wm. P. Frye, of Maine, was in
point of service the oldest member of the committee. He had served
as one of its members ever since 1885. He could have been chairman,
by right of seniority, when Mr. Davis was made chairman in 1891,
on the retirement of Mr. Sherman; and again he could have become
chairman when Senator Davis died. He did act in that capacity for
nearly a year, but he always seemed to prefer the chairmanship of
the Committee on Commerce.
I believe that the late Senator Hanna had a good deal to do with
Senator Frye's declining to succeed the late Senator Davis as
chairman. Ship-subsidy and the building up of the merchant marine
of the United States were then before the Senate, and Senator Hanna,
a ship owner himself, was deeply interested in that legislation.
Senator Hanna and Senator Frye were devoted friends; and, although
I do not know, I have always felt that it was Senator Hanna who
induced Senator Frye to remain at the head of the Committee on
Commerce.
Senator Frye was a very capable and faithful Senator, and enjoyed
the confidence and respect of the people of his State to a greater
degree than any other Maine statesman, with the exception of Mr.
Blaine. As chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I would say he
dominated that committee, and at the same time he was a most
satisfactory chairman to every Senator who served on it. He was
thoroughly familiar with every question pertaining to rivers and
harbors, the shipping interests, and the multitude of matters coming
before the committee. Senator Burton, of Ohio, is probably the
only member of the United States Senate at present who is as well
posted on matters before the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. Frye was an active member of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
and during the brief periods when I have been compelled by reason
of illness to remain away from the Senate I always designated
Senator Frye to act in my stead.
Among his colleagues in the Senate, he enjoyed the greatest degree
of popularity; and aside from one or two occasions when his own
colleague opposed him, no Senator ever objected to any ordinary
bill which Senator Frye called up and asked to have placed on its
passage. In fact it was his custom to report a bill from his
committee, or the Committee on Foreign Relations, the only two
working committees of which he was a member, and ask for its
immediate consideration. No one ever objected, and the bill went
through as a meritorious measure without question, on his word
alone to the Senate.
He was an ideal presiding officer. For years he was president _pro
tempore_, and the death of Vice-President Hobart, and the accession
of Mr. Roosevelt to the Presidency, necessitated his almost constant
occupancy of the chair. With the peculiar rules existing in the
Senate, the position of presiding officer is comparatively an easy
one. Senator Frye made an especially agreeable presiding officer,
expediting the business of the Senate in a degree equal to that of
any presiding officer during my service.
I recollect when he was elected president _pro tempore_, in 1896,
I had been talked of for the place, but he had not heard that I
desired it; and a Republican caucus was held which named him
president. Senator Chandler, for whom I have always had the greatest
respect as a man and as a Senator, after the caucus was held told
Senator Frye that he had heard I had some ambition for the place.
Mr. Frye came at once to my house and to my study and asked me, in
so many words, if I had desired to be president of the Senate. I
replied that I had not, adding that I had had no particular concern
about it at any time. He thereupon asserted that he had called
simply to apprise me that whenever I wanted the position he would
very cheerfully resign and yield it to me. I assured him that if
he did not yield it until I asked him to do so, he would hold it
for a long time. He never had any opposition, and on both sides
of the chamber he was, as presiding officer, equally popular. He
voluntarily relinquished the office at the beginning of the Sixty-
second Congress.
When the tariff was one of the issues--during the first Cleveland,
the Harrison, and the second Cleveland campaigns and to a lesser
degree in 1896 and 1900,--Senator Frye was regarded as one of the
foremost orators and stump speakers on the tariff question. During
his later years it was very much to be regretted that he did not
feel able to take an active part in national campaigns.
The news of Senator Frye's death comes to me while I am engaged in
reading the proof of what I have said about him in this book. He
died at four o'clock on the eighth day of August, 1911, passing
away at the age of eighty-one years. When asked by a newspaper
man for a brief estimate of Mr. Frye's character, I said: "He was
not only one of the ablest and most devoted of public servants,
but one of the most charming men that I have ever known." This
expression I desire to repeat here for perpetuation in endurable
form.
