The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-03-26

rimanding them when il was deemed
proper. There was, however, one case,
Mr.. McCreary said, where the acts Of
diplomatic officer had been condemned by
the house. and that was Of prominent
Republican, Hon. Robert Schenck, the
minister to Great Britain, whose conduct
in the Emma Silver mine was jnvestigat-
ed by committee of the house and resO-
lutions reported condemnng his action.
Mr.. Bayard WAS not the first diplomatic
officer representing the United States who
had been assailed by his political oppon-
ents while representing his country in
England, and vote of censllre prompted
by prejudice and partisanship," will not
he said, hurt Mr.. Bayard.
The animus and purpose were too well
understood. II might prove garland of
distinction and open the way to him for
higher offices and greater honOrs. The
people of this country, he continued, know
that Thomas i. Bayard had proved him
self patriot, statesman and faithful
public servant, and the people were behind
him in his opposition to protection and
trusts in far greater numbers than they
are behind those who sought TO condemn
and censure him. TO censure Mr. Bay
ard at this time, Mr.. McCreary thought
would be detrimental TO the cordial and
pleasant relations between our country
and Great Britain and would detract from
the prestige and confidence which he
should have when he, as diplomatic Otll-
Ger, represents our country in ncgOtla-
tions concerning important questions now
pending. 1t was perfectly clear TO his
mind that the real gravamcn Of this at
tack" against Mr.. Bayard was the refer
ence to "protectiOn" in the Edinburgh
speech. The question Of sO-called pro-
lection, Mr.. McCreary declared, was
living, important, absorbing question
which was engaging the attention of the
civilized world. 1t was natural, there
FORE in n comprehensive address to edu-
Gators and students, that Mr. Bayard
should give his views on protection.
Mr.. McCreaTy concluded in part as
follows:
"When citizen Of our free country
becomes an ambassador or II minister,
should he be required to surrender or sup
press his sentiments! Should he not
have the right to speak his sentiments
politely and respectfully if they are in ac-
cord with the policy of the government he
represents? The people of the civilized
world are aware of the political revOlu'
tons which occur in this republic, and
they are aware that we do not have in
this country special diplomatic corps in
office for life. but that our ambassadors
and ministers are appointed from the po-
litical party in power. They are men
who supported the president whose com
mission they bear, and they uphold the
principles of his administration. Then
views on these policies should give no of
Tense at home if they give none abroad.
/ am sure the Republican majority of
this house will have more praise for alb
staining from the adoption of the pend
ing resolutions than they will have if they
adopt them"
While Mr.. McCreary was referring to
the Boston speech in which Mr.. Bayard
gaiI N tnnk "a s'rnaI ms IN pnunruN tbp
people of the United States Mr.. Gros
venor Qtep.) Of Ohio interrupted to ask
if he (McCreary) believed the president
governed the people; if so, whether he gov
erned the Democratic party, and specially
whether he governed any public question.
Mr.. McCreary replied lightly that he |
supposed Mr.. Grosvenor was trying to !
have little fun ut his expense. Serious
ly, however he replied to Mr.. Grosvenors |
question in the affirmative. He was al |
ways willing, he said, to uphold the pres, |
ident of the United States when he was !
discharging his duties under the consti- |
tuition.
Mr., Paper Wep) of Massachusetts,, a !
member of the committee, in Il few words |
explained his position against the resolu- !
tion Of censurc. This was not, he |
thought, time for sepsN iona ism.
We had trouble enough, he thought, |
present and prospective, in our foreign re-
lations without censuring our chief diplo-
matte representative.
He agreed that Mr.. Bayard's utter
ances were hardly proper, but did not |
think they merited such harsh action.
The last resolution dcprccating parti- /
sanship by diplomatic representatives he |
anought, entirely proper. He therefore
asked that the resolution be divided and |
separate vote had on each.
Mr.. Cousins of Iowa, also member of |
the committee, supported the resolutions. |
"This deliberate and unexpected breach |
of diplomatic etiquette said Mr.. Cou-
sins, "this ungrateful, unproyokcd and
unbecoming insult To majority OF the |
people of America, to her distinguished |
living and her honorcd dead, by one who |
bore their confidence, their mission and
their credentials, must not be left I'M |
challenged since it has entered the an |
nails of our diplomatic history"
Mr.. Bayard, he declared, toNdied to his
own prejudice, told Great Britain that
protection in America had banshed men
of independent minds and character from
its public councils, when he knew that
the list of its illustrious advocates, begin
ing with the distinguished names of
Washington and Madison and Franklin,
had never ceased to grow where progress
marked the way until it had recorded in
the register of Independent minds and
fame the names of Clay, of Jackson and
of Webster; of Lincoln and of Grant, of
Garfield, of Randall and of Blaine, and
he knew that almost on the very day he
uttered that indictment the list of indie
pendent minds that champion the doc
trine of protection in America had grown
TO the greatest and most significant
that ever spoke their independence at
popular election in this country.
Referring to Mr.. Bayard's statement
that protection in America dangerously
depletes the treasury" Mr.. Cousins said:
''From the time the party of protection
took the treasury there was never a de-
fciency for % successive years, until the
black raven of free trade pcrchcd again
above our treasury door and hootcd:
Surplus, surplus, never more"
Mr.. Cousins speech aroused great en-
thusiasm, and he was warmly congratu-
lated.
Mr.. Dnsmore Dem.) of Arkansas, OPP