ISSTTZES. 
THE COST TO EACH CITIZEN OF MAINTAINING THE SINGLE GOLD STANDARD. 
 
HO]SF. A. O. BACON, 
 
s^ 
 
OF GEORGIA.,* 
 
IN THK 
 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,  
 
37, 1896. 
 
.mtiufhepwatW gathaonsriirn,h"axsaeeirhddctnTiiarphitinceecpslwtbhceahetririenaooatperooeaefilonttnalnlxpxihpydoelt,onpliiredatfeilossoiehettattsftosarpposiershiin$-ssftsourebii8gginsetrntn,onteo0hhthconii0cltlaaemoaepdha0nifntwp,natee0dhmtosia0e,$ofetodtS0laear8hioftt,nifanag0bierahrtnnsn0dototheloeih0dedleasni,fmdep0pssrdto0ndsieaahoibn0snoa.nsytini,aa"tsoctsndmeesamsthaeiehynrtubsneweebicdee.tbnsnstihoceitayttutsie"podchzaaWaytotntneserhlloueereenseietatantsashcibrralssottnauplseeoneynnnwecpirdmpusotebpohniropadseaiaoitiofslltceodcineotdepmhettinhhnb,acosbffoaeeeilhtfpoayonduerailrsmedsrrlldtlesiebetolheenhybspynduebcogeetepiSotutcaowrahpountranfitamrnephstuedeoiitmidsvneyotvmdcehriuenheeelaaeoseteerbucshgmrygtepnt$teario.eoi3feosuivu0neottuost0"ehphTephbtf,gd0oaneealhebrh0ennn,efe0epfrdtaomiauoadam|pnnf3crxtmeaaa0ddeitGgbig0iuaindt,atjarshpet0hiuehmitoio0bntnhamcsi0orngyas,t-tt. 
 
 SPEECH 
HOIST. A. O. BAG OF. 
 
Mr. BACON said: 
 
Mr. PRESIDENT. The discussion, of the question -whether silver 
 
shall be restored to the same right of coinage which from the 
 
foundation of the Groverrimcnt until 1873 it enjoyed equally with 
 
gold has been for twenty years in the forefront of those agitating 
 
the public mind and demanding- a final determination at the 
 
hands of Congress. In spite of this tinivcYsal public interest and 
 
the unremitting popular agitation which has continued without 
 
cessation as a result thereof, the problem is yet unsolved and still 
 
constitutes, after this 3ong period of contention, the most import 
 
ant, the most importunate, and the most irrepressible question of 
 
the day. 3o long as it remains undetermined, it is not only natural 
 
but unavoidable that there should continue concerning it the 
 
deepest public, interest and the most active political contention. 
 
This contention is not confined to the state papers of the Chief Executive, and to the debates in Congress, and to the discussions 
 
of the press, but extends to every class and condition, from those 
 
whose annual incomes are counted by millions of dollars to the 
 
humblest laborer whose weeks toil will not earn the smallest gold 
 
piece now coined and issued from the mint of the G-oyernmciit. 
 
It not only marks divisions between political parties, but also 
 
the most pronounced and -well-defined divisions between antago 
 
nistic factions within these parties. 
 
In the presence of such widespread and consuming interest it 
 
is a fact, to which thoughtful and conservative people of whatever 
 
political faith should not shut their eyes, that unless at an early 
 
date there is by them a fair and proper ad;JTistment of this mo 
 
mentous matter its solution may be accomplished at the hands of 
 
those who have less concern for the establishment of a sound and 
 
stable currency. The possibility of such occurrence may seem to 
 
be very remote. Nevertheless, those who feel most secure in the 
 
confidence that the question of the restoration of silver has "been 
 
pxrfc finally to rest, and who boast that further discussion is but a 
 
moot debate, the thrashing over of old straw, should not forget 
 
the fact taught by experience in both political and civil convul 
 
sions that the most violent and successful revolutions have fre 
 
quently been developed -when the power they overthrew seemed 
 
most irnpregnably intrenched and girt about -with its defenses. 
 
The question of the restoration of the coinage of silver upon 
 
terms of exact equality with gold, when reduced to its last analysis, 
 
is whether the basis of the money of final payment shall be nar 
 
rowed to the possible supply of gold coin, or whether it shall "be 
 
2 
 
... 
 
S039 
 
 8 
 
broadened so as to include the available supply of both gold and silver for coinage as primary standard money. 
 
The resultant of this last analysis must embrace "both the gold and the silver coin, each with equal current interchangeable value with the other. "For otherwise there would necessarily be practic 
 
ally either gold monometallism or silver monometallism. Prctermitting for the present the question whether the double 
standard of gold and silver is practically possible, it is apparent that the question whether tho money of final payment shall in this country consist solely of gold, or -whether it shall consist of both gold and silver, is one most deeply and directly affecting every per 
 
son, rich or poor, every interest, great or small, and every occu pation from that of the highest salaried official in the land to that of the humblest laborer who eats his crust as the reward of his 
 
daily toil. 
 
S 
 
In considerin^the importance of the restoration of silver as a 
 
standard money it is essential to keep clearly in view the distinc 
 
tion between real money and other forms of currency. This is 
 
especially essential because the most dangerous device adopted by 
 
those- who afre in truth the friends of the single gold standard, is 
 
to advocate such a plan for the coinage of silver as will only make 
 
it representative or token money and not real standard money. 
 
By this cunning device maiiy_ of the friends of silver coinage are 
 
deceived, and the line of division is obscured between those who 
 
are really gold monometallists and those who are in good faith 
 
binietallists. 
 
In common parlance all forms of currency are called money. It is nevertheless true that many of these forms of currency are not money, but only the representatives of money. Accurately speaking, only that is money which is the standard of value and which is known as the money of final payment; that form of cur rency which is itself paid or redeemed is nothing else, but which in itself pays and redeems everything else. All other forms of 
 
currency are but.the representatives of money. Only unlimited legal-tender coin is strictly money. Even legal-tender green backs are not money, because while they are under the law legal 
 
tender in the payment of debts, they are themselves a demand upon the Government for redemption in legal-tender coin. All forms of paper currency are biit the representatives of money. Not only so, but it is,a fact which can not be too clearly iinderetood or too strongly emphasized that all forms and grades of metallic token money, such as our subsidiary coinage, whether of silver, nickel, or copper, are but the representatives of money. They are not in themselves money, bnt derive their current value, just as the paper currency does, from the fact that they are, under certain regulations, redeemable by the Government in that 
 
which is real money. To coin silver, in whatever amount or in whatever denominations, 
 
as subsidiary or token money, is but to make it representative money, at last redeemable in gold. If it is to be representative money it may as well be of paper as of silver. The important ob 
 
ject to be accomplished in the restoration of silver is to enlarge the quantity of standard money. To accomplish this silver must bo coined and used as standard money of final payment in no wise 
 
dependent on gold. Anything short of this is a delusion and a snare, cunningly spread for the feet of the unwary and the unin 
 
formed. 
 
Whatever may be the volume of merely representative currency. 
 
 Whether it be of paper or of coin token money, the questions of the price of property and of labor are necessarily and materially affected by the volume of the standard coin money. Supply and demand andalso other influeiices undoubtedly affect prices. The question -whether there shall or shall not be general and individual prosperity, whether prices shall be high or low, whether business shall be active or stagnant, whether enterprise shall be productive or paralyzed, or whether wages shall be remunerative or insuffi cient for support, are all more or less affected by many influences. But be these influences what they may, whether for good or for evil, the important potential factor in the decision of these ques tions for good, is the proper supply of primary standard money in the country. 
The advocates of the restoration of silver as primary money are in favor of silver, not as against gold. They favor the restora tion of silver because the use of both gold and silver as ultimate redemption money is necessary to constitute true bimetallism. 
They are now struggling in behalf of silver because silver is the metal which is now excluded from equal rights of coinage. 
If the conditions were reversed and silver were by law allowed free coinage and the same right of coinage denied to gold, all true bimetallists would contend with equal earnestness for the restoration of gold. There can be no true bimetallism which does not embrace as a constituent part silver as primary standard 
money. In the discussion, therefore, of the restoration of silver, the issue 
should be accurately denned and clearly recognized, not as gold 
on the one side and silver on the other side, but as gold monomet allism on one side, opposed on the other side to bimetallism, em bracing both gold and silver as primary standard money. The man who favors unlimited gold coinage, and also silver coinage, but the latter only in the shape of subsidiary or token money, is not a bimetallist. Whatever be the reasons which, control him, he is in effect a practical gold monometallist. He only is a bimet allist who favors both gold and silver as standard, final redemption money. 
The importance of true "bimetallism to the prosperity of the co-nntry is the fundamental controlling fact underlying the demand for the restoration of silver. The strength of the argument in favor of bimetallism is based on the fact that the use of both metals is necessary to supply the amount of money of final pay ment required to do the business of the world, for the reason that all the gold in the world available for coinage is, taken by itself, insufficient for this purpose; and that all the silver in the world 
available for coinage, taken by itself, is likewise insufficient for this purpose. 
This is the basic, fundamental proposition in favor of bimetal lism. Is this proposition true? If it is, then the restoration of bimetallism with the use of both gold and silver as the money of final payment can not be overestimated, and there can be no higher 
obligation on the statesmanship of the country than to find a speedy way for its accomplishment. If it is not true, but if on the_ con trary it is a fact that there is enough of gold available for coinage to answer all the needs of the world as the money of final pay ment, then for myself I am ready to admit that the question of "bimetallism, and the question -whichit involves of the restoration of silver as primary money, except so far as they concern debts previously contracted, are comparatively unimportant questions. 
 
 5 
Upon the crucial cjriegtion as to the sufficiency of the gold supply there is little division in tlie opinions of public men, judgingby their former utterances, and there is little room for division. Most of them have borne direct testimony to the fact of srich insufficiency. In 1878 the present senior Senator from Ohio [Sir. SHKRMAN] , then Secretary of the Treasury, -wrote a. letter to lion. William S. Groesbeck, of Cincinnati, from which I "will ask the Secretary to read the portion which is marked. 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as indicated. The Secretary read as follows; 
e delicacy in^replying very fully. During the monetary confe 
of value, outweigh in my mind all theoretical objections to the bimetallic system. 
Mr. BACON. In May, 1894, certain Senators sent a cablegram to the International Bimetallic Conference in London, and I ask that the Secretary read from the report of that conference the portion -which is marked. 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as indicated. Mr. BACON." I desire to state, in order that the reading of the extract-may "be properly understood, that the statement which the Secretary is now reading is the preliminary statement of the pre siding officer made to themeeting concerning the cablegram, which will immediately follow: The Secretary read as follows: I desire to read the following cablegram from America, addressed to the lord mayor, to be read to this meeting this morning: " "We desire to express our cordial sympathy with the movement topromote the restoration of silver by international agreement, in aid of -which we un derstand a meeting is to be held to-morrow under your lordships presidency. We believe that the free coinage of both gold and silver "by international agreement at a fixed ratio would secure to mankind the blessing of a suffi cient volume of metallic money, and, what is hardly less important, would secure to the world of trade*im:niunity from violent exchange fluctuations." This cablegram is signed by Messrs. JOHN SHEIIMAN, WILMAM ALI.TSON, D. W. VOOKHEES, H. O. LODGE, G. F. HOAB, K. "W. AMHMCH, D. B. HILL, E, MURPHY* C. S. BHICE, O. H. PLATT, A. P. GOKMAN, W. P. FB.YE, c. K. DAVIS, S. M. CTJLLOM, J. M. Oarey, United States Senators. Having to discharge magisterial duties for the lord mayor. I will ask my esteemed friend, Mr. Hucks Gibbs, to take the chair in my place. [Loud applause.] Mr. Henry Hucks Gibbs: The secretary will readcertainjetters of apology. Bat before his doing so I will mention that the significance of that cablegram which has just been read to you is much enhanced by the fact that the names appended to it inclnde those of the leading " gold men " and advocates of the repeal of the Shernaan Act in the Senate. Mr. BACON. Of course it will be recognized that both the let ter and the cablegram contemplated international agreement; but whatever might be the method of relief preferred, both documents contain the emphatic declaration by these distinguished Senators of the insufficiency of the supply of gold, to be relieved from which, by the addition of silver as standard money, -would "be, in their language, a "blessing to mankind." Nor, Mr. President, is this testimony confined to these eminent Senators, for there is scarcely in the -whole country a public man of any political party who has not repeatedly, in public speech and in printed letter, avowed his earnast desire for the restoration of bimetallism, and" expressed his antagonism to the single gold standard, recognizing 
 
 thereby the insufficiency in the possible supply of: gold. In addi tion to the testimony of eminent public mon in their individual capacities, the great conventions of the great political parties of the nation, when they liaye met to nominate their candidates for the highest offices, have in their declarations of principles vied with, each other in the strength and earnestness of the avowals of their loyalty to both gold and silver as the standard money of final payment. 
Every such utterance by these great national conventions is an emphatic declaration of the insufficiency of the gold supply for the needs of the country. But the crowning declaration of the fact is found in the act of 1803, by which "was repealed the pur chasing clause of the Sherman Act. That act of 1893, after per forming the legislative function which was designed, went further, and in a most unusual manner declared in the most solemn form known to lawmakers the policy and duty of the G-overnment to coin both gold and silver as standard money, and avowed the ob ligation and intention, to find in one way ol" another the safe -way in which to accomplish ifc. I will ask the Secretary to read the extract from the act as marked, 
The VICE-PIiESIDElsrT. The Secretary will read as indi cated. 
The Secretary read as follows: 
And it is hereby declared to be tlie policy of the United States to continue the use of both, gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold ana silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such, equality to bo secured through international agreement, or by such safeguards of legis lation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in value of tlie coins of the two metals and the equal power of every dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of debts. And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the Oovei-ument should be steadily direC-ted to the establishment of auoh a safe system of bimetallism as will maintain at all times the equal power oC every dollar coined or issued by the United States in the markets and in tho payment of debts. 
Mr. BACO1S". This solemn declaration, made in this unusual form, could only have been demanded and justified upon tlie ad mitted gross inadequacy of gold to furnish the required amount of standard money. 
And thus it is seen that we have the unbroken and concurrent testimony of the eminent men of the day, of the great political parties of the nation, speaking1 through their representative con ventions, and of the G-overnment of the United States speaking in the solemn utterance of a statute, declaring tlie vital impor tance of a restoration of "bimetallism which shall embrace both old and silver coin as full standard money. These declarations, 
y necessary intondment, avow tlie inadequacy of the possible gold supply to furnisn. alone the standard money necessary to properly carry on tho business of the country, in such manner that there may be profitable employment of capital in other busi ness than in bonds and mortgages in such, manner that the great natural resources of the country may "be developed, that business may be active, that enterprise shall "be eager, and that the labor of the country may find abundant employment at remunerativa wages. 
The testimony thus piled up in support of this proposition finds its indisputable confirmation in the financial conditions of the lead ing nations of the world. It can not be said that any one nation lias more than a sufficiency of gold. If, therefore, any one of the nations has an insufficiency to supply its needs, to procure such sufficiency would require that the amount needed for this purpose 
 
 should "be taken from some other nation. " To do so would neces sarily leave the nation from which it was taken "with a correspond ing insufficiency. Thus it would necessarily result that to fi.il the treasury of one nation with needed gold would require taat the treasury of another should be emptied of gold for the purpose. 
"What are the facts as to the supply of gold hold by tne leading nations? The United States and a].Vthe leading Governments of Europe are trying to hoard gold. The fearful cost at which this Government is endeavoring to keep what it considers a safe amount to enable it to maintain the gold basis leaves no room for question that our own supply of gold is woefully inadequate for this pur pose. While this is so, it is furthermore a most remarkable fact that of all the six grg,at powers of Europe only two of them, Eng land and GJ-ermany^eCre on a gold specie paying basis. It is a reason able statement tliat either one of these Governments, if it could command the requisite supply of gold to safely undertake it, -would certainly make g-old specie payments of its obligations; and yet in spite of great hoards of gold in their treasuries, their knowl edge of the undoubted fact that there is not sufficient of it to go around if payments are -undertaken in it, keeps every leading 
Sower of .Eiirope, excepting only England and Germany, in a conition of suspended gold payments, and practically upon a paper or silver basis, 
In Russia there is a paper currency at about 33 per cent discount. I know that Russia is classed among those using the silver stand ard, but she has a great hoard of gold which she is constantly struggling to increase, and there c&n be no doubt that her inability to maintain gold payments is the only reason why she is not on the gold basis. So that upon the question of the sufficiency of the gold supply it is practically the same thing in lier case as if she had the gold standard. 
In Austria there is & depreciated, paper currency which is not even upon its face convertible into coin of any kind. In Italy, so far from gold, one doesnot even see silver, but only bills and shinplasters for amounts as small as 1 franc (less than 20 cents). 
France, with the largest per capita gold and silver coinage of any other nation in the world, recognizing the insufficiency of the gold supply of the world, arid knowing that she would be speedily drained of her supply if she paid it out on the demands against her, keeps her own gold supply, by arbitrarily refusing to pay it out on any demand, except in cases when it suits her convenience to do so. No government can be said to be on a gold-paying basis which does not pay gold coin to everyone demanding it. This, then, is the situation. Including the United States, there are seven great powers in the world. Of them Hussia, Austria, Italy, and Prance are each confessedly not on a gold specie-paying basis, and Russia, Austria, and Italy not on a specie basis of any kind. 
The Government of the United States, while pay ing gold, doss So on33r by continually borrowing, at a ruinous cost, gold which she would otherwise not have gold which belongs to others and which must be returned. And even -with this continual borrow ing, if Qne-fourth of her demand obligations were presented for payment she would be compelled to suspend gold payments. She, too, then, must be pxxt down in the class which has not enough of gold to maintain gold specie payments. 
And thus it 19 that among the seven great powers of the earth, viz, the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Kussia, and Italy, there are only two, Great Britain andGermany, 
2039 
 
 which each, has the sufficiency of gold, in her own tight, to enable her to maintain gold payments. This remarkable fact is not due to the poverty of either of these great powers, but solely to the Insufficiency of the gold supply in the world, for each of these powerful nations is rich in resources and in products. 
Another most remarkable fact in this connection is that while of these seven great powers only two of. them tave a sufficiency of gold, it is at the same time nevertheless true that these seven nations have in the aggregate more than three-fourths of all the gold in the "whole world. The remainder, of less than one-fourth of the gold of the world, is held in small amounts by a number of lesser powers, such as Portugal, Belgium, Sweden, etc. No one of them,-with few exceptions, has exceeding $40,000,000, and most of them have much less than this amount. It is a fact of momen tous significance that these seven great powers, rich in every ma terial resource and controlling the "business and commerce of the world, after twenty years in which they have gathered within their borders more than three-fourths of all the gold of all the world, find it utterly inadequate to maintain one-third of them upon a gold specie-paying basis. 
Nor is the insufficiency of gold in these countries only shown in. the inability of their Governments to maintain gold specie pay ments. It is equally seen in a like inability of their citizens. No more startling evidence of this insufficiency in this country is needed than the spectacle recently witnessed of "Wall street thrown into a perfect spasm of a panic the first day that England de manded gold of America for one-hundredth, part of the debt which this country owes her a foreign indebtedness which has been un necessarily contracted and increased to enormous proportions, by reason of the suicidal policy of this Government in refusing to furnish her own people, out of the abundant resources of the country, with a sufficient supply of sound standard money. 
The insufficiency of the worlds supply of gold does not end with the deficiency in the case of these seven great nations taken in the aggregate. These nations embrace less than one-fourth of the population of the earth. 
How is gold, the supply of which is shown to be inadequate for the needs of one-fourth, to be so spread among all the nations as to be snmcient for the business needs of the whole world as the money of final payment? For it is not to be forgotten that the argument of the gold-standard advocate is that steam and elec tricity and modern methods have so converted the whole world into one business community that there must be for all countries alike a tmiform standard of money of final payment. 
The insufficiency of the supply of gold, even for the needs of those nations striving for the gold standard, is so abundantly proven by indisputable facts that there can be no reasonable con troversy as to the truth of the proposition. It is a fact which stands a very lion in the path that leads to gold monometallism. 
This fact necessarily compels one of two conclusions; Either th.e business world and political economists have heretofore been in er ror, and there is no need of a due proportion of metallic standard money, as has heretofore been believed and recognized through all the centuries, or this required sufficiency of metallic standardmoney nrdst be secured by the nse of both gold and silver. There is no log ical escape from the Latter proposition, except by takingrefuge in the former. In consequence of this dilemma, there have arisen among the advocates of the gold standard those who, unable to dispute 
 
 the fact of the insufficiency of gold, "boldly advocate the proposi tion that the bul"k.of "business being transacted on credit, the ques tion of the quantity of standard coin is uninwortant. and that, tho  chief function of the money metal "being that of a measure of value, its office can "be as well performod by a small quantity as by a large quantity. I have personally heard one of tho largest and most influential capitalists of l^ew "York seriously argue the soundness of this position; and I have read in a respectable gold-standard newspaper an argument to the effect that if the G-overnment kept a few gold coins as the standard of value in the same way that it keeps standards of weights-and measures, it was unimportant how small might be the volume of gold coins in the country; and the President, in his last ajxfrual message to Congress, in advocating the gold standard, uses this language: 
If a, fixed ami stable standard is maintained, as tTie r,iagnitude and safety 
iently minimi2;o<i. This may be to" the interest of the money powers in the money 
centers, where, with clearing-houses, these great financial asso ciations arbitrarily, suspend monev payments when money is most needed by their creditors, and" in violation of law issue cer tificates to pass as currency between themselves in the place of money which they either have not or with which, if they have it, they will not part. But to ninety-nine one-hundredths of the people there can be no substitute for money in business transac tions. They have no clearing-house certificates or other credit devices which will be accepted when the demand for money is made upon them. The suggestions that we should only have a limited quantity of coin to serve as a standard of value, and that then all business should be done through credit, is utterly unten able. It is on a par with that other plan whicli proposes to dispense with all metallic money, and establish in lieu thereof an ideal money, fixed by the average value of certain products. 
All human experience is against such propositions. From the earliest ages gold and silver coins have been the standards of value, and either themselves the mediums of exchange or the basis for such mediums, and all the devices of men to substitute other fonns of standard money and to dispense with the use of actual standard coin have signally failed. History teaches that the un due contraction in the volume of standard coin money retards the progress of nations, stagnates business, and destroys public and private prosperity. 
The inevitable result from* the contraction of the volume of standard money is falling prices sooner or later. Whenever in the presence of such contraction liquidation sets in prices must go down. 
There can be no greater evil to the business prosperity of a country than falling prices caused by the contraction of the vol ume of standard money. It stagnates the current of all business. One_ can not afford to buy a house when he knows that prices are falling and that the house will be worth less in a month than it is the day he buys it. He can not afford to buy material and employ labor and build a house when he knows that with falling prices the house within a short time after its completion will be worth less than the cost of the labor and the material. "What is true of one man is true ofall others in the community. The building of houses stops, and in consequence the man who makes material stops making material and Ma laborers go unemployed. The 
 
 laborers and mechanics, having no employment, have no -wages to spend, -with the merchants. The merchant, haying fewer custo mers, have less goods to buy, fewer goods to ship by the railroads, and fewer clerks to employ. The railroads, having less freight to transport for the merchants, run fewer trains, employ fewer men and at less wages in the shops and on tho roads, and they in turn have less money to spend with tho merchants. And so it can be traced through every industry and branch of business, the depres sion of each one acting -upon the other and paralyzing it. The business disasters of the past three years furnish all details of the picture. 
In tho general stagnation caused by falling prices during tho past three years the merchant has been idle behind his counter, the hammer of the mechanic has been still, the -wheels of. the fac tory have ceased to go round, and ttie farmer no longer has had re munerative prices for his products, and, except where supply has fallen below the normal demand, has had to sell them, at less than the cost of production. Out of such conditions it is not to be wondered at that the merchants and farmers have become bank rupt, that railroads and almost all other business enterprises have gone into the hands of receivers, that valuable real estate has be come a drug, that all business languishes, and that the land is filled with idle men who can find no work. And tho end is not yet. for the commercial agencies report an increasing number of failures. This distress and disaster will in greater or less degree continue so long as the single gold standard is practically main tained, for the annual coinage of gold will not keep pace -with the increasing population and. business development. 
And so it is that in this country, with undeveloped resources practically without limit, with a people resolute, industrious, and enterprising, a people with the will and the capacity to develop these resources and convert them into untold wealth, we stand like a pov erty-stricken nation begging the world to lend us gold, refusing to utilize our own resources for the sufficient supply of a sound standard coinage. The .London ISTews expressed the trutH "when in a recent issue it spoke of the United States as  both potentially and actually the richest country in the world." -A-iicl yet, in dis regard of all these elements of wealth, we are sacrificing our own interest that other nations may prosper. We are fast becoming the financial vassals of England, and every year of the mainte nance of the oingle gold standard by this country vrill strengthen and more closely knit the cords of our bondage. Each year the lessening price which our exports to her will command will rep resent a corresponding lessening payment by them upon our in debtedness to her, and the necessity will be the borrowing of more gold from her. Her domination in foreign lands is largely tho power of her gold, and the people will not forget that but yes terday, when the whole country, without regard to political party divisions, rang with applause for the President in his bold asser tion of the intention of this Government to maintain and enforce the Monroe doctrine at all cost, he was unsparingly denounced by those whose indebtedness made them the dependents of the British money power. 
But sentiment and national pride aside tlie enormous price_ that the American people are now paying for the privilege of retaining the single gold standard should cause it to be unhesitatingly con demned and discarded, and a return to the bimetallic standard accomplished by the speediest practicable route. 
 
 11 
 
For the purpose of procuring gold there have already been three 
 
bond issues -made by tho Secretary of the Treasury, aggregating 
 
$162,000.000. In February. 1394, United States bonds to tlis 
 
amount of 50,000, 000 were sold. In November, 1894. $50,000,000 
 
more were sold, and in February, 1895, $03,000,000 more. On the authority of the President of the United States, 1 assert that these 
 
bonds were not issued for the purpose of raising revenue for the 
 
Government or for the purpose of extinguishing the indebtedness 
 
of the Government, but solely for the purpose of maintaining the 
 
gold standard. This enormous amount of indebtedness, which the 
 
people of this country must ultimately pay, and the interest upon 
 
which they must ..pay annually, has been incurred for 110 other 
 
purpose. 
 
/- 
 
The President; in his last annual message to Congress says of 
 
these three bond issues as follows. I will ask the Secretary to 
 
-read the portion of the Presidents annual message which is 
 
marked. 
 
. The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary -will read as indicated. 
 