Seldom has this country commanded the services of a more enlightened
or more self-sacrificing man than Mr. Frye. He was patriotic to
the very heart's core; no sacrifice for the country would have been
too great for him. He, and his colleague Mr. Hale, and Senators
Allison, of Iowa, Platt, of Connecticut, Teller, of Colorado,
Cockrell, of Missouri, Morgan, of Alabama, and Spooner, of Wisconsin,
constitute a coterie of public men of the last half century such
as any nation should be proud of. Unselfish, energetic, and
patriotic, they have done much to keep the United States on the
proper level. Let us hope, as we must, that the public councils
of the nation may always be guided by men of their character and
abilities.
Senator Frye's death leaves me the oldest member of the Senate in
point of service. He entered the Senate in March, 1881, giving
him more than thirty years of service, while I entered in March,
1883, which gives me more than twenty-eight years up to date. It
thus will be seen that we have served together for almost an average
lifetime.
Senator Jacob H. Gallinger of New Hampshire, who was promoted from
the House to the Senate in 1891, now becomes the second member of
the latter body in respect to length of service. Mr. Gallinger is
not a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, of whose
membership I am now especially speaking, but it cannot be out of
place for me to pause here to give him a word of commendation and
salutation as I pursue my way through this maze of memory. A
physician by profession, and a native of Canada, Mr. Gallinger has
shown marked adaptability in taking on the American spirit and in
performing the public's service. He has for many years been Chairman
of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia, which, possessing
many of the attributes of an ordinary city council, requires minute
attention to detail. Mr. Gallinger is the second member of the
important Committee on Commerce, and one of the leading members of
the Committee on Appropriations. His committee work therefore
covers a wide range of subjects. Never has he been known to fail
in the performance of his duties in all these connections. Moreover,
he is a constant attendant upon the sessions of the Senate, and
one of the most alert of its members. Apparently, often, he is
impulsive and explosive, and occasionally under the excitement of
debate says what seems to be a harsh thing. If, however, his manner
is indicative of feeling, such a feeling, like a passing summer
cloud, is soon dissipated, and almost immediately gives way to the
sunshine of his really genial and lovable nature. Senator Gallinger
as a member of the House and Senate has given the American public
as much genuine and patriotic service as any man in public life
during the past quarter of a century. I hope he may continue long
to adorn the Senate.
Senator John T. Morgan, of Alabama, was appointed a member of the
Foreign Relations Committee in 1879, and served continuously as a
member of it until his death in 1907, a total service of twenty-
eight years. I do not know of any other Senator who served on that
committee for so long a period. When the Senate was in control of
the Democrats under the second Cleveland Administration, he was
chairman of the committee.
Senator Morgan was an extraordinary man in many respects. He had
a wonderful fund of information on every subject, but was not a
man of very sound judgment, and I could not say that he was a man
on whose advice one could rely in solving a difficult problem. At
the same time, no one could doubt his honesty and sincerity of
purpose. He did not have the faculty of seeing both sides of a
question, and once he made up his mind, it was impossible to change
him, or by argument and reason to move him from a position deliberately
taken. I probably had as intimate an acquaintance with him as any
other Senator enjoyed, for we not only served as colleagues on the
Committee on Foreign Relations, but, as I have stated in another
chapter, we served together on the Hawaiian Commission. He was
one of the most delightful and agreeable of men if you agreed with
him on any question, but he was so intense on any subject in which
he took an interest, particularly anything pertaining to the
interoceanic canal, that he became almost vicious toward any one
who opposed him.
If an Isthmian canal be finally constructed, Senator Morgan must
be accorded a large share of the credit; and his name will go down
as the father of it, even though he himself affirmed in debate in
the Senate one day, after the Panama route had been selected, that
he would not be "the father of such a bastard." Senator Morgan
fought for the Nicaraguan route with all the power at his command.
He fought the treaties with Colombia and Panama, first for many
weeks in the committee, and then in the executive sessions of the
Senate. He wanted to arouse public sentiment against the Panama
route, and he addressed the Senate about five hours every day for
thirteen days on the subject, desisting only when we consented to
publish his speeches and papers on the subject, notwithstanding
they had been made and presented in executive session. Nevertheless,
it was Senator Morgan who for very many years kept the subject of
an interoceanic canal before Congress and the country, and finally,
partially through his efforts, interest in the project was kept
alive until it was determined, first, that the canal should be
constructed; and second, that it should be over the Panama route.
