New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-05-17

statements submit the controversy with conf
den nee e ne 5pogment o. those who know me
nate!y circumstantIal evidence CT high order
omitted TO make IN substance the statement which
he denies Nor could he have then made the whole
siy,saess hos sd him into serious error upon 2
teeting his attack upon me. give to you fuf-
Their statement as follows:
on e me aro d h not n9 70 tbe e s
as ,o Tepressntatve o. Senator PS s
there by the letter from Mr. Loeb ana waited for
a e % sF e nus GoiS h MT Tmaa so
had the Rate hill in charge, and other DeI9oorats
zion ia the Railroad Rate DIN Of a court review
f me bsd n exoesded ts authority or had
violated the constitutional rights Of the carrier
him e open emu conferences With MIR Tiian unless
ne was fully satisfied that the PRESIDENT mac aDso-
ment with the Senators who had been making the
contest for unlimited court review. and u stat.
Ing his object he sad that he had RaTte4a from
them finally: naming Senator'S Knox Eor AK and
n1ents in the Senate to sustain that view; and he
eiyen in my statement repeated by Mr.. .Tillnan
Th & included the fdn
ana Allison, the fact that not more than one-third
vote for the limited court review and that 1t was
vital that the support OF nearly all the Democrats
When an hour later. visited Mr.. Timan and
him distrustfui and suspicious He questioned me
closely as % what the President had said, and
related 70 him accurately could the state
ment made By the President 20 me, and convinced
comprorise e With ne Senator'S named ana The other
advocates OF an unlimited court review; When sat;
TO cooperate with the President. end said that he
suit Which Ne ld SAYING IN there would Re p pf
accord upon the Limitation. Of the rght o. review L
the right TO issue ex parte injunctions.
my suggestion, transferred to Attorney General
Moody and at once resulted IN en- nnaersta1 s
court review as stated in the Long amendment
MS s n n me ss2 Sss 81 M Sn AP oo
ana Bailey Yves q not nstuTsl sna ssse1tpi at
he had finally separated upon the question q court
6Saonents 81 any limitation OF that review which
they believed would be Unconstitutional and that
Tnsag Is Il possible that went directly That night
poured into his ears a deliberate and unqualified
ese5siSer next the statement which the President
says he thinks he made. instead OF the one narrated
~ me Senator Foraker he SAYS: was not mer
Knox and spooner. he says. were mentioned.
st TO sas Senator a hf Knox that the PRESIDENT d
not agree with portion OF MS PROPOSED amend
argument for asserting armatively the jurisdiction
g authority q the court snd s bT h oST
70 express a cordial approval OF senator Spooner
This spooner amendment was not offered in the
Senate until May TO- but learn that i nag been "a
early as March 81 does not appear: But THIS Is
me that he cordially approved Of It, and 1 had so
reported 10 Mr. Tiliman there would have ensued
no conferences looking to cooperation; therefore,
the President as to that amendment. had IN mind
a conversation at some other time or with some
II should also be borne in mind that the report
made TO Mr. Timan OF the Presidents conversa-
ton is comparatively harmless and inonenslvee
troubled by the advocacy of an unlimited court
review by some OF the lawyers Of the Senate nam
ing to injure defeat the bill by ingenious con-
stitutional arguments but that he had come to a
complete disagreement with them.
What is there in the above words that Is untrue
or should give grave offence to the Senators nanedf
Senate making Ingenious arguments against any
limitation of court review, and they were trouble-
20 carry the Long-AGoody Limitation through the
Senate by the votes of twenty five or more Demo-
STats ana twenty or less hePH3Gam savn
that he had come to final disagreement with
them on the day when he had held a White House
Republican forces in carrying limitation Of court
review then and there agreed upon? He could say
fence to them Nor was It very strong express
sion to say that they trying to inJure or de-
feat the Dill by ingenious constitutional arguments
It did not mean that they were trying to defeat
the bill If It could be amended to meet their views
Mr.. Knox had declared it to be unconstitutional
unless amended. and that was the general position
OF the opponents OF limited court review which led
the President that day to conclude It would be
best to expressly grant the jurisdiction review.
but to rigidly limit 1t to the two objects named.
The only harm that / can see that has come in
the whole business was the abandonment ri anv
attempt to carry that limitation of the review
without any previous notice to Senators Tillman
On. the whole. perhaps I ought to consider my
self fortunate II the old imperialist days had been
considered the best Of friends, Senator Lodge upon
demand; would have cut off my head and taken It
have spoken more. Now at least / have left
to me the power Of speech But shall never use
TO the Democratic party ssincereiv S1oi1rs OO'elI
WILLIAM E! GHANDLER.