Tho Secretary read as follows: 
 
of the question of paying tho expends of Government with their proceeds. There was no necessity to consider that question. At the time of each bond issue wo had a sato surplus in the Treasury for ordinary operations, exclu sive of the sold ia our reserve. In February, 1894, when tho first issue of bonds was made, racsli surplus amounted to over $18,000,000: in jSTovomber, when the second issue ^vas made, it amounted to more than $J3,000,000, and in February, 1895, wheti bonds for the third time were issued, suh surplus amounted to more than $100.000,000. It now amounts to $98,OTa,4-;;0.30. 
Besides all this, the Secretary of the Treasury had no authority whatever to issue bonds to increase tho or dinar y revenues or pay current expenses. 
Mr. BACON. Within a few days $100,000,000 more of bonds is to be issued, not for the purpose of revenue and not for the purpose of extinguishing tho public debt, but solely for the pur pose of maintaining the single gold standard. This $100,000,000 of bonds is to be issued now when there is in the Treasury in round numbers $180,000,000, and when, according to the Treasury reports, the public revenue is flowing into the Treasury at the rate of nearly $1,000,000 a day. This makes, with the previous bond issues,, the enormous amount of $363,000,000 of indebtedness in curred in two years f qr this purpose alone. 
Here is an object lesson for the people at fail to look with care.. Here is,, in tangible form,, a presentation of a part of the bill they must pay for the privilege and honor of maintaining the gold standard. In addition to this enormous issue of bonds, the President plainly says in his annual message that more bonds are to be issued if required for this purpose. Let no man be deceived as to the question whether he must contribute his part to the payment of these bonds and of the annual interest thereon. From the richest to the poo_rest, the people of every State and section must pay their proportion, and under onr system of revenue the poor will pay almost if not quite as much as the rich. 
What benefit has the single gold standard been to the plain people of this country, those \vho niake up the great masses of the people engaged in the ordinary avocations of the country? How much more of cotton and wheat and other agricultural products has it enabled our farmers to make each year, and ho~w much increased price has it "brought them for such products? How has it benefited the man who stands behind the counter, or in the office, or those who toil in the workshops and in the fields? How has it been such a great blessing to the country that 
 
 is 
the sweat of an -unborn generation should "be mortgaged to pay for the privilege of its enjoyment? 
Conceding theee bond issues to be In accordance with lav? and in obedience to law, how long a time must be required "before Congress will, in the performance of a duty, sweep such a law from the statute book? 
Eespectirig most profoundly the opinions of the distinguished raen. -who think oth.ervri.se, for myself I am most unhesitatingly of the opinion that there is no authority in the present law for the issuance of these bonds. However tins may be, if the law author ises the continuous and enormous increase of the public debt sim ply to maintain the gold standard it ought to be repealed. If the law does nob authorize it, but is susceptible of a construction "by which the power is claimed under it, there is none the less reason why it should be repealed-. 
I do not forget that it is urged "by many that these "bonds have been in fact issued to make good the deficiency in the revenue. I will not stop to discuss what disposition has been made of the pro ceeds of the sale of the one hymdred and sixty-two millions of bonds, or the legality of such disposition. Be this as it may, the" fact can not be successfully controverted that but for the purpose of maintaining- gold payments these bonds would not have_ been issued, nor would this additional one hundred millions be issued next month. 
Mr. HILL. Will the Senator from. Georgia allow me? Mr. BACON. Certainly; I have no objection to an interruption. Mr. HILL. I am very much interested in the Senators very able speech, and wish to ask him a question for information simply. Mr. BACON". I shall be glad to give any information I can to the Senator from New "York. Mr. HILL. I ask whether It Is quite fair to charge to the main tenance of the gold standard the -whole amount of the bond issues. For instance, the greenbacks will have to bo redeemed in some thing either gold or silver unless they are wholly irredeemable, and therefore is there not to be charged to the maintenance of the gold standard simply the difference between the gold and silver, whatever that difference may be? Mr. BACON". I think not, and for tho simple reason I shall state. There is in the Treasury now, and there was in the Treas ury at the time of each of these successive issues, more than sufficient of that which the law in plain terras says is the legaltender coin of this country to pay the amount of the greenbacks when presented, if it had toeen in accordance with the view of the Administration to -QS the money for that purpose. Mr. HEFFER. Even more than enough of the gold. Mr. HILL, If the Senator will allow me, I wish simply to say that the bullion not used still belongs to the Government, I thought the point you were making was that it would make an additional debt. If you simply have a fund on hand and do not use it, it is merely substituting one fund for another, is it not? Mr. BACON. It is true, as the Senator from New York saya, that the money is still on hand; but it is the same as if a man had Ms money locked in a safe and allowed it to remain locked up while he went out and contracted an interest-fearing debt instead of using the money that was in his safe. Mr. HILL. If the Senator will allow me, that, of course, is one way of stating it. Therefore it would lie a mere question, of interest. 
2039 
 
 13 Mr. BACON. That nz^y "bo the ultimata result, but if the Senator from New York "wfll f ollo~w his argument to its legitimate con clusion I shall be most happy. The present construction of t"he law is that tho xrion.ey which is still in the Treasury, and which I Bay respectfully, differing of course from those who think other* wise, ought to "be devoted to that purpose . Mr. LrprpSAY. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to interrupt him? Mr. BACON1. Let me complete the sentence, when I shall he most happy to hear the Senator from Kentucky. I say thai money is still there. According to the present construction it will remain there. If it remains there it is the same as if it were not there at all; it is dead. Tlie effect is to increase the debt and place that upon the people, when its creation could hzive been avoided by the use of this money. Mr. HILL. Wijl the Senator allow me? Mr. BACON. The Senator from Kentucky has asked leave to interrupt me, out I shall he most happy to hear the Senator from New York. Mr. HILL. We are not so far apart possibly upon that ques tion; hut would it not ba a more accurate statement to say that this indebtedness is incurred to maintain a paper currency, namely, a greenback currency? Mr. BACON. I tbinfc not, Mr. President. There is no doubt that the greenback currency is a charge upon the Treasury, a de mand charge. There is lawful money, money made lawful "by the statute of .the United States, in the Treasury sufficient for the payment of this demand debt when presented. Therefore, if that were used it would not necessitate the contraction of an additional debt. It is, however, not used for that purpose, but, on the con trary, it is held to be a necessity to pay tne greenbacks in a certain coin, to wit, the gold coin, and if it were not for taat necessity the debt "would not be contracted!. Now I shall be most happy to do what I can to answer the Senator from Kentucky. Mr. LINDSAY. I desire to call the Senators attention to the fact that the gold that has been bought has been bought for the purpose of meeting .demands made upon the Treasury by the hold ers either of greenbacks or of notes issued in payment o bullion under the Sherman Act. Mr. BACON. Exactly. Mr. LINDSAY. Those greenbacks are payable in either gold or silver. .Mr. BACON". ~Yes, under the law. Mr. LINDSAY. And not resolvable in other greenbacks. Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly not: Mr. LINDSAY. The resumption act provides that tlie money to be used for resumption shall be acquired by the sale of bonds or else be taken out of the surplus revenues of the Treasury. Mr. BACON. Yes. Mr. LINDSAY. Now, during the last two years, the present Administration taking the Treasury with over 33,000,000 of defi cit, has there been any free silver in tho Treasury that could have been used for the redemption of the greenbacks? Mr. BACON. I will answer the distinguished Senator from Kentucky in the words of the President of the United States, which have been read at the desk, that the purpose of the issuing of the bonds was for the maintenance of the gold standard. I do not de sire to say anything which shall be disrespectful to tho Adminis- 
 
 14 
tratlon. Likethe distinguished Senator from. Missouri [Mr. VEST}, it is with the greatest reluctance that I express any difference. But I do say that roy conviction, is vary strong that so long as the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, who in the issuance of bonds are but the agency of Congress, have within their control legal funds for the payment of the demand obligations, it is beyond the authority of law to create additional obligations for the purpose of raising additional money. 
Mr. LIJNDSAY. Ths question I desire to ask the Senator from Georgia, is, whether there has been at any time since the present Administration commenced free silver in the Treasury which could have been utilized for the redemption or greenbacks? 
Mr. STSWART. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to answer that question? 
Mr. BACON. I shall be most happy to hear the Senator from Nevada. Go ahead. 
Mr. STEWAHT. Ever since the present Administration came in there has been over $50,000,000 01 silver "bullion, which the law made it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to coin, over and above all that is pledged for paper issue, "whether silver cer tificates or Treasury notes. That $50,000,000 would have been suf ficient for all the redemption which would havo been required for the nest fifty years, because there is no object in asking for the redemption of greenbacks excent for gold for speculative pur poses. The people have never asked for one dollar. It has been the duty of the Administration to have50,000,000 there. Further more, that having- been made the duty of the President by law, the last Congress undertook to impress that duty on him, and both Houses passed an actmaking it mandatory for him to coin it. The President vetoed the bill. So he is not laboring very assiduously to get silver coined for the purpose 01 redeeming Treasury notes and greenbacks. It is because the gold gamblers do not want that, but tlie_y -want gold. Ho says m his message that the -whole object of selling bonds is to buy gold to sustain the gold standard, and for no other purpose; that we have revenue enough. 
Mr. BACON. There is still another answer which is entirely sufficient to my mind it may be an illogical one which I submit to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. It is the duty of the Executive as far as possible to discharge the indebtedness of the Government without contracting an interest-bearing debt. Am I not correct in that? 
Mr. LINDSATT. Yes. Mr. BACON. Suppose there is 100,000,000 of greenbacks in the Treasury and no silver, I agree with the distinguished Sen ator from Kentucky that those greenbacks cannot be used to re deem other greenbacks when they are presented; but does any man question the ability of the Executive to take that $100,000,000 of Treasury notes and any day he -wants, if that much silver is on the market, bxiy it and use that which is the legal coin for the pur pose of redeeming the demand obligations of the Government? If there were $30,000,000, say, of greenbacks in the Treasury, and $50,000,000 of greenbacks were presented for payment, would, it be proper for the Executive to decline to take the $50.000,000 of green backs and go on the street and get $50,000,000 ofsilver, which ha knows he can get upon the mere intimation of a desire for it, and to issue an interest-bearing bond for tho purpose of raising money which could be gotten without the contraction of any such interest* 
ng debt? 
 
 15 
Mr. LrtSTDSAY. I ask tlie Senator, in reply if there has been any time when silver dollars could have been "bouglit on the mar ket during the present Administration cheaper than gold, dollars could have heen bought? 
Mr, BACON. I think possibly that could not have been done; bnt Ido think the Senator will say that there has never been a time, ,except in 1893, "when there was such, a severe stringency, when anybody could fail to get silver in exchange for greenbacks, if he desired to do so. Certainly the power of this great Government could accomplish it; and if so, I respectfully submit in all defer ence 
Mr. TELLER.. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to make a suggestion? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. TELLER. If the- Senator from Kentucky will look at the reports that conic every day to our tables, he will nnd that there has been no time when the Government did not have enough sil ver to make a tender if it had designed to use silver. On the 24th instant the Government had $12,000,000 of silver certificates lying in the Treasury. Of course that means that the Gf-overiimcnt has $13,000,000 of silver at its disposal if it chooses to use them. Mr. LINDSAY. I ask the Senator from Colorado if that repre sented surplus revenue, and if any other money can be used for redemption except surplus revenue? Mr. TELLER. It represented nothing of the kind. It simply re presented so much silver in the Treasury independent of the silver that is held to redeem the Treasury notes, for which it is never used. Mr. BACOiN". "Whatever might be true of the former bond is sues, it is certainly not true that there is now any lack of Treas ury notes and greenbacks in the Treasury for the purpose of mak ing the exchange which I suggest. There are now, according to the report which the distinguished Senator from Colorado has al luded to, about.^100,000,000 of greenbacks and Treasury notes in the Treasury, besides the money to which, the distinguished Sena tor from Nevada has made allusion, and which it was within the power of the Administration to have put into coin under the law now existing. "We not only have the authority of the President in the extract which I had read for the statement that the bonds already issued were issued solely for the purpose of maintaining gold payments, but the additional statement by him that  the Secretary of the Treasury had no authority whatever to issue bonds to increase the ordinary revenues or pay current expenses," There can be no possible contention that the 100,000,000 of bonds to be issued next month are to supply any deiiciency, ;-because we now have 8180,000,000 surplus in the Treasury. So thai I repeat, this 8162.000,000 of bonds already issued and the additional 8100,000.000 to be issued within a few days constitute a direct money payment of $363,000,000 for the privilege of maintaining the single gold standard, not one dollar of which would have been paid if. we were in practice, as well as in law, on a bimetallic basis, paying out at the option of the Government either gold or silver upon all demands pre sented. It is the money payment the people of the whole country are forced to make to prevent a return to bimetallism and to 
shall remain demonetized. 
 
 16 
 
The proportion of this indebtedness which falls upon the people 
 
of G-eorgia is not less than $8,000,000, and the annual interest 
 
which must be paid by the people of that State on this portion of the debt is more than 300^000. "While this principal and inter 
 
est are to be paid by them through indirect taxation, it is none the less to be actually paid by their money. The miasma which. floats in the air is none the less poisonous because unseen, and 
 
this principal of $8,000,000 and this annual interest thereon of over 
 
$300,000 are ,iust as certain to "be paid in money by the people of 
 
my State as if the tax-gatherer called at the door of each citizen and demanded and received from him his part of this immense payment as the price for the privilege of remaining for two years on the gold basis. We can not close our eyes to the factthat 
 
under existing law, if the same construction shall continue to be 
 
put upon it, the experience of the past two years is to be repeated 
 
again and again, and "bond issue after bond issue is to be made, 
 
piling up debt upon debt to maintain the gold standard. 
 
True the advocates of increased tariff rates contend that when such, increased tariff shall bring a greater revenue into the Treas ury the now of gold from the Treasury will cease. However 
 
full oiii- Treasury may "be, the demand for gold to go to England 
 
will not cease so long as we are due her each year $150,000,000 in 
 
interest on debts and in dividends on investments her people have 
 
in America, and so long as the greenbacks and Treasury notes are outstanding and aro recognised as payable at the Treasury in gold at the option of the holders, so long will those desiring g-old go to 
 
the Treasury of the United States as the most convenient place to 
 
get it. Increased revenue can prevent it in one way only, ancl 
 
that way is found in such an abundance of revenue as will enable 
 
the G-overnment, by continuing to issue bonds, to lock up all the greenbacks and Treasury notes in the Treasury. 
 
If it can accomplish that, which is practical contraction of the 
 
currency to the extent of $500,000,000, it can stop the use of green 
 
backs and Treasury notes for the purpose of drawing gold out of 
 
the Treasury. 
 
I presume there are very few Senators on either side of the Cham 
 
ber who would favor any system which would result in such vio lent contraction of the currency of the country. 
 
There is another way, and in my opinion the proper way, to stop 
 
the flow of gold from the Treasury and to entirely destroy the 
 
necessity or excuse for the issue of bonds. That way is for the 
 
G-overnment, in reply to everyone who presents a demand for pay 
 
ment at the Treasury, to aay as follows: 
 
The law makes both gold and silver a legal tender in the payment of debts, 
 
botli public and private- This Government, under the law, receives either 
 
gold or silver from its debtors, at the option of ment will pay to you as its creditor either gold venient for it to do. 
 
its debtors, or silver as 
 
and may 
 
this Govern be most con 
 
That such position is strictly in accordance with the laws of 
 
the TJnited States I tiavo no doubt. I am equally assured in my 
 
convictions that if this position had been taken by the Secretary of the Treasury in 1893 the troubles which have afflicted the Treas ury would have been averted. The issue of $262,000,000 of bonds 
 
in two years would have been made unnecessary by simply recog 
 
nizing silver as lawful money in the payment of the demand obli 
 
gations of the G-overninent. And I confidently predict that, with 
 
existing laws, unless silver legal-tender coin is recognized, and 
 
used as well as gold, at the option of the G-overnment, as lawful 
 
money in the payment of obligations, there will necessarily be an 
 
 17 animal issuance of over $100,000,000 of bonds to procure gold witii which to maintain gold payments, and that such -will be the reBult whether the revenues of the G-overnment be great or small. 
Mr. President, I can not doubt that the people will compel the remedy whenever they fully understand and realize the enormity of the cost at which the gold, standard is maintained. I must "believe their eyes -will be opened to the truth "when they learn that in- a State of the population and business of Georgia, because the Government does not use silver as standard money, there is to be added each year the amount of four millions or more of dol lars aa the proportion of the increasing debt to be paid by the people of that State, and amounts in like proportion by the people of other States, according to their population and consumption of articles upon which revenue is raised. This issue may be be clouded, the people *may be deceived and misled to their own. hurt; nevertheless, the truth will ultimately be known to them that to maintain a gold standard tliere is not only loss of untold wealth in the .paralysis of enterprise and in the stagnation of business, but that hundreds of millions of indebtedness must be directly incurred, every dollar of which they must ultimately pay in money. 
Mr. President, there is another effect in the practical operation of this effort to maintain the single gold standard which is entitled to the serious consideration of Senators and of the country at large. There isnow in the Treasury in round numbers $180,000,000 surplus. Of course that includes the $100,000,000 held for redemption, but there is in the Treasury to-day, I should say, $180,000,000, or, speaking with more apcuracy, about 177,000,000 of money of all kinds; and recognizing that $100,000,000 of that is held as redemption money, there is an absolute surplus in the Treasury to-day of $77,000,000. When the $100,000,000 bonds are sold next month there will be in the Treasury $380,000,000 or more, of which amount about one hundred millions will be green backs and Treasury notes; and if the revenues are hereafter equal to the expenditures, as is anticipated by the Secretary of the Treasury, this amount of $380,000,000 will remain locked up in the Treasury. There will be nothing for which to pay it out, the revenues being equal to the expenses of the Ciovernment, 
The only possibility of any device, so far as I know, by which it can be paid out is by the purchase of bonds, which would, of course, necessitate their purchase at a very high premium and at a. very rapidly increasing premium. This would result in the bonds sold at a. low premium being exchanged for bonds pur chased at a very high premium, and there would be an unneces sary increase of debt upon the people. The difference "between the two rates would be but a temporary relief, Ipecause as soon as the Treasury notes were out of the Treasury these persons would again have an opportunity of presenting them for payment, and the same process would be gone through with again. 
The only change in the $280.000,000 thus locked up in the Treas ury will be that a large part of so much of it as is gold, say $100,000,000, will, in the course of a year, be drawn out and its place taken by an equal amount of greenbacks or Treasury notes. As soon as Ms occurs, $100,000,000 more of bonds are to "be sold and the proceeds in gold again put into the Treasury. This will increase the amount locked up in the Treasury to $380,000,000, of which about two hundred millions or more will be in greenbacks or Treasury notes. 
 
 18 
Mr. HILL. Assuming, as I think tlie Senator does, that here after the receipts of the Government will be eciual to the expend itures, would, not the one hundred extra millions still be in the Treasury subject to be exchanged for gold? 
Mr. BACON. Greenbacks for gold? Mr. HILL. Yes. Mr. BACON. If it is possible to exchange greenbacks for gold, why is it that bonds are issued? Mr. HILL. The Senator will understand that if we have plenty of money we can to some extent do that very thing now, can we not? Mr. BACON. It seems not. There is in the Treasury $177,000,000 of money. It is not in gold. As the Senator says, if you have the money yon can make some arrangement. If that is true, the bonds ought not to be issued, and this $177,000,000, $100,000,000 of which is set apart for the redemption fund, ought to be used for the purpose, if it can be done, of getting gold withotit the issuing of bonds bearing interest for that purpose. Mr. HILL. The Senator conies right back to the qtiestion of a deficiency. Then assume that there had been no deficiency of re ceipts over expenditures for the last year and a half, and there would then be in the Treasury something like one hundred and some odd million dollars more than now, would there not? Would not that money still be on hand? And if the parity of gold and silver is maintained, would it not maintain the gold? To that extent is not the argument of the Senator something like this Mr. BACON. The situation which the Senator supposes is the exact present situation. There is in the Treasiiry, according to the Treasury renorts, over $177,000,000 of money, made up of gold and silver and greenbacks. Mr. HILL. And so long as that remains unused for the cur rent expenses of the Government the present situation will be maintained. Mr. BACON. That money is there, and it is not being used. Each day shows practically a maintenance, in spite of the ex penditures, of about the same amount of money in the Treasury, and so far from what the Senator from New York saya being true, in the presence of the fact that there is $177,000,000 in the Treasury, we are about to have another issue of $100,000,000 of bonds. It seems to me, Mr. President, that the hypothetical case of the Senator from New York is answered by the present situation. Mr. HILL. If the Senator will allow me Mr. BACON. I have not got through. I only deferred to the Senator "because he had sought to interrupt me and I was willing to be interrupted. Mr. HILL. I will ask the Senator, assuming now that the re ceipts are going to meet the expenditures, and assuming that gold and silver are to remain substantially at a parity for the next six months, has the Government lost anything or will it lose any thing? Will there be any occasion for any further borrowing of money? Mr. BACON. As long as the greenbacks are out and as long as the Executive takes the position that he must pay gold whenever they are presentedd, it only depends on whether these gentlemen \vill present greenbacks or not. Mr. HILL. We shall have nearly half of the first lot of green backs in the Treasury locked up. Mr. BACON. Exactly. That is what I am saying. 
 
 sibility of getting them out of the Treasury. That is exactly the 
 
point I am on. I am speaking of the fact that the natural, neces 
 
sary consequence of the enforcement of the present law as it is at 
 
present construed, if we have a sufficiency of revenue, is to lock 
 
up in the Treasury all the greenbacks, all the Treasury notes, and 
 
all the paper currency issued by the Grovennneiit. The distin 
 
guished Senator from Hew York asks me whether or not, if there is 
 
a deficiency of revenue, this will occur. I say that that is the only 
 
condition under which it will occur. If there is a deficiency of 
 
revenue, of course money will be paid out; but if there is a 
 
sufficiency of revenue which meets all demands, and the money 
 
is in the Treasury, there is no way to get it out, no way to unlock 
 
it. I)o we not agree on that? 
 
Mr. HILL. I think we do; not entirely, but substantially. 
 
Mr. BACON". That is the point I am on. 
 
Mr. HILL. I think the Senator hardly understood the point of 
 
my suggestion. 
 
Mr. BACON. I think the distinguished Senator from New 
 
York certainly did not understand the proposition I made at the 
 
time lie first interrupted me, because that was the exact proposi 
 
tion. I certainly could not have made any mistake in the ex 
 
pression of it. The -esact proposition I made was, if the future 
 
revenues of the Government eqitaled the expenditures, that the 
 
necessary consequence of the issuing of bonds for the purpose of 
 
getting gold every time the gold reserve was depleted, and taking 
 
that gold and redeeming Treasury notes with it, would be to put 
 
that much additional in the Treasury, to remain there, and which 
 
could not possibly be gotten out unless the Oovernment used it for 
 
the purpose of purchasing bonds, and if it were used for the pur 
 
pose of purchasingbonds, that much of greenbacks would be again 
 
put upon the market, and those green backs would again be brought 
 
back to the Treasury and the same process gone through with 
 
again. So the result would be that the greenbacks and Treasury 
 
notes would be locked up in the Treasury under this system. 
 
Mr. HILL. We come back to the point where we started, and 
 
that is, that all the Q-overnment loses in the matter is the interest. 
 
Mr. BACON. It may be, Mr. President, that the Government 
 
books will balance, but does the distinguished Senator from New 
 
York dispute the fact that with the 500,000,000of greenbacks and 
 
Treasury notes we lock up in the Treasury tliSto woulfi not be a 
 
contraction of the circulating medium of the cotSttry tolthe extent 
 
of $500,000,000? That is the point I am on now. 
 
 
 
Mr. HILL. Did the Senator state that? 
 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. I have stated it, and I am sure the 
 
distinguished Senator from New York was not listening, or he 
 
would certainly have understood it. I was speaking of the effect, 
 
not of increasing the indebtedness, but the effect of locking up the 
 
currency in the Treasury. That was the point I was on at the time. 
 
The same process will be repeated the succeeding year, and the 
 
amount of greenbacks and Treasury notes locked up then -will be 
 
three hundred millions. It may be that the locking up of the green- . 
 
backa and Treasury notes may not proceed as rapidly as I have 
 
suggested. But, althoughitmayproceedmoreslowly, therecanbe 
 
nosuccessfulanawer to the proposition that withreceipts from revfe* 
 
 Hues equal to expenditures, if tlie Government persists in ignoring silver as lawful money for the payment of its demand obligations, and continues to redeem such, obligations only in gold, the con tinued issuance of bonds to replenish the gold thus paid out will necessarily at each succeeding operation lock into the Treasury an amount of greenbacks and Treasury notes equal to the amount of gold thus withdrawn. I understand that to be the proposition of the Senator from New York, and I am glad we agree on it. 
If the law remains as at present and is acted on as at present "by this and succeeding Administrations, it is but a question of time "when the entire outstanding issue of greenbacks and Treasury notes, aggregating about $500,000,000, will be finally locked up in the Treasury, contracting the currency to that amount. While it may not proceed so rapidly, it is nevertheless possible for it to proceed more rapidly. If the Secretary of the Treasury continues to pay gold alone on the demand obligations of the Government, and will each time promptly issue bonds to restore the gold in the Treasury as of ten as the gold reserve is reduced to a low limit, it is entirely within the power of the great financial syndicates of the day to lock up in the Treasury in one year the entire five hundred millions of greenbacks and Treasury notes. One hundred millions is all the capital which would be required to accomplish it. It ia not to be anticipated that such a drastic measure will be under taken, but it is beyond successful dispute that with, as there should and pi-obably will be, a revenue equal to expenditures the process of locking up the greenbacks and Treasury notes will steadily go on, and the currency be contracted in the same propor tion. 
The contention that the gold will not be drawn from the Treas ury when the revenues are adequate and there is no deficiency ia not sustained by experience. In 1892, when there was a surplus of revenue, there was drawn from the Treasury in gold 36,250,560, and over $82,000,000 of this amount was drawn out in the last six months of that year. Other influences evidently induce the with drawal of gold, from the Treasury, influences "which will continue after the deficiency in the revenue shall have disappeared. One of these continuing_ influences is readily found in the $150,000,000 which must be remitted every year to Europe in payment of inter est and dividends; and still another influence in the constant struggle of the European governments to increase their stock of gold. The withdrawal of over $100,000,000in gold from the Treas ury in the year 1895 was not to equalize the balance in trade, for in that year our merchandise exports exceeded our merchandise imports by more than $33,000,000. 
Mr. President, in the year 1894, when there was a very large withdrawal of gold frorn the Treasury I am not prepared to say how much, because I failed to get the exact figures, but certainly there was a very large withdrawal of gold from the Treasury that year the excess of exports from this country over imports to it was $237,145,194. * That plainly shows that the withdrawal of gold from the Treasury is not to be attributed solely to the failure of our country to export as much as it imports, because when it ex ports in greater quantity the gold is still withdrawn from the Treasury. 
With good reason, then, to anticipate continued withdrawals of gold froiii the Treasury, the locking up of the greenbacks and the Treasury notes must necessarily follow under existing laws and practices. 
 
 21 
Neither of the great political parties favors the retirement of the greenbacks -without other currency substituted in lieu thereof. Neither of the parties would dare go before the country on such an issue. But in what manner will tiiey be less responsible if they refuse to enact the only legislation which can prevent the greenbacks from being either in -whole or in part locked up in the Treasury and practically retired from circulation? If in the course of a few years and. in the regular progression of events as they are now occurring the greenbacks are thus finally locked up, the result will be the increased bonded debt of $500,000,000 and the retirement of that amount of currency from circulation another practical presentation to the people in tangible shape of the fearful cost to which they will have been subjected, solely to insure the continued demonetization of silver and to maintain the gold standard. This great disaster can certainly be averted by simply restoring silver as standard money and making it the duty of officers of -the Government to recognize it as such and to pay to the holders of demand obligations either gold or silver, at the option of the Government, as may be most convenient. No one can doubt that the effect -would be instantaneous in stopping the withdrawal of gold from the Treasury and in putting an end to this piling up ofdebt on the people by the continued issuance of bonds to mainraiif the single gold standard. 
It is said by those wno favor gold monometallism that to do so would drive all gold out of the country, -would put us upon a sil ver monometallic basis, and cause us to part company with all the enlightened and progressive nations of the world. However plausi ble these objections may be in theory, they are all completely over thrown by the fact that France pursues -exactly this plan, and in years of its practical operation there have been none of these re sults. As I have previously stated, France pays out to her creditors at her option either gold or silver, and in the exercise of that op tion she pays out little or no gold. Anyone who wishes any large amount of gold can only get it from the Bank of France by pay ing a premium for it as he would buy exchange. This refusal to pay gold at the option of the creditors has not debarred France from the company of all the enlightened and progressive nations of the -world. On the contrasy, she continues to be herself one of the recognized leaders among the enlightened and progressive na tions of the -world. Nor does such refusal to pay gold have any influence to drive gold out of the country. This is shown by the fact that in addition to more than $300,000,000 of gold held by the Bank of France there is about four hundred millions of gold in JPrance outside of the Bank of France. X am speaking here in dol lars, not in francs. 
With this large amount of gold, France has in active circula tion $700,000,000 of silver, $650,000,000 of which is, in practice as well as in name, full legal-tender standard money. This $650,000,000 of legal-tender coin is full standard money in the fact that it is a standard of value by and through its own strength. It in no manner depends upon gold payments to sustain it. It is neither directly nor indirectly, by law or practice, redeemable in gold. On the contrary, it stands on an exact equality with gold, in the hands of either the Government or of the citizen, in the payment of all debts, public or private. I have seen it stated in the goldstandard publications in this country that France has $800,000,000 of primary gold coin and $700,000,000 of secondary silver coin. This isnot correct. On thecontrary, $^50,000,000 of her silver is in every 
 
 sense as strictly primary standard money as is her gold coin. The consequence is that, with a population of 30,000,000, she has $1,450,000,000 of staridai-d.coLn,aE of which is money of ultimate redemp tion. The $050,000,000 of silver is no burden upon the gold. On the contrary, to its full amount it assists the gold in bearing the burden of money of final redemption, and actually protects the gold from, being drained from the country. 
The wide difference between this and the situation in the United States is this: With a population of 70,000,000, we have nomi nally, say, $050,000,000 in gold and 8500,000,000 of silver. This sil ver, although by law a legal tender, and intended as standard money, is by the practice of the Q-overnnrent not standard money. By the G-ovemmenb refusing to exercise the option to pay silver as well as gold to its creditors, the silver coinage is discredited, and becomes in effect only representative or token money. It does not to the extent o its amount assist the gold in bearing the burden of money of final payment. On the contrary, it adds to the burden in this regard resting upon the gold supply, for by the act of dis crediting the silver coin we are practically upon the single gold standard, and that in effect bears alone all the burden. Being thus discredited and its assistance refused and discarded, the silver coinage of the country to the immense extent of $500,000,000 is no more protection to the gold in preventing its being drained from the Treasury than are the notes of the national banks. 
From this simple difference between the two countries, that in France the Government exercises the option whether, according to its convenience, it will pay gold or silver to its creditors, and that on the contrary in the United States the Government permits . its creditors to exercise their option whether they will demand and receive either gold or silver, follow the widely differing results and conditions in the two countries. France, with $800,000,000 of gold, and $650,000,000 of standard silver, has $1,450,000,000 of coin which is standard money of final redemption. The United States, with nearly double the population, having $650,000,000 of gold and $500,000,000 of silver, has only $650,000,000 of coin which is full standard money of final redemption. France has about $40 per capita of coin standard money. The United States, by practi cally limiting it to gold, in effect lias about $9 per capita of coin which is standard money of final payment. France haa ample money for the industries of her people, andkeepsall of her gold coin at home without piling up debt to enable her to do so. The United States is, by a contracted and still further contracting volume of standard money of final payment, strangling the industries of the country, and loading the people with an ever-increasing debt in the vain effort to keep gold in the country. 
It is a most interesting and instructive fact that the French 5-franc piece is in current business on an absolute parity with gold, although its bullion value is only 50 per cent of its coin value, and although there is no law in France and no practice in France by which the silver coin is either directly or indirectly redeemable in gold, and although the G-overnment in no manner undertakes to keep the silver coin on a parity with the gold coin. Ask a French financier the explanation of this remarkable fact and he will tell you that it is because the silver coin is good for the payment of all debts, public and private, and the further fact that the option to uss it equally with gold is constantly exercised by the Govern ment and by the citizens in the payment of all debts due bv either to the other. Say to him in reply that that is quite simple as regards 
 
 23 
debts due within the territory of France, but ask him further how it is that the interest coupon on a French rente (or bond) will command par in gold in single gold standard England, when that same interest coupon when presented for payment will only com mand silver in France. He will- answer that it is because the Holder of that interest coupon, while it probably will be only paid - in_6ilver, can convert that silver into goods which, at the same price, are worth gold in England.. What is true of the interest coupon which can only command silver when carried to France would be equally true of the silver 5-iran.c piece, less only the cost of transDortation and ordinary exchange, if it should be carried to England. 
Mr. President, time will not permit me to pursue this branch of the argument. But the fact ofthe parity of silver coins with gold coins in France under the circumstances mentioned are exceed ingly suggestive of the ability of this growing country, with its immense productamore than twice as great as that of either France or Gferinany, and 25 per cent greater than that of Great Britain, to safely use a corresponding per capita volume of silver coin, not as secondary or token money, but as standard money of final paynent. The essential thing to accomplish it is that the Government as well as thejpeople should ridgidly exercise the option to use either gold-0r~"sHver in the payment of all debts, public and private, and that the option to the public or private creditor to demand and receive gold should be denied to him. 
The reply will be made by the opponents of free coinage that France has stopped free coinage and that this remarkable silver and gold parity is under limited coinage. This is true, but the fact can give no possible support to the gold monometallists or to those who regard the question of bimetallism as settJed in this country, who refuse to consent to any remedy proposed by others and fail themselves to propose any. As I have said, the great object to be attained is the restoration of bimetallism not that pretended bimetallism where, while there are coins of both metals, the gold coin is the standard and the silver coin only a secondary, representative token, but real bimetallism, where the silver and the gold coins are each primary standard money. The French system proves incontestibly that in the hands of those who are really friendly to silver such real bimetallism can exist with limited coinage. But the essential element of true bimetallism under limited coinage, and without which it can not exist, is that the coin of the metal- thus limited shall be an unlimited legal tender, -which the Government and the citizen must fully recog nize as such in exercising, at its "will and convenience, the option of paying in the settlement of all debts. 
Q-ood faith and sound finance will always require the exercise of such option in favor of either metal to prevent the undue with drawal of the other. The French system of limited coinage gives to the people of France about $18 per capita of legal-tender stand ard silver money. If our legal-tender silver coinage were author ized to the same per capita amount it would be about $1,800,000,000, a larger amount than would be coined at the mints by free coin age in the next ten years, even allowing for the $500,000,000 already coined. But neither this amount of silver coinage nor any other amount would bring the needed relief which can alone be found in true bimetallism, unless it was in practice as well as in name Standard money. There is no benefit in coining token money esC pt for small change. Token money had just as well be made at 
 