Many people thought that the selection of the Panama route would
break Senator Morgan's heart; but they did not know him. He made
the best fight he could, and when the Panama route was selected he
took the same deep interest in the legislation to carry the work
forward that he had always taken in the possible alternative route.
He was firmly convinced that the canal, on account of certain
physical reasons, could never be constructed across the Isthmus of
Panama.
Time alone will tell whether or not Senator Morgan was right. Time
has demonstrated that he was right in his contention that the Panama
Canal could never be constructed for the amount estimated by the
engineers, one hundred and eighty-three million dollars. It has
already cost over two hundred million dollars, and it is not yet
nearly completed. The latest estimates are that it will cost over
three hundred and eighty-five million dollars. How much more it
will cost the United States, no one can say.
During the later years of his life, he was probably the most
interesting and unique figure in the Senate. Toward the close of
his Senatorial career he became very feeble, but he attended to
his Senatorial duties as long as he was able to be about at all.
The last time I saw him alive was on the fourth of March, 1907,
the last day of the session, and the last time he ever entered the
Senate or the Capitol. He looked very emaciated and feeble. I
spoke to him, inquiring about his health. He replied, "I am just
tottering around," and after a pause, added, "Cullom, when I die
and you die and Frye dies, and one or two others, this Senate will
not amount to much, will it?"
He died a few months afterwards at his home in Washington, and in
his death there passed away the last of the old familiar type of
Southern statesmen, so frequently to be met with in Washington
before the Civil War, and the last Senator who served as a Brigadier-
General in the Confederate Army.
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, became a member of
the committee at the same time that I was placed on it; but, by
reason of my longer service in the Senate, according to the usual
custom, I outranked him.
Senator Lodge, by general consent I believe, is regarded to-day as
the most cultivated man in the Senate. He is a scholar, an author,
and a noted historian. He is a very able man in any position in
which he is placed. Judged by the standard of his great predecessor
in the Senate from Massachusetts, Daniel Webster, he is not an
orator, but he is a very effective speaker and a good debater. He
is one of the very active members and has always taken a prominent
part in the disposition of matters coming before the Upper House.
He is always ready to work, and when I desire any matter to be
disposed of without delay, I refer it to Senator Lodge as a
subcommittee, with confidence that it will be attended to quickly
and correctly.
He is a strong, active Republican, and a politician (using that
term in its higher sense) of no mean order. For years in Republican
National Conventions he has been a conspicuous figure; and twice
at least--once at Philadelphia in 1900, and again in Chicago in
1908--he has been permanent chairman. On both occasions--and I
attended both conventions--he proved himself to be a splendid
presiding officer. He regards his position as the senior Senator
from Massachusetts, the successor of Webster and Sumner and a long
line of noted men, as even a higher honor then the Presidency
itself.
I have seen it repeatedly stated that Senator Lodge is unpopular
in the Senate,--that he is cold and formal. From my long acquaintance
with him, extending over some seventeen years, I have not found
this to be true. In times of trouble and distress in my own life,
I have found him to be warm and sympathetic.
I hope that he will remain in the Senate for many years to come.
Should he retire, his loss would be severely felt both as a member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations and as a member of the Senate.
Senator Augustus O. Bacon, of Georgia, is now the senior member of
the minority on the committee; and should the control of the Senate
pass into the hands of the Democrats, he will, if he remain in the
Senate, naturally become its chairman. He is an able lawyer, and
if subject to criticism at all, I would say that he is a little
too technical as a jurist. I do not say this to disparage him,
because in the active practice of his profession at the bar this
would be regarded to his credit rather than otherwise; and even as
a member of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, this disposition
to magnify technicalities makes him one of the most valuable members
of that committee. As a Senator, he is jealous of the prerogatives
of the Senate, and vigorously resists the slightest encroachment
on the part of the Executive. He is one of the effective debaters
on the Democratic side of the Senate, and seems to enjoy a controversy
for its own sake. My intercourse with Senator Bacon as a member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations has been most agreeable, and
I have come to like and respect him very much. In my time, he has
been an exceptionally active, useful member, and he has often told
me that he prefers his place as a member of the Foreign Relations
Committee to any other committeeship in the Senate. He is well
equipped, by education and training, for the work of the committee,
and gives close attention to important treaties and other measures
coming before it. He stood with Senator Morgan in opposing the
ratification of the Panama canal treaty, and he was as much in
earnest in his opposition to it as was Senator Morgan; but unlike
the Senator from Alabama, he did not attack Senators personally
who differed from him. When technical matters of importance came
before the committee I usually appointed Senator Spooner and Senator
Bacon as a subcommittee, as I felt that anything that these two
might agree upon would be right, and would be concurred in by the
committee and by the Senate as well.
