The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1904-02-23
ONE REPUBLICAN
FIGHTS Big NAVY
Representative Burton Says
Doubling 1t Is Not a
Peace Measure.

WASHINGTON, d. c., Feb. 22.-The
naval appropriation bill TODAY encoun-
tered opposition on the Republican side
or the house. Mr.. Burton, Chairman of
the river and harbor committee an
nounced in vigorous speech that he
could not support a bill which declares
that the United States. which. in his
VleW' should be the leader in all works
Ior peace, is going to double, treble and
quadruple its naval establishment all
/ under the assertion that if is done for
peace He questioned the need of so
great navy as the bill concentrates.
asserting that the Monroe doctrine and
the supremacy of this country on this
side of the world is secure and that
the control of the Philippines by this
country has not been questioned. He
asked the minority why, in view of the
declarations in the Kansas CITY Mat
FORM, they had not opposed these ex-
penditures.
Mr. Williams, the minority leader
SAID the inquiry put the Democrats in
an unfair attitude, as the failure Of tbA
Dill would mean that ships under con-
struction would rot at the docks and
sailors would go unfed
Mr.. Burton replied that he did NOT
want to be understood as opposing work
under construction or the maintenance
of the navy
Inc hrst incident of the day was an
unsuccessful effort by the minority tn
secure an adjournment on account of
the anniversary of WaShington's birth
day. . 'oll , W III
Mr.. Rixey Va.), quoting from an adj
pIcoo u senator Moody at a recent
hn.
secretary approximations over the oh
9eIVdIlohS made in the senate concern
ing the navy by the senator from Marv
rama (Mr. Germany only on the ground
that ne feared that the senator MIGHT
De CHOSEN as the standard bearer of his
party ana be successful and thus be
transferred to another forum. where he
might WELD a greater influence Con
SIderatIon of the bill was pending when
the house adjourned.
Republican Senators Quarrel.
The feature of todays session of the
senate was a speech from Mr. Hoar IN
explanation of his former speech on
the 1sthmian canal situation. He com
planned OF the criticisms Of his utter
ahces az that time. saying that he had
Deen misunderstood and nisrenra
scented, and contended that his inten-
ton on that occasion had been to Sc
cure full information concerning the
Panama revolt and not to cast reflec-
tons on the president On the con-
trary, he had the highest regard for
mat 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 con-
| Guided, the Ohio senator replied that
| ne had not meant to unjustly reflect
4 uDOn
! marks by quoting from Mr.. Hoar's
| original speech.
Mr.. Hoar replied, accusing Mr.. For
aker not only Of having misrepresent-
| ed him on the former occasion, but Of
! misrepresenting him today. The re-
! suit was a sharp colloquy at short
l range, and when it came to a conclu-
| sion, the senators did not appear to
| have approached any nearer an under
| standing than at the beginning.
| Mr.. Foraker referred to the fact that
| Mr.. Hoar in his first speech had quot
| ed official kilograms bearing on the
| situation In Panama. declaring the
| conclusion that the United States had
| encouraged the Panama revolution,
and then had taken the spoils.
Mr.. Hoar interrupted 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 presi-
dent.
What Does Such Praise Signify?
Mr.. Foraker said the Massachusetts
| senator had spoken in terms Of praise
of the president, "but of what avail is
all that when coupled with the SEN
ator's Interpretation of the kilograms,
and that in the face of what the presi-
dent had said about having no COM
Mi m
Mr.. Hoar said he had no doubt Of
Mr.. Foraker's sincerity, but" he said,
II cannot reconcile his expression Of
| respect for me with his expression Of
| disbelief Of what I say Is my position"
Mr.. Foraker said he was merely fol-
lowing the example Of Mr.. Hoar, VINO
had both praised and criticised the
president in his former speech.
1.-The senator totally perverts what
said" replied Mr.. Hoar. "He did so on
the previous occasion and he does so
now; not from any desire to do so, but
solely because he speaks in very zeal
Gus and heated frame of mind"
ITO whom" asked Mr.. Foraker, did
you refer as a policeman? abiding to
q former speech made by Mr.. Hoar in
which he compared the United States
in the Panama affair to big police
man who manacled a small man. and
then seized the spoils.
MIR. HOar replIeQ CndI ne -Qlu nOL
mean the president, and he insisted that
Mr.. Foraker had undertaken to inter-
pref his meaning by separating state
ment OF his speech from the context.
The two senators stood within three
feet of each other and talked back and
forth directly. They gesticulated earn
estIy and spoke with great emphasis,
frequently punctuating their remarks
with expressions of mutual regard.
Each asserted more than once that the
other was mistaken and as frequently
the statement was made that each had
been misunderstood. The situation was
quite tense until the presiding officer
called attention to the violation Of the
rules of debate.
Almost "You're Another"
The immediate point of dispute was
the question whether at the time Of
Hoar's former speech denial had been
made of the presidents completely in
the Panama affair, Mr.. Hoar contend
ing that no such denial had been made.
When Mr.. Foraker said 1t had been
the Massachusetts, senator replied:
THAT l deny"
Mr.. Hoar charged that Foraker had
done him an injustice, but the latter
replied that such was not the case. On
the contrary, the injustice had been
done to him (Foraker). Every senator