 24 tne printing office as at the mint, and is just as potential, and just as powerless, for the accomplishment of good in the one case as in the other. 
Personally I am in favor of unlimited coinage of silver, not as a sentiment and not in deference to a popular cry. Upon what I think to be sound reason I believe in unlimited coinage as the best means to an end, viz, true bimetallism. There are many argu ments in favor of it, but the controlling reason is this: The best form of bimetallism will undoubtedly be found where the bullion value is the same as the coin value. It is the only safe and per manent basis for bimetallism. This equality of bullion and coin value will never exist under limited coinage. That portion of silver which is denied coinage will, as the surplus, always fix the bullion price. Aa that surplus can only be used for the baser pur poses of the arts, its price will always be less than the coin value. Besides this, a money metal which is denied right of coinage can not hold its proper place in the public estimate as the material for standard coin, clothed with the power of final payment. 
I do not favor a depreciated silver dollar, nor does any other true bimetaHist, and I believe the surest way to secure the parity of the silver dollar with the gold dollar is to give it the franchise of un limited coinage. 
The basis of the argument against unlimited coinage is the al leged danger that with onr mints open we would be flooded with the silver of the world. How could this occur? Whenever the value of silver rose here because of unlimited coinage, it would rise correspondingly in every market in the world. The world has no silver to spare to us. On tho contrary, the remainder of the world needs more than is made outside of the United States. The remainder of the world would not leave us all of our own prod uct for our own mints. The proof of this is incontestibly shown in the fact that there has never been a single year since 1864 when our exports of silver did not largely" exceed our imports, showing that the product of silver outside of the United States is not suffi cient for the remainder of the worlds requirements. In one year the excess of exports of silver over imports exceeded $37,000,000, and even when the coinage under the Bland-Allisou Act was in full blast there was one year when the excess of exports of silver over imports was more than 18,000,000 and another year when such excess of exports was more than $17,000,000. 
There is great misapprehension as to the worlds supply of silver and as to the worlds annual product of silver. There has been such an outcry about the great production of silver that many suppose that the supply is practically limitless. This is very far from, the truth. I can not lay my hand at this moment on the statements of the product for 1893 and 1S94, which I assume was some greater than in previous years. But. taking the report end ing with 1893, we have the following significant statements of the product of silver and of the relative products of silver and of gold: 
According to official reports, in the one hundred years ended in the year 1893 there was nearly twice as much gold produced in America astherewasof silver. Thegoldproduced was $1,937,881,769, and the silver produced was $1,146,869,000. 
In the same period, from 1792 to 1893, taking the production of the whole world, there was produced $550,000,000 more of gold $th5,a0n77o,9f61s,i0lv0e0.r. The figures are: Gold*, * S5..633> .908.0!0,0,and silver.i 
 
 25 
According to tne official reports of tlie United States Govern ment of the product of silver in 1892, if every ounce of silver pro duced in tile United States in that year were coined, leaving none for the arts or for export, it would only make a very small frac tion more than $1 per capita to the people of the United States. And yet the product of that .year was greater than it had- ever been in any previous year excepting one. 
According to the same report of the product of silver in the whole world for that year, if every ounce produced that year- in the whole world were brought to America and coined, leaving not an ounce for the arts or for coinage by other nations, such entire product of silver of the whole world for that year, would, when coined, make considerably less than S3 per capita to the people of the United States. The total amount produced in the -world in 1892, was $166,605,000, and that was a larger annual worlds product of silver than there had ever been in the hundred preced ing years. 
Although somewhat out of its order in this place, I can not for bear, before leaving the question of free coinage, to notice briefly one argument against it, which is drawn from the comparison be tween the Mesioan silver dollar and the American silver dollar. The same argument was repeated by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota [Mr. NELSON] who preceded me. It is a stocli argument with many, based on the fact that an American silver dollar "bearing the stamp of a government which prohibits free coinage is worth two Mexican silver dollars stamped by a govern ment where there is free coinage, although the latter has more sil ver in it than the former. Well, what does that prove? What is true of the American silver dollar is true of the American paper dollar. The American paper dollar is also worth two Mexican silver dollars, and the fact simply proves that neither the Amer ican silver dollar nor the American paper dollar is in fact a stand ard dollar, but that each is only a token dollar, a representative of the American gold dollar, which is so artificially appreciated in value that American products must be sold in it at half their for mer value. 
Mr. President, as a contribution to the history of this struggle in this country between gold monometallism and bimetallism, I will attach as an appendix to my remarks a copy of a circular which I have here for the inspection of Senators who wish to see it, or to be read if anybody desires it. It is a copy of a circular recently issued by the so-called "committee on sound currency" of the Keform Club of New York. 
I regret that time will not permit me to comment on this effort of the single gold standard advocates to blind the plain people of the country to their true interest and induce them to place the fetters on their own limbs, it may be interesting to them to note how patent outsides and plate matter have been furnished, in the language of this committee, to "papers the subscribers of which are in tjjie main readers of no other periodicals." It may open the eyesgf these people as to the motives of these advocates or the single gold standard when they read in this report that this single committee distributed among them through newspapers and otherwise 9,700,000 documents, and has expended in that time $54,403.74 in the disinterested work of trying to convert them to a financial system which will make them poor while it eairiches their benefactors. 
 
 ~NOT, Mr. President, are some of the advocates of the gold stand ard, who disguise themselves under the name of sound-money men, content to resort; to only argument and persuasion. In the arrogance of their power und in their impatience that any should oppose them, they openly announce their purpose to control the elections of. Senators in other States, so that those chosen may "be in accord with their interests. In a recent issue of one of the leading newspapers in Wew York there appeared a publication looking to fclie overthrow of 34 United "States Senators by the exercise of the power and influence of the gold-standard, advocates in other States. Amongthose named who are destined to the sacrifice is my humble sell:. I will ask the Secretary to read the extract from this article which I send to the desk. 
Mr. HIDT-i. From, what paper is the extract taken? Mr. BACON. It is stated at the head of the paper that it is from the New York Sxm, published on the 28th day of December last. The PRESIDING- OFFICER (Mr. BLANOHARD in the chair). The Secretary will read as requested. The Secretary read as follows: 
[Extract from the jNTew York Sun, December 28, 1885,] 
The bankers and merchants of N"ew York City having extensive business 
 
. ._ _ , ._ 
 
rightly i 
 
"  
 
, _, _ . jed that those Senate] 
 
Mr. BACON". I will say, in justice to the newspaper from which that article is copied, that it does not appear on the edito rial page, nor does it appear as a dispatch, but is simply published without headline or signature. It covers a column and a half, and, of course, it is therefore impracticable for me to burden the KiscoJtD "with the insertion of the article in its full esrfcent; but I have given the date of it, and any Senator can see the full article in which the names of the 24 Senators are given who ars to be controlled by the withholding of credit by New York mer chants. I present this remarkable utterance without further comment than that it is a most significant indication of the abso lute domination of tlie entire Government in all of its branches to which the gold power evidently aspires. 
Mr. President, the gravity of the situation is not to be put aside with, the suggestion, as recently made in this Chamber, that this ia 
a moot question and an idle academic discussion. It is a situation which, if the law remains unchanged, involves the prospect of a continually increasing bonded debt, the steady decrease in the per capita standard coin, and the practical retirement of the green backs and Treasury notes. Are Senators who oppose the measure 
reported by the Finance Committee prepared in view of this situar 
039 
 
 27 
tion to say tliey are content for the Jaw to remain as it is, a,n& that they have no remedy whieli they favor? 
In the presence of the insufficiency of gold the scramble among the nations for gold -will continue. With this as a, fact, onr financial troubles must continue so long as wo remain on a gold basis and have outstanding the greenbacks and the Treasury notes. I "be lieve the remedy is in gettingentirely off the gold basis, and on the true bimetallic basis, ancl at the same time retiring all paper currency,of the Government. I say, at the same time, because all idea of re?teiring the greenbacks and Treasury notes may as well, in my opinions-tie dismissed, unless in the same law there is provi sion for a return to true "bimetallism, involving as a necessary fea ture the unlimited coinage of silver. 
As an original proposition I would be opposed to greenbacks or any other form of Government paper currency, but as such cur rency now exists to the amount of 500,000,000. I am opposed to any retirement <3f the same by any means, direct or indirect, until by the same law provision is made for a return to a hard money, "bimetallic currency. I believe in hard money and in a sufficient supply of it a supply which it is impossible for gold alone to furnish. I do not believe that the G-overnment should issue any form of currency excepting only the coin which is stamped at the mints. I regard Government paper currency as a foe to true bi metallism; and an adequate supply of standard coin is none the less the enemy of such paper currency. Whenever those who wish t9 retire greenbacks and Treasury notes will meet us on this basis, it is probable that a plan can be devised which will relieve the G-oyernment and the people from the present financial ills. There is no reason in sound finance why the entire proper per capita supply of ciirrency in the country should not consist in standard coin of both gold and silver, and there is no reason to an ticipate that the unlimited coinage of silver would, when added to the gold coinage, swell the supply beyond this amount. The effort to restrict standard money of final redemption to gold alone, and also to retire the G-overnment paper currency, must certainly fail. 
The danger is that the single gold-standard advocates, who boast fully call themselves "sound money^" men, in their efforts to re strict the coinage of standard money to gold, may place in power those who will sweep away all standard coin money and put the country on the basis of irredeemable paper currency. 
The efiort to unreasonably control the great political and social forces is frequently attended by the same results as are the efforts to control great pnysical forces. The higher the dam is built to stay the stream, the more certain is the mighty power of the gather ing waters to finally sweep away the barrier and carry destruction, mayhap, to those who seek to turn back the course of nature. 
APPENDIX. 
REFORM cure. 
Committee on sound currency. Charles S. Fairchild, chairman; Calvin Tomkim, secretary; E. Ellery Anderson, William J. Coombs, Henry Hentz, Henry L. Nelson, Charles Biggs, Lawrence E. Sexton, Joan De Witt Warner, Horace Wfette, Henry De Forest Baldwin, A. Augustus Healy, Wallace 3acfarlane, William S. Opdyke, Frad. Perry Powers, James Speyer, Henry B. B. 
ttapler, William L- Trennolm, Everett P. Wheeler, Louis Windmuller, Frank . Williams. Executive committee. Jonn >e Witt Warner, chairman; Calvin Tomkiiss,  ry; Charles S. Fail-child, Wallace Macfarlane, Henry L. Nelson, Charles Senry B. B. Stapler, Lawrence E. Sexton, Fred. Perry Powers. 
 
 S3 
 
2T? the Reform Club: 
 
53 WILLIAM STREET, New York, December S, 1895. 
 
Your committee on sound currency submits the following report: November 22, 1894, the committee adopted plans for work in 1895. We com menced at once a canvass for funds. Subscriptions have been liberal, and in large measure from those who had not hitherto contributed to the club's 
 
Early in the year our expenditure increased at such a rate that we were compelled to confine ourselves to the few more promising1 of the lines along which work could be economically done, and to decline even to consider 
 
inviting. In accord -with our rule, -we have accepted funds only for expendi ture the details of which we could direct; and have declined to supervise the work or audit the accounts of outside individuals, committees, or organiza tions. We are thus able to cooperate to the fullest extent with local Frienda 
 
pleasant responsibilities. The following Is a summary of the work of the committee for the year 
ended November 30,1895: 
I.--Meetings and speakers. 
In the way of local meetings for discussion: (1) On the occasion of the annual^dmner of the club, December 8 last, after 
 
(iT^-t a" clut^dmner'on December 39^!?principal3 address was delivered by Mr. William C. Cornwell, president of the New York State Bankers' Associ ation. Mr. Fairchild, Mr. Alfred S. Heidolbach, Mr. Henry Hentz, and others also spoke briefly. 
(3) On the evening of March 3 Mr. Horace White delivered an address at the clubhouse on the " Relations of public opinion to banking." 
The general interest in sound-currency questions had by this time so in creased as to make it unnecessary to incur the trouble and expense of con tinuing the series of meetings at the Reform Club, the invitations from various quarters of organisations ready to bear the expense and trouble of meetings being so numerous as to make the question simply one of providing speakers; and in a score of instances speakers were furnished from the committee to meetings--political, business, and economic--that offered appreciative audi ence s. 
With the advancing season, however, the engrossment of our funds in other urgent work made it Impossible for us to meet peculiarly inviting oppor tunities that were offered for sound-currency meetings, especially in several of the Western States. In one, however, Indiana, the expense involved was so moderate and easily limited, and the call so urgent, that it was decided to cooperate with friends there, tjnder this arrangement a series of some forty meetings was arranged, all addressed by Hon. William D. Bynum, to whom the cause and the committee is thus peculiarly indebted. The programme as a whole proved siich a success that nothing but the lack of funds prevented its extension into other States. 
 
II.--llSound*currenCi/" periodicals. 
 
The folio-wing table* summarilv indicates the progress of our " Sound-cur rency " series and the extent and distribution of its several numbers: 
 
Number printed. 
 
1. National and State Banks, Horace White, 16 pages ..,,. ---- -..,,.. 3. Canadian Bank-Note Currency, Li. Carroll Root, 16 pages --------. 3. Bimetallism in History,Henry L. Nelson, 16 pages-------- -- - -- 4. The World's Currencies, Richard P. Rothwell, 34 pages. ------ .... 5. New York Bank Currency, Ij. Carroll Root, 34 pages ............. 6. The Currency Famine of 1893, John De Witt Warner, 20 pages ... 7. The People's Money, W. lu. Trenholm, 33 pages.---.------------8. Scotch Bank Currency, Adam Smith, 13 pages ...__... ---- ..._ 9 Our Paper Curreney,"W. Dodsworth, 16 pages.____----.------. 10. States as Bankers, L. Carroll Root, 33 pages.. -- .......--.--------- 11 Coin's Financial Fool, Horace White, SO pages.---,.----__-_-. 13. A Financial Catechism, Fred. Perry Powers, 16 pages -----------13 New England Bank Currency, L. Oarroll Root, 33 pages....____ 1* The Buluon Keport, Parliament committee <1810),33 pages ____ 15! A Stable Monetary Standard, Henry Farquhar, 20 pages....,--, 16 Free Coinage Dissected, John De Witt Warner, 16 pages.------... 17. United States Coinage and Currency Laws, 48 pages. --------18 Bimetallism in France, W. A. Shaw, 12 pages..........____..._ 19. Quality of Money and Wages, Frank L. McVey, 16 pages ........ 
 
44,500 83,500 90,000 55,000 50,000 65,000 70,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 300,000 350,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 100,000 30,000 40,000 40.000 
 
 29 
20. Executive Committee Report, August 39/1895, 8 pages _ ---- ------ 30, 000 31.. Sound Currency Illustrated,, 33 pages .____.__._-___._____..,,...... 25,,000 S3. Gold Movements in 189* and 1895, Worthington O. Ford, 16 pages. SS, 000 23. Silver Monometallism Exposed, "Merchant," 16 pages. .......... 25,000 Si. United States Currency Statistics, 33 pages...- ...... ............ ___20, GOO 
i.earj'ooo 
. The extent to widen these pamphlets nave been favorably noticed by the sound-money press and the orders receiyed for single copies arc proof alike of the general interest.in the questions mooted and the effective way in which they have been treated, 
A subscription list of some 15,000 has justified our securing second-class postal rates, ^hich has greatly cheapened distribution. 
\v. IU--- General newspaper cooperation. (a) From the beginning we have adopted the plan of sending out advance copies of " Sound Currency," together with a tersely written synopsis of each number, to the principal newspapers of ttie country. This plan has proved peculiarly effective. (&) Encouraged by the favorable ndtice of the press, we suggested to lead ing newspapers to advertise their offices as supply points for sound- currency literature, we furnishing them a limited supply for distribution free of charge. Over 100 papers in different parts of the country accepted this offer, and we thus secured that number of most effective distributing centers. 
IV. --Broadside supplements. In April last we commenced supplying broadside supplements sufficient to accompany the full editions of cooperating local papers in every part of the country. In this way sound-currency literature was carried direct to the bomes of rural voters. This branch of ourwork has steadily grown in extent and importance, and in the opinion of your committee is, perhaps, of all the branches of our pro aganda work,, the one by which the greatest permanent effect is the least expense, in just those quarters where educational propag most needed. It is an unrivaled means of putting into -the hands o voters--in the most sparsely settled counties of the most critical States, in just the shape in which it will be welcomed and road by themT-a full supply 
somewhat appreciated when it is remembered that it is just these papers the subscribers of each of which are in the main readers of no other periodical. 
Finding that the broadsides were in general better adapted to papers of smaller circulation, a constant effort has been made to extend this work among the smaller local papers in the South, the West, and Southwest. 
The newspapers thus supplied by us have been as follows: In New England 21. with a circulation of 26,600; the Middle States 88, circulation 83,100; South ern States SIS, circulation 168,800; North Central States 7S, circulation 116,800; Northwestern States 67, circulation 55,200; Southwest 137, cir.--"'tion 94,300; Pacific States 15, circulation 17,900--making a total of 621 paWith aggregate circulation of 563,800. Through these papers some 2,6i printea sheets have been distributed. 
V.--"Plate" matter. In March last we arranged to compile and edit sheets of sound-cui-rency literature, to be circulated by so-called " plate-matter" agencies. In this line the expense to us was not great, the main item being the expert edi torial service and tact necessary to collect and adapt available matter for the purpose indicated. This matter goes out, a full newspaper page at a time, to papers In the main Of from 1,000 to 10,000 circulation, which, though ready to do all possible for sound currency, wish to have more latitude as to the amount of .spa.ce which can be given to this matter and the time at which it shall bo published than is possible on the " broadside " system. "We have been surprised to note, how ever, the extent to which papers receiving our " plate " matter have in gen eral promptly utilized either the whole or nearly all that was sent them The following indicates the field covered, which could have been more than doubled had our funds permitted: New England States 22 papers, with a circulation of 54,935; Middle States 101 papers, circulation 208,316; Southern States 139 papers, circulation 165,768; North Central States T8, circulation 166,368; Southwestern States 138, circulation 192,990; Northwestern States J59, circulation 136,600; Pacific Coast 11, circulation 10,650--making a total of 648 papers, with an aggregate circulation of 925,017. For some two months prior to election the engrossment of papers and their readers in the issues of local elections was such as to make less frequent supply of this matter advisable, and the former biweekly issues of both plate ana broadside matter were supplanted by a monthly issue. Arraugeiiitmts are now being made to offer a more frefluent supply whenever popular inter est in currency questions shall justify it. 
 
 and (. In accordance with plans outlined in April last, the committee established a sketch or cartoon bureau, the objiict of which was to furnish designs for cuts, sketches, cartoons, posters, eto., both for our own publications (especiallv plate and supplement matter) us well as for use by otnersin every shape in which they might be found effective. From every available source-- 
 
per- 
 
Tnose who have seen even tlie preliminary catalogue do not need to have ex plained the extent to which tno Bible, Shakespeare, Mother O-oose, Pilgrim's Pi-ogress, and a score of other sources have been liberally drawn upon. The continually increasing: demand for "more" from every direction in which 
 
ularity. 
 
VIII. --Sound-currency supply bureau. 
 
Our supply bureau, organised in Ju-ne last, was promptly perfected until our semimonthly catalogue of styanel-currency ptililications, forwarded on raceint of price, incliided not only those regulsirly issued by oui-solves, but 
 
ing he:ids: (a) Staudard work's, such as those of Langrhlin/MclLeod, Nelson, TreTiholm, Shaw, WijitB, and others; (6) Popular monographs and special discussions, such as the various replies to -Coin's Financial School"; (c) 
 
pmreinrte-- lyint>'all, som" e nin-.e-t.y..d. iffe.r.cn^.t.^~titl^es. . F-. (-i- .p urp. os_e, s .o-. f co.n,,ven.ie.n,ce,_ not tendance 
 
It should be understood that tails bureau bad no connection witli gratul; toufi supply of lit era t~ friends in i,li parts of tlio cowzitry, v.'ho Tpero thus enabled to secure any aslortment of sound-currency litei-ature "without tlio delny and trouble otherVise necsssary. 
 
:he States 3 
promptly went as f';tr ** possible irj meeting it, though wo felt tliis particular Vork to be <?no tlio expense find fcibov of whitji should tiltimately "be otherthe club'had" cxponded some $2,000, msi'nV i-i in-hi'thiK arid fo/wai^in g in bulls: tor local distribution by others some 280,000 copies of "Cho speeches referred to. 
'S-.--Currency Red BaoTa. IB view of tho success of the Tariff Tielorm Bed Boole, issued "by tlie cluTj in each of tlie voars 1S3D, 1891, and 1813^, we early commenced the compilation of a Currencv Red Book. Thin is now in press and will contain as full a collection a^, possible of statistics and srg-ameafc, digested and indexed for questions now pending oi" likely to be mooted, in too near future. 
 
 SI 
 
XI.--&xti ^"plate" 
i e, _(__,,,-,,,-..._. .. __ ,,-.__ --as~^i^fijofs'o^'"broadsides," 
 
r tho year is approximately aa 
 
Sound-cnrrencv pamphlets............ ................................ 1,037,000 
 
Broadside newspaper pages..........-......_...,.,--...-........,.,,_... 3,650,000 
 
Plate matter, newspaper pases...... .:..........,,-,,..............-... 5,000,000 
 
Reprints and miscellaneous documenta through trapply bureau-...- 125,000 
 
Speeches, Carlisle, etc., (not including tho much greater number lately furn^sned at expense of others) __-___,,,--.---,,._.____--__, 
 
300,000 
 
Making a total of over 9,700,000, the current av.Ti-n.ge, on ths above basis, ov 
 
documents leaned being about 9JJO.OCOper month. The majority of these haya 
 
tical and literary character-, which pin.- friends "nave; too frer/uentiy assumed 
 
scarcely be amors thoroughly " popular " assortnient o literature. 
 
Cooperation has not developed as fast as wo had hoped, though thJs is par- 
 
"plate" and "broadside " supply has too ranch engrossed our means to per mit of exploiting promising fluids for cooperation in other items of. work. 
We note, however, that at Fremont, Keb., at Corsittann. Tes., at St. Louis, at Boston, and at Philadelphia associations have been doing important and responsibility and permit us to offer instead of ask assistance. From the com mittee and members of tho Boston Merchants 1 Association alone tho direct contributions tooiir work have aggregated some 10,000. The expanse of our cartoon bureau has been lessened some $400 by sharing with the Chamber of Commerce committee the expense of the-preliminary work, and tho expense of our plate and broadside supply m Pennsylvania has been met by the Sound . _O_,^. r--yt--otai.1_ 1,.s,.p_ e,_n_--di_t,,n*r. e_s--, in-icnldtieddi.ng unsettled liabilities, to date are 853,779.05, 
 
oiintiug therefor as in the prosecution of our propagancla-.vork, has been constantly kept well up to da, to, a full accoiiisting1, witfi vouchers, having been filed bv tbe esecubive eoraimttee each week Dotthe criticism of auditors appointed by the ull committee from its general 
 
membership. 
 
XIII.--Progress and plans. 
 
In the 
 
March last, after a full discussion general comnaittee, the following 
 
both in the esecutivs committso and platform TvaB adopted as that upon 
 
which the Reform Club's sound-currency ^ommifctee should ask for support 
 
and plan its work: "Pledged to oppose all flat money, we recognize in. 
 
tho 
 
legal-tender green 
 
back the worst form of such currency, and urge the payment by Government 
 
of its demand notes and their final -withdrawal from circulation as the finan 
 
cial reform flrst in importance. "We appreciate that attempts 
 
to 
 
secure 
 
forced, 
 
currency for 
 
depreciated 
 
to ^Events nave justified t free-silver issue nas been 
hitherto timid oppoaitio era! setback which its friends ha,-v< cleared for an aggressive movem: 
 
 92 
 
banting business, anfl the rsnoney heresies by which for a 
 
Dses to agitato for the prompt paym_ent and final re 
 
nder notes. It proposes to do this without reference 
 
an of bank-note currency shall be adopted. < present banking and credit facilities, any 
 
We are possible 
 
...t' h- e -.,,',,' _._.__ ,,- ..-- ' Ll-tender paper as fast as 
 
it c 
 
by redemption would, be 
 
Tat-inohdin^,s^f,a,,-a.tn.a_n-l_dslls_tyiii_ort_jvet_im h_coe_ifoorbeuufsto0sioirnfreiio.lt.ius.or'pe.l"eno.stgaaanln-gdtcleeaimxdspieedernect,t. so5^ftttlehipaseotlaiaastidcstoahalpfe"etwi.a'.nii-mt-dh--'fafJlid-jr-- esrtqiguK iad. .itd,ed_i_fesnoyt_airs_nde_tie_met_:qeoupsawtltatienlo.l 
 
' * ,nd to this \vor 
 
s the co ope] 
 
very friend of 
 
s that which La: 
is the late apparent yielding of a great part of the a si^-i that lunacy was then epidemic. ., however, of the deep interest now roused among '.ft in all parts of the country. Korean there be any queaity of the American people to honestly and intelligently LS involved, provided the facts are placed before them. 
imittee from December 1, JS94, to November 30, 1895. 
Receipts. Diaburse- 
 
Total subscriptions (paid)-----.---.-..,.. _ -_ -- ----Office organisation, clerical expenses, and expense of 
canvassing -_-... --.____......,-..-_...._.._...---.--Wmlnts_--.^--f.-, ,,---?--?----.....-, -- - -- ------.-- 
 
Delivery of pamphlets, etc., in city----------...---..-. Broadsides ..__.,,.__----------.-.-._._ __ . ---__.:... ...... 
 
General printing 
 
.... 
 
- .. --- _ -- 
 
Expenses of Washington office, including special sup- 
 
Ben't of 2Sew York office, paid" in advance to May 1, 
 
Balance, cash on hand in New York Security and 
 
$52,593.89 -.,,--.-,, 
 
54,403.74 54,403.74 
 
$4,453.60 3, 896. 38 2, 619. 08 6, 446. 38 
441.83 7,692.53 3,087.10 13, 614. 36 1,915.31 1,888.64 
115.55 623. 95 950.15 606.33 204.64 532.60 259.98 1,109.50 413.68 750.00 35.00 1, 377. 97 63,039.05 2,374.69 54,403.74 
 
NOT-E.--"Unpaid subscriptions not included in above statement, $835; unpaid printing bills, $T50. 
All of which is respectfully submitted. SOUND CURRENCY COMMITTEE. 
 
 While one creditor haa as much right as another to demand gold, it is nevertheless true that, all creditors of the Government, excepting only -me class, are content to be pa.ul in silver, and, with that exception,practically all of them jire now paid in diver or silver certificates. But whenever this fa vored class of public creditors..those who J?CTU to he the chief objects of the concern and solicitude of 
"Un 
HON. AUQUSTTJS O. BACON, 
OF GEOKGIA, 
IK THE S2XAT.K OF THE UxiTO STATES, 
^V^ Friday, May 15 lSti. ntlee conSidvrntion the bill (S. 3101) to prohibit the is.aufl.noc of bonds or other bionsrtf the G-ovtii-nment by the becreta.vy of the Trca-ury or other officer of ut the authority of Congress Mr. BACON said : Mr. President,, the bill which lias just bet-ii read is of a gen eral character and would prohibit, should it be enacted into law, the issuance of any bonds in the future by the" Secretary of the Treasury unless thereto specifically authorized by act of Oongtess. it in a fact, ho i ever, that there is at present but one law upon the statute boo AS under which bonds can be issued by 311 execu tive officer of the Government without the specific authority of Congress. That is the" act of 1875, commonly known as the resumption act The effect of the bill if it should become a law would be to repeal practically one portion of the act of 1875, to wit, that portion of it which authorizes the Secietary of the Treasury to sell bonds for the purpose of rniriing what is known as the redemption fund, for the re demption of greenbacks when presented for payment. I shull, therefore, discuss 
, executive department of the Government m d(-r a general existing law, is euriicient to challenge the attention of the Senate to this biii as one of most serious import. 
The urgent importance of taking away from executive office this immeasurable power to create public debt is emphasized by the further fact that neither of the several issues of bonds aggregating this ^tnpendous amount would have been author ized or consented to by Congress at the several times of their issuance. On the contrary, it is bey and doubt that if the consent o Congress had been asked to either of these issues of bonds, sucli consent would have been most emphatically refused. 
To this fact, which has only ceased tobe startling because from its continued repetition we have grown familiar with its enormity, must be added the recognized certainty that in the future operation of a system of finance which under the present construction of existing law is the most vicious and suicidal that ever cursed a government and a people, there will inevitably be additional issues of bonds unless Congress, in the exercise of its power and in the performance of what I believe to be i!s duty, shall say it must not. be done. Mr. President, it is no light ir-atter to 
any one man with such power, or to permit him to remain invested with such power, it is a great responsibility which Congress assumes when it forms that opinion and acts upon it. 
If, on the contrary, it is in the opinion of Congress a thing not proper to be done, it is an abandonment of the highest duty if it fails to prohibit the exercise of such power in the future in the most commanding and effective manner known to its powers. It is a responsibility which cannot be escaped by Congress this respon sibility for the issuance of bonds at the will of one man. it is within the power of Congress to prevent the future issuance 01 bonds by the executive department without the diiect authorization of the lawrrjakiiig power. If i. defeats the bill which prohibits such issuance of bonds in the future by the executive department, by such action Congress takes the responsibility of justifying such future issuance. 
 