Senator Clarence D. Clark, of Wyoming, was a member of the House
for two terms, and has served in the Senate for about fifteen years.
In point of service, he is one of the oldest of the Western Senators.
Unlike the Eastern States, very few of the Western States return
their Senators for term after term; and the value of this, as a
matter of State pride, is well demonstrated in the case of Senator
Clark. It has enabled him to reach the high position of chairman
of the Judiciary Committee, the successor of a long line of able
lawyers,--Trumbull, Edmunds, Thurman, Hoar, and O. H. Platt being
a few of his immediate predecessors.
Senator Clark has been a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations
for thirteen years, and a more agreeable member of a committee it
would be difficult to find. He is a capable lawyer, and a man of
sound common sense. I regret that his arduous duties as chairman
of the Judiciary Committee do not permit him to give as close
attention to the Foreign Relations Committee as I would like; but
he always attends when there are matters of particular importance
before it; and I have great respect for his judgment in the
disposition of matters in which he takes any interest at all.
The Hon. Hernando de Soto Money, of Mississippi, has for years been
one of the leading Democratic members of Congress. For fourteen
years he was a member of the House of Representatives, a prominent
member, too, and he has been a member of the Senate since 1897.
His long service in the House at once enabled him to take his place
as a leader of his party, a Senator admired and respected by his
colleagues on both sides. He was appointed to the Foreign Relations
Committee in 1899, and I have been intimately acquainted with him
since.
Senator Money is a highly educated, cultured gentleman, and has
travelled extensively over the world. His broad liberal education,
added to his travel, and his extensive knowledge of world history,
made him an especially valuable member of the committee of which
I am chairman. During the past few years I have sympathized with
him very greatly as he has suffered physical pain to a greater
degree than any other man whom I have known, and yet has insisted
on attending diligently to his official duties. He must be a man
of extraordinary will power, or he would never have been able to
conquer his physical suffering to such an extent as to enable him
to attend to his Senatorial duties, and at the same time to obtain
the fund of information which he possesses, as he demonstrated over
and over again in the Senate.
He retired voluntarily from the Senate on the fourth of March, 1911.
Of the many Senators with whom I have been associated in the
committee on Foreign Relations, and especially since I became its
chairman, there are two, both now retired to private life, in whom
I had the greatest confidence and for whom I entertained great
affection, as they both did for me--these Senators were the Hon.
J. B. Foraker of Ohio, and the Hon. John C. Spooner of Wisconsin.
Senator Foraker preceded Senator Spooner as a member of this
committee by some four years. I do not know how it first came
about, but I became very intimate with Senator Foraker almost
immediately after he entered the Senate, and at once grew to admire
him exceedingly. He is a very brilliant man, and has had a notable
career. He enlisted in the Union Army as a private when sixteen
years old, and retired at the close of the war, a Captain. He then
completed his education, and entered upon the practice of the law.
He was elected Judge of the Superior Court at Cincinnati, and later
became a candidate for Governor. The occupant of many civil
positions of importance in his State, a prominent figure in national
convention after national convention, nominating Senator Sherman
for the Presidency in 1884 and 1888, and placing in nomination Mr.
McKinley in 1896, Senator Foraker had established a record in public
life, and had gathered a wealth of experience, sufficient to satisfy
the ambitions of most men, before his great public career really
commenced as a member of the United States Senate, in 1897. He
also nominated McKinley in 1900.
Senator Foraker was one of the most independent men with whom I
ever served in the Senate. He was a man of such ability and
unquestioned courage that he did not hesitate to take any position
which he himself deemed to be right, regardless of the views of
others. It would inure to the advantage of the country if there
was a more general disposition among public men to adhere to their
own convictions, regardless of what current opinion might be.
Senator Foraker always made up his mind on public questions and
clung to his own opinion in the face of all criticism. The most
striking instance of this trait was when he, the only Republican
Senator to do so, voted against the Hepburn Rate Bill, because he
believed it to be unconstitutional. The very fact that he stood
alone in his opposition to that bill did not seem to bother him in
the least.
