New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-05-18
THE ZEAL GREEVANOE.

Ex-senator Chandler, whose intellectual acute
ness no one has ever challenged, aptly meas
ured the grievances aired in the Senate by Sem
ators Tfllman and Bailey when he said in his
statement of Wednesday:
The only harm that I can see that has come
in the whole business was the abandonment OF
out any previous notice TO Senators Tilman and
Bailey.
Sitting out all irrelevancies, this default in
the way OF formal notification appears to con-
stitute the sole foundation for the charges Of
bad faith" brought against the President. But
what fiimsy basis this is on which to rest an
accusation of double dealing! Neither Of the
detected and injured Democratic Senators has
yet denied two highly Illuminating statements
contained in Attorney General Moody's letter
The Attorney General asserted that in his deal
ings with Senators Bailey and Tilman he had
made it clear that he had no authority to pledge
the President 20 any given marrow review
amendment All he could do was to submit
the text agreed on for the Presidents cOnsid-
Grafton. Moreover, he subsequently reported TO
the two Senators that the President thought 1t
better to have a review amendment drawn in
the Senate itself. and asked them to confer fur
tber with Senator Allison. If the negotiations
then Iapsed or were terminated without for
NAL exchange of diplomatic regrets and COM
ailments the blame can hardly be laid at the
door Of the President. The true reason for the
break in these exchanges was that Mr.. Tillman
and Mr. Bailey had Overrated their power to
control the minority vote and, this fact appear
ing. the negotiations were generally recognized
to be mOribund.
The two Democratic Senators were naturally
chagrined at losing the chance to figure as fac
tors of prime importance in the shaping OF rate
legislation Mr. Bailey had more at stake than
ho hoo fO1 nj
Gorman's logical successor in the minority lead
ership. Divisions in the Committee on Inter
state Commerce had given the Democratic side
a political opportunity out Of which 1t could
have made a good deal of political capital.
Long continued dssensiOns among the Repub-
licans had magnifed that opportunity, and to
see It slip away from their unskilled and I'M
ready hands was, of course, a sore trial to the
two Quasi-D Democratic managers. Their veXa-
ton was natural and they gave free If not Ju-
diciOus vent to their annoyance and disappOlnt-
ment.
The public is not greatly concerned over the
inner history of the minoritys failure to utilize
an exceptional political opportunity. That Mr..
Bailey's motives may have been suspected
Justly or uniustly-is a minor issue. Giving him
credit for entire sincerity cannot obscure the
fact that his leadership proved futile. Nor can
it altogether dspel the impression that he was
less intent on making a rate law than on max
ing a personal reputation. However we'll in
tentioned his self-assertive tactics did actually
disorganze and divide the minority. For on
the one hand he encouraged the idea of broad
review as against narrow review. and on the
other he insisted on the adoption of his pet
idea of annuling the power of injunction-a
proposal which the more conservative Demo
Gratis refused to support as unconstitutional and
unnecessary In the House of Representatives
Mr.. Baileys leadership created friction and
ended in INSTRUMENTATION. In the Senate he
has shown equal inability to compose differ
ences and evolve party programme on which
all Democrats could unite. That is the real
grievance that rankles 1t is a grievance not
against other individuals, but against himself.