 If Congress refuses or fails to take any action one way or the other, and by such re fusal or failure permits to stand unrepealed the existing law under which the power to issue bonds without limit is claimed and exercised by the executive department, it is practically an approval by Congress of the continued exercise of such power. We cannot escape the responsibility. We cannot screen ourselves under the plea that it is the act of the executive department and that it is not done by Congress. The bonds are issued by the executive department under a law which it is -\vithin the power of Congress to repeal. Without that law the executive department will have no power in the future to make fur; her issues of bonds. If we permit tne law to stand on the statute book, we sanction the future issues of bonds by the Execu tive, and the responsibility is ours. If we repeal the law, the bonds v*iU not be is sued hereafter. If we do "not repeal the law, they will be issued. Therefore, either in our action or non-action the question whether these bonds'shall be issued in the future is to be determined by us, and the responsibility is the responsibility of Con gress. If this session closes and this law remains unrepealed. Congress will say to the people we approve, the law, and \ve will further say to the p ople that, as we are certain that the executive officer will under this law issue more bonds in the future in the same manner as has been done in the past, we approve what this officer has done in the issuance of bonds under this law, and we justify and warrant his doing the same thing time and again in the future. 
If the law under which this two-hundred-aiid-sixty-two million-doHar bond issue has been made had now expired by limitation of time, would Congress now pass a law giving to an executive officer the unlimited power by his mere order to issue bonds, which is now claimed and exercised under the present law? How many Senators, in the light of the experience of the last two years, would vote for a law which conferred upon an executive officer, or any other man. the power, in his singl judgment and at his individual discretion, to issue bonds, and in all reasonable probability increase the public debt, principal and interest, to the enormous amount of one thousand miHion dollars? 
That there are some Senators in this Chamber who would support such a measure may be possible, but that a large majority of Senators would refuse their assent to the" enactment of such a law I cannot doubt. . IE so, no Senator can shut, his eyes to the logical conclusion that in refusing to give his aid to this repeal of the present law, the responsibility upon him is the same as if he were now by bis vote to enact a new law to the same effect. 
If the time shall ever com  when it shall be recognized as the permanent policy of this Government that one man shall be clothed with the power at his own un bridled will to determine when and in what amounts and upon whit terms the 
so fateful a revolution in our institutions should not be left in doubt, and upon the records of this Senate should be spread the names of those who favor it and the names of those who oppose it to the uttermost. 
Every day that the existing law is allowed to remain in iorce is a recognition of its propriety. Every such day is an advance in the direction of the perpetuation of 
against the will ot their chosen representatives. livery time there is nn issue of bonds under the existing law, the loyalty of the people to republican representative government is weakened 'And they become more and more familiar with s ibmission to one-man power. 
The requirement for the repeal of the existing law is not the demand of sentiment. Ifc is not for the promotion of the interests of any one particular political party, ex cept in so far as such interest may be affected by the support of, or the opposition to, the repeal by such political party. It is demanded by the immeasurable inter est and the conceded right of the people that they should not be burdened with debt except by the votes of their chosen representatives in Congress. It is demanded. "by the experience of the last two years--the great obj ct lesson by which is shown the consequences of such royal power when placed in the hands of any one man. It"itsu,ti<above all, deman' ded that ther- e m,ay,b, e p.re. ser.ve,d .th. e bounds set by the Con- 
3nsi _ _ngrt , or to any one man, whoever he may be, or whatever office he may hold. 
If theVe is one thing in the Constitution clearer than any other one thing, it is the intention that Congress alone shall have the power to create a debt, or levy and collect takes for the payment of debt, or for any other purpose. There is no line or syllable in that instrument indicating the intention that the executive department 
 
 shall exercise in any degree either of these powers. _ There is not a line in it look ing to the idea that the Chief Executive should have any connection with, or influ ence upon, the exercise of such powers except in the power of the veto as on any other proposed legislation. 
The plain, emphatic, indisputable design of the Constitution is that the lawmaking power akme shall create debt, levy .taxes, direct or indirect, make appropria tions, and control the disbursement of the public treasure. A departure from such direct intention is a violation arid a defeat of the purpose of the fundamental law. 
There is no room for contention or successful dispute of this proposition. There is nothing either in the -plain reading or the hidden meaning of the Constitution which will justify any other construction. There has never been the dictum of a respectable commentator on this instrviment, never a judicial decision, and, so far as I am informed, never the utterance of a publicist upon which could be rested a contention in conflict with this proposition. 
In the history of the English-speaking race there is nothing more important than the achievement, through the struggles of centuries, of the right of the people to control taxation and expenditure through their representatives.' No cost and no sacrifice have been deemed too great a price for this inestimable right. And, sir, I think it may be safely said that no part of- the English-speaking people has ever voluntarily surrendered this right- No part of this libertv-loving. self-ruling race has ever intentionally conferred upon the executive, head" of its Government the power to levy and collect taxes, and. to expend the revenues derived therefrom, re gardless of the wishes, and in opposition to the'wiil of their representatives. 
The Constitution of the United States most carefully guards and limits to Con gress the right and the duty to create debt, to levy and collect taxes, and to make and control expenditure of the public money. After the preamble, the-first line in the Constitution is as follows : 
consist of a Senate and Hou^o of Representatives.' 
The creation of debt, the levy of taxes, and the appropriation of the public money are among the highest legislative powers. But not content with this general au thorization, the Constitution, in that magnificent enumeration'of the great powers of Congress, in the first clause of such enumeration provides that Congress shall have power " to lay and collect taxes " and " to pay the debts of the United States." 
In second clause of these enumerated powers is that " to borrow money on the credit of the United States." 
The final clause of this enumeration confers upon Congress the duty " to make aJl Jaws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers." 
What powers? Why, undoubtedly the powers conferred on Congress. It is made the duty of Congress to pass all laws which may be necessary to enable Congress to exercise the great powers therein conferred upon it. There is nothing which can be construed into authority to Congress to pass Saws by which these great powers, the execution of which is devolved upon Congress, may, by delegation thereof, be exercised by the executive branch of the Government. They are to be exercised by Congress, and by Congress oniy. Any device by which the great powers of cre ating debt, or levying taxes, or appropriating money, are practically taken away from Congress, and practically conferred upon the execiitive branch of the Govern ment, is a violation of the letter and of the spirit oi the Constitution. 
The enumeration of the powers of the Executive contains nothing looking to the creation of debt, the levying of taxes, or the appropriation of the public money. Outside ,of the appointment of officers and the official intercourse with foreign governments, almost all oE the duties of the Executive head may be included in the one sentence in the Constitution, " He shall take care that the ]aws be faithfully executed." 
It is not for any executive officer to make law, nor is it for Congress to confer' upon any executive officer powers the discharge of which enables hint in his dis cretion to determine what amount of public debt shall be incurred and what amount of taxes shall be levied and collected for the payment of such debt. Such power aud the duty to exercise it belong to Congress only. It cannot be constitutionally delegated to the executive, branch of the Government. 
Despite this careful constitutional limitation of legislative powers, and particu larly of the debt-creating power, to Congress, it is not to be denied that the power is now by law, under its present construction, lodged in the executive department,, and in one officer of that department, at his single will and in his sole discretion, to enforce taxation and expenditure practically without limit, and under this law this autocratic power is exercised not only in the absence of the assent of the people but 
 
 , of the statute to confer such power, and thai there was nothing in its terms, under the conditions then existing, to justify the anticipation that any such power could be exercised under it by an executive officer. 
The ministerial act of signing and issuing the bonds of the Government has al ways been delegated to the executive department, but the determination of what bond- should be issued, and when and in what amount, has always been kept within the control of Congress. It may be safely said that from the'foundation of the Government the issuance of bonds has been either for the purpose of borrowing money or for the funding or renewal of an existing debt. In either cuse the discre tion has been exclusively exercised by Congress in the issuance of such bonds. If a certain sum of money was to be borrowed, the executive department was directed to negotiate and issue bonds in the amount necessary to procure the same. If a debt was to be funded, or refunded, the executive department was directed in the same manner to issue the amount of bonds required for the purpose. In each instance the executive department, in issuing the bonds, was but the agency of the legislative department, and acting strictly within the limits prescribed by the latter department. 
The 
ernment should be paid in coin when presented for redempti The amount of these legal-tender notes was known, and when the law author- 
 
 ized the Secretary, of the Treasury to negotiate and issue bonds at not less than par to an extent necessary to redeem all legal-tender notes presented for pay ment, it was in the contemplation of that an authority to issue bonds in an amount not exceeding the total amount of legal-tender notes then outstanding. In the enactment of that iaw Congress never intended to clothe the Secretary of the Treasury with unlimited power to issue bonds in his discretion, and there was nothingih. the conditions then existing to warrant the contemplation of Congress that the law could ever have such'effect- If the original act had been carried out as designed, there wouiti have been simply the exchange of one form of in debtedness for another by the Government, without increasing the amount of such indebtedness. -For the legal-tender notes bonds In equal or less amount would have been substituted. 
Under this act a portion of the legal tenders were redeemed and canceled. Find ing that the cancellation of the legal tenders was too violently contracting the currency, tlie act of 1878 was passed requiring that the legal-tender notes when redeemed should not be canceled, but should again be reissued by the Treasury Department. By this'latter act the whole nature of the act of 1875 was changed. From an act authorizmg^an issue of bonds which could not exceed the amount of tlie greenbacks, it was converted into an. act which put into the hands of the Secre tary of the Treasury practically unlimited power to issue bonds in his discretion. The effect in this regard of this act of 1878 was not foreseen by Congress at the time of its enactment, or doubtless at the same time the act of 1875 would have been further amended by withdrawing from the Secretary of the Treasury the power to issue bonds and reserving to Congress, to whom it legitimately belonged, to author ize thereafter such specific issues of bonds, upon such terms and under such condi tions, as might be required for the redempti- n of the greenbacks.  The possibilities of bo; d issues under this act o 1875 as modified by the act of 1878 did not become apparent for many years thereafter. Su'.li possibilities never would have been de veloped if the Department had adhered to what -was recognized for years as the law, and which I conceive still to be the law, that the authoritv to issue bonds was given by the statute only to be exercised when there was not in the Treasury, de rived from any source, legal-tender coin in sufficient.amount with which to redeem the greenbacks presented for payment. Not; on! 3' is it plainly the correct construc tion of the resumption act that the Government .should exercise the option as to which legal-tender coin it would use in the payment of its obligations, but this con struction was recognized in the practice of the Government for more than fifteen years. Not only so, but the right and intention of the Government to exercise such option isemphatically announced in the act of July 14, 18.90, commonly known as the Sherman Act. I will ask the Secretary to read the portion of the act of 1890 which is marked. 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as indicated.  The "Secretary read as follows : 
the Treasury shall, under swell regulations as ho may prescribe, redeem such notes in gold or silver coin, at his diserotion.it being the established policy ol1 the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio or such ratio as may be provided by law. 
Mr. GRAY. Would it interrupt the Senator if I should call his attention to the act repealing the so-called Sherman law, and the duty that by that repealing law was imposed upon the Government? 
Mr. BACON. Not in the least. Mr. GRAY. The law is in these words : 
And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the Government should be steadily directed in the establishment of such a sate system of bimetallism its will raainUin at all times thr. "equal power of every dollar coined or issued by the United States in the market? and iii the payment of debts. 
It seems to me, I submit to the Senator, that that imposes a duty in a somewhat different light upon the Government and the administration of the nsc of this country than that read by the Senator from, the so-called Sherman law. 
Mr. BACOX. I am very glad of the interruption by the distinguished Senator. I think so far from that being in any manner a change it is directly in the line of that law. In response to the inquiry of the honorable Senator from Delaware, I desire to call attention with a little more particularity to the act of 1890, for the pur pose of emphasizing the proposition that the act of 1890 did not simply do what all the political platforms have done and what several statutes and resolutions of Con gress have done, to wit, announce the policy of the Government to maintain the parity, but it went further to indicate the particular way in which that p_arity was to be maintained. I confess that I have read this law a number of times, and 
 
 only within the pa^t few days has this exact language been called to my attention. It is plain that the act of 1890 announced it as the policy of the Government, and 
as the direct law as to Treasury notes issued under that law, that the Government should exercise the option and^that the creditor should not exercise it. There is no other proper construction to it. It is true the law does not use the word "op tion ;" it uses the word "d scretion," but there is no other construction which can be put to it. 
Mr. GRAY. Read it again. Mr. BACON. At the request of the Senator from Delaware I will read the clause again. Mr. GRAY. I mean just those words. Mr. BACON. It says : 
Not " may " -- 
shall under such regulations as he may presorii>e. redeem sui:Ti notes in gold or silver col: cretioii- 
Mr. GRAY. Is there anything following that clause ? Mr. BACON. Yes. 
Which is 16 to 1. Mr. GRAY. I ask the Senator Mr. BACON. Wait a moment -- 
If the Senator will pardon me a moment, I should like to state my proposition before he answers it. I say that no court in the construction of that language could come to any conclusion but that the use of the words " at his discretion " meant that the Government should exercise the option. 
Now, it may be said that discretion oi the Secretary might be exercised in per mitting the creditor to choose, but there would certainly be no correct re isoning in that contention. That would defeat it, a< is suggested to rae by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. AT.LEN. ] When the law says that the Secretary of the Treas ury shall redeem in either gold or silver coin at his discretio i it does not mean that he shall exercise that discretion by permitting the other party to exercise a discretion. I cannot do that. 
Mr. GRAY. I think that is right. Now, what I. want to submit to the fair, legal mind of my friend the Senator from Georgia is the question whether the subsequent clause of the Sherman Act, the one following the clause just read, does not impose upon that discreti n a limitation in the nature of describing the object for which the discretion shall be exercised ? 
Mr. BACON. In this law? Mr. GRAY. Yes, in the Sherinaii Act. Mr. BACON. The one I have just read? Mr. GRAY. Yes. Mr. BACON. By no means. The Senator's question simply anticipates what I intended myself to discuss. Mr. GRAY. I beg pardon. Mr. BACON. I think every Senator here, even the distinguished Senator from Delaware himself, admits the correctness of the proposition I have just announced as to what is the true construction of the language so far as I went. The Senator from Delaware assents to it. Now, what is the meaning of the continuing language ? The continuing language does not in any manner change the nature of the language already used, but simply goes on to state the purpose to be effected by that language which it had already used. It says, in other words, practically, in order that the parity between gold and silver may be maintained, the Secretary of the Treasury, -vhen he pays the de- 
iii the interest of the public. Mr. GRAY. I do not want to interfere with the Senator from Georgia. Mr. BACON". It does not interfere with me in the least. I am happy to hear 
the Senator from Delaware. 
 
 Mr- GRAY. What I contend is, it seems to me, vyhat the Senator has frankly stated, that the succeeding words do modify the use of the discretion by describing the end to be accomplished bv the exerci-e of that discretion. 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. GRAY. There we agree. Mr. BACOX. We agree. 
Mr. GRAY. What is that end ? The end is : 
To maintain the two metals on a tjarity with each other upon the present le^al ratio---- 
"Mr. BACOX. Yes. Mr. GRAY. To go further-- 
or such ratio as may be provided by law. 
Therefore it is not an unlimited discretion, but it is a discretion to be exercised in that way which will best accomplish.this purpose. 
If the Secretary of the I'reasury should believe, in the honesfc exercise of that dis cretion, that it was necessary, in order to preserve the parity of the t .vo metals, to pay an obligation of the United States in gold, surely it \vould not be a departure iro'm the command of the law for him to pay in gold. 
Mr. BACOX. Mdst undoubtedly,not, if he has both. Mr. GRAY. Very W-ell ; then we agree. Mr. BACOX". But the departure is in the Secretary ot" the Treasury entirely surreii ering his own judgment as to, whether gold or silver coin would"bost promote the parity, and permitting the creditor to say in his discretion whether he will have the one or the other, regardless of what may be the opinion of the Secretary. Mr; GRAY. Tne Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] suggests that that is a complete answer. It seems' to m-3, f I may be pardoned for trespassing 011 the indulgence or the Senator from Georgia [Mr. BACOX] ------ Mr. BACON. The Senator is not trespassing. ' Mr. GRAY. It seems to me that ^ here the end in view is described by the law, that is, to preserve parity, and discretion given to the Secretary of the Treasurv to accomplish that end, it is beside i he case, and the ivason that underlies the case', to say that he has surrendered the discretion to a party who demands gold, where the Secretary chooses to pay gold in order that, there may be no ditterence in the action of the Treasury Department in its use of the two metals in order that what ever is demanded may be paid, for the moment one metal is discriminated against, or has a discrimination made in its favor, that moment, it seems to me, there is a departure from the plain end of the law. Now, a. is admitted everywhere, it seems to me, by persons who are cognizant of the methods of doing business, a demand note ot the Government has to be paid in that metal which the credi tor prefers at the time, in order that that duty may bj properly performed by him, from the moment he refuses to do that he compels the acceptance of a metal which is not preferred by the creditor, and the discrimination between the two coins commences and the parity begins to disappear. Mr. ALLKX. Discrimination causes disparity. Mr. BACON. The entire.proposition as stated by the honorable Senator from Delaware, so far as I can analyze it and reducefit to a single proposition, is that the Secretary of the Treasury would be justified in surrendering his own discretion and in permitting the creditor to exercise the discretion, or the option, to use the other term, in case the Secretary of the Treasury thought it the best policy to do so. The law gives him no such power. The law gives him the power to say, " I will pay in gold, because I think that will best produce parity," if he wishes to do so. Mr. GR\Y. Yes. 
Mr. BACOX. It gives him the power to pay in silver, if that will the more surely tend to produce parity. It does not give hiru power to sav, " I think it is the policy of this Government, regardless of what may be my opinion as to the interest of the Government, to let the creditor exercise the option when he comes ami says ' I will take gold.' " There would be no such power. The Secretary might think it better for the Government that the creditor shou'd take silver. 
Mr. GRAY. It is the desire of the creditor for gold that operates upon and is the reason for the exercise of the discretion. 
Mr. BACOX. That does not make parity. Gentlemen talk upon this floor and . on the stump about parity. Because a man can with a silver dollar get a gold dol 
lar does not make parity. Parity is where either metal will stand of itself without the support of (.he other ; where either will accomplish the same result as the other without the assistance of the other. That is all there is in parity. 
Mr. ALLKN. The law of equality. Mr. BACOX. It is the law of equality, as the distinguished Senator from Ne braska says. 
 
 I am glad this interruption has occurred, bec.iuse it emphasizes the fact which escaped my notice up to within the past few days, and which I never heard pre sented before, although it is on the plain surface of the law, that the act of 1890 laid upon the Secretary of the Treasury the absolute obligation to exercise his option in behalf of the Government if he thought the paying of one rather than the other coin would tend to produce parity between the two coins. 
Mr. President, what can more tend to produce disparity than for the Government to admit that a coin, which it itself says is a legal C'lin, is not an equal coin with th** other, and that therefore a man has a right to discriminate between the two ? I think that much we have heard on the coinage question would never have been heard if it had not been for the fatal mistake made by the Secretary of the Treasury in allowing that discrimination to be made. If he had said in the beginning, "Under the law these two coins are equal ; under the law when you present one to me in payment for the debt due to the Government T do not a.sk you to give me the other. I accept either one ; and under the law when you present an obligation to me for payment you mast take either one, and I will exercise my judgment as to which is the one that it is more in the interest of the Government to pay "--if he had said that there would have been parity, parity not because one leans against the other or derives its support from the other, but parity because one is as strong and as tall as the other and will bear as much burden as the other. That is parity. So long as the Government admits the claim of *ho creditor that one is not so good as the other, and permits the creditor to say, " I will select what I will take," so long there will not be parity, certainly nor, under existing law. 
Mr. GRAY. AH that I meant to say, and T do not, believe the Senator from Georgia will differ with me in that respect, is that where the Secretary of the Treasury has two coins in his possession, in maintaining the parity of which he is commanded to exercise a d'Scretion he can only use that discretion bv saying to a creditor, "Whichever of these coins you wait t yon can have," for "if he says, "You shall take one and not the other," then there is n<->t parity maintained between them on the part of the Government. He says, " You can take either of these two coins, ani therefore we show that we r >gard" them precisely alike." 
Mr. BACON. The mistake which the distinguished Senator from Delaware naakea and which a great many ot'.ers who think as he thinks also make is this : They confuse the idea of the parity which exists between the gold dollar and the paper dollar, wh ch is not parity in the sense that we are talking about when we speak of the parity of two legal-tender coins. You say the legal-tender paper dollar is on a parity with gold. You vise the expression " is on a parity with gold" simply be cause it is redeemable in gold. 
The distinguished Senator and those of Ms school in this particular branch of politics think that all that is needed with reference to the silver dollar ia that it shall have the same relation to the gold dollar that the paper dollar has to-day. I eay that there is a fatal vice in that position, and that the relation which those recog nize who occupy the position T do is that, it shall be a parity not because one can be exchanged for the other, except so far as equality will promote exchange, but be cause one is as powerful as thi- other and will do as much as the other without ref erence to any support from the other. 
Mr. GRAY. Then we mean different things by the word " parity." Mr. BACON. We certainly do. 
Mr. GRAY. I think it comes down to that. Mr. BACON. "We certainly do ; and T am only sorry that the country at large and the men who do not have the time to investigate this matter are misled in that regard by the arguments of those who agree with the distinguished Senator from Delaware. They are confused upon the question of parity and made to believe that the question of parity between gold and silver is the same thing as the parity be tween gold and piper. They are as wide apart as the poles. Mr. BTJTLKK. Will the Senator from Georgia permit me for a moment ? Mr. BACON. Certainly. 
]Vlr, BUTLER. If we admit what the Senator from Delaware says, that the Secretary of the Treasury has exercised his option, then certainly the Senator from Delaware must admit that he lias used his discretion badly, because the result of his option and. his discretion as he has used them has been to cause a disparity and to make the disparity greater with each exercise of that option. 
Mr. GRAY. On the contrary, I believe that the use by the Secretary of the Treasury of his discretion has thus far maintained the parity, and is the only thing which has maintained it. 
Mr. BUTLER. He has succeeded in making the bullion value of silver come down by discriminating against it, for the Senator knows that the only way to in- 
 
 crease the bullion value is by treating it equally and fairly with gold, and in this connection I quote the distinguished Senator from New York [Mr. HILLJ in his Elmira speech, when he laid down the proposition that nothing had ever ma !e the bullion of val ie of silver equal to gold but treating it equally and fairly at the mints with gold. 
Mr. BA.COX. Referring again to the act of 1890--and I say that the act of 1893 
was practically a repetition of the sanns declaration on the part of the G:wem.ment--<-it directly asserts the policy of the Government to maintain at the present ratio, 16 to 1 (that much-derided phrase in the act of 1890--it does not say 16 to 1, but it says? present legal ratio, and that -is 16 to 1}, the parity between the Icgal- 
tender gold coin, and the legal-tender silver c >in by the exercise of this option on the part of the Government, and by refusing to permit the creditor to exercise his option in the premises. It not only asserts the general public policy as to the 
payment of a)] its obligations, but it unqualifiedly commands the Secretary of the Treasury to exercise that option in the payment of the Treasury notes to be issued under that act. 
The recent contention is that parity between the gold legal-tender coin and the silver legal-tender -coin is to be only maintained in the same way that parity is 
maintained betweenNi gold dollar-and a paper dollar, and that is bv giving to the creditor the right to cVtoose which, of them he will receive in payment of his debt. 
But the recognized construction of the law for more than fifteen years, and the plain assertion and command of-the- act'of 1890, was that pari;y between the gold 
dollar and the silver dollar was to be .maintained by i reati ng each as standard money, and by requiring the creditor to receive either which the Government in its discretion might choose to,offer him. 
With all respect to those who differ with me, it is to my mind an absurdity to call that a parity between two coins which permits a creditor to refuse to receive"the 
one and give^ him the right.to demand die other. But however this may be in theory, the law recognized in practice by the executive department, which gives to the public creditor the right to demand and -eceive gold to the exclusion of legal- 
tender silver, is law made by the executive department and not by the constitu tional lawrnaking department. The making of this law by Executive order and the enforcement of it in practice, ie a plain, palpable, undeniable usurpation of legisla 
tive functions by the officer of the executive department. It is not only without the sanction of the legislative department, but is directly ia conflict with the laws which it has passed and with the resolutions which it has adopted. 
It is not, however, my purpose in this connection to discuss at length the ques tion whether the Secretary of the Treasury has or has not violated the spirit and intent of the law in the issuance of bond to procure gold I.-T the public creditor 
when there was at the time of such issue legal-tender coin in the Treasury with, which to redeem the greenbacks. For the purposes of this argument that is not an 
essential question for determination at this time. Whatever may be the proper construction of this bond law in this regard, the reason and the necessity for its re peal are none the less imperative. 
If it; be conceded for the purposes of this argument that he has strictly pursued the law and has in no manner departed from, its intent, the proposition is none the 
less beyond successful dispute that the exercise by an executive officer of the power in his discretion to create debt, and compel taxation, and force appropriations by Congress, is a violation of the plain intent of the Constitution. For Congress to permit such a statute to remain nrepealed is an abdication of its high prerogatives 
and an abandonment of its duty. Nay, more ; to stand inert and sub i issive while the executive department, undisguised!y indifferent to the -wili of Congress, issues 
bonds and piles up debt upon the people to the amount of hundreds of millions of dollars, must necessarily bring into disrepute the legislative branch of the Govern 
ment, and utterly destroy the respect to which its high office and its legitimate authority rightfully entitle it in the public esteem. 
The great distinguishing featirre between a despotism and a free government is the presence of a representative legislative branch, freely chosen by the people, and 
acting in the discharge of its legitimate legislative functions without hindrance, re straints, or attempted encroachment by the executive department. In every gov 
ernment, however despotic, there is found the executive department, and, as a Eractical necessity, also a judicial department. But a free representative legislature, 
ee in its selection and free in the exercise of its powers, is only found in a free gov ernment, and wherever found there exists free government. The presence of the one insures the existence of the other. To the degree in which the executive de 
partment encroaches upon the legislative powers, or in which the legislative depart- 
 
 10 
rnent voluntarily or carelessly surrenders its powers to tlie executive department, to the same degree is there a departure from the standard of a free representative gov ernment. It is a delusion to conclude that free government is assured by the more existence of a representative branch nominally and formally performing'legislative functions. It has been my fortune to look upon a legislative assemulv in which the members had be<j n practically designated and chosen by the executive,"and in which, during several sittings witnessed by myself the bills which were presented for action, and which had been prepared by the executive department, elicited from no mem ber present either motion, or suggestion, or comment. When these bills were put upon their passage, the roll call in every instance failed to show a single negative vote. And more than that, during those several sittings there was never, bv any member, a motion, a suggestion, or a discussion upon any subject or measure. "They did riot meet to deliberate, or to discuss, or to legislate, but only to otaev the execu tive orders. They simplv voted \mauimously in the aturmative upon the bills which had been prepared for them, and adjourned. Although nominally a repre sentative legislative body, they were i;i fact but the agents to register in the form of law the arbitrary edicts of the executive. 
Now, Mr. President, it is not to be feared that any legislative body in the United States will ever be reduced to sui/h slavish subserviency to Executive will and dic tation. Such a condition is an impossibility to men of our race. There is certainly no prcseiitindication that, they will be reduced to silence. But while it is not to be apprehended that we will ever reach such an extreme, it is not to be denied that whenever there is a surrender bv the legislature to the Executive of any of the power belonging to the former, to that extent there is such sub-erviency. ' Tn the domain of Federal legislation, among the most important subjects are the the crea tion of public debt, the levying and collection of taxes, and appropriation to ex penditure of the mo ii?y thus collected from the people. And when we permit to stand nnrepealed the law which in a very large measure practically abandons to the executive department the legislative functions in regard to these important subjects, we stand in our subserviency, as respects them, in no better position than does the legislative body of which I have spoken, and which as to all measures of legislation sjiuply obeys the command oi' the .Executive, 
At this very session, and I am glad to see the chairman of the Committee on Ap propriations sitting before me when I make the assertion, in the appropriation bills are found $10,000,000 in round numbers to pay the annual interest on the -71262,000,000 of bonds which within the past two years have been issued by the executive department und^r this law. Can it be said that in the appropriation of this $10,000,000 of interest Congivss has done anything more than c ifry out the edict of the executive department? 
Mr. ALLJ^ON. Will the Senator from Georgia, yield to me for a moment? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. ALLISOX. None of the appropriation, bills provides interest on the public debt. Th-it interest is provided by a law p issv-d in 18<i2, which carries continuous appropriations lor interest on the public debt with jut any intervention of Congress. Mr. BACON. 1 understand that. Mr. ALUSON.- So we have not dealt with that question at all. Mr. BACON. I understand that. What I mean is that the whole matter of ap propriations is within the contro of Congress, and that act as well as any other act is within tiie control of Congress, and whenever the Congress makes no~ch.an.ge in the act appropriating- money, of course it recognizes the propriety of payment under the act, because if there were an impropriety it would certainly recognize it and correct it. Mr. AI/L1SOX. It is not within the province of the Committee on Appropria tions, except by the consent of the Senate, to propose new legislation. Mr. BACOXi I did not say the Appropriations Committee did this. The Sena tor from Iowa misunderstood me. Mr. ALL!SON. I understood the Senator to say we hud put these provisions in appropriation bills. M~r. BAOOX. I ara simply calling attention to the fact that a large amount of money, to wit, 10,000,000, which will represent in round numbers the interest ac cruing upon the $202,000,000 of bonds issued, is an amount of interest that this Congress is bound to recognize, and it has to make provision for the payment of it. It cannot exercise any discretion, either to interfere with any existing law or to make any ne\v provision which would interfere with it in any way. The law is under the control of Congress, as any other law is. I think it ought to stand. 
 
 11 
The Senator from Iowa ["Mr. ALLISON] must not misunderstand me about that. I am speaking of the fact that this is a debt which has been created by Executive order; that it did not originate in any specific legislative enactment. I am simply illustrating the fact that in the creation of the debt by Executive order there is 
the practical absorption of the legislative functions by the executive department ; that, whe% it creates the debt, which must be paid, Congress no longer has any - discretion as to whether it will pay it, and it is the same thing as if the executive department had power to order its payment. Tnat is the purpose for which I al 
luded to it. The national honor requires that this interest on these bonds shall be paid. 
Whenever the principal debt is created by the Executive in issuing bonds, Congress has no discretion, ,but is under compulsion to appropriate money for the purpose, 
and is under equal compulsion to collect from the people'by taxation the necessary amount of money. And so on to the end, until the maturity of these bonds issued by the Executive, Congress, without the exercise of any discretion and under com pulsion, must each year levy taxes and practically make appropriation to the 
amount"of $10,000^000 to pay this annual interest until the aggregate of interest will amount to more than 8250,000,000. And at the end, the principal debt of $262,- 
000,000 must also be paid, and. the people must be taxed to this amount without the exercise of any discretion - or -will on the pait of Congress, but under direct, absolute Compulsion to levy the taxes-arid appropriate the money. 
Mr. President, of course it miist be recognized that not only in the case of these particular bonds issued through Executive order, but also in the case of bonds issued 
by specific act of Congress, the national honor is pledged and the principal and in terest must be paid, that there can be the exercise of 110 discretion bv Congress as 
to such payment, and tliat the Congress in. office' at the time of their maturity is under an obligation which cannot be disregarded to provide the necessary money and to appropriate the same to such payment. 
But the two cases are radically different. In each case it is the obligation of the 
original contract which takes away from Congress any future discretion as to the appropriation, of money for its payment. In the latter case the obligation of the contract is the creation of Congress and this obligation- is subsequently discharged 
by Congress. The original obligation to pay, contracted through the exercise of the discretion and will of Congress, and the final payment by Congress, are in their beginning and ending the acts of the legislative department, acting throughout within its constitutional functions. 
But in the former case, where the executive officer acts in his discretion under a power delegated by a general law, the executive d -partment alone exercises the dis cretion and the will by which the obligation is created, and under which the com pulsion of payment is laid upon Congress. 
It is too plain for serious dispute that in the issuance of bonds under this existing law, and in the exercisi of his discretion and will in such issuance, asking neither yea or nay of anyone, the executive officer practically performs the legislative func tions in the creation of debt, and in the taxation andappropri ition required for the discharge of that debt. 
In a great matter vitally affecting the interest of the people, the protection of 
which has by the Constitution been particularly and exclusively confided as a duty to the legislative department, the Executive commands, and Congress has but to obey. In truth, Mr. President, the office performed by Congress in this regard 
hardly rises to the dignity of obedience. This % highest legislative body becomes scarcely more than the pawn moved upon the governmental chessboard by the 
Executive hand. The legislative is, under the Constitution, the highest branch of this Govern 
ment. To it the officers of all other branches of the Government a*-e answerable as to a tribunal of final power. To it have been committed by the Constitution the 
great governmental functions and powers, with the particular design and intent that they shall not be exercised by the Executive ; th;tt, wrested as they were from. 
the grasp of kings, these powers should never again be within the control of any one man. Uoon those clothed with these high perogatives rests the strongest obli 
gation to carefully see to it that the exercise of these great powers, or of any one of them, shall not intentionally, or through inadvertence, pass from the legislative to -the executive department. 
It may seem idle to seriously discuss the encroachment by the Executive upon the legislative department; but it is not without significance not only that Congress should contentedly acquiesce in the practical and continued exercise of the most 
 
 12 
 
important legislative functions by the executive department through the means of 
 
this bond law, but that a subaltern in the Treasury Department should openly set 
 
at naught the commands of regularly enacted law, and no movement be made in 
 
Congress to return him by the shortest route to the avocations of private life. 
 