On the recommendation of President Roosevelt, the Committee on
Immigration of the Senate attempted to pass a very drastic Chinese
exclusion law. I examined the bill and became convinced at once
that it was absolutely contrary to and in violation of our treaties
with China. I was very much surprised at the time that even Senator
Lodge, one of the most conservative of Senators, supported the
bill. I was deluged with telegrams from labor organizations, as
I knew Senator Foraker was, favoring the passage of the bill; but
he, with Senator Platt of Connecticut, and some others in the
Senate, whom I assisted as best I could, led the opposition to the
bill reported by the Committee on Immigration and defeated it.
Senator Foraker very well knew that his opposition to this bill
would not strengthen him at home, but he disregarded that fact and
opposed it because he believed it was contrary to our treaty
obligations.
A more recent case in which he showed his independence was his
taking up the fight of the troops dismissed on account of the so-
called Brownsville affair. This was very unselfish on the part of
Senator Foraker. He had nothing to gain by espousing the cause of
a few negroes, but much to lose by antagonizing the National
administration. He did not hesitate a moment, however. There is
no question that President Roosevelt acted hastily in dismissing
the entire company; but this was one occasion when President
Roosevelt would not recede even though it became perfectly clear
to almost every one in Congress that he was wrong.
Senator Foraker always did make it a point to attend the meetings
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, but for some reason or other
he was never punctual and was seldom in attendance when the committee
was called to order. But at the same time he was prepared on all
important questions coming before the committee. He seemed to me
to have given attention beforehand to subjects which he knew would
come before a particular meeting, and his opinion on any treaty or
bill before the committee was always sought by his colleagues and
listened to with respect, and almost without exception his opinion
prevailed.
I regretted exceedingly to see him retire from the Senate. From
the time he entered that body, he was consistently one of the
principal defenders of Republican policies and Republican
administrations on the floor of the Senate.
Senator John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, was, in my judgment, one of
the best lawyers who ever served as a member of the Senate, and
among its membership we find the names of the greatest lawyers and
judges of America. He had served in the Civil War, having retired
at its close with the brevet of Major. He early took up the law
as a career, and never abandoned it, even when elected to the
Senate; and as I write this, I believe he is regarded as one of
the foremost lawyers of New York.
He came into the Senate two years after I entered that body, and
I remember him there as opposing the conference report on the
Interstate Commerce Act. His State having passed into the control
of the Democrats, he retired from the Senate in 1891, but was re-
elected in 1897. He declined several tenders of cabinet positions,
preferring to remain independent as a Senator.
I knew him for a good many years. Representing a neighboring State,
as he did in the Senate, I became very intimate with him, and never
had the slightest hesitancy in seeking his advice when I was in
doubt concerning any legal or constitutional question.
Senator Spooner was a much more technical lawyer than Senator
Foraker, but not quite so technical as Senator Bacon. On questions
coming before the Committee on Foreign Relations, his advice was
always to be trusted. My judgment in this respect may be influenced
by our close personal friendship; but I always felt that when I
had his support on any question I was safe and right in the position
I took respecting it. Seldom within my knowledge did the Senate
fail to agree with any attitude that Senator Spooner assumed on a
controverted question.
Senator Spooner was placed on the committee at the time I became
its chairman. At that time there were before the committee treaties,
legislation, and matters of the utmost importance. He entered upon
the work with the greatest interest, and exercised commanding
influence in the disposition of matters under consideration. He
always seemed to take particular interest in my success as chairman
of the committee, and always wanted to assist and help me wherever
he could.
We were wrestling with the Reciprocity treaty with Cuba at a meeting.
It had been before the committee for a number of meetings; Senator
Spooner feared that I was about to turn the treaty over to another
Senator to report, and he sent me, while the committee was in
session, a brief note marked "Confidential." It read:
"The report is that you will give this treaty to another to report.
I think you should report it yourself, as you are not only chairman
of the committee, but you are also a member of the Committee on
Relations with Cuba. Platt spoke to me about it. He felt sensitive
in the first place because the treaty did not go to his committee.
The fact that you and others on this committee were on his committee
reconciled him. I will stand to your shoulder in the fight for
its ratification.
