CONGRESS UNDER THE TAFT ADMINISTRATION
It had been my intention to close these recollections with the
beginning of the Taft Administration, but their publication has
been deferred until the Administration extended so far that it
seems proper to bring my observations up to date. I am especially
impelled to this course by the fact that the present era has
developed a very marked change in the character of the Senate, and,
to a limited extent at least, in the trend of political thought in
the country at large--a change which should be noted in any permanent
writing dealing with the period. Still, I have no intention of
entering upon a detailed consideration of men or of conditions.
My only purpose is to make brief mention of these conditions and
to refer in very general terms to some who have given direction to
recent public affairs.
Observers of public events and students of political questions
probably were given their first insight into the tendency of the
times through the resignation from the Senate of Honorable John C.
Spooner, of Wisconsin, which was tendered March 30, 1907. I have
made frequent reference to Mr. Spooner's connection with the Senate,
and I do not intend to say more of him here than that he stood for
conservatism and the old traditions. Sensitive to a degree to the
promptings of his conscience, and still desirous of representing
the sentiment of his constituents, apparently he found himself
embarrassed by the growth in his State of what, without intending
any disrespect, I may designate as "La Follette-ism."
Gradually Hon. Robert M. La Follette, who previously had served
several terms in the House of Representatives, had been forging
his way to the front in Wisconsin politics until in 1905 he was
elected to serve as Mr. Spooner's colleague in the Senate. He
stood for radicalism in the Republican party as against Mr. Spooner's
conservatism; he was the advocate of many innovations and experiments,
while Mr. Spooner held to the old and tried forms of procedure in
public affairs. Whether Mr. La Follette was the leader of this
new propaganda or the follower of a growing sentiment in the State
does not matter to this record. It is sufficient to know that
apparently Wisconsin public opinion did not support Mr. Spooner to
a sufficient extent to justify a man of his conscientious disposition
in retaining his place as the representative of the people of that
State in the highest legislative body of the Nation. Moreover,
splendid lawyer that he was, he knew that he could find much more
lucrative employment outside the halls of legislation, and he felt
the need of making adequate provision for his family. In consequence
of these conditions, he left the Senate, and thus opened the way
for the more rapid promotion in that body of the new school of
politics for which his colleague stood, a school which, while it
has found some exponents in the House of Representatives, is not
comparatively so largely represented there as in the Senate.
The La Follette group is designated by its own disciples as
"Progressivism," whereas by outsiders it is generally referred to
as "Insurgency." Mr. La Follette came to the Senate with the Fifty-
ninth Congress, and no sooner had he entered that body then he
began to propound his doctrines there. At first, he stood alone,
but natural inclination soon drew to him such of the older Senators
as the late Jonathan P. Dolliver, of Iowa, and Moses E. Clapp, of
Minnesota, both of them men of splendid attainments and of high
moral character. With the incoming of Mr. Taft as President came
also Albert B. Cummins, of Iowa, Joseph L. Bristow, of Kansas, and
Coe I. Crawford, of South Dakota, all of whom joined heartily with
Mr. La Follette in his efforts to shape legislation.
During the Sixty-first Congress, the tariff law was revised. The
Dingley Act of 1897 had grown unpopular in some portions of the
country, because it was believed that under it the duties were not
equitably distributed, and the campaign of 1908 had been fought
upon a platform declaring for a revision. When, therefore, Congress
met in March, 1909, being called together in extraordinary session
by President Taft, every one recognized the necessity for entering
upon this work. There had been no specific declaration in the
platform as to the character of the revision. Some, commonly called
"stand-patters," contended for a readjustment without any general
lowering of rates, while others held out stiffly for a reduction
all along the line. The result of the work of Congress was the
enactment of what is known as the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Law of 1909,
the measure taking its name on account of the joint efforts in its
behalf of the Honorable Sereno Payne, of New York, Chairman of the
Committee of Ways and Means of the House, and Honorable Nelson W.
Aldrich, of Rhode Island, Chairman of the Committee on Finance of
the Senate. The Payne-Aldrich law is a Protective measure, as it
was intended to be. The Progressives, in both the Senate and House,
sought at every step to reduce the schedules, but generally without
success. In this effort, they were supported by Democratic Senators
and Representatives, but the "Old Guard" controlled such a pronounced
majority in both Houses as to render the opposing efforts futile,
fierce though they were. So general was this conflict that in many
matters the Progressives soon established a faction of their own.
