The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1904-02-23

statement and he interrupted Mr.. For
aker by saying that this was not his con-
clusion, but the conclusion of another
and that he had mentioned the fact. On
the contrary he had spoken in praise of
the President
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 senator S
Interpretation of the kilograms and in
the face Of what the President had said
about having no completely in the Pana-
ma uprising
Mr.. Hoar said he had no doubt of Mr..
Forakers sincerity But" he said, Il
cannot reconcile his expression of re-
spect for me with his statement of dis
belief of what | say is my position
Following Hoar's Example.
Mr.. Foraker said he was merely fol-
lowing Mr.. Hoar's example, who had
both praised and criticised the President
in his former speeches.
1.-The senator totally perverts what
say" replied Mr. Hoar. He did so on
the previous occasion and he does so now,
and he does not do ii from any desire to
do so, but solely because of his being in
a very Jealous and heated frame of
mind"
ITO whom" asked Mr.. Foraker, did
the senator refer as policeman allud-
ing to a former speech made by Mr.. Hoar
in which he compared the United States
in the Panama affair to a big policeman
who manacled a small man and then
seized the spois.
Mr.. Hoar replied that he did not mean
the President and he insisted that Mr..
Foraker had undertaken to interpret his
meaning by such a statement of his
speech context.
The two senators stood within two or
three feet of each other and talked back
and forth directly
They gesticulated earnestly and spoke
with great emphasis frequently punctu-
ating 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 situa-
ton was quite tense and endured for sew
eral minutes until the presiding officer
called attention to the violation Of the
rules of the debate.
The immediate point of dispute was the
question of whether at the time Of Mr..
Hoars 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.. Fora
ker said 1t had been, the Massachusetts
senator replied in so many words. that
/ deny
Had Done Him Injustice.
Mr.. Hoar charged that Mr.. Foraker
had done him an injustice. bu the latter
replied that such was not the case. On
the other hand the injustice had been
done him (Foraker) Every senator knew
the President denied the completely charge
through the press, said Mr.. Foraker, and
in view of that denial he had absolute
faith in the President and his admins
tration. His complaint was that Mr..
Hoar had put the President In false
light.
Mr.. Hoar replied that the President
should make his communications to con-
gress and not to the press. and Mr.. For
aker replied that that, too, had been done.
When the controversy between Messrs.
Foraker and Hoar had been concluded,
Mr.. Carmack took the floor He said he
had no desire to participate In the '1aun-
dry work going on on the other side" but
that he wanted to speak on another
branch of the canal question. His remarks
constituted a severe arraignment of Min
lister Bunau- varilla, and included re-
view of his connection with the Panama
canal based on official French documents
which were quoted.
Associated With DeReinach.
His accusation was that Bupau-varilla
had been associated with Baron De
Reinach in his dealings with the stock
holders of the old canal company. He
charged that the present minister had
taken advantage Of the situation to wreck