The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-23
LIVELY TILT BETWEEN
GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR
AND CAPT. J. B. FORAKER
Venerable Bay State Senator Ac-
cuses the Ohioan of Misrep-
resenting Him.
AN EXCITING INCIDENT
Both Statesmen Gesticulate Earn
estly, Approach Each Other,
but Do No Damage.

| WASHINGTON, Feb. 22.-The feature Of
to-day's session of the Senate was a speech
| from Mr. Hoar in explanation of his former
speech on the isthman canal situation. he
complained of the criticisms OF his utter
ances at that time, saying that he had been
misunderstood and misrepresented and con-
] tended that his intention on that occasion
had been to secure full information con-
corning the Panama revolt and not 10 cast
reflections on the President On the con-
trary he had the highest regard for that
| official and intended TO vote for the treaty.
| Mr.. Foraker was mentioned, among
others, who had criticised the first speech.
! and, after Mr.. Hoar had concluded, the
! Ohio senator replied that he had not meant
unjustly to reflect on Mr.. Hoar and justi-
| flying his remarks by quoting from Mr..
| Hoar's original speech. Mr.. Hoar replied
| by accusing Mr.. Foraker not only of having
| misrepresented him on the first occasion,
but of misrepresenting him to-day. The re-
suit was a sharp collOquy at short range,
and when it came to a conclusion the sena-
tors did not appear to have approached any
nearer to an understanding than at the
beginning.
The trouble began when Mr.. Foraker re-
| ferred to the fact that Mr.. Hoar, in his
/ first speech, had quoted number of Of
fetal kilograms bearing on the situation
| in Panama declaring the conclusion that
| the United States had encouraged the Pan
| anna revolution and then had taken the
spoils.
Mr. Hoar evidently was nettled by the
statement and he interrupted Mr.. Foraker
to say that this was not his conclusion, but
the conclusion of others, and that he had
| mentioned the fact. On the contrary, he
| had spoken in praise of the President.
| Mr.. Foraker said the Massachusetts, SEN
ator had spoken in terms of praise of the
| President 'hut of what avail all that
when coupled with the senator's interpreta-
| ton of the kilograms and that in the face
of what the President had said about hav
| ing no completely in the Panama upris-
| ing"
Mr.. Hoar said he had no doubt of Mr..
| Forakers sincerity, "but," he said, L can
| not reconcile his expression of respect for
me with his expression of disbelief of what
| L say in my position.
Mr. Foraker said he was merely follow
| ing Mr.. Hoars example, who had both
praised and criticised the President in his
| former speech.
The senator totally perverts,. what I
said" replied Mr.. Hoar. He did so on
the previous occasion and he does so now.
and he does, not from any desire to do so.
but solely because of his being in very
jealous and heated frame of mind.
ITO whom" asked Mr.. Foraker. did the
| senator refer as a policeman" alludlng to
a former speech by Mr.. Hoar in which he
compared the United States in the Panama
| affair TO a big policeman who manacled
small man and then seized the spoils.
Mr.. Hoar replied that he did not mean the
| President and he insisted that MT. FORAKER
| had undertaken to interpret his meaning
| by separating statement of his speech
| from the context.
III. x.,;+ fu-n nr
| three feet of each other and talked back
and forth directly. They gesticulated
earnestly and spoke with great emphasis,
| frequently punctuating their remarks with
| expressions of mutual regard. Each as
serted more than once that the other was
[, mistaken and as frequently the statement
| was made that each had been misunder-
| stood. The situation was quite tense and
1 endured for several minutes until the pre-
ton of the rules of debate. The immediate
point of dispute the question whether
at the time of Mr.. Hoar's former speech
| denial had been made of the Presidents
completely in the Panama affair, Mr. Hoar
contending that no such denial had been
made. When Mr.. Foraker said it had been
the Massachusetts senator replied in so
| many words, that l deny.
Mr.. Hoar charged that Mr.. Foraker had
done him an injustice, but the latter re-
piled that such was not the case. On the
| contrary, the injustice had been done to
him (Foraker) Every senator knew the
President denied the completely charge
through the press Sald MT fOraker, ana
| I'm view of that denial he had absolute
faith in the President and his administra-
| ton. His complaint was that Mr.. Hoar
had put the President in a false light.
Mr.. Hoar replied that the President
should make his communications to the
Congress, and not to the press, and Mr.
| Foraker replied that that, too, had been
! done.
Other speeches were made during the
| day by Mr.. Carmack whose remarks were
| devoted to a ,censure of Minister Bunau
| Vanilla and nv ('llllOm WI n baf
| man of the committee on foreign relations
| has had charge of the treaty. He upheld
| the treaty throughout. The Senate ad-
journed until IL o'clock tomorrow.