It bodes no good to the constitutional limitations of the great departments of our 
 
Government that such things can be. The cloud on the horizon may not be larger 
 
than a man's hand, but it 33 plainly discernible, and it may in time overspread the 
 
entire heavens. 
 
From exercising legislative functions by the executive department it is but one 
 
step to the influence and control of elections by the same department, and the con 
 
trol of the elections bv the executive department means the absolute domination 
 
and dictation of legislation. 
 
The time when encroachment upon right should be resisted is in its beginning. 
 
The point at which to grapple w.th an invader is wh^re he first sets foot upon the 
 
border. 
 
Mr. President, what has been already done under this bond law can not be un 
 
done. The evil which has already been accomplished must be endured. The 
 
mountain of debt which has been piled up on the people must be borne for the 
 
period of a generation, and every year during that full period the earnings of every 
 
branch of industry must be taxed for its payment. This enormous and unnecessary 
 
debt has added not one dollar of value to the products of the field, of the mine, of 
 
the factory, or of the fruits of any other productive enterprise. And yet it must be 
 
paict by the people of this country to the last dollar, principal and interest, aggre 
 
gating the vast sura of more than ^500,000,000 ; and among all the people there is 
 
no one who is personally so poor or whose avocticioii is so humble bat what he will 
 
each year pay his portion of it. Out of the pin an ' ' 
 
" 
 
ment of the principal and interest of this bonded debt thus created by the Execu tive order. No one will escape. Each and eveiy one in the whole land must pay 
his portion. 
But however fixed and irretrievable is this calamity of the past, the fact can not be too strongly emphasized that if this bond law is permitted to stand unrepealed, Congress, in so doing, with the full knowledge of its practical operation, is delib- 
 
ing of taxes, and the appropriation of money. Not only so, but in ref sing to re peal this bond law, Congress will furthermore be consenting that for the sole pur* pose of maintaining the gold standard, a still further bonded debt of hundreds of 
millions of dollars is hereafter to be added to the five hundred millions of principal and interest already contracted through. Executive order to be paid for this purpose. And yet more ; in refusing to repeal this bond law Congress will also be consenting 
that the greenback currency shall be withdrawn from circulation to the same amount for which bonds are issued. Congress must be assumed to consent to that which it knows will certainly occur when it refuses to e.- ercise the power it has to prevent it. 
There is no one so credulous as to believe that with this bond law unrepealed the issuance oE bonds by the executive department, has ended. It is not to be doubted 
that more bonds are to be issued for the same purpose that they have been issued for in the past. "VVe have the word of the Chief .Executive that these bonds have 
beeu issued to maintain the gold standard, and not for the purpose of paying the expenses of the Government. I have, upon a former occasion, i n. the Senate, quoted 
this statement of the President, and T quote it again, because, in my opinion, the fact can not b-1 too strongly or too often pressed horn" to the knowledge and the realization of the people that this stupendous debt of $262,000,000, which with the 
interest will amount to more than $500,000,00if, has been )a.id upon their weary shoulders, not to pav anv debt of the Government, not to pay any expenses of the Government, but solely and exclusively to maintain the gold standard. Whatever 
may have been the disposition made of any part of the proceeds of these bonds, the 
assertion of the President is that they were issued to maintain gold payments. The President in his last annual message, sent in "December, at the opening of 
Congress, said what I will insert in my remarks. I shall not take the time of the Senate to read it. I have the passage marked here, and any Senator can see it. I shall incorporate it in my speech. 
Mr. ALI.ISON. It seems to me the Senator from Georgia should at this point 
state that from $136,000,000 to $13'f,000,000 of the money thus borrowed has gone to pay the current expenses o the Government. 
 
 13 
 
Mr. BACON. In a subsequent part of my speech, which I have nearly reached, 
 
I will discuss that very question ; and I think that furnishes one of the very- strong 
 
est arguments which can be used in favor of the repeal of the law. 
 
Mr, ALL1SON. The reason why I call the Senator's attention to it is because I 
 
understood him to say a moment ago that all the. money had been vised for the 
 
maintenance of the gold standard.. 
 
> 
 
Mr. BACOX. KG, sir ; the Senator from Iowa misunderstood ine. I said that 
 
whatever dispoaision hy.d been made of the money, the issuance of the bonds had 
 
teen for the purpose solely of maintaining the gold standard. I have here marked 
 
the extract from the President's last annual message in. which he makes that state 
 
ment, and which I did not propose to occupy the time of the Seriate m reading, 
 
because' I am satisfied everybody recollects it, and 1 simply proposed to incorporate 
 
it in my remarks. I think, however, that the suggestion of the distinguished1 Sen 
 
ator  rota Iowa is one of the most pertinent ones connected with, the whole ques- 
 
issued o?--fek-lhl'y\o i-efllouiedi OKI' g-oM reserve were really issued 'to supj.ily insufficient roWnLie!^ Not.h^ tiomd credit. As IK*M boen shown, the frojd thus obtained h;rs been drawn n^nin fi-ion the Treasury upon Unit -d States notes and Treasury note*. This operation woulil have been nromptly in-ovented if possible ; but these notes liavmg- thcw bceri i>s..>-6d to tbo Trensury, Ihoy bct'-jimo tht? mimey of tho 
 
This relates to the first three bond issue-i and spates the amount of surplus in the Treasury at the date of each of them. Since; tiie date of that message $100,000,000 
more of bonds have been Issued for the same purpose, and at the date of that last issue the Trea-uver's aucoxiut showed the balance in. hand of about 8180,000,000. .So that even if we had tho guarantee of a large, continuing .balance in our favor in the Treasury, it would be no chj feirsy against the future issue of bonds it this law 
.remains in force. One hundred and eighty millions of dollars in the Treasury ill February last did not protect, the people against the issue of $100,000,000 of bonds, and a like amount in the Treasury in the future will be equally impotent to protect 
them against a,n equal or greater issue of bonds within the next few months. It can not be too often repeated that the people of the United States have been, 
through an Executive order, loaded with a debt of $202,000.000, besides an equal 
amount in interest, as the money price they have been required to pay for main taining the goW standard for a little more than .two years ; and there is every iiidication that in the succeeding twelve months there "will be added to this aaofcher ^payment by the people of certainly $100.000,000 of bonds, and probably twice that 
amount, Tlus tribute whi/h the people have, already been compelled to pay in .time of peace, solely to maintain, the gold standard, inldyd to the additional pay- 
.ments which, in al] probability, will be exacted of them in another year, wi!l, with the accruing interest, equal the amount which Germany, with the pent-up animos 
ity of a century, exacted as a ransom from France when she lay crushed and helplegs at the mercy of her hereditary foe. 
While one creditor has as much right as another to demand gold, it is neverthe 
less true that all tiie creditors of the Government, excepting only one class, rare content to be paid In silver, and, with that exception, prac io:(lly"a!l of them are now paid in silver or silver certificates. But whenever this iavored class 
 of public creditors, those who seem to be the chief objects of the concern and .solicitude of the Government, those who toil neither in the field, nor in the mine, 
jior in the factory, nor in the workshop, but who each year gather untold wealth for .themselves out ot the products of the. toilets in these and. other spheres of. produetive industry, when they demand goid it is given them, and then more bonds 
.are issued to gather in more gold, to he again paid to this class when they call for at. "Under this law, and its practical operation as administered by the executive de- 
 
 14 partment1, our people are to be buried neck deep in debt in order that we may say to this favored class, and thr >ugh them to all the world, " Here is gold ; come and get it." 
Each time the gold is drawn out the load of public debt is increased in fabulous a-rounts; each time the greenbacks and Treasury notes to an equal amount are locked up in the Treasury. At the same time that the public indebtedness is in creased, the currency of the country is contracted. When the last bond issue was made in February, one hundred minions of the paper currency of the country was withdrawn from the circulati >n of the country and locked up in the Treasury, and more than that amount ig there to-day, practicully useless for the business needs of the country, while a corresponding amount of interest-bearing debt is demanding and exacting increased tribute from the people. There has already begun the out flow of the gold gathered into the Treasury but yesterdav at such"stupendous cost. Thirteen million dollars of it has Rone, and of this $8,000,000 went in the past week. 
Is there a Senator who doubts the fact that this drain of gold will continue and that within a few months it will be gone, and that under the existing law and the established practice of the executive department another hundred millions of bonds is again to be soon issued? It is not to be denied that in the withdrawal of the gold another hundred millions of greenbacks will be locked up in the Treasury. This hundred millions added to the amount already there and to the reserves will, make more than $250,000,000 which, if this bond law stands unrepealed, will within the next few months be hidden away in the Treasury vaults arid practically destroyed tothe business purposes and necessities of the country. This is one-half of the whole paper currency of the Government. There is a most powerful and active element in the country, under the lead of the Chief Executive of the Go\ eminent, openly advocating the retirement and cancellation of all the greenbacks and Tre sury notes without any provision of law substituting any other currency therefor. To lock this currency up in the Treasury will effect their purpose as thoroughly as would be accomplished-by their cancellation. "When thus withdrawn from circulation and. hidden away in the Treasury vaults, these bills are as efleetuallv destroyed for all business purposes as if given to the names and reduced to ashes." 
Those who favor the retirement of our paper Currency have the pecuniary means with which to accomplish this practical retirement by two or three successive with drawals of the gold reserve, at each time paying into the Treasury a like amount of greenbacks and Treasury notes to be added to the hidden store in the Treasury vaults. The bond law remaining unrepealed upon the statute book gives the oppor tunity for this practical destruction of the paper currency of the Government. It has alrcadv been partially accomplished. Unless in the repeal of this bond law we arrest the further progress, it cannot be doubted that in the near future it will be accomplished in a much larger degree, if not in its totality. 
In his last 'annual message the President recommended to Congress the retire ment a'-'ci cancellation of the greenbacks and the issuance of interest-bearing- bonds in lieu thereof. The proposition was unqualifiedly condemned bv the utterances of the Senators and Representatives of every political party in Congress, and never commanded sufficient support to secure even the introduction of a bill to carry it into effect. 
The PRESIDING OFFTCER (3Ir. CHFLTOX in the chair).. The Senator from Georgia will suspend a moment. The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, which will be stated. 
The SECRETARY. A resolution reported by M>. Mitchell of Oregon, f .-om the Com mittee on Privileges and Elections, '' That Henry A. Du Pont is entitled to a seat in the Senate from the State of Delawate for the full term commencing March 4, 1895." 
 Mr. PL ATT. If there is no objection, I should hope that the resolution might be laid asid temporarily to allow the Senator irom Georgia to conclude. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it will be so ordered. Mr. BACON. I am iiiucb obliged for the courtesy of the Senator from Connecti cut. I will state that I have occupied very much more time than I anticipated be cause f. have been led off into side discussions, to which I }iad no objection except in the interest of time. What Congress refused to do by legislation, and what ordinarily could not have been accomplished without legislation, the executive department has, under th ex isting bond law, accomplished to the amount of one hundred millions of dollars by an executive order. The tide has already turned ; the process of repetition hag 
 
 15 
already begun, and in a brief period of time another hundred of millions of green backs will be retired by another executive order, not only without legislative enact ment, but in the face of the refusal of Congress to make such legislative ena -tment. And here again we have, in ttie practical operation of this nnrepealed bond law, the  -legislative power practically put into the hands of the Executive, and the practical abandonment by Congress of the high legislative function- exclusively confided to it by the Constitution. Under this law not only has the Executive the powers be longing exclusively to the legislative branch--to contract debt, to force the levying of taxes and the making of appropriations--but also the power to retire and prac tically destroy for business purposes the greenback currency as effectually as if can celed by an act of Congress. This is the practical exercise by the execu ive depart ment of the highest legislative functi->n<. 
There is still another feature of this bond law in its practical operation under which the executive departmsnt exercises powers properly and exclusively belong ing to the legislative department. 
And now Iconie to the particular part to which the distinguished Senator fro'n Iowa [Mr. AI-LISONJ called my attention, and I be.^ his attention to the suggestion which I have to make upon it, because it seems to me to be of the most vital char acter for tfae consideration of Congress.- 
Under the provisions of this law all money arising from the sale of bonds is paid into the general fund in the Treasury and is subject to be paid out by the Secretary under any appropriation made by Con.ress. That is recognized by everybody. There is no denial of the fact that money arising from the salo of bonds is so de posited in the genera! fund and has been paid out for general purposes. 
The Senator from Iowa stares that $130,000,000 of it has been so paid. Senators on this floor within the past few days in the discussion of the appropriation bills have warned the Senate that excessive appropriations would result in the issuance of more bonds, thus recognizing that the Executive in the issuance of bonds under the existing law is, indirectly by this means, through a mere Execu tive order, contracting debt, the money arising from, which is devoted to the pay ment of the expenses of the Government. The President in his last annua! mes sage emp :atically states that there is no authority in the Secretary of the Treasury to issue bonds for this purpose, and yet under the existing law now sought to be re pealed, there is the exercise of this'authority by which, through an Executive or der, debt is contracted and the money realized from the same is applied to the pay ment of the current expenses of the Government. 
Now, here is the impor ant consideration which I suggest in this connection : There can be no question that under the Const.tuf.ion it is the duty, and exclusive power of C mgress, to provide the money with which the expenses of the Govern ment are paid, and it matters not in this regard whether the money is provided by loan, or by revenue from taxation. In either case the power and th. _> duty and the responsibility in this regard are those of Congress alone. Any law, or device, or evasion by which this money is provided by 'the executive department, without direct legislative authority for that purpose, is an oneroacimieiit upon the legislative power, and is distinctlv a violation of the Constitution, both in its letter and in its spirit. 
Sir, I have said that a free representative branch is the distinguishing feature of a free government. I will go further and say that a fundamental principle in every such free government is that the legislative department shall control the raising of all the money needed by the Government, and that the executive head shall not have the power to raise a dollar by taxation, forced loan, or otherwise, except by the consent of the representative branch of the government. It is of the very essence of free government that this should be so. It is the vital principle that the . hand which wields the sword shall not control the purse. In the maintenance of !' this great principle those from whom we have derived our laws and our free insti tutions, have counted treasure as but dross, and blood as no more than water. 
A denial of this principle and its prac'ical overthrow, is an attack which passes the outer works and assaults the inner defenses of Iree representative government. 
From the highest official source in this Government, and upon, an historic occas ion during the present week, we have t-eard the following : 
 
 or for the payment o its expenses, but that all such powers shall be exercised alone 
by the legislature. 
Mr. PEFFKK. Allow me to interrupt the Senator just at this point. I wish to call attention to the fact that whatever responsibility may rest upon the Senate in this matter, two years ago and. more, immediate]}' lifter the First issue of bonds, I 
took occasion to call attention to the matter in the Senate. 1 delivered an address of some length, pursuing the same line of argument that the Senator has to-day. So whatever responsibility may rest upon the Senate the Populists are clear. 
Mr. B.YCQN. I regret that 1 have not had the opportunity to rend the speech of the distinguished Senator from Jvmisad, otherwise it might not have been necessary 
for me to occupy so much of the time of the Senate in repeating what probably the Senator has already better said. 
Mr. PEFFER. "I did not intend to niuke such an allusion, i am delighted with the Senator's remarks- 1 am very much interested. 
Mr. BACON. I am much obliged. Mr. President, there is a wide difference in the views of various Senators relative to the issuance of bonds, and especially with rolerene*-? !o the issuance of bonds to 
maintain the gold standard. Then' are tliuscj who think bonds should be issued and sold whenever the gold in the, Treasury has, under our suicidal system, with re 
current periodicity b^ei) drawn out below a certain point. There are others-of. us 
who think that no bonds should be issued in time of peace, except pet haps m mak ing provision, i T the pubiic defense, where the emergency mav demand it. And especmlly do those of this class ;hink that no debt of hundreds"of millions of dol 
lars should be heaped up on the people of this and future generations through tlie issuance of bonds to replenish a gold reserve, so long as there is in the Treasury a 
sufficiency of legal-tender coin which the Covermuent itself receives in the pay ment of all dues to it. 
But, Mr. President, it matters not, so far as the question now under cnn-ideration 
is concerned, whether Senators are of opinion that bonds should or should not be Jss'it-d. The point ;s, that even if it be proper that bonds should be issued, thenissuance should b-; authorized and controlled by Cong-ess alone, and that Ui" exec utive department; should nut have thu power which is now exorcised to issue bonds 
without restraint and without HmiU "Why, sir, when the last issue of one hundred millions was about to be made, it was general K report'ed (hat rise executive depart ment contemplated the issuance of tsilhcr one "huudred mill'ous, or two hundred 
millions of bonds. The public and Oongies.s were in doubt which amount it \vould be. The Congress of the United Suites, invented by the Constitution with the. duty and the responsibility of all legislation of every kind and ibegree, ami especially charged with the direct control of aH mat (ens a/Teeting- the contraction of debt and tli-j expenditure of money, sal, here whi'e this question so gravely unvoting the 
public, interest was being decided at the other end of the Avenue. Senator^ and Kf'pi-e.ien natives, clolht-j with the high functions giving the vis'.iL and imposing the duty to control this matter in its uverv detail, had no more connection with it," and 
no more influence over it, than the .Lords and Commons of lh-:> B/ilirth Parliamejit.And if to-morrow morning, or the day after wo shall have adjourned and hurried 
away to attend polit.ieal conventions, it were tuinounced that the executive department had determined to issue one huriureO millio.;, i >r two, or even three 
hundred millions of bonds, so long as Urn bond law remains unrepealed, where is 
the power to pay it nay? 
Mr. President, is it to be recognized as the permanent policy of this Government that the executive department is to exercise in its discretion the power to contract debt and tois.suc bonds? Is Congress for all time to surrender to the executive de 
partment this high legislative prerogative which the Constitution says shal. be exer cised oniy by Congress? Tf not, there is no time like tlse present for the repeal of 
this law. If the propositions I have discussed are sound, the time can not come too' quickly when Congress shall reussume its constitutional legislative functions, and 
confine tbo executive department within its legitimate sphere of duty and of power. I repeat, that either in our action or non-action the responsibility for "the future issu 
ance or non-issuance of bond.s is upon as, and can not be escaped by us, Mr. President, we spend days and weeks discu-sing questions of appropriation 
and of expenditure. Shall we be silent, either in speech or in vote, when there is 
presented the great issue--shall any one man be invested for the future with the more than royal power, in his discretion and without limit, to burden the people with debt to unto d millions, and slia 1 the executive department bi! clothed with the most important legislative functions conferred by the Constitution upon Congress ! T^et 
the record show in their votes how Senators and Representatives, and how the po litical parties they represent, stand upon this vital question. 
 
 Constitutional Power of the President in the Recogni tion of a People as a Free and Independent Nation. 
e Presidential office dot's not consist, i 
ost carefully restricted and guarded. The fundamental purpose was to elevnte the people rather than to oxalt any man. who of necessity should be set up to rule. The supreme design was should he subjected to his will, "to the end, that this may be a government of laws, and not of men." 
EON, AU&USTUS 0, BACON, 
/ OK GKORGIA, 
In the Senate of the United States. 
"Wednesday, January 13, 1897. 
WASHINGTON, D. C. : TI A R T >T A N & C A D I C K, POINTERS, 
1897. 
 
 o institutional Power of tlie President in the Recognition ot  People as  Free and Independent Mation. 
 
HON. AUGUSTUS O. BACON. 
SJpon the joint resolution (S, R. 188) in reference to the recognition of the independence of foreign 
Mr. BACON said: Mr. PRESIDENT: I regret exceeding-ly the lateness of the liour and tlie cir cumstances under which I am now called upon to address the Senate on this very important question. I should ask the further indulgence of the Senate for a postponement until some other time but that I fear the pressing busi ness of the Senate might not, in that case, give me the opportunity to pre sent certain views which I am anxious that I may have the opportunity to present to this body. In December I introduced 'a concurrent resolution, which has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, I will read it: Resolved by the Senate (llie HoM.se of Representatives concurring), That the question of the 
' ' ' " ' lovernmeiit of" tiny people a-- a, free ami in itjpeiulwnt nation is one exclusively 
T!nt this prerogative of sovereign power does nc 
 
The resolution being before the Committee on the Judiciary, it is not com petent for me to call it up, and I, therefore, avail myself of the opportunity presented by the pendency of the joint resolution introduced by the Senator from Texas {Mr. MILLS) to address myself to the general subject, which is also embraced in the first section of his .joint resolution, which 1 ask the Sec retary to read. 
The PRKSiniNG OFFICER. The Secretary will read as requested. The Secretary read as follows: 
Resolved r>u the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of A.merlca in Con- 
 
1^o*i "sl!o"uoi1g:res"if<l^^ with the legislative di- part incut of rhe Government. 
 
fn'^araaony 
 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, the general subject of the powers of the Ex ecutive ana of Congress as tne lawmat-iug power is raised as well by the first section of the joint resolution of the Senator from Texas as by the resolution 
offered hy myself, and in the discussion 1 shall treat the subject generally, having more particular reference to the phraseology and direct provisions of 
the resolution offered by myself, -which is now before the Committee on the Judiciary. 
This, Mr. President, may be said to be a question which has not come be 
fore us incidentally. It is true that the question arises out of the pendency 
of the question ot the recognition of Cuban independence, but it has been brought before us in a much more direct way than could possibly be accom 
plished by the simple pendency of that matter. The Committee on. Foreign Relations, composed of Senators of experience and ability, men not only 
eminent In this body, but eminent as the foremost men of the nation, have reported to the Senate a resolution in which they affirm indirectly the power 
of Congress to deal with this subject. They have recommended the adop tion of a resolution by which the independence of Cuba would be acknowl 
edged by this Government, and thereby have affirmed that in their opinion 
it is competent for the lawruaking power by the adoption of a joint resolution to acknowledge such independence. 
I in mediately thereafter au officer of another department of the Government, the Secretary of State, publishes what we may accept as an authorized inter view, in which he denies the power of Congress to take such action, denies 
Its authority to pass upon the question whether or not a government shall be acknowledged as a free and independent government, and claims that 
under the Constitution the exclusive power so to do rests with the Executive. In pursuance of the expression of that opinion, and in the same interview, 
he announces that if Congress should take such action it would be treated by the Executive as of no authority; and he particularly invites the atten 
tion of foreign nations to the fact that the executive department of this Gov 
ernment, as regards this question, acknowledges no such authority in the Eawmaking department of the Government. 
 
 We have here, Mr. President, a-direct, most undisguised issue; one which (has been presented in such a manner that this department of the Government .must either meet and assert its prerogative or by its silence must consent to 
;the assertion that it has no such prerogative. Therefore, I say that this ques tion has not been incidentally raised. It has been presented to us as the ' sharpest, the most distinct of issues. We must either meet it, or we must 
^assent to the proposition that we are not entitled <to exercise this prerogative; and when I say "we" 1 mean the lavrmaking power of the Government. 
This question is to be decided by a consideration of what are the powers of these two great departments of this Government as conferred upon the several departments by the pro-visions of the Constitution of the United 
States. There has never before been a time in the history of this Govern ment, during a period of more than one hundred years, since its foundation, 
when this question has been distinctly raised- There have been claims and .assertions on the one side and' on the other as to what were the rights of 
either of the departments, but there has never been an instance, so far as 
I know or have been able to ascertain--and if I am in error I shall be glad If some Senator who- has'had more experience will correct me--where the 
question has been distinctly raised bet-ween the legislative department, the "lawrnaking department of the Government, and the executive department 
as to which department has the right to exercise this great power. In the 
consideration of the question it is necessary that we should appeal to the grants of power-found in the Constitution to each of these departments, and 
that we should endeavor to judge both by the letter and the spirit of the Con- 
etitution which of these departments ha?- a right to exercise this jjreat -power. Mr. President, I piVbmit it that this is a very grave .question;- that if, is a 
question of the highest importance; that it is a question the importance of which is not measured by the influence which it may have upon the further 
question of the independence of any foreign government, but that it is a question the importance of which is measured by the fact that it must have in its. decision a large influence in determining the lines which divide the 
authority and the power of one great department of this Government from the power and authority of another ..department of the Government. Furth 
ermore, it is a question the importance of which is measured, not simply by the decision so far as it may affect the particular question of the right to recognise, the independence of a government, but it goes further, for the 
reason that the principles which are involved and which will control this particular question Trill also control very many more questions that closely 
concern the interests of the people of this country. ID considering the question a? to -where this power lies it is necessary to 
see what the Constitution has granted to the executive department. /It is 
necessary that we should endeavor to see what was the design of the Constitwtion as to where the great sovereign powers should be vested, and that 
we should endeavor then to classify this particular power to see where it should lie. 
Anyone who reads the Constitution must be impressed by the fact that 
the great central object in the formation of that instrument was to msvke this a representative government, not simply a government representative In 
form, but a government which should- be representative in fact, and a gov 
ernment which the people, through those whom they might elect as their 
'lawmakers, should determine what should be the measures, what should. be the policies, and "what should be the laws of this country. In accordance 
with that design all lawrnaking' power is committed to Congress, and the very first section of the first article in the Constitution, the very first line in the "Constitution after the preamble, is one which asserts that all legislative 
powers conferred by that instrument are conferred upon a Congress of the United States to consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. 
This is not only a broad and general grant, but it is an exclusive grant, 
and when we come to examine the powers conferred upon the Executive, we find no vestige, no scintilla of an Intention to confer upon the President 
any legislative power whatever except in so far as the veto power may make 'him a part of the lawmaking power of the Government. Thus it is that when a power is claimed for the executive department, and the Question arises 
whether it is a power "which belongs to the executive department or Is a power which belongs to the legislative department, one infallible test is this: Will the effect of the exercise of that power by the executive depart 
ment be to enable it to accomplish that which is equivalent to the creation of 
law? Will it be to make that law which was not law before? If it does, then it is in the nature of a lawmaking1 power, and the test will decide that It is not one to be exercised by the Executive, but that it must be exercised "by the legisaltive department. 
 
 Mr. President, if we apply this test to the particular question (I shall en deavor to hurry through iliis part of wJiat I hare to say, because it is only 
necessary to speak of it in general terms; whether the executive department has the right and the power under the Constitution, the exclusive power, to acknowledge the independence of a country, and endeavor to ascertain 
whether or noL the acknowledgment of the independence of a country has the effect to accomplish that which would be in the nature of the creation of law, 
what do we fmdV What is the eil'ect of the acknowledgment of the inde pendence of a nation? One necessary effect of it is to make that law in this 
countvv wtiich was not law before. One necessary effect of it is to make all. the obligations winch apply under international law to any independent na 
 
if under this test such a recognition is in ics nature and effect a legislative ex- 
 
ex 
 
press grant in the ConstiUHiou it can riot possibly belong to the JOxecutive. 
 
Is, then, such a recognition an act legislative hi its nature and effect,? An. 
 
act, \\hatcver be its i'orni or guise, iw legislative in effect, whenever it im 
 
poses binding obligations and imperative duties upon the community whicli 
 
did not theretofore exist. Whatever is commanded by competent authority be 
 
comes Jaw, and any such command, operating upon a whole people and also 
 
upon the departments and officials of the government, is a public law. 
 
The recognition of the independence of a people; does impose upon the 
 
id 
 
i tie 
 
it fays upon ihei-i co. 
 
to the new nation, its i 
 
rijihis which did not 
 
recognition. 
 
international, law, although never enacted in statutory form by any congress 
 
or parliament, is a recognized code of law of binding- authority, and is recog 
 
nised nnd administered bv onr courts. It guarantees certain rigJHs nn.il im 
 
poses refi-proca! obligations between independent, nations. &o soon as the 
 
independence of a nation is recognized by this <3ovevum<mt, the duty is im- 
 
ul 
 
eiit 
 
within flic province of tlie Kxeeut.ivo except in so far as it may be performed With I ho assent of Congress. 
Mr. President, in addition to the view which. T have thus Par suggested, 
in n still broader sense has such recognition the nature and effect of a legis lative act. 
The net of recognition, when legally done, makes the independence; of the new nation the law of this country. The object of the recognition is to 
change the lesjcnl status in this coimlrv of the people whose independence as o nntlou -a thus declared. Tf not so, what is the purpose aud what is the 
can 
 
to 
 
a de 
 
 to 
 
mo nncl a message of. encfmragrei'nent to tlie other of two eon- 
 
uling parties. On tlie contrary, by snch recognition is intended, and in- 
 
facf found, something more material, sompthing more practical. 
 
It i n declaration of law in this country, with fill of its attendant conse 
 
quences, '.hat a new nation has come into existence ;ina tliat. in its relations 
 
with this Government and this people it lias all of the attributes and all 
 
of tlie rights of sovereignty; that it has the right to enforce every duty of 
 
cHizensVup upon those owing it allegiance; that it may declare war and make 
 
peace: that it may raise and maintain armies and build and commission ships 
 
of war: thnt it may lay and collect duties on imports, and that it may make 
 
treaties with foreign nations recognizing its independence. 
 