There were many skirmishes all along the line. Their divergence
from the views of Regular Republicanism was indicated not on the
tariff alone, but on many other questions of public policy which
I may say I regard as extremely visionary and impracticable.
The controversy also covered the methods of procedure of both the
Senate and the House, and the fight on "Uncle" Joe Cannon as Speaker,
or on "Cannonism," which characterized the last session of the
Sixty-first Congress, was one of the instances of this difference
of opinion in the party. In a less pronounced manner the Progressives
also have shown an inclination to antagonize and overturn the
customs of the Senate. They feel the restraint of some of the
Senate's established rules, and, together with the radical element
which has been introduced on the Democratic side of the Senate
Chamber, they manifest evident impatience with these regulations.
That fine old term "senatorial courtesy" has lost much of its
meaning as a result of the brusque and breezy manner of the time.
No longer is it said that the young Senator must be seen rather
than heard. Indeed, while formerly the spectacle of a Senator
rising to make a speech before the close of his second year in the
Senate was regarded as unusual, it recently has come to be remarked
upon if a new man remains in his seat for two months before
undertaking to enlighten the Senate as to its duties towards itself
and the world.
I am not undertaking here to pronounce against these innovations,
but merely to record facts. I have shown my advocacy of proper
railroad legislation and of other progressive legislation which
commended itself to my judgment. However, I am classed as a Regular
and desire to be. My votes have been with the party organization.
I have made it a rule throughout my political career to stand for
the general principles of the party as enunciated by its authorized
bodies; but while that is my course, I do not pretend to say that
that organization always represents all that is good and best for
the country or that in many cases the Progressives and Insurgents
may not be nearer right than the Regulars. In the main, however,
I have found that the best results are obtained through following
the course indicated by the united wisdom of the party. My plan
has been to exert my influence in the direction of careful and
conservative progression within established party lines, and in
such a course do I believe that the Republican party can best insure
its perpetuity.
Senator Spooner's resignation from the Senate was followed by the
refusal of Senators Hale and Aldrich to stand for re-election in
1911. The retirement of those three distinguished leaders constitutes
the best index of the tendency of the times. Men of experience,
dignity, and conservatism, they voluntarily gave way before the
press of public exigency. True, they consulted their own inclinations,
but I always have thought that if the old conditions had continued
in the Senate they would have elected to remain there. Their seats
are filled by good and true men, but by men of very different
characteristics, unless an exception may be made in Senator Aldrich's
case, whose successor, Henry F. Lippitt, appears to be a man much
like his predecessor. Whether the change will be beneficial or
otherwise remains to be seen, but my optimism is so great I do not
believe that anything but good can come permanently to this great
country of ours. I confess to a liking for the old methods.
This general change of public sentiment has brought into the Senate
not only Mr. La Follette, Mr. Bristow, Mr. Clapp, Mr. Cummins, and
Mr. Crawford, but also a number of other men of similar views, so
that within six or seven years the progressive group has increased
to thirteen members, more than one-fourth of the membership of the
Senate.
I shall not undertake to mention all of those contained in this
little body, but I have been so impressed with the bearing of
Senator William E. Borah, of Idaho, and Senator Joseph M. Dixon,
of Montana, that I do not feel justified in passing them by unnoticed.
They are both very able men and men of high purpose. They do not
stand with this group all the time; neither goes where his convictions
do not lead.
Moreover, these Republicans of supposedly advanced thought have
found their counterpart in a number of new Senators who have taken
their seats on the Democratic side. The Democrats, as well as the
Republicans, have their Progressive, or Radical, element, and while
the Democratic representatives of this thought differ from those
on the Republican side on the subject of Protection, they have co-
operated in the interest of what they consider a closer approach
to the demands of the people on other subjects of legislation. On
the tariff schedules, which have been presented during the special
session of the Sixty-second Congress now coming to a close, they
also have stood together, forming what some have been pleased to
christen the "Unholy Alliance." Both Republicans and Democrats of
the radical type are contending for a lower tariff, but this one
important difference is noticeable: while there is a tendency on
the Democratic side toward free trade, the Republican members of
the alliance hold out for the protective principle.
