The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-05-16


ident to me and I convinced him that
the president had ceased to hope for
compromise with the senators named
AMI the other advocates OF an unlimited
court review. When satlsfled FnaI TINS
was the case he readily consented 70 90
operate with the president and said tnat
he would see Senator Bailey and re-
port to me the result, which ne dids
saying there would be perfect accord
upon the limitation of the right OF re-
view if carried forward in connection
with a limitation of the right to issue
exparte fnjunctions-
s4'The conferences thus began were on
the 18th, at my suggestion transferred
to Attorney General Moody and at once
resulted in an understanding that the
effort could be made to limit the right
of court review as stated in the Long
amendment and in the paper drawn
up on April Is by Mr.. Moody and later
perfected by Messrs. Moody. Tillman
and Bailey. Was 1t not natural and es-
sentiaI that the president should have
been satisfied that he had finally
separated upon the question of the
court review from the senators who
were the principal opponents of any linn
itation of that review which they pc
lieved would be unconstitutional and
that I should have repeated his state
ments to Mr.. Tillman2 Is It possible
that went directly that night to Sen
ator TiIlman at the Colonial hotel and
poured into his ears deliberate ana
unqualified falsehood?
Consider next the staten 1ent which
the president says he thinks he made
instead of the one narrated by me.
Senator Foraker. he says, was not
mentioned. I am quite sure he is mis-
taken. Senators Knox and Spooner,
he said, 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 pro-
posed amendment, but that he thought
he had made a strong argument for
asserting affirmatively the jurisdiction
of authority of the court ana as to
Senator Spooner that his name was
only mentioned 10y him to express a
cordial approval of Senator Spooner's 8
amendment
This Spooner amendment was not
offered in the senate until May 1, but I
learn that it had been in existence and
shown to the president whether as
early as March 81. does not appear.
But this Is certain, that if the presi-
dent had on that night told me that he
cordially approved of it and I had so
reported to Mr.. Tillman there would
have ensued no conference looking to
cooperation; therefore the president
as to that amendment had in mind a
conversation at some other time or
with some other person.
Harmless and InoRensive
/ that the report made to Mr.. TilIman
/ OF the presidents conversation is COM
+ paratively harmless and inomensive.
4 Here it 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, naming Sena-
/ tors Knox, Spooner and Foraker as
1 trying to injure or defeat the bill by in
+ genious constitutional arguments, bui
that he had come to a complete dis
greement with them
what is there in the above words
| that is untrue or should give grave
/ offense to the senator's named? They
We're the great constitutional lawyers
of the senate making ingenious argu-
1 ments against any limitation OF court
review and they were troublesome
I and likely to be troublesome in any at
I tempt to carry the Long-Moody liIni-
tation through the senate by the vote
OF % or more Democrats and 30 OF
/ less Republican senators. What harm
/ was there in the president saying thai
he had come to a final disagreement
with them on the day when he had
held a White House conference with
I a view to uniting Democratic and
4 Republican forces in carrying a li1ni-
tation Of court review then and there
agreed upon? He could say it in OF
out of their presence without giving
! offense to them. Nor was it q very
strong expression to say that they
/ were trying to 1nJure or defeat the bill
by ingenious constitutional arguments
It did not mean that they were trying
to defeat the bill II it could be amend
ed to meet their views. Mr. Knox ha6
declared it to be unconstitutional un-
less amended and that was the gen.
eral position of the opponents of lin.
tied court review, which led the presi
dent on that day to conclude it would
be better to expressly grant the jurfs-
diction to review, but to rigidly limi
it to the two objects named. The
only harm that I can see that ha.
come in the whole business was the
abandonment of any attempt to carry
that limitation of the review, withou
any previous notice to Senators Till.
man and Bailey.
son the whole perhaps I ought te
consider myself fortunate If the ole
imperiaIist days had been fully revived
at the White House one whom I con,
sidered the best of friends, Senator
Lodge, upon demand would have Gu
off my head and taken it to the presi
dent on a charger and I should hav,
spoken no more Now at least I havt
left to me the power of speech. But
shall never use 1t again as mis-
sionary from President Roosevelt t,
the Democratic party.
Sincerely yours.
WILLIAM E. CHANDLER