The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-08
CONSCIENCE VERSUS CAUCUS
 IS DEBATED IN THE SENATE

\ out by questions from Mir. Morgan
 TilIman's Diet of Crow.
 MT. Daniel asked Mir. Patterson if he knew of any other senator who would vote for the treaty. Mr. Patterson did Irot reply. Instead he referred to the chage made that he had deserted his party and that he was in the habit of making party changes. He admitted l that he had left the Democratic party in 1892 rather than support Mir Cleve- land. In this connection he referred to MT. Tillman's cousin in his own l state and Mir. Tillman interrupted with the remark that he had eaten as much crow in submitting to party dictation as any man living.
 Did you like it?' asked M. spooner, and Mir Tillman replied: NO. but I l took it.
 l The Aggression caused a general laugh | which continued as Mir. Patterson re- | marked that he too had eaten some l crow less tough than that taken by | Mir. Tillman.
 l Mir. Patterson said he had bolted from party nominations at home and expected to do so again.
 Discussing the Democratic caucus | binding resolution he asked: l 'Is it persuasive or coercive" and | answering his own inquiry, he de- l clared it to be cruel Tt may be re- l fined," he went on, but it is cruel. | It strips Senators of every element of independence and fsS liable to force them to disgraef their high offices or 1 into oblivion ;. | He declared that such a coursse brolght the Senate down to the level Of an ordinary political meeting. He had always thought that in public off, fee men were more important than platform. He had thought that the Democratic Party might learn valuable a.. dealing with the membership of tn } party and he specially commended thsst party for not having whole States bound and gagged by the unit rule in national conventions"
 The Democratic Party has been out of power for many years. VIII my Democratic friends concede that it's arr bitrary methods are responsible for that fact?"
 MT. Patterson declared that the doc Urine that even States have a right to direct the votes of their Senators has been abandoned. He endorsed the change of view, holding that the free dom of Senators could not otherwise be maintained.
 The Reply of Bailey.
 Mir. Patterson spoke for about an hour and a half and was followed by Mir. Bailey, The Texas Senator began by saying that Mir. Patterson had pro- ceeded throughout. his speech on the false hypothesis that the Democratic Party had sought to coerce him in the matter of casting his vote on the Santo Domingo treaty. He also declared that Mir. Patterson had failed to understand the purpose Of the caucus resolution and his relationship to his party. The caucus had simply defined the duty of Senators as members of the Democratic party: 1t must be for him to determine his duty as Senator in contradistinc- tfon to his duty aS Democrat Mr. Bailey then took up the defense of the caucus system and after calling attention to the fact that most candi- dates for elective offices were chosen by caucuses, read an account of the pro- ceedings of the caucus by which MT. Patterson himself was nominated for the Senate. He asked Mir. Patterson It he considered that the same objec- tions which he had made to senatorial caucuses should apply to caucuses for the choosing of candidates.
 MT. Patterson replied that the two caucuses were not on the same foot ing, because no oath was taken in the caucuses for the choosing of candi- dates. MT. Bailey did not accept as valid the difference. He said that the members of the Colorado Legislature must have taken an oath to perform their duties, including the election of United States Senator
 If the reasoning of the Senator from Colorado is to be accepted, every Senator who holds his seat in this chamber as the result of caucus is violating the Constitution" he declar- ed, adding that almost all the Sena- tors were so chosen. He said that Mir. Patterson himself had disproVed the truth of his assertion that the caucus action was cruel outrage. for within ten years after he had walked out of a Democratic Convention he had been chosen as a Democratic Senator.
 Endorsement for Chaplain.
 MT. Bailey called attention to MT. Pattersons statement concerning his endorsement of a man for office. MT. Patterson has said that the office for which he presented candidate was a chaplaincy in the army. His man was an Episcopalian and MT. Patterson said that the Presidents Secretary had re- piled that as the man whose place was to be filled was a Methodist, a Methodist must be appointed to sue ceed him. Mir Bailey jocularly took ex- ception to this as violation of the Constitution. declaring that 1t was re- ligious discrimination.
 q know" he said, that the country is divided on political lines, but did not know that 1t is divided on religious lines"
 Possibly" he said. that accounts for the large church vote received by the President" He then declared that MT. Roosevelt was the first President living or dead who had declared in favor of strife as a philosophy of life. He there fore considered as an anomally the sup port given to the President by the Christian people.
 MT. Bailey said he made no plea for the violation of the dictates of con science by the Senator but said that, so far as he was concerned, he would resign his office when he found that he should not obey the behests of the par ty to which ne owed his election.
 "I would take my commission back to the people who gave it to me and lay it unsullied at their feet, thus giving one who does represent them." he de- clared.
 Contending for the necessity for unity in party action. MT. Bailey read letter from the President commenting on the divided counsels of the Demo- cratic Party. He practically says from start to finish.' said MT. Bailey. that If the Democrats believe what they say they do. they are fools: if not they are liars" He also quoted from Mir Roose- veit's Life of Benton" a characteriza- tion of Andrew Jackson as Ignorant and strong g-headed." and said he would leave it to MT. Patterson to decide whether the President would feel conl- plimented over the Colorado Senators comparison of himself to Jackson.
 ROOseVeIts Ofense to Democrats.
 Never before said MT. Bailey. had a President given such offense to Democrats as had the present occupant of the White House. and never before had his opponents been so ready to