J repeat, Mr. President, that the recognition makes the Independence of the- 
 
new nation a part of the law of this land. Tt becomes law binding upon the 
 
 citizen, the official, and the G-overuinent; law recognized and administered by our courts; law under which in our own courts title to property is vested and divested; law wliich can be made tlie test of alleged crime; law which 
no judge of our courts could wantonly and capriciously ignore and refuse to administer without subjecting himself to impeachment and removal from 
office. The declaration of a simple fact as a fact can not accomplish such result. 
The more declaration ot" a fact as such can not coerce tlie action of a whole people and command the judgments and determine the decrees of courts as 
to property and personal liberty and life. Only law can do this, and only Congress can by the exercise of this power of recognition of the independence 
of a nation declare this law. When the act of recognition is by the Kxecutive, it derives its validity from the assent of Congress, actual or implied. Such recognition by the Execimve, in an undisputed case, is entirely consistent 
with the implied assent of Congress, and entirely consistent with the recog nized existence of the final or supreme constitutional power being in Con 
gress. Mr. GRAY: Would the Senator from Georgia object to an interruption? 
Mr. BACON. Not in the least. Mr. GRAY. I am very mtjcli interested in the argument the Senator is making, and it is new, so far as 1 know. I understand him to say that there 
can be a law which exists and is bindi-ug as a law directing conduct and con trolling the action of officials and citizens that exists by the implied, consent 
of Congress. Federal and State, without any distinct legal enactment either by Congress 
Mr. BACON. The proposition is this: International law is a part of the law of this land end will be administered by the courts of this country, both or by any State government. When through legal action by proper author 
ity a nation is recognized as an independent nation, all the rights which that nation has under international law are rights which' under {he law of the 
Federal Government, rights which under the law of State governments can be enforced either in the courts of the 1< ederal Government or of the States by reason of. the fact that such independence lias been acknowledged. That 
is the proposition, and, Mr. President, I di'd not suppose it would be ques1 tipned. If the learned Senator from Delaware does question it, while I have not the books here. I can undertake to furnish him with authorities, both 
Federal and State, to the effect that international law is a law which, while it has never been enacted by the authorities of this country, is binding upon the courts, both Federal and State, and will be enforced in either ef those 
jurisdictions. _ Mr. GRAY^rfS do not question at all the proposition the Senator has just ad 
vanced. I mily asked him a question in order that 1 might understand his 
proposition. I perhaps misunderstand it, and T wish to lie corrected if I am wrong. I understand that the Senator's opposition to the proposition that the Executive can recognize the independency of a new government not hereto 
fore existing in the family of nations is based on tlie ground that such an act is essentially a legislative act. beca.use it creates a rule of conduct for officials and citizens that hitherto has not been created. 
Mr. BACON. Yes. Mr. GRAY. I imderstand that part -of this argument correctly. Then I 
understand the last proposition, as to which I took the liberty of asking the question preceding this, to be that heretofore wherever the Executive has rec ognized the independence of a government the only validity that it had as a 
lawmaking act was from the implied or tacit acquiescence of Congress Mr. BACON. Exactly. Mr. GRAY. My question Is, whether any law can be created by the implied 
sanction of the Congress of the United States? Mr. BACON. The distinguished Senator, I presume, would like to lead 
me off into a very hair-splitting discussion. The general proposition is this: 
There are a great rnnny acts performed by the Executive which depend for 
their iiltimato authority upon the fact that the Exectitive, as the Executive 
arm of f-ae Government, is doing that -which, while not specificallv und di 
rectly in terms authorized by the lawmaking power, is with its implied as 
sent; and if the distinguished Senator will do me the honor to heh.r me to my conclusion I hope to satisfy him that the act of the Executive in the recogni 
tion of the independence of a nation does not depend upon" the ultimate 
power and exclusive authority of the executive department to make such 
recognition, but depends upon the fact that Congress, which alone has this ultimate power, is consenting to wlia.t the Executive does, 
Now, Mr. President, if the ultimate power is with Congress, and if Congress 
assents to it, it is a legal act, and whether it is an express or implied act, 
 
 all legal consequences must, flow from it as if it were directly authorizad by Congress. 
Mr. GRAY. I understand the Senator's proposition, and I shall not inter rupt him further. 
Mr. BACON. I have no objection to interruption. Mr. PL ATT. Mr. President------ The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CHII/TON in the chair.) Does the Senator from Georg'ia yield to the Senator from Connecticut? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. PL ATT. How does the Senator claim that Congress assents? Because it does not dissent? Mr. BACON. "Where it has knowledge of the facts, w-here the Executive is proceeding and Congress has full opportunity to know and does know" everything which is done, of course Congress assents. If the Senator from Connecticut will pardon me for a moment, and will allow ine to get further into my argument, he will see whnt T mean. But in order that he may not misunderstand me now, I say the proposition which I shall endeavor to maintain is, that the ultimate power to determine whether a nation shall or shall not be recognized by this Government is a power in the lawmaking department of the Government, and that where the I a win a king- department sits by in full knowledge of what is going on and permits the Executive to act as the agency, the medium through which this is always done, appro priates money to pay ministers, as is suggested to me by the Senator from Montana (Mr. CAKTEH), or in any other way acquiesces in it, it is a confirma tion of the ;ict. Mr. GRAY. The appropriation of money is an affirmative act. I agree with the Senator. SI]'. BACON. It is an affirmative act, but it is an indirect affirmation. I will say to the Senator from r>eleware and the Senator from Connecticut that if they will permit me to develop the argument a little further, they will see what I mean without causing me to explain each step as I go along. I do not, however, object to interruptions, am! I shall be more than happy to answer any question so far as my ability will enable me to do so, that may be asked by eitther of the distinguished Senators or by others. Mr. GRAY. I recognize the Senator's courtesy in the matter. Mr. BACON. I had said that the simple declaration of a fact could not ac complish in the way of making a law which is to be enforced by courts what is accomplished whenever the legal declaration is made by competent au thority of the independence of a nation, that that could only be accomplished by laiv, arid that only Congress am, by the exercise of this power of recog nition of the independence of a nation, declare such law. Mr. President, there is yet another view, still more controlling, in my judg ment, in support of the prospositiou (and I ask the attention of the Senator from Doleiraro and the attention of other Senators to this point, because it largely answers, I think, or rather bears upon the solution of the question which they propounded to me) that this power rests, under the Constitution. with Congress, and not with the Executive. The recognition of tlae independence of a people, with all of the conse quences which may flow from such recognition, is necessarily an act of the highest sovereignty. Mr. Seward, when Secretary of State, used this language in a letter addressed to Mr. Adams, then minister to England: 
To r> 
To lay and collect taxes. To provide for the co,mmon defense and general welfare of the United Sftates. To regulate commerce -with foreign nations. To coin money and regulate the value thereof. 
 
 To define and punish offenses against tne law o nations. To declare "war. To raise and support armies.. To provide and maintain a navy. To suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Each of these, besides others oil which I have omitted to make mention. Is a distinct power of sovereignty--the powers which kings with unlimited power personally wield: and in addition thereto, after enumerating these most sovereign powers, there is the 'following comprehensive grant of power to Congress: 
By this, not only is Congress clothed geneially with all power of legis lation necessary to carry into effect all the powers granted to Congress, but Congress is further and exclusively vested with the power to make any and all laws necessary and proper for the execution of any of the powers of the Government of the United'States and of any department of the Government. Mr. President, when to these great powers is joined the power to impeach, and remove from office any offiqer of the Government, from the President to the lowest civil officer, little could be added to completely invest Congress with every attribute of the sovereignty of the Government. 
Compared to this great array o'f sovereign p'owers granted to Congress, those conferred on the President present a most striking contrast. He is clothed "with the great power and responsibility of the execution of the laws, but beyond this the only prerogative of sovereignty "with which he is ex clusively invested is the pardoning power, and even that is denied to him in cases of impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. Least of all is there to him the slightest grant of the greatest of all powers--the power to make law. . 
Mr. President, the fact can not be too distinctly announced, it can not be too highly appreciated, that the only distinct prerogative of sovereignty which is granted to the President,of the' United States is the pardoning power, and in that he is limited in cases of impeachment, -where he is denied' the exercise of it. T^east of all, Mr. President, is there the least grant of the slightest legislative function to the Executive of the Government. 
We have passed by more than two hundred years the period In the history of our race when one man could assume and exercise the power to determine,. independently of the legislative department, what should he, even in part, the laws of the government. The framers of the Constitution stood nearer by a hundred years than we do to the time when a king sought to rule with out parliament and in defiance of parliament, when he sought to take to him self all the powers of government and set at naught the laws of the conntry's constitutional legislators. The great and wise men who framed our fundamental law stood in the century next removed from that which had witnessed the culmination of that great struggle from the events of -which they gathered the lesson that the material interests and the liberties of a people are safest when the great powers of government are lodged not in the control of one man, of whatever title or- office, but in the hands of their elect ed representatives. They had learned from it that one man invested with such powers was quick to consider his own fortunes and the fortunes of his favorites of more consequence than the prosperity of a whole people. They were taught by that history to fear that one so girt -with power -would grow great in his own conceit, that he would attempt to draw to himself all the authority of government, and that, puffed up with the estimate of his own greatness, not only one born to the kingly office, but also one who held but temporarily the elective office of President, might come to think himself com passed with "the divinity that doth hedge a king." 
These framers of the Constitution at that time, when they were defining the powers of the Executive doubtless then had in anticipation that the first President under the new Government would be Washington. They would not have feared to invest him with all power: but they looked beyond. While thoy hoped that only good and wise men -would be chosen to that high office, they forgot not the frailties of the weak nor the grasping am bitions of the strong. They guarded against the worst. They-designed that in the hands of a weak Executive the Government should not fail, and that [n the hands of one strong, self--willed, and ambitious there should not be imperiled the free institutions which they sought to establish. Therefore while they created a great and noble office, one within its legitimate sphere the greatest and the noblest of all the earth, they designed that its great ness and nobility should not consist in the arbitrary powers of the kingly- 
 
 office. The greatness of the Presidential office does not consist in his will being the la\v to 70,000,000 people, but in the fact that the President in aimsoli" personifies the will of a great and free people as that will is expressed by them through another department of the Government. No man can shut his eyes to the fact that, to that end while they invested the President "with all the dignity and power of the Executive office, they carefully withheld from him the grant of the powers of sovereignty. Every power given to him was most carelully restricted and guarded. 
While they gave him the power of the veto, they gave to Congress the power to override his veto by a two-thirds vote of each .tlouse. 
While they gave him the power to negotiate treaties with foreign nations, they made such treaties of no effect until agreed to by the Senate. 
They gave him power to pardon those convicted of crime, but denied to him the power to pardon in cases of impeachment. 
They gave him the power to appoint all civil officers, but except tempor.arily, when Congress is not in session, such appointments are of no validity until confirmed by the Senate. 
They made him Commauder-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, but they left it to Congress to determine what should be the size and constitution of the Army and Navy, and whether there should be any Army and Navy. They denied him the power to appoint a single onicer of either the Army or the Navy, from the commanding o Ulcers to the lowest subalterns, unless each of such appointments should receive the confirmation oi! the Senate, They gave him no power to equip and maintain either Army or Navy for a day. They gave him no power to make war, nor can he of himself conclude peace. 
.and Navy is denied to him and is expressly conferred upon Congress. It is evident that as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy he is but the executive arm, nnd that in that capacity he is himseli in every detail and particular subject to the commands of the lawmaking power. 
Finally they made the Chief Executive, as well as every other civil officer, from the head of the Cabinet to the most obscure civil official, subject to trial and removal from office, without appeal, upon impeachment by the riouse and conviction by the Senate--a power in much conservatism and wis dom but seldom exercised, but nevertheless a. power, resting as it does, with out defined limits as to what shall be deemed a high crime or misdemeanor, almost exclusively in the discretion of the House and Senate, which is the great safeguard against encroachment and official misconduct. 
Mr. President, in this analysis I am attempting, by an examination of the various nnd relative powers conferred upon the legislative department on the one hand and those conferred upon 'the executive department on the other, to ascertain where properly rests the function of sovereign power in the exerc-ise of which a people is recognized by this Government as a free and independent cation. 
Upon this general analysis it would seem to be established that almost all of the functions of the sovereignty of the Government are vested in their ultimate power in the legislative department. It is further true that all the functions of the sovereignty of the Government, in so far as they necessitate .affirmative determination and command, the directing of what shall be done and what shall not be done, are vested exclusively in the lawinaking power. 
If the recognition of the independence of a people as a free and sovereign nation is in itself an act of high sovereignty--and who will gainsay it?--it would seem to be a necessary conclusion that in the absence of express grant to any particular department such act can only be legally performed tinder the determination, express or implied, of that department of the Govern ment which has been invested with those functions of sovereignty involving the determination of all affirmative action by the Government. 
Mr. President, if T am wrong in this view, if there is a single function of the executive department outside of the treaty-making power in which, he is clotned with the power of a determination of any affirmative action other than that which lu> gets in the execution of the laws. I should like for some Senator to point out where, under the Constitution of the "United States, is the President authorised to perform one single affirmative act imposing new duties, outside of the treaty-making power, for which he does not get the authority by oxrptvfts statutory provision. 
Mr. O-RAY and Mr. FT.ATT addressed the Chair. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. P>oes the Senator from Georgia yield to the 'Senator from Delpware? 
Mr. BACON". Certainly. 
Mr. GRAY. I call the attention of the Senator to what he has already no doubt considered, the power expressly given to the President to appoint am- 
 
 toassadors, ministers, consuls, etc., and to receive ministers from foreign gov 
 
ernments. 
 
. 
 
 
 
' 
 
. 
 
Mr. BACON. I am speaking of an individual act of the President that 
 
he is authorized to perform, which shall have the effect to create a duty 
 
which theretofore cud not exist. I am not speaking- of an act that he is 
 
" authorized to perform which -has to be continued by this body. I shall have 
 
something to say upon the subject of the reception ot! ministers. 
 
Mr. GRAY. But the fact that no ambassador or other public minister 
 
can be appointed except by the advice and consent of the Senate does not 
 
support the contention that Congress has any participation in that act. 
 
Mr. BACON. I am not on that point now, Mr. President. 
 
Mr. GRAY. The Senate is merely the advisory council of the executive 
 
branch, created by the Constitution. 
 
Mr. BACON! I shall coiue to that question later. I am-now upon a dis 
 
tinct question, and I am ready "to answer any question the Senator will ask 
 
me upon that particular point. The question is whether there is under the 
 
Constitution of the United States authority to the President of the United 
 
States, not in conjunction with any other department,, but of himself alone, 
 
to perform a single act the performance of -which shall have the effect to 
 
create an obligation which did not theretofore exist. 
 
Mr. GRAY. Suppose he receives a minister from a foreign nation. 
 
Mr. BACON. . I am coming to that as a separate matter. 
 
Mr. GRAY. Very well; then I will not anticipate the Senator. 
 
Mr. BACON. I am ready to answer the Senator any question he may desire 
 
to ask me, so far as I may be able, which  relates to the receiving of am 
 
bassadors. 
 
Mr. GRAY'. I pointed out one; but I do'not want to anticipate the Sen 
 
ator's argument, of course. 
 
Mr. BACON. I am speaking of an act which the President is to perform, 
 
which is binding upon our people, not an act performed in the reception of a 
 
minister. 
 
Mr. GRAY. Is not that act binding upon our people? 
 
Mr. BACON. I shall discuss that aS a separate matter. 
 
Mr. PLATT. Mr. President------ 
 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the 
 
Senator from Connecticut? 
 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. 
 
Mr. PLATT. How does the Senator from Georgia suppose the President 
 
gets the authority to make a demand upon a foreign power for an indemnity 
 
to be paid to this Government for losses which have been sustained by a cit 
 
izen of the Government? 
 
Mr. BACON. Certainly upon the ground that he is the executive officer, 
 
'and he makes a demand as such, but a demand which Congress may at any 
 
time come in and stop and say he should not make. Therefore, he makes it 
 
fey the implied assent of Congress. Does the Senator dispute that if a de 
 
mand were made upon a foreign government by the President, Congress by 
 
a joint resolution or by an act could say that that demand should not be 
 
proposed. I am speaking of ultimate power when I am talking about power. 
 
I say the ultimate power would be in 'Congress by act or by joint resolu- 
 
lution to stop the President and say ho shall not do it. Therefore, if that is 
 
the case it must bo done by the implied assent of Congress. 
 
Mr. PL ATT. Then I understand the Senator's position to be that the 
 
President as the executive officer is clothed with certain powers, but that 
 
Congress may overrule them. Is that it? 
 
Mr. BACON. I mean to say that so far as the execution of the laws is con 
 
cerned the President derives his authority from the Constitution, and so far 
 
as he exercises any other function where there is an express grant to him 
 
In the Constitution he exercises it by virtue of that express grant; but that 
 
in the general administration of the executive office he is in the main execut 
 
ing the laws passed by Congress, laws over which Congress has the ulti 
 
mate power either In their enactment or their repeal, and laws, therefore 
 
in the execution of which Congress can at any time arrest Mn5. 
 
' 
 
Mr. PLATT, Suppose the President makes a demand upon a foreign power 
 
to surrender a citizen unlawfully detained by that foreign power, where 
 
does he get that authority under the Constitution? 
 
Mr. BACON. He gets it from the fact that he does it with the' assent of the 
 
lawmaking power, for the reason tha.t the lawmaking power could at any 
 
time step in and stop him. 
 
Mr. HALE. May I ask the Senator from Georgia a question? 
 
Mr, BACON. Certainly. 
 
Mr. HALE. I see how extremely exhaustive and trenchant is the effect 
 
 10 
 
of the Senator's position, and I ask him whether on his proposition and under 
 
his reasoning he believes that the Constitution has left to the President any 
 
independent pOTver? Mr. BACON. The distinguished Senator from Maine was not in his seat 
 
at the time when I began my remarks. I do not think he was here at the 
 
time when 1 spoke of the Presidential office as one of the highest and noblest 
 
on eartli, and gave the reasons upon which I based that opinion. I -will say, 
 
in answer to the honorable Senator, that t3ie President is undoubtedly 
 
clothed with every function which is expressly conferred upon him as the 
 
Executive for the purpose of carrying into effect the laws of the land- The 
 
great injunction imposed upon him by the Constitution is that he shall take 
 
care that, the laws be faithfully executed; and within the exercise of that 
 
power he is certainly supreme, except that it is within the power of Congress 
 
at any time to change any one of the laws that he is called upon to execute. 
 
Therefore, the ultimate power is in Congress. 
 
Mr. HALE). Precisely. Is it not the logical result of the Senator's reason 
 
ing that the whole power of the Government is in the legislative branch; that 
 
the President is in operation only carrying out the laws of the Government 
 
enacted by the legislative branch; that he may at any time be arrested by the 
 
legislative branch in carrying out a law; and that therefore the sum and sub 
 
stance of all the Constitution is that the fathers ordained and established 
 
a legislative Government as the primal power? Is not that the contention 
 
of the Senator? 
 
Mr. BACON. It is the lawmaking pow-er, which consists not simply of 
 
this House and the other House, but consists of the majority of the Senate 
 
and of: the House of Representatives in connection with the President, or 
 
two-tliii-ds of the Senate and of the House without the President, and in 
 
despite of his disapproval. That is the lawmaking power. 
 
Mr. HALE. When the Senator says that the only duty of the President is 
 
to execute the law, that in the field of administration there is nothing but 
 
that, and that the legislative branch may at any time arrest him In executing 
 
the law, certainly if there is any logical force in that, it follows that as a 
 
component part of the Government, as a branch by itself independent, there 
 
is no such thing left, and the Executive is annihilated. 
 
Mr. BACON. "Will the distinguished Senator permit me to ask him if he 
 
doubts the proposition that it is within the power of Congress to repeal any 
 
law which is upon the statute book; and if when so repealed is not the 
 
. power of the Executive to further execute that law gone; and if that applies to one law, does not it apply to all? 
 
Mr. H-AT-^E. " This is about the way I understand that. Another Senator 
 
has said, referring to the pardoning power which we believe to be lodged 
 
with the President, that Congress may open the doors of every prison---- 
 
Mr. BACON. Not at all. 
 
Mr. HATjB. Biit another Senator said that. Can it not do so? Undoubt 
 
edly, but it would be revolutionary; undoubtedly it can do so, but it would 
 
not be within the scope, as I understand it, of the intention of the framers 
 
of the Constitution, who did make these distinct departments, and gave cer 
 
tain powers, some incidental, some direct. 
 
My fault with the contention of the Senator is--and I see how closely he 
 
is pursuing it and how logical his march is in his reasoning--that it practi cally annihilates the Executive. 
 
Mr. BACON. I think not, Mr. President. The Executive has a distinct 
 
office. The distinct office of the President is to execute the will of the law- 
 
making power so far as the general executive powers go. He has, in ad 
 
dition to that, other distinct and express grants of power, the treaty-making 
 
power; that is, the origination of treaties, tlie reception of ambassadors and: 
 
ministers, the appointment of civil officers, and other things -which do not 
 
depend upon the legislative department. But the contention of the dis 
 
tinguished Senator that because, pursued to Its legitimate end. the exercise 
 
of these powers would be revolutionary, certainly is no argument against 
 
the fact of their existence. That would be a very good argument against 
 
the revolutionary exercise of these powers, but we are not discussing the 
 
question as to whether or not the power should be abused. We are dis 
 
cussing the question as to where the power rests, and the fact that if abused 
 
it -would be revolutionary does not controvert the proposition as to -whether that power does exist. 
 
My proposition, in brief, Mr, President, is that the ultimate, final, supreme 
 
power is with the lawmaking power. I sholl have something more to say 
 
hereafter which I hope mny lead my distinguished friend from Maine to agree with rno upon that subject. 
 
Mr, HALE rose. 
 
-> 
 
 11 
Mr BACON. I desire to say, if my friend will pardon me a moment, thai in the consideration of this question 1 am, so far as I know myself, controlled by a desire to arrive at the truth, independent of what influence it may have upon any pending question now. exciting the public mind or engaging the attention of Congress. This question, in my opinion, Mr. President, of - what are the legitimate bounds of the Executive authority and- how far the legislative authority goes, is a -question much higher, much more important to us than any question connected with the recognition or the nonrecognition of any particular people who may claim to be independent. 
Mr. HALE. I understand the Senator not to be arguing the general sub ject of the Cuban revolution. 
Mr. BACON. No, sir; not at all. Mr. IIALE. But only the law of the matter. Mr. BACON. .Yes, sir. Mr. HALE: I ask the Senator, what would happen if, m the contingency of a people claiming recognition and sending an accredited agent to "Washing ton, the President should receive that minister, that ambassador, that agent, by whatever name his credentials entitle him, and Congress in session being of a contrary opinion, that the nation was not entitled to recognition, and being entirely opposed to the President, and it being the lawmaking power, how then "would the Senator have Congress assert itself? Mr. BACON. Mr. President, in the subsequent part of my argument I am intending to deal with the particular question of the reception of ambassa dors. If the distinguished Senator from Maine will pretermit his question for the present, and propound it again when I reach that bra.nch of the ar gument. I shall he very happy to do what I can to answer it. Mr. HA I.E. I shall be very glad to have an answer to it. Mr. BACON. But at the present time it would not be exactly in the order of my argument. Mr. HALE. I rlo not ask the Senator to do it now if it will interfere with his argument. Mr. BACON. I shall be very happy to do so later, and the postponement of the answer will give me the assurance that I shall h?.ve the continued attention of the Senator until I come to that point. Mr. GRAY. T do not intend to interrupt' the Senator a.ay longer nor to trespass upon his extreme courtesy in the matter of yielding to Interruption, but he was speaking a moment ago in answer to the question as to where the Constitution had given the President any ultimate power over Con gress---- Mr. BACON. Oh, no; that was not the question. Mr. GRAY. Then I am mistaken in the Senator's proposition. Mr. BACON. It was the question, though I did not state it in that "way. Mr. GRAY. The Senator alluded to the power to receive foreign ministers by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to send ambassadors to foreign countries, and omitted to mention the power absolutely ultimate, free from any participation on the part of Congress or control by Congress --I mean the pardoning power. Mr. BACON. I am extremely unfortunate if I can not so express myself as to be understood on that particular point. There is no question about the fact that wherever there is an express power granted in the Constitution to the President it does not depend in any manner upon the control of Con gress, and I expressly said when enumerating the powers of the Executive that the only power of sovereignty which had been vested in the President was the pardoning power, and that all other important powers of sovereignty --those which are usually personally exorcised by unlimited sovereigns-- were in the lawmaking power, but that the pardoning power was the ex ception, althotigh that was limited ,not to apply to cases of impeachment. Mr. HOAR. I do not wish to ask the benator a question for the purpose of antagonizing or testing his argument, but I should like to understand, if I can. exactly the length to which he goes. I was obliged to be absent from the Chamber a few minutes during the first part of his argument. I .-want to ask the Senator's view of this proposition to see what he understands is exactly the constitutional position. Suppose that the lawmaking power enact --the President not assenting, but keeping the enactment ten day* without any objection, or by a two-thirds vote, in either way in which we can pass laws--in these terms: "The Island of Cuba is hereby, and shall be, recognized as an independent power by the United States"---- Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me, I presume he intends to pro pound the same question he did the other day in reference to the happening of a case during the recess of Congress? Mr. HOAR. Perhaps the Senator will allow me to state my question in a. single sentence. 
 
 12 
Mr. BACON. 1 was only going to suggest to the Senator that I shall come to tLt-tt matter in a later part oil my argument. 
Mr. IIO Ait. Thou 1 do not wish to Interrupt the Senator. Mr. BACO>-". I will hear the Senator. Mr HOAR. Suppose Congress should way: "The Island of Cuba is hereby, .and shall be. recognized as a tree and independent State until the 1st day of December next," then adjourn to the 1st of December next, and in the meantime the President of the United States desires to receive an ambassa dor from Spain; or suppose we way, "Cuba shall not be recognized," and Cuba meantime establishes her in dependence, and the President says, "I sliould like to receive an ambassador from Cuba, and in order to make arrange ments for the exchange of ambassadors I will first recognize Cuba." P/oes 
what I "want to knowMr. BACOX. L)o 1 understand the Senator to state the case where Con 
gress has passed a law that a foreign country shall not be recognized? Mr. I-iOAli. Either; put it that way if the Senator prefers. Mr. 15 A COX. 1 buy when Congress passes a law that a foreign country 
shall not be recognized there is no power in this country, the .Executive or any other, winch haw power to make such recognition. But I will say to the Senator from Massachusetts that in a later part of my argument I shall come to a discussion of that, precise question, as to whal>is the effect of an enact ment by Congress that it will or will not maintain diplomatic relations with another government. If the Senator will pardon nio until that time, and will put his question later, I shall endeavor to ;mswer him. 
Mr. liOA K. I did nor. put the question for the purpose of antagonizing the Senator's argument, but simply 10 get an understanding of the Senator's 
position. Mr. BACOX. Perhaps fortunately for the Senator from Massachusetts, 
but unfortunately for me, lie has not been in the Senate during the hour I have been trying to state what my position is. _ Mr. President, the legislative department, which is invested with the exer cise of these great powers of sovereignty, has been rnowt conservatively or ganized by the Constitution. The lawmakiiig power does not consist in the majorities of the two Houses, but in such majorities with the approval of the President, or two-thirds of each Mouse despite the disapproval of the President. It is safer that the exercise of this high act of sovereignty should be committed to the House of representatives, the Senate, and the President than to the President alone. The exercise of this power by the President alone is, in my judgment, diametrically opposed to the fundamental princi ples upon winch our representative Government is founded. 
Sir, it is a sound proposition of law i.nat the President nas only such pow ers as are directly conferred on him by the Constitution, and such other powers as are inherent in the office of President--those which are necessary to the proper exercise of those directly granted. It is conceded by all that there is no such express grant in the Constitution. Unless, therefore, the right to the exercise of s\ich power by the President is inherent in the office --unless, in other words, the exercise of this power by the President is neces sary to the full and proper exercise of some power directly granted to him by the Constitution, the power does not exist at all as one of the functions of the executive office. T presume tnat nobody will gainsay the proposition that there is no such express grant in the Constitution; and unless such a grant can be deduced as an inherent power from an express grant, it does not exist. 
Mr. GHA"V. In either branch of the Government? Mr. BACON. Yes, that is true. The important and controlling question, therefore, is. Is there such an inher ent power; and if so. where is it to be found? To what power directly granted does it attch as an inherent power? It can not be contended that it is a power generally inherent in the exec utive office. It is fi power wnich may in other governments, and under other systems, bo frequently attached to the power of the executive office. It may be that the executive head under those governments and systems most us ually exercises this power. But that fact does not establish the proposition that the power is inherent in the executive office. The general function of the Executive under our Government is to execute the laws and no other power belongs to it except where specifically granted to it by the Constitu tion. I am speaking now of the general functions of the Executive not of special grants. The recognition of the independence of a people has no rela tion to the exercise of such general executive function. The exercise of the 
 
 13 
 
power of recognition can not by any strained construction be shown to be essential to the proper and f .ull exercise of the power to execute existing laws. It can not he made to appear that any single law would fail of exe cution at the hands of the President because of his inability to exercise the poVer of recognizing the independence of a foreign people. If it can, I should be very glad for some Senator, if not now, at a time when this qnt stion may be further dl^ussed, to point out the single law \vhich the President could not properly execute if lie did not have the power to recognize, the in dependence of a foreign government one single law-, the execution of which would fail if he did not have that power. I am not now speaking of a spe cial grant, but of a single law which he would not have the power to execute In the exercise of his general functions as the Executive. 
The recognition of the iiide~nen deuce of a people is in no sense the execu tion of a law, unless a law has been enacted that there shall be such recog 
 
nition. TVhere 
 
such 
 
recognition 
 
is 
 
the 
 
independent 
 
act 
 
of 
 
the 
 
President, 
 
so 
 
1 ar 
 
from 
 
it being in ;uiy soiise an execution of law, PO far from its having any rela 
 
tion to the execution of a law, it is, as I Have endeavored to show, an act in 
 
the nature of making l;iw. So that T think it may "be safety assumed that the power to recognize the 
independence of a people is not ;iii inherent power essential to the proper and full discharge of the general powers of the Executive office. 
\Ve must, therefore, examine to see whether it is an inherent power es sential to the proper execution of any particular function spoci lie ally devolved 
 
red by the Constitution upon the President which relate to foreign peoples or governments. 
The first of those po\vers. which is found in the second section of the sec ond article, is that 
 
The vo 
 
is that i of the independence of r. untion is in the nature of a treaty; 
 
but if so. it disposes of 1he contention that the power rests exclusively in the 
 
President, for if the power of recognition lay here it would require the con 
 
sent of the Senate. Po 1hat nothing can he taken by those who olnim the 
 
recognition of independence as an exclusive executive po\ver. from that pro 
 
vision of the Constitution. 
 
I will not stop now to discuss whether the power of recognition is a part 
 
of the treaty-making power, as I am now discussing the proposition that the 
 
power is not exclusively in the President. That it is his exclusive power 
 
Is the contention of the Secretary of State, and thai, as I understand, is the 
 
contention of the Senators who oppose the? view which I take of This matter. 
 