"Yours,
"Spooner."
I hope Senator Spooner, if he does me the honor of glancing through
these rambling recollections, will forgive my quoting this confidential
note without his consent; but I do so only to show the very friendly
and confidential relationship that existed between us.
I doubt very much whether the Colombia or Panama treaty would have
been ratified, or the Panama route selected in preference to the
Nicaraguan route for the Isthmian canal, despite the great influence
of Senator Hanna, had not Senator Spooner joined in advocating the
Panama route.
It was a long and difficult struggle, not only before the Committee
on Foreign Relations, but before the Committee on Interoceanic
Canals, and resulted in the retirement of Senator Morgan as chairman
of the last-mentioned committee--a position he had held for many
years--and in the selection of Senator Hanna to succeed him. But
Senator Spooner, through his technical knowledge, dominated the
Committee on Interoceanic Canals, and succeeded finally in the
passage of the Spooner act which designated Panama, if that route
could be purchased, as the route for the canal.
Senator Spooner was one of the real leaders of the Senate from 1897
until he retired. He was one of the most eloquent men who served
in the Senate during that period. During all the debates on the
Cuban question, the important results growing out of the Spanish-
American War, the question of Imperialism--his participation in
all these momentous subjects was above criticism. I have heard
him in the Senate, speaking day after day. He never grew tiresome;
never repeated himself; always held the most profound attention of
the Senate; and his closing words were listened to with the same
attention and with the same interest, by his colleagues and by the
galleries, as marked the beginning of any of his speeches. After
his conclusions his Republican colleagues invariably gathered around
him, offering their congratulations.
Senator Spooner and Senator Foraker have both retired. It was
thought at the time that their places could not be filled, and I,
as one of the older Senators who remember them well, can not believe
that their places have been filled. Of all the Senators with whom
I have served, Spooner and Foraker were most alike in their combative
natures, in their willingness to take the responsibility to go to
the front to lead the fight. Senators come and go, the personnel
of the Senate changes, one Senator will be replaced by another,
but the Senate itself will go on as long as the Republic endures.
One of the most dignified, honest, straightforward, capable men
with whom I have served, was the Hon. Charles W. Fairbanks, of
Indiana. He was a devoted adherent, friend, and follower of the
late President McKinley, and had been his friend long before he
was nominated for President in 1896. Senator Fairbanks took a very
prominent part in that convention, was its temporary chairman, and
in 1900 was chairman of the Committee on Resolutions of the National
Convention which met at Philadelphia. He entered the Senate in
1897, and during the following year was appointed by President
McKinley a member of the United States and British Joint High
Commission for the adjustment of all outstanding questions concerning
the United States and Canada. The commission was an exceedingly
important one, but failing to agree on the Alaskan boundary, it
was compelled to adjourn without settling any of the questions
before it. Its labors were not wasted, however, as it furnished
the nucleus for the final adjustment of those questions under the
administration of Mr. Root, in the State Department.
Senator Fairbanks was a close personal friend of President McKinley,
and almost immediately assumed quite an important position in the
Senate. He was appointed to the Committee on Foreign Relations,
of which he was quite an able and influential member, as he was of
every committee of the Senate on which he served. He accepted the
nomination of the Republican Convention of 1904 for Vice-President.
I considered that his proper place was in the Senate; but for some
reason or other he gave it out that he would not decline the
nomination for the office of Vice-President, and neither would he
seek it. The Convention very wisely determined that he was the
best candidate that could be nominated. The duties of the Vice-
President are not very arduous; but in all my service in the Senate
I do not know of a Vice-President who so strictly observed the
obligation adherent to the office as did Mr. Fairbanks. He was a
candidate for President in 1908 but was defeated by President Taft.
Since his retirement from the Vice-Presidency, he has at least
twice been tendered high appointments in the diplomatic service,
first as Ambassador to the Court of St. James, and, later (it having
been rumored while he was travelling in China that he had expressed
himself as favorably inclined toward the acceptance of the position
of minister to that country), Secretary Knox indicated a desire
through mutual friends to have him appointed. Mr. Fairbanks thanked
his friends, but declined the appointment.
In his tour around the world after retiring from the office of Vice-
President, he conducted himself with great dignity and propriety.
