New-York tribune., 1907-01-08

any one who has read the statutes to argue it
at all
Mr.. FORAKER REPLUl1s TO MR.. LODGE.
Mr.. Foraker reviewed the objections of Mr.. Lodge
TO the Foraker resolution The substance. he said.
Of the Massachusetts Senator'S position was that
the matter involved two Questions. one of fact as
TO the affray the other of law TO the Presients
authority Mr. Foraker aid he was opposed TO
Mr.. Lodges position both questions.
Mr.. Foraker declared that the power of the Pres
ident was deduced from what was the power of
the commander in chief of the British army 1t
must be decided from the Constitution of the United
States. The power the President derived from Con-
gress his legal power. It not necessary,
he said. go British pIecedents to ascertain
this power, the Supreme Court of the United
States had spoken the subject many times. and
always had said simply II was the Presidents
power to command
There is autocracy in this country" said Mr.
Foraker mo autocratc. dictatorial. unrestrained
and unrestricted power-no. not even in the COM
rnander in chief OF the All power is derived
from the Constitution
Mr. Foraker emphasized his position that II Con-
gress had spoken on any subject relative TO army
regulations, there room for the exercise OF
any power TO the contrary the part OF the
President On matters of regulation which Con-
gress had not spoken the Constitution gave the
President power TO make necessary regulations.
AS to the contract of enlistment. which Mr.. Lodge
said could be eliminated at the pleasure of the
government, Mr.. Foraker said it contained pro-
vision that its effect should be governed by the
articles of and rules and regulations OF the
service. Mr.. Foraker maintained that the officials
OF the War Department and the Department of
Justice had estopped themselves from denying that
the affray at Brownsville a covered by
the articles of by the order that was given
10 the commander of the Department OF Texas 10
prefer charges and specifications against thirteen
members Of the companies involved. The Senator
had procured copies of these charges. and he then
placed them IN ''The Record. While he disclamed
any intention to discuss the affray at this time
Mr.. Foraker remarked, he would say in passing
that if what is Contended for here be true-that
there was such a conspiracy and such consumrna-
tion Of it. and that tie number OF men engaged In
it and the number of accessories before and after
the fact necessary carry it out were as charged
1t is thing which has happened in all the
history of criminal jurisprudence. Such a thing
never could happen. never will happen. and never
did happen
Mr. Foraker said these arrests were made but IS
yet none OF the men charged had been tried or
given opportunity 10 refute the charge against
them with evidence.
COMMANDER IN CHIEFS POWER
Speaking OF the Presidents position. Mr. Foraker
said ii might be said by him: Il know what was tho
power Of the commander in chief in the British
army and in the American army under Washing
ton, and l have that power
He may be right continued Mr. Foraker He
has his ideas of law. He has doubtless studied
this question. Others have doubtless studied it
and are In accord with him. as the Senator from
Massachusetts is. and. therefore l may be entirely
wrong But am simple minded enough to think
1t makes great deal of difference whether or not
there are facts enough TO justify. think the San
ate Of the United States would be in A ridicrlous
attitude before the country II it should here and
now adopt resolution that could be interpreted
to estop US when we come to consider this case
upon the facts which are be developed as TO
whether not the President acted within his
constitutional or legal authority"
Nir' FORAKER challenged any to show sim
gle precedent for the action taken, to show one
single instance where man has been discharged
from the army without honor when that man has
been charged with crime and where he protested
against being discharged
rs the President of the United States over and
above the law? Can he ignore it?" he asked
MI Foraker gave court rulings to show It 10 be
the birthr1sht of every American citizen to be
tried when he charged with crime Thesa
men. Mr.. Foraker said, were charged with
murder and conspiracy. Because there was no
evidence TO sustain the charges the men were
turned out of the service. On this point Mr.
Foraker quoted the Supreme Court Saying that
where crimes could not be proved the offenders
must go free. no matter how great the offence |
or how disastrous the consequences to the coun- |
try. He quoted the court on the right to
suspend law TO meet emergency saying, Such |
doctrine leads directly to anarchy"
out that he had not discharged these troops as |
organizations, but as individuals. each being dis
Each indlviduaI;" he said, had a right to the
he should have board OF inquiry, and should have
IL without asking for It, It the duty OF his |
superior officer to know of his rights to advise
nm OF them and TO protect him in them. But II |
not So ~ -
CASE OF THE soTH OHIO.
When Mr. Foraker remarked And now come |
to the 60th Ohio stir of interest swept the |
chamber and galleries. "Wl some one fell mo |
why the regiment was cited q precedent" he !
asked. and. replying to his own question said |
But I know. and every one here knows why n |
was so cited. 1t the bravest regiment that
ever wore the uniform Mr.. Foraker maintained |
that the regiment had been honorably discharged