It is pleasant to me to be able to record that while a sufficient
number of new men have come into the Senate to cause a modification
of its general appearance and apparent purposes, there still are
enough representatives of the old element to cause it to retain
its distinctive character as the most conservative deliberative
body in this country. In addition to the new men, such capable
legislators remain as Lodge and Crane, of Massachusetts, Brandegee,
of Connecticut, Burton, of Ohio, Jones, of Washington, Root, of
New York, Gallinger and Burnham, of New Hampshire, Heyburn, of
Idaho, Penrose and Oliver, of Pennsylvania, Perkins, of California,
Smoot and Sutherland, of Utah, Clark and Warren, of Wyoming,
Dillingham and Page, of Vermont, Wetmore, of Rhode Island, Curtis,
of Kansas, McCumber, of North Dakota, Gamble, of South Dakota,
William Alden Smith and Charles E. Townsend, of Michigan, Bradley,
of Kentucky, and others, all Republicans, while among the old-time
Democrats should be mentioned such stanch and true men as Martin,
of Virginia, Bacon, of Georgia, Bailey and Culberson, of Texas,
Taylor, of Tennessee, Shively, of Indiana, Tillman, of South
Carolina, Fletcher, of Florida, Foster, of Louisiana, Johnston and
Bankhead, of Alabama, Stone, of Missouri, Clarke, of Arkansas,
Newlands, of Nevada, and still others who, though their names may
not be mentioned, all command the high regard of their colleagues.
The question is often asked, "Who has succeeded Aldrich as leader
of the Senate?" No one. Practically, there are three parties in
the Senate, consisting of thirty-seven Regular Republicans, forty-
one Democrats, and thirteen Insurgent Republicans. In caucus, the
Insurgents act with the Regulars, but in legislation, they more
frequently line up with the Democrats. The consequence is that no
party is in control, and therefore that no party can dictate the
course of leadership. Under such circumstances, real leadership
is out of the question. Senator Penrose succeeds Senator Aldrich
as Chairman of the Committee on Finance, and is proving thoroughly
competent for his work in that capacity. If emergency should arise
throwing the direction of affairs into the hands of the Republican
party, he might also succeed the Rhode Island Senator to the
leadership of the Republican forces, but until such emergency
presents itself, no one can see whether that position would fall
to him or to some other Republican. Leaders are born, not made.
Leadership is not a matter of selection, but of fitness.
Up to the present writing (August, 1911), President Taft has been
in office almost two and a half years, and while, like all Presidents,
he has been criticised, I am confident that in the end the first
half of his administration will receive the approval of the historian.
Personally, no more popular man ever occupied the office of Chief
Executive, and his popularity is due to his honesty of purpose and
his love for his fellow man. His administration has witnessed such
a prosecution of the unlawful trusts as never before has been known,
and the President himself has been engaged in a constant endeavor
for legislation which would equalize the benefits of American
citizenship, relieve the distresses of the less fortunate, and put
a stop to graft, wherever found. Under his direction, the Interstate
Commerce Law has been vastly improved, postal savings banks have
been established, and the conservation of our natural resources
has been placed upon a safe and sane basis. He has pressed
Reciprocity and Arbitration with other Nations, and he has established
such an era of good fellowship among public men of all parties and
beliefs as seldom has been known in our history. If the remainder
of his administration proves as successful as that which has passed,
he will deserve, as I believe he will receive, the endorsement of
the people through an election to a second term.
The present presiding officer of the Senate is Hon. James Schoolcraft
Sherman, who was elected Vice-President on the national ticket of
1908 with President Taft. Mr. Sherman brings to this office an
experience of twenty years as a member of the House of Representatives
from the Utica district, much of which time he was a member of the
Committee on Rules. He is an accomplished parliamentarian, a fact
which taken in connection with his genial disposition, his kindness
of heart, and, above all, his love of justice, renders him one of
the most acceptable presiding officers that the Senate ever has
had. He has held his office during all of the regular session of
the Sixty-first Congress and has been constantly in his seat during
the special session of the Sixty-second Congress, and it is safe
to say that in so brief a time no man has more thoroughly endeared
himself to members of the Senate of whatever party or faction.
Occasionally, of course, as is the case with all presiding officers,
his decisions are challenged; but I believe he has been uniformly
sustained; and even such proceedings are stripped of all appearance
of rancor through his kindness of manner and his evident conviction.
He is a fit successor of Hobart and Fairbanks.