Senator Albert J. Beveridge succeeded Senator Fairbanks, as a member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations. For years Senator Beveridge
had seemed more than anxious to become a member of this committee.
When he first entered the Senate he thought he should have been
made one of its members, as he had always taken a deep interest in
foreign matters; but the Committee on Organization determined that
his colleague, Senator Fairbanks, was entitled to the preference.
When Senator Fairbanks retired, I requested the Committee on
Organization to place Senator Beveridge on my committee, which it
did.
I have always admired Senator Beveridge. He is an exceptionally
engaging speaker, a brilliant man, and so talented that one cannot
help being attracted to him. I had heard of him years before he
entered the Senate. The late Senator McDonald of Indiana, a strong,
gifted lawyer and the highest type of a man, told me one day that
he had a young man in his office, named Beveridge, who knew more
about the politics of the day than almost any other man in the
State, and he believed he would be a controlling factor in Republican
politics in Indiana.
Senator Beveridge is a popular magazine writer, as he is one of
the most popular public speakers of to-day. As a campaign orator,
his services are constantly in demand.
I regret very much to say, that notwithstanding Senator Beveridge's
prior anxiety to become a member of the Committee on Foreign
Relations, after his appointment he attended very few meetings and
apparently took little interest in its business. His duties as
Chairman of the Committee on Territories, combined with work on
other committees, necessarily consumed most of his time.
For a number of years after the Hon. John Kean, of New Jersey,
entered the Senate, I had no special acquaintance with him, and I
did not welcome him particularly when he was made a member of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, in 1901. Since then I have become
very intimate with Senator Kean, and there have been few men on
the committee for whom I entertained a higher regard, or in whom
I placed more confidence. He was a very industrious and useful
member, as he is in the Senate. He filled quite a prominent place
in the Senate, and watched legislation probably more closely than
any other member. He was always familiar with the bills on the
calendar, and made it a point to object to any questionable measures
that came before the Senate. He advanced in influence and power
very rapidly in the last few years of his service. Through Senator
Kean, I have been enabled very often to expedite the passage of
measures, not only coming from the Committee on Foreign Relations,
but bills in which I have been interested pertaining to the affairs
of my own State. If the Senate had what is known as a "whip," I
would say that Senator Kean comes more nearly being the Republican
"whip" than any other Senator, with the possible exception, in
recent years, of Senator Murray Crane, of Massachusetts.
Senator Thomas H. Carter, of Montana, a member of the committee in
the Sixty-first Congress, was one of the most popular members of
the Senate. His ability as a lawyer and legislator, combined with
his wit and keen sense of humor, enabled him to assume quite a
commanding position in that body. When feeling ran high in debate,
sometimes almost to the point of personal encounter, Senator Carter
would appear, and by a few well-chosen words, voiced in his calm,
quiet manner, throw oil upon the troubled waters, and peace again
reigned supreme.
I have known Senator Carter for very many years. I knew him as a
young man. His home was at one time in Illinois, at the little
town of Pana, about twenty-five miles from my own home at Springfield.
He has held many public offices. Delegate from the Territory of
Montana, member of the Fifty-first Congress, Commissioner of the
General Land Office, Senator from 1895 to 1901 and from 1905 to
1906, Chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1892, he
has in all these positions distinguished himself as a man of a high
order of ability. I have always liked Senator Carter very much,
and I was glad indeed that he was named a member of the Committee
on Foreign Relations. He is a very useful and influential member,
as he is of the Senate.
Senator William Alden Smith, of Michigan, was only recently placed
on the Committee on Foreign Relations, quite a distinction for a
Senator who had served for so brief a time as a member of the
Senate. Senator Smith, however, was a prominent member of the
House for many years, and was elected to the Senate while serving
as a member of the House of Representatives. He has taken position
in the Senate very rapidly. He is a lawyer of experience and long
practice, and an industrious and competent legislator. He is always
watchful of the interests of his State. He took a prominent part
in the consideration of the treaties between the United States and
Great Britain concerning Canada, more especially the boundary and
water-way treaties. It was through his efforts that an amendment
to the latter treaty was adopted, which he considered necessary to
protect the interests of his State, and which I greatly feared
would result in the rejection of the treaty by the Canadian
Parliament. I am very glad to say, however, that the treaty has
been ratified by both Governments, and only recently proclaimed.