The second of these powers is found in the same section of the Constitution, 
 
and provides 
 
fhall i 
 
,11 cl by 
 
shsi 
 
It is true of this provision, as it is of the preceding, that all power granted by it is shared by both the Senate and the Executive, and any inherent power arising under either provision must necessarily belong to both the Executive and the Senate, and does not belong to either exclusively. 
I do not understand that the exclusive po\ver of recognition Is claimed for the Executive under either of these provisions, and T only cite them in order that every line in the Constitution relating to any connection of the Presi dent with foreign affairs mav be brought within the scope of this examina tion. 
The third and only remaining power relating to foreign governments or peoples which the Constitution confers upon the President is in the third section of the second article, which is as follows: 
Htf shall rereivi-, ambassadors and other public mininters. 
Upon this slender grant, this single line, imposing the; duty of a ceremonial, is attempted to be rested this vast power with its far-reaching consequences, the exercise of which must be conceded by all to lie one of the highest attributes of sovereignty. There is no legitimate construction- of this --kiuse which will sustain this conclusion. 
There can be no question that the design of the Constitution is that the Executive shall be the medium of official intercourse between this Gov ernment and those of foreign nations. The conferring of the power to initiate the making of treaties evidences sufficiently that design. The imposition of the duty to receive ambassadors and ministers is further evidence of it. 
 
 14 
It is necessary that a foreign minister accredited by his government should be officially received, and the President is designated to formally and offlcially receive liim. That is the plain language of the grant. Tlie innerent power under this grant is to hear officially whatever message or communica tion such ambassadors or ministers may bear from their governments to this 
Government. As the President is the medium through which this Government receives 
communications from foreign governments, as lie is the medium through 
the otnoer designated to negotiate the treaties which are to be sxibmitted to the Senate, the design of the Constitution in designating him as the officer of the Government to receive ambassadors and ministers is very plain; and it is not necessary to look beyond tlio functions the exercise of which is re quired to carry out these purposes in order to determine what inherent powers go along with this grant to the .President. 
By 110 legitimate- construction can the imposition by the Constitution of the duty to receive ambassadors and ministers carry with it euch inherent power as makes the President the arbitrary and absolute controller of the relations between this Government and all foreign governments, the making- of treaties alone exempted. 
Mr. HALE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly.. Mr. HALE. 1 see clearly the Senator's reasoning strips the President, under the constitutional provision which gives him the power to receive ambassadors, of every tiling except a ceremonial posver. Let me ask the Senator------ 
Mr. BACON. I beg the Senator's pardon. It" he had observed what I said---- 
Mr. HALE. I have listened to every word the Senator has said. Mr. BACON. I went further than a ceremonial. 1 spoke of the fact that the President is the medium through which this Government makes its nego tiations which is more than a ceremonial. Mr. HALE. Let me ask the Senator whether that provision of the Consti tution does not clothe the President not only with the power of receiving-- a ceremonial--but with the critical, underlying power of selecting the time that he shall receive that ambassador? Mr, BACON. "When the President, shall .receive him? Mr. HALE. Is not the one essential question as to recognition, When has the time come that this Government shall receive .and is there not in that power given to the President something clearly beyond ceremonial? Mr. BACON. Does the Senator ask me whether or not that power does not carry with it the inherent power to determine whether that ambassador represents such an independent government as will justify the President in receiving him? Is that the question? Mr. TIALK. The question amounts to that. When I ask if it does not give the President power to select the time when he shall receive, does not that carry with it the power of deciding the time when a foreign government shall be recognized? Mr. BACON. "SVhen the Senator speaks of the time, does he mean the time in the history of the country or the time in the period of the vear? Mr. HAL"R. The date, the hour, at which the President will receive the representative of a people claiming to be an independent government. Mr. BACON. Does the Senator mean as to what time in his business can the President spare the particular minute -when he will receive such a repre sentative? I nm asking for information, for I really do not understand the Senator's question. 
Mr. HALE. T will put it as the Senator says. Does not the constitutional provision which gives the President power to receive ministers, ambassadors, and agents, give him necessarily the authority to settle the critical time when that nation shall be recognised? 
Mr. BACON. I am asking the Senator, in order that I may answer his question, whether he refers to the time In the history of the government, or the proposed or alleged government, or whether he means a particular time as to thp President's own personal engagements? 
Mr. HALE. It is the same thing. If the President decides that he will not receive the minister, then there is no recognition; but if the President decides that he will, on next Friday, receive the accredited agent of a people clainiijiff to be RI* nctunl government, does not that power^that he lias of fixing the time clearly lodge in him the whole question of recognition? 
Mr. BACON. I will say, in answer to the Senator, that I am going to dis 
cuss at this immediate time the particular question as to how far the right 
 
 15 
to receive ambassadors clothes the President with the power of deciding the 
question -whether -or not an alleged nation is entitled to be recognized as an 
independent nation, if that is the question. Mr. HALE. I hope the Senator, then, if he thinks it is worth his while, 
will---- 
Mr. BACON. 1 think anything is worth my -while if the Senator desires 
. me to answer it. Mr. HALE. I hope the Senator will, if he thinks it is worth while, tell us 
what his view is upon the very subject of the right of the President to receive --which must be done at some particular time in the history of the country asking to be received---whether that does not leave -with the President the 
power of recognition? Mr. BACON. If- the Senator means by his Question to ask me whether there 
is anything in the grant of power to the President to receive an ambassador or a minister which carries with it the inherent power, either directly or in directly, to" determine finally, absolutely, and -without appeal, whether a government is an independent nation or not an independent nation, 1 answer him no, I do not think there is any such. If that is not comprehensive, I will say that I do not think under any circumstances that that inherent, final, unlimited power exists; and it can not be accomplished by the President through ins supreme, unlimited power, either by direction or by indirection. 
Mr. HALE. What would be the result for the time being, if Congress were not in session, if the President---- 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, it is now past 4 o'clock. I should be more than -willing to follow the Senator from Maine through a general discussion as to any questions which he might desire to propound, but I wish to pre sent a connected argument, and many of .the questions which the Senator is now asking me I shall endeavor to answer in the progress of this argu ment. 
Mr. HALE. Of course I could not understand what the Senator's line was, 
and I waited---- Mr. BACON. But the best way, I submit to the Senator, is to give me the 
opportunity to develop it, and I can not have the opportunity if the Senator, before I have developed the argument, anticipates a.nd asks questions -which will be answered later. 
Mr. HALE. I see the force of -what the Senator says, but the Senator will remember that when some questions were asked by the other Senators at a former time during his very able and entertaining speech, he suggested that they -wait until he came to this part of his speech. 
Mr. BACON. I have just simply touched it. Mr. HALE, As the Senator had reached that part, I ventured to put two or three questions. But I will not trouble the Senator again. Mr. BACON. I have reached it, but I have not got into it. The Senator stops me at the threshold. Mr. HALE. I will not trouble the Senator again. Mr. BACON. I have remarked that by no legitimate construction, in my opinion, can the exercise of this simple duty to receive ambassadors and ministers be so extended as to make the President of the United States, as is claimed by those who say that he has this exclusive power, the absolute, unqualified, uncontrolled, and xmcontrollable power to decide as to all mat ters relating to our foreign relations, so far at least as they include any ques tion of the recognition of the independence of a people claiming to be free and independent; and yet that is the result to which the contention must lead. "If it had been intended--and I ask the Senator's consideration of this proposition--by the grant of power to receive ambassadors and ministers to confer with it the power to recognize the independence of a foreign nation, the exercise of that power by the President -would doubtless also have been guarded as was the treaty-making power, by requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to act. 
Mr. HALE. Now the Senator asks me a question. Mr. BACON. I was not conscious of the fact. If the' Senator so con strues it, it is all right. Mr. HAJjE. The Senator put it in that torm. I will not take advantage of that lapse of the Senator. The Senator did ask me a qxiestion. . Mr. BACON. I certainly have not indicated any indisposition to have the the Senator interrupt m e. I am always more than happy to-, agree with the Senator, and always very much distressed when 1 differ with him. It gives me very great distrust -when I do. 
The contention is that the duty imposed upon the President to receive ambassadors aiid ministers necessarily involves the duty of determining what governments are such free and sovereign governments as are entitled to send ambassadors or ministers to this Government; and further, that as 
 
 16 
he can not determine whom to receive and whom to refuse to receive as ambassadors or ministers unless he also exercises the power to deter mine what states are sovereign and independent, therefore the power to determine and recognize the independence of a nation is a power 
inherent in the power to receive ambassadors and ministers. That is the whole argument in a nutshell, as I understand it, and there is no other single line or letter in the Constitution upon which this power is claimed than the- 
single line that the President, shall have the power and it shall be his duty 
to receive ambassadors and ministers and consuls. If it be true (and I ask the attention oC Senators who are la.wyers to this 
proposition) that there is no reasonably practical way in which the Presi 
dent can be informed what government is entitled to send ambassadors or ministers to this Government, unless the Kxecutivc has the original, absolute, and exclusive power to determine what nation is a free and independent nation, and what nation is not a free and independent nation, then the argu 
ment is sound. T concede it, if that be true. In that case the power claimed for him is one of his inherent powers, because without it he could not per 
form the duly of receiving ambassadors and ministers. Ttut if, on the contrary, it be true that it is entirely practical for the Kxeo 
utive to receive from the lawmakiiig' power of the Government the neces sary direction through joint resolution, in cases of doubtful or disputed inde 
pendence, then the argument is not sound. In that case the power claimed for him is not one of his inherent powers, because without its exercise by 
him he can perform the duty of receiving ambassadors- and ministers. Mr. President, lot me suggest an illustration, and I. ask the attention and 
consideration of the distinguished Senators who have so kindly given me 
their attention durlusr the progress of this argument to this illustration upon the point whether or nol the duty to receive ministers carries with it the inherent power to determine, as a supreme constitutional power, whether or 
not 11 trovcrmnent is an independent nation. Bv some, in times past, Senators in this Chamber have been spoken of as ambassadors from their several 
States. The Senate, a continuing body, receives a Senator upon his creden tials from his State. The Senate has no right to receive a. Senator except 
from a State which is one of tiiese United States--a member of the Federal 'Union. "When a Senator presents himself to be received hr-re. how does the 
Senate determine that the State whose credentials he holds is one of this class? Is it determined arbitrarily, under its own judgment, an.til in obedi ence 1o its own will? >.r o. It uirns to tbe records find ascertains that the Sta o in onpsi ion is one of the original thirteen, or it turns to the statute 
book arid finds that this same sovereign lawmakiiig power has enacted that it has become one of the United fccates entitled to send Senators here. It matters not whether the designation of Senators as ambassadors is 
apt, the purpose of the illustration is served. It would be just as logical to claim it as one of the inherent rights of this Sen 
ate to determine, by its own judgment and will, independently of any statute and in defiance of the lawmakiiig power, whether a community offering to 
send a Senator to this body was or was not a State in the Union as to claim that the President must necessarily exercise the exclusive power to deter 
mine upon and recognise the independence of a people in order that he might 
properly perform the duly of receiving ambassadors and ministers. Mr. WHITIS. Will the Senator from Georgia permit mo to ask him a 
Question ? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. 
Mr. SVBTTTC. Suppose the case of a country which by means o a revolu tion has actually severed itself from another country; that Congress had not 
recognised its independence, but -that a party claimiug to be and actually being the accredited party representing1 the government presents himself to 
the President and claims to be the ambassador or minister of that govern ment. Would the reception of such minister or representative by the Presi 
dent be a recognition of the independence of that government? . Mr. BACON. As a final recognition, I should certainly say no. It would be 
a recognition upon which courts could act. Mr. WHITK. Allow me to present another question. Could such recog 
nition be revoked at all by anybody. 
Mr. "BACON. I recognize the principle of Inw--there is no question about this--that wherever there has been an authoritative; recognition of a govern 
ment it can not be revoked; but I say that whenever there has simply been a tentative reception of an ambassador from a government not theretofore inde 
pendent, done during a recess of Congress by the Kxecutive. while it would give him a certain quasi position which the courts would recognize so long 
as he occupied It. it would be competent for the lawmaking power, when 
Congress assembled, to determine whether or not that government which 
 
 .17 
claimed to be independent and which represented a people who had sundered a certain portion of territory from another country with which this Govern ment was in amicable relations, -should, so stand as an independent country, or whether1 this Government should refuse to recognize it and say it still constituted an integral part of the mother country. I will come in a moment 
to a liae of argument "which sustains that proposition. Mr. iHALE. Then, the Senator would s;iy that after recognition, in the 
manner which has been indicated "by him, had li'jeii granted by the Executive ,a.nu the minister had been received and had assumed the functions of a min 
ister, Congress could order him sent home? Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly. I do not hesitate on that proposition, sir 
--not a. particle. But, Mr. President, right in that, connection I wish to say that while of 
course the argument of inconvenience is a proper argument for consideration, it is never an argument "which can settle finally the question of legal power. The illustrations as to the argument of inconvenience which the distinguished Senator 'from California and the distingiiished Senator from Maine suggest to  me are both vof thorn Illustrations which would be met easily by the lawrnaking power if it would take up this subject and legislate on it as it ought to do. If the power rests with Congress to deter mine when a nation is an independent nation, if that is the highest act of sovereignty, as Mr. Seward said it was, if it" belongs properly to the depart ment of government which exercises almost without exception all of the powers of the sovereignty of this Government, the fact that it can not be conveniently exercised by Congress by act or joint resolution during a recess. does not prevent this Congress or any fiiture Congress from passing a general law which shall prescribe what shall be done in such cases as the Senators 
have indicated. The position that Congress is the ultimate power to determine whether in a 
disputed case a nation is or is not an independent nation Is fortified by the consideration that the necessary meaning of this provision of the Constitu tion is that the President shall reeive ambassadors or ministers from such governments as the lawinaking power o this Government shall consent to diplomatic relations with. I am sorry that the Senator from California who propotmded a question to me a few moments ago is not here, because what T shall now say will have some bearing on the question which he a'Sked me. although not direct. The leg'itirnate construction of that is that he shall receive ambassadors, and ministers from such governments as Congress shall consent to have diplomatic relations with. 
This consent is assumed to be given in the cases of all civilized independ ent nations "with -which this Government is at peace. But will anyone con tend for a moment that it is beyond the power of Congress to say by statute or joint resolution that this Government will not hold diplomatic relations 
with any particular government it may designate? Mr. President, it is understood to be true that during the past twelve 
months or so there have been thirty or forty thousand or more of Armenians --defenseless men, women, and children--mercilessly butchered in Turkey, and that this has been done, if not by the commnnd, with the "wish and ap proval of the Turkish government. Suppose that Congress by a joint reso lution or statute regularly enacted should declare the Turks to be -without the paj,e of civilization, that they are savages and fiends, and order that this Government thereafter shall hold no diplomatic relations with the Turkish government. Will it be contended for a moment that when diplomatic rela tions "with, that government -were thus sundered by Congress the President could refuse to obey the law and still receive a minister from Turkey? If Congress has the power to sunder diplomatic relations with Turkey and send away her minister and prohibit the reception of any diplomatic repre sentative from that government, it has the power to do the like, in its dis: cretion and judgment, in the case of any other government. 
It is difficult to see any ground upon which an argument can be based deny ing the power of Congress in such case. The power to declare -war, which is by the Constitution vested in Congress exclusively, must .of necessity in clude the inferior power to sunder diplomatic relations, not only when war is declared, but at any time, and for any cause by it deemed to be sufficient. The power to declare -war must involve the ultimate supreme control of all those relations out of which war may. grow. It must therefore follow log ically that if Congress has the power in its discretion thus to sunder diplo matic relations and to forbid the reception of an ambassador or minister from that government, then Congress is the final power to determine from --what countries ambassadors or ministers shall be received. If so, the Pres ident is but the agency designated for the reception of ambassadors or minis- 
 
 13 
ters from governments with which Congress directly or tacitly consents to 
hold diplomatic relations. It is idle to say that power to the contrary rests with the Executive unless 
we are prepared to go further and admit that the President would still have the right to officially receive in the Executive Mansion and negotiate with a 
foreign minister after Congress had by law duly enacted declared there should be no diplomatic relations between this Government and the govern 
ment of that minister. I must believe, Mr. President, that the most ardent advocate of extreme executive prerogatives will hesitate before he will un 
dertake to maintain that the President has any such autocratic power. To what conclusion then, Mr. President, does this proposition, if success 
fully maintained, inevitably lead? The inherent power to recognize and de termine, so far as this Government is concerned, the question of the inde 
pendence of a nation is claimed for the Executive upon the ground that it is for him to determine what government is entitled to send an ambassador 
or minister to this Government. Rut if this premise is not true, if on the contrary the controlling power rests with Congress to determine whether 
any ambassador or minister shall be received by this Government from any designated people or government, then the inherent power does not belong 
to the Executive. The inherent power must follow the original power, and it also must vest with such original power in Congress. It is impossible as 
a proposition of law that the inherent power shall rest exclusively in the 
President, while the original power, which alone gives existence to the inher 
ent power, rests ultimately and absolutely with Congress. Sir, 1 must utterly dissent from the proposition that the duty of receiving 
ambassadors and ministers in the contemplation of the Constitution devolves upon the President the power, in his single will, to determine without regard 
to the sanction of the lawmaking power, whether a minister is accredited to this Government by a government of a free and independent nation where that question is in dispute. The ambassadors and ministers which the Con 
stitution has in contemplation--directs the President to receive--are those from recognized independent governments--governments the existence and 
independence of which are so universally recognized and undisputed that courts would take .iudieial knowledge of their status, and of which the Pres 
ident would take like knowledge, without proof. The whole theory of our Government, as -well as the genius and purpose of our free representative 
institutions, are utterly at war "with the construction that out of the simple duty imposed to receive ambassadors and ministers should be evolved the sovereign power in the Executive, in his unrestrained discretion and In pur 
suance of his unbridled will, to say authoritatively -and finally that a people theretofore a part of a recognized foreign sovereignty either had or had not 
won the right to be a new, independent nation, and thus say and authorita tively decree, even though his judgment -were opposed by the opinions and wishes of the entire Congress and of the entire people. 
Mr. ATjLEN. I should like to make a suggestion to the Senator from Georgia nt this point. I do not want to interrupt him, however. 
Mr. BACON. It is no interruption. 
Mr. AHiLEN. It is a point in connection with the thought he Ls now de veloping. If the position of the Senator from Maine be true, that the power 
to recognize is an original and exclusive power of the Chief Executive, then, 
if he shall see fit to do so, he might recognize a straggling community of a few hundred people, which would be binding upon us. 
Mr. BACON. I will corne to a case of that kind in a moment. 
Mr. ALTjKN. Or he might deny recognition to a perfectly established na 
tion of a million or more people. 
Mr. BACON. That is right. I will come to that point later. If this power is vested by the Constitution in the Executive it is an unlim ited power. There is no escape from that proposition. There are in such 
case no bounds set within which he is authorized to act and beyond which he can not go. There is in such case no other power in the Government 
which can either command or stay ills action. The scope of his discretion Is without limit, and his single will is absolute law. What he refuses to do 
no other power in the Government can do or compel him to do. What he does no other power ia the Government can oppose or prevent. His uncon trolled and uncontrollable action in the exercise of an act of the highest sov ereignty of the Government--one which, so far as the action of this powerful 
Government can affect it, alters the map of the world, and changes the rela tion of this Government to other governments--one which may in strong 
probability involve it in war--such an action, -within his sole power, is final, 
without appeal and without power of reversal! 
 
 19 
Those who claim that this power rests exclusively in the Executive must follow their argument to its filial results, and they can not escape the con clusion that if tuis contention is correct no monarch in the day of arbitrary and unlimited rule ever wielded more absolute and unquestioned power than does the President of the United States in this regard. 1 will add that there is not on eartli to-day a constitutional monarch who personally wields such power; not one. 
If there should be an insurrection in Manitoba and its leaders should set up a government for the whole of Canada, and the President should recognize the independence of Canada against the opinion and wish of Congress and ol" the whole country, it would, if their contention be true, be a nnal act be yond the power of question or control by Congress. On the other hand, if at the time of the beginning of an AummistraUoa the Cubans should drive every Spaniard off tne island and set tip and maintain a government com plete in ail its fu ctions and recognized by every other nation on the earth and the President snould refuse throughout his term of office to recognize Cuban independence, such refusal would prevent recognition for four years even though every member of Congress and every other man in the United States favored such recognition. It will be said that these are extreme and improbable cases, and 1 reply that the correctness of propositions is tested by extreme cases. 
Mr. President, It is the evident purpose of the Constitution, in case the President and Congress should unfortunately come in conflict, that the lat ter should control the former. It limits the President's exercise of almost every important function by requiring thereto tlie approval and co-operation either of the two Houses of Congress or the Senate. But more than this, it puts absolutely within the power of Congress, two-thirds of each House concurring, without his approval, and despite his disapproval, to dictate to him every law that he shall administer. And as a final evidence of this intent, the Constitution places within the power of a majority of the House and of two-thirds of the Senate to impeach and remove the President from office for.any alleged misconduct which they may deem to be a high cringe and misdemeanor. How is it possible to recognize such intent to place con trolling power in the hands of Congress, with the contention that the Con stitution has clothed the President with exclusive, absolute, unlimited power, regardless of the will of Congress, in dealing with all the foreign relations of this Government, the making of treaties alone excepted. 
The utter unreasonableness, the monstrosity of such a contention, is found in the fact that the management and control of the foreign relations is one of the chief functions of the Federal Government. Of the two principal objects which led to the formation of the Federal Government, one was to regulate and control the reciprocal relations between the several States, and the other was to regulate and control the relations between foreign governments and . the States in the aggregate. The position is unreasonable and untenable that in the formation of a. government where such care was tafeen to deny the Executive every attribute of sovereignty, the pardoning power alone ex cepted, there should be found, not by express grant, but by inference only, an intention to confer upon the President royal power, unrestrained and un limited, in the wide-reaching and important matter of foreign relations, excepting only in the matter of treaties. 
The contention that it was the intention of the Constitution to confer the unlimited and exclusive power upon the President in dealing with any branch of foreign affairs is utterly irreconcilable with the fact that the Constitution does not permit him to declare war, that It only permits him to make a treaty with a foreign nation when two-thirds of the Senate consents to it, and that it requires him to procure the consent of the Senate to every foreign appointment he makes, from the ranking amabassador to England down to the humblest consul in the Island of Haiti. 
Mr. President, it is not only opposed to the spirit of our representative institutions and to the letter of the Constitution that such unlimited power should he placed In the hands of one man, but it would be unsafe to do so, The President is but one man taken from the ranks of 'the public men of the country, in most instances not superior either in ability or experience to the average of those standing in the front rank. 
In this day of the powerful influences exerted by powerful interests it is safer that the determination of such groat questions should not be within the will and discretion of any one man, but that these questions should be under the control of the great lawmaking power, which lias been invested by the Constitution with almost every function of sovereignty in the Gov ernment. 
Mr, President, thore are strong and ingenious arguments urged in favor 
 
 20 
oi' the possession of thig exclusive and sovereign power by the Executive, but 1 submit tliat no argument is conclusive on tills question wliicli doea not , rest upon a grant oi power in the Couytitutiou, either express or implied. These arguments are in the main rested upon the tacts mat tlie executive department ha.s in a number of instances assumed to exercise tbe power: tit at the oth'cers of the .executive department have, ill their diplomatic cor respondence, claimed the right in that department to exercise the power, and that there are cases in which the dicta of the courts speak of it as an exec utive power. 
These facts, while entitled to weight and consideration, are none of them conclusive in the settlement of this question. 
In the many instances which have been cited in which the Executive has recognized a change of government or the independence of a nation there is not one in which it may not be shown that the act was with the actual or implied assent of Congress. There is not a single instance in which there is the least evidence of opposition by Congress and action by the Executive contrary to the will and wishes of Congress. The Executive is the agency through which the law-making power of the Government deals with foreign governments. Much is left to the judgment and discretion of the executive department, and so long as the acts of the department are not objected to by Congress they are tacitly acquiesced in by the lawmaking power. 
Furthermore, it is true that a very large number of these recognitions, as shown by the memorandum submitted by the Senator from Maine, were made by accrediting diplomatic agents or consuls to the new governments, all of whom were necessarily couiirmed by the Senate. In such cases there was not only the implied assent of Congress to the act of recognition, .but the direct action of the Senate. 
So that the instances cited of the exercise of this power by the Executive do not constitute precedents establishing the rule in favor of this exclusive right or power in the Executive and in denial of the final right of control in the lawmaking power. 
The Senator from Maine, who does me the honor to be interested in this ar gument, was engaged at the time I stated the proposition--in which, it1 I am incorrect, I hope the Senator at some future time will set me right--that there is no instance in the history of this Government where the Executive has exercised this power in conflict with the express will of Congress to the contrary. 
Nor do the writings and diplomatic correspondence of officers of the exec utive department furnish a sufficient basis for the contention in favor of this exclusive Execittive power, except in so far as they are shown to be rested upon constitutional grant of power. That these officers of the executive deparment should endeavor to magnify their office is not to be wondered at. That their claims thus expressed have provoked the utterance of no dissent from Congress is due to the fact that in no instance prior to the utterances of Secretary Olney have they, in asserting them, directly antagonized the legislative department and made an issue as to the right and power of Con gress to deal authoritatively with the question. That antagonism has now been directly made and that issue has now been distinctly raised by the present Secretary of State. In anticipation of the action of Congress he has in the most public manner denied its power, defied its authority, and pro claimed through the press to foreign nations that even if such proposed ac tion should be formulated and put upon the statute books in due form of law, the President would not obey it. He has practically threatened Con gress with the veto of the President, and added that if pased over his veto it would be flung back in the face of Congress as so much -waste paper. Never was challenge of power more sharply made; never was defiance of authority more boldly given. If Congress is acquiescent, if the challenge is unheeded, if tne defiance is permitted to pass without the assertion by Congress of its prerogative, it must be confessed that there will be in such case at least one precedent of claim of exclusive power by the executive department which will in the future count against the right of Congress to claim this power as one of its prerogatives. 
Neither do the advocates of this exclusive power find support in any judicial decision on this question. All the utterances of the courts, in so far as they appear to class this as an exclusive Executive power, are mere obiter dicta, which these courts themselves would refuse to regard as decisions if the question were now directly presented for their adjudication. There is no single case in which the issue therein presented was whether this power belonged exclusively to the Executive or to the lawmateingr power. The issue in each of these cases 'was simply -whether there had been recognition by 
 
 21 
the Government, and while deciding that issue the ascription of the power to any one department was, as every lawyer must recognize, mere obiter. 
And, sir, in the consideration of these utterances by the courts, the fact 
is not to be overlooked that wherever the power rests to determine upon the act of recognition', the performance of the act of recognition undoubtedly ' rests with the Executive. It is- through tlie Executive that the fact of recog 
nition by the supreme power is made known to the people thus recognized. In dealing with the question whether there had or had not been recognition 
in a particular case the courts, in speaking of such recognition by the Exec utive, can only be legitimately construed to have reference to the particular 
function of the act of recognition by the Executive, without reference to the particular department of the Government having the linal power to determine 
upon and direct such act. I will not attempt now to discuss Jhe question of the power of the courts 
to decide upon the exercise by Congress of its political powers. It is suffi 
cient to say that the question has so far never been, decided by the courts. And the case has never been made which would have justified them iu at 
tempting so to decide; not one can be found in the books. Mr. GRAY, May I ask the Senator Avhether in making that assertion 
he has in view the case in 3 Sumner, iu which Judge Story---- Mr. BACON. Possibly the Senator did not understand the statement which 
I made. The statement I made was that there never had been a case made where the distinct issue,where the question to be decided,that up^n which anil 
under which rights were to be determined, was whether a recognition by the 
executive department in contradistinction to the right, of the legislative was 
a valid recognition. Mr. GRAY. But there is a case reported in 3 Sumner^---- Mr. BACON. There are plenty of cases where they speak------ 
Mr. GRAY. In which the only recognition had been the executive recog nition, and the court decided distinctly there that it was a recognition which 
the judicial department would recognize as valid. Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly, and in accord with what I have said. All 
this recognition was through the executive department. There is no other . medium by which recognitions are made. My contention is that the ultimate 
power to decide whether it shall be done or not is in the legislative depart ment, and that where there is no disavowal by the legislative department, 
especially "where they go forward and do acts -which show that they confirm it, it is an affirmation of it--a ratification. 
Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Georgia permit me to ask him there 
what he says as to the case which---- Mr. BACON. 'Which the Senator suggested? 
Mr. HOAR. Not exactly that, but upon this particular point: Suppose on the 5th day of March of a year when Congress adjourned the 3d, tlie Presi dent recognizes a new government. Now, there is no meeting of Congress until December, and of course there is no implied acquiescence of Congress. 
I>oes that have any lawful effect "whatever, or any lawful relation to conduct of American citizens during the summer? Is the ambassador who is received 
entitled to sue in the Supreme Court of the United States tor that, summer? Mr. BACON. 1 will state to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
that the same question has already been asked me, at a time when the Sen- ator was not in me onamber, Dy the (Senator ironi Oalirornia (Air. \VHTKJ, 
and that I have already answered it. But I will answer it again in brief. I say that of course the reception by the President is good so lar as an onicial recognition that the courts will eniorce, that it is in the nature of a tentative 
recognition. All intervening rights, of course, -would be preserved under that recognition; just like the tie facto acts of any government or officer; 
but it is within the power of Congress when it convenes to say as to that par ticular piece of territory which the President had determined should there 
after be an independent government and should not thereafter be a part of 
the mother country, that the action is reversed and we do not approve of it, and it is still a part of Great Britain, for instance, or Spain, or any other 
country. Mr. OAR. Then, until Congress has negatived the President's act It is 
valid? Mr. BACON. Until Congress negatives the President's act it is in the na 
ture of a tentative recognition, and in that case it entitles them to legal rights. 
Mr. HOAR. And the recognition is binding on our courts and on our citizens? 
Mr. BACON. I will say to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
that that particular illustration and that particular answer was suggested to 
 
 me by one of tlie strongest constitutional lawyers known to tills country, 
and one wiio has held (i will not say whether lie does not now hold) a very 
high judicial position. j>j.r. iiOAIt. 1 simply wanted to understand the Senator. Then, taking the 
ground, as the Senator does, that the Executive may make a, recognition which shall be binding on the courts and on American citizens and every por 
tion of tbe country until Congress has negatived it, does the Senator say we should pass a resolution declaring that the power is exclusively one in Con 
gress V Mr. BACON. I think so most undoubtedly, because the ultimate power 
is there and the validity of it depends upon the implied assent of Congress. 
lUr. MALE. Does the Senator------ Air. BACON. But, if the Senator will pardon me just a moment and then I will hear him. I want to finish this point. I wish to say that the dis 
tinguished and honorable Senator from Massachusetts has not done me the honor to hear my argument, and he comes in momentarily and propounds 
a question which, if he had heard the whole of it, he would not have put. I desire also to repeat that the argument of inconvenience does not over 
throw a legal proposition; that the argument of inconvenience is one to be 
met by appropriate legislation. 1 wouid suggest that the proper legislation in this case is in the recognition by Congress of its supreme and ultimate 
power, and in a provision which wih meet all of the cases that the dis 
tinguished Senator suggests might produce inconvenience. It is perfectly competent, if the ultimate power is in Congress, for Congress to pass a law which shall regulate the manner in which the President shall proceed under 
such circumstances, and to preserve the rights of all parties. Now I shall be 
glad to hear the distinguished Senator from Maine. Mr. HALE. I was only going to suggest that the Senator's argument, 
ingenious as it is, enforces more strongly than ever upon me the strength 
of tne proposition in the Constitution that the President may receive am bassadors. Otherwise the contention of the Senator must amount to this, 
tnat the receiving of ambassadors does not nx tbe status of the state re ceived; that it is only a temporary act to be overridden by Congress, and that the provision should have been, in order that the language might meas 
ure the effect, "temporarily receive." Mr. BACON. No, sir; not by any means. Mr. HALE, Clearly that is tbe result that the Senator reaches. 
Mr. BACON. -Not at all. 
Mr. HALE. Because he says that, although on the 5th of March, after the adjournment of Congress, the President receives an ambassador, it does 
not fix the status of the country received; it does not fix its recognition except temporarily, and that when Congress assembles it may at once, -without stretch of power but by powers clearly granted to it, overthrow the whole 
thing. If that be true, it is certiiinly only a temporary reception. Mr. BACON. Let me give jm illustration to the distinguished Senator from 
Maine, the force of which I think he will appreciate. T suppose we all un 
derstand that the Senator from Maine regards it as an unheard-of proposition 
that in the present condition of affairs the independence of the Island of Cuba should be recognized. That is the emphatic statement in substance 
vhich he has frequently made in private and in this Chamber. Mr. HALE. Hardly "unheard of," because we have heard a great deal 
of it. Mr. BACON. Possibly I ,*jm in error in that, but that it would be an ex 
tremely improper thing to do. 
Mr. HALE. Not a wise thing to do. 
Mr. BACON. Not a wise thing to do. The illustration I want to submit to tbe Senator is this: We are at amity with Spain. We hold all the rela 
tions with her that we hold with other civilized nations with which we are nt peace. There is no donbt about the fact that Spain lias a title to the Island 
of Cuba; that as it now stands it is an integral part of her territory; that' it is subject to her sovereignty. 
There are distinguished gentlemen who are members of this Congress who are eminently fit to be President, who, by experience and capacity, are recog nized, by tbe country as fit for that office, who think that the Island of Cuba 
ou.elit to bo recognized as an independent country. Suppose that one of these gentlemen was in the Presidential office. The condition of affairs exists as 
it does now, and on the 4th of March Congress adjourns. That President, thinking directly opposite from the manner in which the distinguished Sen ator from Maine thinks in the present condition of affairs, immediatley upon 
the adjournment of Congress recognizes tbe Island of Cuba as an independ 
ent republic under these circumstances, where there IB so little to Justify It, a* tttere i IB tlio opinion of the Senator from Maine. 
 
