New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-09-07
RA titled.

senator Cummins seems 10 be gulced
IL his political conduct by the assurnp-
ton that no one will remember what
hr did or said the day before yesterday.
lie believes heartily in Il statute OF
limitations on past performances. Prob
ably no one was more surprised than ne
when John Sharp Williams Interrupted
him In the midst of a speech attacking
reciprocity with Canada 10 ask whether
he recognized a passage from an address
which he had delivered when inaugu-
rated as Governor OF Iowa in 1904. adj
vising the farmers Of that state TO pre-
pare themselves for the benefits OF freer
exchanges with Canada. That mishap
taught him nothing, however, for in his
manifesto Of Monday he Jays himself
open TO the charge Of condemnlng
policy which only year ago he went
officially on record az favoring. Trying
~ rrove that President Taft is a ''reac-
tionary." Mr.. Cummins sail among other
things
With respect to the veto OF the resOlu-
ton admitting New Mexico and Arizona
as states 7 have this 70 say: Some OF
the Progressives were opposed 10 pro-
visions in both constitutions. Ihey were
rot all in favor of the form Of initiative,
referendum and recall found in the Ari-
iona constitution. I do not approve the
recall Of Judges. All these things became
immaterial in the presence Of one Pro-
gressive proposition, viz, that Congress
had no right 10 prescribe CONSTITUTIONS
for these incoming states.
That does not state the case with
entire accuracy. for Congress and the
President did not attempt 70 prescribe
constitutions for Arizona and New Mex
leo. but simply exercised their power 10
pass on the constitutions submitted, ap-
proving them or ordering their amend
ment. Mr.. Cummins seems 10 think
now that such an exercise Of the right
Of supervision was improper. Yet he
voted in the Senate in 1910 10 require
both the President and Congress to
exercise such authority. and favored
making the admission Of the two ter
ritories depend upon their adopting con
situations which would pass muster
with both the legislative and the eyecu-
tive departments Of the government.
The assertion Of the right Of Congress
/ 10 approve the new constitutions was an
innovation in legislation, previous en-
ablinc acts having merely required the
President 70 give his approval This
departure from precedent was made in
the Senate in an amendment 10 The
House enabling act adopted on June 10.
1910 Explaining that amendment. Mr.
T Beverage. of Indiana, chairman Of the
/ Committee on Territories, said shortly
+ before the vote was taken:
The first great difference between the
/ House and Senate billsl is in the require
meur for the return Of the constitution 10
the President and Congress after II has
been ratified by the people Of the pro-
posed states The provision of the SEN
ate bill IS that when the constitution
shall have been framed and ratified by
the people ~ shall be returned 10 the
/ President Of the United States and 10
Congress. and if the President and Con-
/ eress approve of IL. or n the President
I approve and Congress fails To act at the
next regular session. then the election of
! n the bill shall occur The House bill
/ has no such provision. The reasons Tor
this briefly stated are two. The first
4 one is that by the returning Of the con-
stiu1tiOn TO the President and to Con-
gress there IS afforded safeguard as
10 the lrisdom Of ITS provisions.
There were some members Of the Sen
ate to whom such a safeguard was
distasreful. It was attacked by Senator
Hughes. Of Colorado, as Illuminating"
TO the applicants for statehood, and
as admitting them into the Union
/ ''ignObly." Those who did not favor
/ critical supervision and possible revision
/ Of she constitutions by Congress and
/ the President asked for a record vote
on the Senate amendments Those
amendments were adopted by a vote of
10 to 10, and among those supporting
! the right Of review and alteration were
/ Messrs. Cummins. Beveridce Bourne,
Borah, Bristow. Brown, Clapp, Craw-
/ ford and DOlIiver. Not a single Insur-
gent voted IN the negative. Mr. La Fol
/ lctte was absent. hut Mr.. Bristow an
nounced that, If present, he would Enve
voted for the Beveridge amendments.
As altered the bill passed by 60 votes
/ to C..
How preposterous It is for Mr.. Cum
Minis 10 urge now that Congress should
rot have performed a duty which he and
every other Insurgent then in the Sen
ate favored laying on the shoulders Of
Congress. Yet it is hardly more pre-
poster6us than any Of the other extrav-
agencies which the ratified Iowa states