Senator Smith has taken a keen interest in matters before the
Committee on Foreign Relations, and with his experience, industry,
and capacity, he is bound to become a very useful member of the
committee.
One of the last members to be appointed on the Committee on Foreign
Relations was the Hon. Elihu Root, of New York. He is one of the
greatest men and ablest Senators who have ever been members of the
committee. When he became a member of it, he was not at all a
stranger, for the reason that he, on my invitation, had, while
Secretary of State, for two years previous to his retirement from
that office, attended almost every meeting of the committee.
Between Mr. Hay and the members of the Senate, there was not the
close relationship which should have existed between that body and
the State Department.
Secretary Hay was not disposed to cultivate friendly relations with
Senators, and certain remarks he made concerning the Senate as a
body were very distasteful to Senators; and although I had invited
him, he seemed very averse to coming before the Committee on Foreign
Relations. I did not press the point. The result was that important
treaties and other matters were constantly sent in, with which the
members of the committee were not familiar, and we had to grope in
the dark, as it were, and inform ourselves concerning them as best
we could.
But when Mr. Root became Secretary of State, I resolved to insist
that the Secretary meet with us from time to time, and explain such
treaties and measures as might need explanation, and upon which
the Administration was anxious to secure favorable action. In
other words, there should be closer relationship between the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the State Department than had
formerly existed. I first saw President Roosevelt and told him I
hoped Mr. Root would come before the committee as occasion might
require. The President seemed at once impressed with the propriety
of the proposed plan, and remarked in his own characteristic fashion:
"That is just the thing." I then saw Mr. Root, whom I knew very
well as Secretary of War, and he was more than pleased with the
suggestion, asserting that it was just what he wanted to do. It
so happened that during his administration of the State Department
he found it necessary to negotiate more treaties, and treaties of
greater importance, than any of his more recent predecessors in
that high office, and he became so constant and punctual in his
attendance at the meetings of the committee that we grew almost to
regard him as a regular member, even before he entered the Senate.
He has served on the committee but two sessions, but even in that
short time he has proved his fitness to fill the gap left by the
retirement of Senators Spooner and Foraker. As a lawyer he is as
brilliant as either of those men, and probably, owing to his
executive experience, a more efficient statesman. I regard him as
the best qualified man in this country for any position in the
public service which he would accept. He would make a strong
President, and as a Senator he is equipped with extraordinary
qualifications. If he remains in the Senate, by sheer force of
ability alone he is bound to become its acknowledged leader. We
have never had a stronger Secretary of State. Mr. Hay was a very
great man in many respects, and could handle an international
question, especially pertaining to the Far East, with more skill
than any of his predecessors; but Mr. Root, while probably not as
well versed in diplomacy as Mr. Hay, is one of the foremost lawyers
in America, and has the faculty of going into the minutest details
of every question, large or small, even to the extent of reorganizing
all the multitude of details of the State Department. He was the
real head of the department, and supervised every matter coming
before it.
As Secretary of State he made it one of his policies to bring the
republics of this hemisphere into closer relationship with one
another. He visited South and Central America, and did much to
bring about a friendly feeling with the republics of those regions.
He is one of those who insisted upon the absolute equality of
nations, both great and small; and in this he was particularly
pointed in his instructions to the delegates representing the United
States at the Second Peace Conference at The Hague.
He did not retire from the State Department until he had adjusted
almost, if not all, outstanding questions between the United States
and other Nations. He closed up the work of the Joint High
Commission, and by a series of treaties adjusted every factor of
difference between the United States and Great Britain concerning
Canada.
Bringing the consideration of the personnel of the committee up to
the close of the Sixty-first Congress, there remain to be mentioned
only William J. Stone, of Missouri, and Benjamin F. Shively, of
Indiana, both Democrats. Mr. Stone and Mr. Shively are not only
new men on the committee, but both of them are comparatively new
to the Senate. They had, however, been sufficiently tried in other
fields of effort to justify their States in sending them to this
exalted body, and the records both have made here have well vindicated
their selection. In a comparatively brief time they have attained
to positions of leadership on the Democratic side of the chamber,
and since they have become members of this committee they have
manifested an unusual grasp of international subjects. They are
from States which adjoin my own State of Illinois, and I am especially
pleased to have them as members of the committee of which I am
chairman.