The San Francisco call., 1906-05-17


been making the contest for an unlinn-
ited court review, and in stating his OBJ
ject he said that he had parted from
Foraker and Spooner as the Senators
? no had made the arguments in the Sem
ate TO sustain that view, and he used
as nearly as / can recoilect the language
given in my statement repeated by Mr..
Tiilman.
The conversation included the under
standing which he had that day reached
that not over one-Ihird CT the Republi-
can Senators could be relied on to vote
lot the limited court review, and that il
was vltal tnat the support of nearly all
tne Democrats should be obtained
When, an hour later, visited Mr. TIL
nan nan ana told him my mission from the
PRESIDENT found him distrusfful and
Suspicious He Questioned me closely as
related to him as accurately as | could
the statement made by the President to
me and convinced him that the Presi-
cent had ceased to hope for compromise
advocates of an unlimited court review.
when satisfied that this was the case
ne readily consented TO cooperate with
the President and said that he would
see Senator Bailey and report to me ne
result, Which he did, saying there would
oe perfect accord upon the limitation OF
.ne rignt OF review, If carried forward IN
connection with a lim.ttaion Of fhe righ1
The conferences thus begun were on
me 18TH. at my suggestion transferred
70 A1teorney General Moody and ct once
resulted in an understanding that the efe
lorl could be made to limit the right of
Courl reviews, as stated in the Long
amendment and in the paper drawn up
on april l6 by Mr.. Moody and later per-
Iecteo by Messrs. Mooay rillnan and
Baiey; Was IL not natural and essential
mat the President should have SATISFIED
the question Of the court review from ff,a
Senators who were the principal opno-
nents OF any limitation Of that review,
tutional, and that should have repeated
his statements to Nj. Tillmau? Is ii
possinle that I went directly. that night
and poured into his ears a deliberate And
unqualified falsehood? '.-1
Consider next the statement which the
resident says he thinks he made. IN
stead OF the one narrated by me. Seua.
Tor FORAKER. he says, was not mentioned
! am quite sure he is mistaken. Sena-
lots knox and spooneT; he says. were
about them. as to Senator Knox. was
that the resident did not agree with a
portion OF his proposed amendment. but
that he thought he made a strong areu-
ment for asserting af1rmatiy the ju-
risdiction or authority Of the court and.
as to Senator. Spooner. that his name
his cordial approval of senator Spooner-s
amendment. -
Ihis Spoone- amendment was not Of
fered in the Senate until May TO- but I
learn that IL had been in existence and
shown 70 the President whether as early
as March 81 does not appear. But this
Is certain. that If the President had on
that night told me that he cordially ap-
proved Of it and had so reported to Mr.
Tillman. there would have ensued no con-
ferences looking TO cooperation: there
Tore the President. as to the amend
ment had in mind a conversation at
some other time or with some other per
son.
It should also be borne In mind that
the renort / made to Mr. Tillman of the I
PRESIDENTS converse tion Is Compare tive
" harmless and inofensive- Here 1t is:
by the advocacy OF an unlimited court
review by some of the lawyers of the
Senate naming Senators Knox, Snooner
ma Foraker as trying TO injure or defeat
the Dill Dy ingenious constitutional argu-
ments. but that he had come to com
plete disagreement with them.
What is there IN the above words that
Is untrue or should give grave offense
TO the Senators named? They were the
great constitutional lawyers of the SEN
ate, making ingenious arguments against
any Limitation Of court review, and they
were troublesome and likely to be |
troublesome in an attempt to carry the
Long Moody limitation through the Sem
ate by the votes OF twenty five or more
lican Senator'S What harm was there
in the President saying that he had come
70 final disagreement with them on the |
day when he had held a White House
conference with a view to uniting Demo-
cratic and Republican forces in carrying
a limitation Of court review then and |
there agreed upon. He could say It |
in or out of their presence without Civ
ing odense to them Nor was II a very
strong expression to say that they were !
trying 10 injure or defeat the bill by |
Ingenious constitutional arguments. II |
did not mean that they were trying to |
defeat the bill IL it could be amended to |
meet their views. Mr.. Knox had de- |
clared II to be unconstitutional unless |
amended and that was the general po- I
sftion Of the opponents of limited court ]
review which led the President on that |
pressly grant the Jurisdiction to review, |
but to rigidly limit it to the two objects |
named. The only harm that ! can see
that has come to the whole business was i
the abandonment Of any attempt to |
carry that limitation Of the review,
without any previous notice to Senators ,
Tillnlan and Bailey.
On the whole perhaps / ought to COM |
slider myself fortunate. II the old i'm
oerialist days had been fully revived at /
he White House one whom / considered 1
he best OF friends. Senator Lodge, upon
demand would have cut off my head and |
aiken ii to President Roosevelt on a
charger. and / should have spoken no |
more. Now at least have left to me /
he power Of speech But shall never
Use It again as a missionary from Presi- |
lent Roosevelt to the Democratic party. /
Sincerely yours.
WILLIAM z. CHANDLER