The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-05-17

ss'lus hts ablsr, NJ ssti mo, NJ bsd p#Hsd
row iHem huaff HsfuiHf qrusioft Neat
Fpfftef sHd s~tnuuef ~ ihs aanstufa en-
hHd f1HHs Tho arguments N 'he apHaie ~
atstsih has rIee ard he itsrd ~ nesttV
7 csa f%etHltrFt NE iaHatfge given Nv NV
sfaffiHenf fspesist Nv VI fittmsn
fhS conversation Nriufet ne fndtFsaNds
me shtrh NJ had fnHi asr fesehsd sth
~ nafofs Ions ttd tiraun fHs fsci iha'
MT avsf are third ~ No Rrpr htsan aruafats
cnuti ~ felieu ~ 10 vote fpr me nmitad
entft rsvtev sRd ma ~ tas vittl hat tha
support ~ nesfiy ai 'hr petnorfs's shusid
be uh,afued
when. en- hour later. visited W. riiiman
end tati him nv mission from me President,
I found MIN dgstfn aful and suspicious Ne
questioned me eioapiv ~ 10 what the Pfeat'
dent bad said. ana ! related ~ hin ~ a-
c0rateIy ~ 7 could tho sat enieni made ~
the President "a me, aud ! convinced him
thu, the President had ceas sell 10 hope tor
compromises Nth Tho Senators named and
Ne other AdVoea'es ~ an mi mi,ed court
review, When satisfied that THE Waa the
raaa he readily consented 10 cooperate With
the President. and aid that he would see
senator Bailey and report 10 me the result,
which he did. saying Their" wotld be perfect
accord upon the limitation OF the rtfht ~
' Wv ~ v W. NV " w. ''Hf
q limitation Of the right 10 is-ne ~ parte
iniunctions
The conferences thua begun we're on tho
18Th. n, my suggestion, transferred to A.
torney- General Moody. aud az once resulted
In an understanding that the effort should
b. made TO limit the right OF court review
a. stated In the Ions amendment and Ia
the paper dra wn up on April 10 by Mt, Moody.
and later perfected nv Mesars, MOODY. TILT
man, and HaiIRV Wa II mt natural and
essential that tho President should have
satisfied me that he had finally sepa rated
upon the question OF the court review from
the Senators who we're tho principal oppo-
nsnts Of any Limitation of that review, which
they believed would be unconstitutional
and that | should have repeated his state
ments to Mr. Tillman? Is It possible that
went directly that night to Senate: Tillman
at the Colonial Hotel and poured into his
ears n deliberate and unqualified "a lsehood'
Consider next the statement which the
President say he thinks he made instead
OF the one narrated by me, Senator Fora
ker. he SAYS, was not mentioned. ] am
quite sure he IL mistaken. Senators Knox
and Spooner. he says. were mentioned, but
that all that was said about them was. as
TO Senator Knox. that the President did not
agree with a portion Of his proposed amend
ment, but that he thoug ht he had made a
strong argument for asserting afirmatively
the Jurisdiction or authority OF the court.
and as to Senator Spoonsr. that his name was
only mentioned by him to express a cordial
approval Of Senator Spooner's amendment.
This Spooner amendment was not offered
In the Senate until May 10. but ! learn that
IL had been In existence and shown to the
President. whether as early as March 81
does not appear. But this Is certain. that
n the President had on that night told me
that he cordially approved OF II and had
90 reported TO Mr.. Tillman there would
have ensued no conferences looking to CO.
OPERATION: therefore the President as to that
anon dment hes in mind a conversation at
some other time or with some other person.
II should also be borne in mind that the
report ! made TO Mr.. Tillman Of the Presi-
dents conversation Ia com paratiVely harm
less and inofensive. Here II is:
-He said that he had been much troubled
by the advocacy Of an unlimited court review
by some OF the lawyers Of the Senate, nam
Ing Senators Spooner and Fora ker rs trying
to injure or defeat the bill by Ingenious
constitutional arguments. but that he had
come 10 a complete disa greemen with them.
What IL there in the above words that
Ia untrue or should give grave offence to the
Senators named? They were tho great con-
stitutional lawyers Of the Senate. making In
Renious arguments against any Limitation OF
court review. and they were troublesome and
likely to be troublesome In any attempt to
carry the Iong.Moody limita ton through
the Senate by The votes OF twenty-five or
more Democrats and twenty or less Repub-
lican Senators. What harm was there In the
Presldent's saying that he had come to a final
disagreement with them on the day when he
had held a White House conference with a
view to uniting Democratic and Republican
forces In carrying a Limitation OF court review
then and there agreed upon' He could say
-. -. IL. RikFtn m
offence to them.
Nor was II a very strong expression TO say
that they were trying to I'M ure or defeat the
bill by ingenious constitutional ar 1t
did not mean that they were trying to defeat
the bill IL II could be amended to meet their
views. Mr.. Knox had declared II to be IN
constitutional unless amended. and that was
the general position Of the opponents OF lin
tied court review, which led the President on
that day to conclude IL would be best TO ex-
pressly grant the jurisdiction to review, but
TO rigidly limit 1t to the two objects named.
The only harm that I can see that has oome In
the whole business was the abandonment OF
any attempt to carry that limitation OF the
review without any previous notice TO Sen
ators Tillman and Bailey.
On the whole. perhaps | ought TO consider
myself fortunate. II the old imperialist days
had been fully revived AT the White House.
one whom 1 considered the best OF friends.
senator Lodge, upon demand. would have out
OF my head and taken II to President Roose-
welt on u charger. and l should have spoken
no more. Now, at least. | have left 10 me the
power Of speech. But | shall never use 1t
again as a missionary from President Roose-
welt to the Democratic party, Sincerely yours
WILLIAM T., CHANDLER.
When the reading Of the Chandler letter
had been finished Senator Bailey made
some additional remarks In regard to the
accusation that suspicion Of his good faith