The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-02-25
WILL ADJOURN EARLY
CONGRESS ANXIOUS TO CON-
 PLETE ITS WORK.
Leaders Desirous of Getting Back Among the People to Ascertain Trend of the Political
 Breezes.
Advertiser Bureau,
 Colorado Building,

1 Col0rddo Building, Washington, Feb A {. Tie Republicans of Congress, partlcu- larly the leaders of the House, are anx- ious to get away from Washington as soon as possible. There are a good many | things that make them anxious to con sul: the home situation and to see ho V l the folks feel since the death of Senator 1 Hanna and how they regard the altered situation with respect to the fortunes of the party at the polls next year. Tie disposition to come to an end of duty here has been decidedly manifested by Speaker Cannon who has adopted several shortcut ways of dtspatching legls.a- ton.
 The Democrats are not averse to an early adjournment They. too, want 10 see the people and determine as near ds possible the sentiment toward the coming National Convention. at St. Louis. The well known activity of the Hearst prop aganda in al! directions and the really substantial showing of support indicated for the New York Congressman-editor has got Democrats about Congress guess- ing and they want to get home and see | just what 1t means as far as they are concerned Undoubtedly the Hearst joke of yesterday has become a serious prop | osition of today. Congressman Hearst | has been seeing a great many emissaries and special messengers from the various States and there is consequently a great deal of conjecture rife
 These are a few of the reasons why Congressmen want to get home and why an early adjournment ig probable.
 Referring to the subject, Senator Bai- ley said today:
 under way. and the leaders of the ma joritv have stated definitely that they do not propose to pass any special legisi1- l tion; that they desire this to be q do- nothing Congress. Under these condi- tions l see no reason why we should not adjourn the middle of April or the first | of May. .-
 There is certainly no reason why we Democrats should desire to prolong the session, for nothing has occurred since | the convening of Congress to encourage us. The sooner we get away the bett ,r, for we have shown to the country that we are divided, and therefore there Is nothing to gain by prolonging the ses- sion.
 This IS the first time within my re- collection that minority psrty has been unable to make some sort of a live issue out of a Congress preceding a Presiden- tial election. Had the Democrats in the Senate taken a firm. stand in o2positi 1n
 
 we would have, In my opinion, secured a splendid campaign issrc, and one hn which we could have safely gone to the | country, for President Roosevelt would have been forced to have built the canal | by the Nicaragua route when 1t became | certain that the Penama waterway was not available. He would not have dared \ to have violated the law on the subjsc:, which Is clear, positive and distinct. So | we would have had a canal, and the aC
 ministration would have been 6iscredited.
 But some of my esteemed colleagues pre-. | ferred the certainty of reelection to the
 Senate to fighting for a canal principle,
 and so we have let the opportunity slip, | and We can make no issue cut of the ca l nal question.
 The House and Senate have not pulled | togett CT es I would have wished during
 the pas session, and there does net see'n
 to be anything important in sight that wG
 can put up fight on."
 There is no doubt that several of the Democrats who will vote for ths treaty
 will act against their judgment. They
 have simply been constrained to aband )n
 the path picked out by the leaders of the party because of fear of @ constituency
 that is caring more for results than
 methods. Deprecating the action of some
 of his colleagues, Senate Bailey said,
 referring to the ratification of the Span | ish treaty:
 "It is generally conceded now that the
 Democratic Senators who voted for tliat
 treaty made a political blunder In iny
 opinion had William J. Bryan opposed
 the ratification of the Spanish treaty, in-
 stead of advocating IL, he would have
 made himself very much stronger as
 political quantity. Had the treaty beel
 defeated the question as to whether we
 should acquire the Philippines could have
 been voted on by the people, and I think 1t Is safe to say that the vote would have
 been in the negative. But after 1t be-
 came evident that the treaty was cer- | tain to be ratified, there was no use in | wasting time speaking against it. Tae | same thing holds good in the ratification | of the Panama treaty. Since 1t became
 evident that the Republicans had cap tured sufficient Democratic votes to rat | fly the Panama treaty 1t was folly to
 waste the time of the Senate in long winded speeches against the ratification | At least I have taken this view of the matter and have declined, to address tfe Senate on the subject"
 Neither of tine Texas Senators, although | decidedly opposed to the ratification 0f the treaty has made any speech on the | subject but both have addressed commu-
 nications to the people of their State giv- ing their reasons for opposing the treaty. l U-atl