 Now, hftpe is this Government having amicable relations with the govern ment of Spain. ,, Here is this great lawmakirig power invested with all the attributes of sovereignty except and saving1 the single attribute of exercising the pardoning power. Congress comes back here in. December and the con dition of affairs has not changed. There is still tho great want of evidence as to whether independence in the Island of Cuba would he proper that there is now. ' "Under those circumstances, if every Senator in this Chamber and every member of the House of Representatives thought that the President h.a^ done wrong, if they thought that it had been an outrage on Spain, that Spain was still legitimately entitled to rule over that island, will the Senator from Maine say that the action of that .President would he final and that the lips .of every Senator and every Representative -would he closed and dumb, and that the matter could never be reversed? 
Mr. HALE. In a. case like the one the Senator ha^ given, applied to Cuba, or as it has been applied to other people seeking: recognition, if the Presi dent formally receives a minister, as has been done in the history of this Government, and he comes to Washington, and the President in return sends an agent duly accredited by him to that power. I should say that any case against the recognition of that people -would be practically hopeless, and that no instance would ever be found where under such circtimstances that recognition -will be reversed. The history of every precedent shows exactly what the presumption is, that the Executive -will be conservative in his ac tion; and when he does -what the Senator himself has put as a President doing, and all the accompanying acts go with it, I should say that when in December Congress assembles there never will a case arise where that recog nition will be taken back. 
Mr. BACON. I do not agree with the Senator in that proposition. I am inclined to think that if the position were reversed, and tb Senator had the same view as he has now of the right of Cuba to be recognized as an inde pendent government, and if a President should assume to exercise that great sovereign power in the name of this Government, the distinguished Senator from Maine, while I doubt not the honesty and sincerity of the present ex pression of what he would anticipate, would be one of the first to assert the power of the department of the Government in which all these great powers of sovereignty have been lodged, and to say to the President, "You shall not do this great wrong to a country with -which this Government is at peace, and it shall be reversed;" and that it would be a legal action I have not a shadow of a doubt so far as my limited ability as a lawyer permits me to judgre of it. 
Mr. HALE. Go still further in my theory of acquiescence in recognition. If it followed that by the action of the Executive in recognizing- a province of a country with which -we -were at peace -war ensued between that country and this country because of such recognition, no instance would be found where there would not be (while it would be called and believed to be a cal amity) a disposition to sustain the Government in the war that folio-wed. I should regret it---- 
Mr. HACON. We would all stand by the Government, of course, in case -of war. 
Mr. HALE. Everybody would regret it; but the acquiescence -would be such that if -war came -we -would pursue the war and maintain the honor of the country; and if'war did not come I should look upon the case as topelees after the recognition. 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I beg the indulgence of the Senate only a few minutes. I have occupied very much longer time than I anticipated, but of course, it has not all been consumed by me. 
I think I may say that if neither in the prior exercise of this power by the executive department; nor in the -writings and diplomatic correspondence of the officers of that department, nor in the decisions of tbe courts there has> been a settlement of this question, it then stands now for determination bv the* test of argument upon the constitutional grant of power. It is not a question for determination by precedents, because there are no controlling precedents, and it nmst be decided on original constitutional principles. 
Mr. President, the fact is not to be disguised that the acttral exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government in this dav far exceeds the bounds set for it by the Constitution. The correspondence in relative position of a president in a republic and of a king in a monarchy; the sjlam, our of a great office in which one man among 70,000.000 is chosen as the sole head of a great department of the Government, while in the other de partments the honors are divided among many; the gigantic measure of patronage and removal -where he seems to have unlimited power to bestow, or to withhold, or to take away---these and other influences combine to ele^ 
 
 vate in the popular mind tbe prerogatives of- the President far above the point fixed for them in the Constitution. 
great powers with which they invested him, and there is no more binding obligation on Congres than to see to it that he does not pass them. 
The history of the struggles of centuries to free the peoples of the earth from the domination of one-man power is the world's history of the struggle of all mnnkicd for liberty. 
 
 IN M:EMO:RIA.M. 
ADDRESS 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON, 
UPOX THE UFU AX I) CHAEACTES OF 
HON. CHARLES F. CRISP, 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
JANUARY 2B, 1897. 
 
 ADDRES S 
HON. AUGUSTUS O. BACON". 
December S, 1896. Mr. BACON. I ask that the resolutions of the House of Repre sentatives be Jaid before the Senate. 
 
Ho 
 
-nivetl Tlmt fchr. Clel,k co .nnllmVate theso TOSoIut.ions to the Son-ite 
 
Mr. RACOX. Mr. President, Ut some future time I shall ask the 
 
Senate to appoint a day when eulogies may be heard, ripon the 
 
deceased, member' of the other House, ex-Speaker Crisp. As a 
 
mark of respect to Ms memory, I move that the Senate do now 
 
ad.j ourii . 
 
The motion was agreed to: and (at 13 o'clock and 2G minutes 
 
p. in. ) ber 1), 
 
the Senate 1898, at 13 
 
oa''dcljoocukrnmederuidnitainl .to-morrow, 
 
Wednesday, 
 
Decem 
 
Jdnuary 85, 1897. 
 
The VfCE-PRTWlDKNT. The hour of.1 3 o'clock having arrived, the Chair i;;ys fjeforn the Senate resolutions of the Mouse oil Rep resentatives. which will be read. 
The Secretary read the resolutions, as follows: 
 
IK Till;! HOUS13 OL' RMPlil-3-rRNT TATTVK3. Jam.iarj/ IS, 3.397. 
 
Hesoived, That the (llerk be Iii^trnefced to communicate a coiiy of these 
 
Mr. G-ORDON. Mr. President, I submit the resolutions which I send to the desk. 
The resolutions were read, as follows: 
Resolved, Thiit the business of the Seiiato bo now suspended, that oppor tunity nisiy be given for tributes to the memory of the Hon. CHART/ES F. CRISP, late a Representative from the State of Georgia. 
Resolved That a,s a further tribute to his memory and in recognition of his dirttingui^hed ability as a public; servant, the Senate, at tae conclusion of these memorial ceremonies, shall stand adjourned. 
 
of Representatives; and Resolved, That tho Secretary bo instructed to communicate a copy of these 
resolutions to the family of tho deceased. 
 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The resolutions are before the Sen 
 
ate. 
 
* 
 
-X 
 
*#*** 
 
Mr. BACON said: 
 
Mr. PRESIDENT: The many touching, beautiful, and appropriate eulogies which have been paid to the memory of our friend, both in the House and Senate, leave little need that I should attempt 
 
_> 
 
4749 
 
 3 
to add anything, however brief. I may be pardoned, however, for a few words before asking for the adoption of the resolutions submitted by my colleague. 
It is a great thing for one to be an acknowledged leader among men. It is, still greater for one to be recognized by voluntary ac claim as the leader among- a concourse of those who are themselves leaders. . But greater than this high distinction Is the honor, when such an one falls on that high arena in the thick of the combat, that the strife ceases, and that there are offered My Representatives and Senators of all parties aiid sections--as well those who have contended with him as opponents, as those who have striven with him as allies--such tributes to his character and achievements as in the anticipation would fill the measure of any man's ambition. 
Most tenderly will these words of a!i'ection and praise be cher ished by those of his own blood, by the host of men knit to him "bv the ties of friendship, and by- the State which has most lovingly and proudly enrolled his iimne upon the.list of her most distilviguished sons, 
Mr. President, I need not say more of those nullities and achieve ments which have \voii for him tiie praise'and admiration nor only of bis associates but also o(: the nation: and yet I can not for bear to say that as-i have listened in the House and Senate to the words which have boon uttered during the consideration oi1 tbo-c resolutions, the thought has come to me th;vt if it ware mine io writo "hi- ppita-;-}!. -I'-P the portrayal of his personal character 1 would inscribe but the single lius: 
expressed through a primary election, with no oppo^ilion to ii'.s election by the legislature which was to assemble within a weok. the arm oi' the State was alivady outstretched to place within his hand her commission to him as one or her ambassadors to r.liia high council of the representatives of States. 
From one point of: view there was never sadder picture of a. d sappointed hope. Tlie dream, the ambition of bis Jifo was to ho ti Senator of the United States. Neither in public nor in p.-ivato h ul he disguised its avowal. From boyhood he had set his ga-.e iip-m it, and through all his manhood it was the goal of liis desire. A.I undaunted by obstacles, ae strove to reach it. Step by step i or thirty years, unwearied, never failing in resolve, always steadfast in endeavor, he had climbed the steep ascent, he had scaled ilio rugged cliffs, he had gained the dizzy height -where shone the pri to. when in a moment the sun of his life went out at noonday! 
The vainness of regret stifles not the tender emotion which this contemplation must inspire in every sympathetic heart. When the full span of life has been accomplished., when tke life "work to which one has set his hand has in his labor found full fruition, still the death of even such an one, the end of a career where no more remains for achievement, nevertheless brings inevitable 
 
 Mr. President, it is pad to see even the shrunk and witherod giant trunk sway in the blast and fall before the fury or1 the storm: "but when, in the peaceful sunshine, when no \vmds bk>w, when no cloud is in the ^ky, all suddenly tails the green and sturdy oak. we start back shocked and dismayed. 
J.!miiaiiity can not snppres^ its moan in the presence or death. Around it there is such .mpenetrable myslery. between theliving and the dead there is such, an unspeakable, fathomless, unmeas ured gulf. Beside the bier there is only remembrance o the great change, the life thai: has gone from among ns and can never return. In the presence of the physical ruin the heart echoes the \vail off Antony by the dead body of Ca?sar: 
Are all tliv conquests, tclories. triumphs, spoils, Shrunk to tins little measure '! 
And vet, sir, sad as is this contemplation, wrung and torn as are the hearts of those who mourn his loss, who can" view the life of our departed friend, so rorinded and so symmetrical, so steadyin its upward progress, so full and overflowing in its fruition, and not sav--it may be through blinding tears, but still in loving pride--'tis well? 
And. sir, while I would not dry one tear that is shed for him, while I would not suppress one moan that breathes out the sor row of those who mourn for him, yet I take heart iu the glad thought that in those things which made our friend beloved of all, in those things "which mn.de him a leader among men, in those things which marked him in the nation's view as a great man. in ali these things he is not dead and can not die. 
More lasting-than the marble which will mark his last restingplace, in the imfading memory of all -who knew him in life, in the imperishable archives of his State and oT this great nation, will ever live the enduring record of this good and great man. 
And not as a memory only wiJl he live. The teaching of Reve lation finds its strongest confirmation in the conviction of the inner Gonsc-ioiifrn&ss thai: the HUH of this life does not go down into an eternal night. Who is there of: the most skeptical who belives thai the soul'and the intellect which looked ont from the eyes of: 
F. CiiiriP, and beamed in his countenance and inspired 
be, "YV hen or how we know not, but the undying yearnings for the loved ones gone before tell us thai; we shall moot again. 
i'n the di-Mma'of Ion, the young heathen Greek, forewarned by the Oracles of impending death bv violence, comes to part with the maiden he loves. She asks him, ' Shall we meet again? " He re plies that lie has asked that dread question of the hills that look eternal: of the streams that flow on forever: of the stars amid whose azure fields his spirit had walked in glory. To that ques tion they had all been dumb. "But now," he adds, -'while thus I gaze upon thy living tace. I feel the love that kindles through its "beauty can never wholly perish. We shall meet again.'' 
Mr. President, I ask for the adoption of tlio pending resolutions. 
The resolutions were unanimously agreed to: and (at -I o'clock and 23 minutes p. m. ] the Senate adjourned until to-morrow. Tues day, January ^G, 18U7, at TJ o'clock meridian. 
 
 " 1 clunk tariffs ought to hn. levied as far a." possible so a;s to operate unilormilj , so ilia 
EXTRACTS 
FROM CONGRESSIONAL 
ITNIFORIH1TV OJK BEVKNITK J>IX1KJ. 
REMAFJK1S OF 
HON. AUaUSTUS O. BAOOIsr, 
IN THE SENATE; OF THE UNITED STATES, 
r, JUNK 5, itJ7, r, JUNE , 1807 
^nci , JUNK 18, iHcjy. 
WASJIINQTON, D. O.: HARTMAN & CADICK, PRINTKK.S, 
 
  Saturday, June 5, 1897- 
 
The VICE-PKESIDENT. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] \vill be stated. 
The SECRETARY. In paragraph 193, page 60, line 19, after the word "meas ure," it is proposed to insert "except white pine;" so as to read: 
 
193. Sawed boards, planks, deals, and other lumber of whitewood, sycamore, and basswood, $1 per thousand feet board measure; sawed lumber, not specially provided for in this act, $2 per thousand feet board measure, except white pine, etc. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator from Missouri [Mr. VKST] says that he regards ithis as the most indefensible schedule in the present l>Ul. Such a statement as 
that coming from a Senator of his prominence in this body and his familiarity 
with this general subject, and a member of the Finance Committee, uttered with the earnestness with which he uttered it, is apt to carry conviction to 
the minds of those who might not stop to consider whether that was an extreme statement. 
In the discussion of this bill the Senator has himself frequently criticised 
the rates of duty here exceeding 100 per cent on various articles of prime necessity. This schedule is one in which the average ad valorem duty is not 
20 per cent. The very highest duty on any class of lumber, according to the document read by his colleague on the committee, is 30 per cent, and some of 
it is as low as 10 per cent, but the general average of it is certainly below 20 per cent, and yet the Senator in the face of the fact---- 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The rate is prohibitory. Mr. BACON. You say so, but I am discussing the question whether it is 
or not, and it is for every member of the Senate to decide for himself whether 
it is a prohibitory duty or whether less than 20 per cent on any article is a prohibitory duty. We are to judge of that for ourselves. 
I was proceeding to say that the general average is less than 20 per cent, probably about 15. Does that statement bear out the extreme expression of "tfee Senator from Missouri, that this is the most indefensible schedule in this bill? 
Mr. BUIIROWS. The Senator will allow me to say that the average rate of the entire schedule is less than 37 per cent. 
Mr. BACON. The wood schedule? 
Mr. BTJKROWS. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BACON. I am speaking generally of the schedule and not of the par 
ticular paragraph now under consideration, and I understood the Senator from Missouri to speak generally of the scheuule when he made tnat asser tion. 
 
Mr. VEST. I have no objection to the Senator's putting that construction 
 
on it, though what I did say, as the RECOHD will sho-vv, is that the increase 
 
to $2 a thousand upon white pine was the most indefensible item in the bill, 
 
.and the reporter's notes will show it. 
 
'' 
 
Mr. BACON. I accept the Senator's statement----- 
 
Mr. VEST. Oh, no; I make no apology. 
 
Mr. BACON. I did not say apology. I said statement. The Senator does 
 
not disclaim the statement? 
 
Mr. VEST. I said this item, but still I will accept the Senator's statement. 
 
I think the whole tax on lumber of every sort is the most indefensible part 
 
of the bill. 
 
Mr. BACON. I think it is one of the most reasonable in the whole bill, and si very proper one. 
 
The Senator from Missouri says that, entertaining the views he does, if 
 
 he did not express them with, the earnestness winch usually characterises 
him, lie would be a coward. So, entertaining the opposite views, if I did not 
express them and sustain them with my vote, I should be equally a coward, and I am prepared to say here and elsewhere that I regard this schedule as a proper one, irrespective of the question as to which party it comes from. 
I am not a protectionist. I do not believe in the protectionist system. Of course, we recognize that any tariff, in the fact that it influences prices, to some extent is an advantage to the particular article upon which the duty is levied, but I am not speaking of it in that sense, i am speaking of protection 
as it is generally understood, wlueh is designed to be an arrangement by law on account of which and through which parties are enabled to sell their prod 
ucts at an abnormal price, higher than they otherwise could, and where the design of the law is that such should be the effect, and where the prime 
design is not the raising of revenue. 
In that sense I do not believe in protection at all. I do not believe in the imposition of protective duties on ;my article; certainly not as a general rule. 
It "would have to be a very extreme case where I would ever admit' its pro 
priety. At the same time I do not believe as a general rule in a free list, I think tariffs ought to be levied as far as possible so as to operate uniformly, 
so that whatever burdens there may be, may rest with comparative uniformity, and that whatever benefits there may be, may also be enjoyed impartially. 
Some things exist that no man can shut his eyes to. In the first place, 
whether a. man believes in protection or not, he is obliged to be in favor of a 
tariff. The necessities of this Government make a tariff necessary, regardless of whether a man believes in protection or whether he believes in a tariff for 
revenue only. It is a stern fact that the great necessities of this Government 
require not only a tariff, but a high tariff, and there is no party, I care not -what its doctrines may be, but "when it conies into power and to the test, finds 
it necessary to impose a high tariff. Mr. MOKGA1V. "Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to ask him whether 
a low tariff 011 the free list, -which now consists of more than one-half of the 
imported articles, both in number and value, would not be a revenue producer that would satisfy him? 
Mr. BACON, Y.CS, sir. A revenue tariff would satisfy me not only on those, 
but on all articles, and that is the only kind of a tariff I want; but when I find 
a low tariff imposed upon a particular article, and I find by admeasurement and by comparison with other tariffs that it is a tariff for revenue, and upon 
the scale of a tariff for revenue, I am not to be deterred from supporting it because of the <-ry of "protection," when such charge is not supported by the 
fact. I was proceeding- to say that there are two things which have to be rec 
ognized. One is the absolute necessity for a tariff, and a very considerable one. The other one is that whatever may be the design of the tariff, whether 
it be imposed by those who design it as protection to industries or -whether 
it be imposed by those who design it simply as a tariff for revenue only, the 
necessary, unavoidable effect of it is to affect prices. Whether it is intended 
to protect or not, the products similar to those upon -which duties are im 
posed are necessarily raised in price by the imposition of those duties. The great defect of the protective system is the absolute impossibility of 
making it uniform and impartial. If it could bo made so that it would benefit every man in the country in exactly the same way, if it could be made so 
that it -would put the same burden upon every man equally, then the great argument against it would be gone; but as that is an impossibility, I submit that the next best thing to it in the administration of the Government througa 
means of this svsteui of taxation, is to approximate this uniformity and this 
impartiality as nearly sis may be. If you do not do it, what is the result? 
The result necessarily is that the parties engaged in the production of articles upon which the tariff is levied--and I am speaking now only of a 
revenue tariff and not of a protective tariff--sell their goods at a higher 
price than they otherwise would be sold for, and the parties engaged in the 
production of articles upon which there is no tariff do not have their gooda 
raised in the same proportion, and the consequence is that they must sell cheap -while they buy dear. 
 
 Mr, President, 1 repeat, and I can not emphasise it too strongly, that 1 am 
n&t speaking in defense of a protective tariff; on the contrary, I sin opposed 
to a protective tarift; tout I say when we come to levying a tariff for revenue, we should, as nearly as possible, approximate uniformity, so that all classes should, as far as possible, enjoy its benefits, "whatever benefits may be grow 
ing out of such tariff, and that all parties should have imposed upon them, as 
far as practicable, uniformity of burden. I am supporting this schedule not because it is protective--if Senators can 
satisfy me that it is a protective duty, I will vote against it--but I am supporting it because I do not consider it a. protective duty; because I consider 
it withia the legitimate scope cf a revenue duty. What are the general ranges, not to speak of the extreme schedules, of rates of a tariff? tinder the Wil son Act it is over 40 per cent. The Senator fr-om Missouri speaks of the 
fact that this rate of duty exceeds that in the McKinley Act. That is not 
the question. It might have been free in the McKinley Act. The question 
is, Is this rate above that which is recognized as a revenue rate? That is 
the question. If it is, I am against it; if it is not, I am for it. 
Mr. President, I said that as far as possible I am in favor of uniformity in the imposition of a tariff, and that leads me to the proposition that while I 
am generally opposed to a free list, I am particularly opposed to a free list of raw materials. I can not go into a discussion of that question; it would take 
too much time, and I know Senators are impatient to proceed with the con sideration of the bill. I probably have occupied more time than I ought to have consumed. I. am now coming to the specific question as to "whether or ' 
not this is a tariff duty which ought to be sustained by the Senate. The Senators who have spoken have confined their discussions exclusively-- 
I will not say exclusively, but in the main--to the question of the effect on the 
particular woods grown, on the Northern border. Senators are very much 
mistaken if they suppose that it has, no effect, upon woods grown in the Soulh. If parties interested in Southern pine were here asking me to support a pro tective tariff on their production, I would refuse to do it. They come to me 
and say, ''This is very much loss than the ordinary revenue duty. We are engaged in the production of lumber, and in its production we have to buy 
articles not one of winch has so low a rate of duty imposed upon it. as this. "We have to buy our tools, our machines, our vehicles, the clothes that our 
laborcrs wear, everything upon a scale of prices far above that which would prevail if those things were upon the free list, and yet we are asked to sell our products upon the basis of the free list; and we say it is unjust." I arn 
prepared to say here and elsewhere that it is unjvist. And while 1 would not support a protective tariff, I am ready at all times to say that parties engaged in legitimate industries, where there is a necessity, an absolute necessity, for the imposition of the tariff, should have duties, not protective but revenue 
duties, in proportion to the revenue duties imposed upon other articles. Mr. President, we hear a good deal in this Chamber about lumber barons. 
I know nothing of them. I am not familiar with that matter, but I know that one-third of my State, if not more, is a timber-producing area. I know that 
there is, a very large proportion of the State where it is the leading industry-- the industry of felling timber and carrying it to the mills and having it put 
into the shape of merchantable lumber. I know that not only the men who are actually engaged in that business, but the people all through that country, 
in "whatever occupation they may be engaged, are dependent upon the success of that industry. I know that even the railroads are to a large extent 
dependent upon the continuance of the industry. A very large proportion, of the Southern timber manufactured into lumber 
is shipped to the northwestern boundary, and an immense amount of it goos 
to the city of Chicago. Almost all the freight cars that are manufactured in this country are made out of it. It is largely used in building houses. In a 
great many uses it comes in direct competition with the lumber that is 
brought across the border. These men irnovr whut their interest is. I yester 
day received a telegram from two very prominent men in my State engaged 
in this business--business men -who know their interests--saying that every man, "woman, and child--using those words---in the lumber region is 
looking to the successful passage of the lumber schedule. Tf they had telegraphed to me--I repeat it, because I do not wish to be mis- 
 
 G 
understood on this subject--asking me upon that ground to support a protec tive duty, I should have refused. But this is not a protective duty, and no man can say that less than 20 per cent on any article can possibly constitute a. protective duty, whatever the article may be. 
Mr. President, in front of the house where I live runs a railroad, and I do not think I exaggerate when I say that two thirds of the trains which pass along that road are freighted "with lumber going to the Northwest, and I do not hesitate to say that not only that railroad but other railroa.ds in the State, if this industry should be stricken down, would have to stop their business within a very short time. 
None of these arguments would be sufficient if: the question were whether or not we should protect the industry of these people; whether -we should take, as those of us who do not believe in the protective system say, the money out of one man's pocket to improve the business of another man. I do not believe in any such doctrine; I do not support any such doctrine; but I do stand on the ground I have announced, that where there is a legitimate revenue tariff, the very worst form of protection, the most offensive form of protection, is that which gives the tariff to the man who manufactures the finished product and denies it to the man who furnishes him the raw ma terial from which he makes that article. 
You are in that case not only protecting the man at the expense of the Government, but you are protecting him at the expense of the man who fur nishes him the raw material. A man can have a margin between the price at which lie sells and the price which it costs him to make th<- article, either by raising the price of the finished product or by a reduction to him of the cost of the material out of which he makes his product. By no possible system of reasoning can the proposition be defended that, in order that a. man -who makes the finished product shall enjoy the full benefit, the man who famishes him the raw material shall be compelled to furnish it at a price less than 
That is nil we ask for the raw material. "We ask not for protection for raw material. I am opposed to protection for the raw material or for the finished product, but I do ask for equality in the imposition of duties both upon the finished product and upon the ra.w material. 
The learned and distinguished and eloquent Senator from Missouri grows unusually eloquent in depicting the great injury that will result to those who live upon ihc plains if the price of their lumber is raised, not by putting on a protective tariff, but by giving the producer of the raw material the same advantages that you give the finished product by the imposition of a purely revenue tariff duty. How these men, he says, will sweat with drops of blood! I want to know in what particular the man upon the plain is more dependent upon getting lumber cheap than on getting clothing cheap, or fur niture cheap. Yet the great outcry is that if these producers of raw mater ial, who are the least able to protect, themselves, these men who can not band themselves tog-ether and have the influence upon legislation that other indus tries have, are simply given equality before the law--ami in fact not equality, because this rate of taxation does not give them half what it gives the other industries--the great crime, the great outrage is that the men of the Western plains will have to pay a little more for their lumber. 
Do they not have to pay more, necessarily, for all articles out of which revemie is raised; and if this is a revenue duty, by what right can they or any other claim that they have the right to have cheaper material at the expense of the men who produce it? 
Mr. VEST. I understand the web and woof of the Senator's argument in favor of this rate is that it is a revenue duty and not a protective duty. 
Mr. BACON. If the Senator calls it the web and woof because lit- means to include the entire garment, then he is correct. 
Mr. VEST. 1 will not put the question, if it is disagreeable to the Senator. Mr. BACON. No; I beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. VKST. I will say the gist of the argument. What does he do with the statements made by the men at the head of the great lumber eompanies to the effect that $2 upon white pine is absolutely prohibitive, and they intend to have it that way, not for revenue, but to keep it out of the country? Here .are their sworn statements. 
 
 Mr. BACON. I simply say I know nothing about who thy are or anything else, or what particular motive they may have had in making the statement, I do say--and every Senator, I think, will bear me out in the statement--that 
if is absolutely incredible that it should have any such effect. 
Mr. VEST. Here is the evidence. Mr. BACON. The evidence that they said so; but I say it is contrary to the 
experience of this Government, contrary to the experience of all business, contrary to,the experience of all matters connected with imports, tliat a. duty 
of less than 20 per cent upon anything should be a prohibitory duty. 
Mr. VEST. I am.astonished at the Senator's statement. As a matter of course, it is not the amount of the duty -winch of itself makes it prohibitory. It is the condition of the trade. There may be such competition that a 5 per 
cent duty "will keep an article out of the country. 
Mr. BACON. That is true but---- Mr. VEST. You can not put down any rule of 20 or 30 per cent. Here is Mr. 
Winchester, a gentleman very well known in the lumber interest, advocating. 
$2 on white pine, and he states before the committee that that would abso lutely keep it out of the country. 
Mr. BACON. And yet the Senator's colleague on the committee read as an authority here a statement from somebody else that it would have no effect 
whatever and that it -would be exactly the same. Therefore we are called 
npon to exercise our own judgment in the matter, because you have brought two witnesses, one of whom says it will be prohibitory 'and the other one 
says it will "not raise the price at all. Bet-ween the two I will reject both 
and appeal to the common sense of the Senate as to whether or not less than 20 per cent would be a prohibitory tariff under such circumstances. 
Mr. ArEST. Let me ask the Senator a question. Docs he believe that the imposition of a tariff duty has no effect upon the price to the consumer? Does he not know that it adds to the price : 
Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly. Mr. VEST. Very good. Then it is absolutely impossible---- 
Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me, I think the statement made by the correspondent of the Senator from Arkansas is utterly incredible, and I think the statement by the correspondent quoted by the Senator from Mis 
souri is equally incredible. Mr. VEST. He is no correspondent. It is the testimony of Mr. Winchester. 
Mr. BACON. Testimony, if you please. In my own mind, I am perfectly satisfied that 20 per cent would not act as a prohibitory tariff. 
In the first place, these Canadian lumbermen, so far as any competition 
"with the Southern pines is concerned, liave an immense protection in the large amount of railroad freight--I say protection; it is an immense advantage in 
the -way of market price--necessary to carry the lumber a thousand miles. But I will not pursue that line of argument further. 
Mr. President, I am unable to appreciate the strength of the arguments 
which are made in favor of free raw material. I can not go into the question 
now, but I do say that unless other things can be free there is no reason -why 
raw material should be free, and I have never seen or heard the argument which is convincing to my mind that there can be any stability in a positionof that kind. 
T owe an apology to the Senate, and especially to those in charge of the bill, 
foi having trespassed this long upon' their time; but I have ventured to do so 
in view of the zact that I am called upon to antagonize gentlemen on this sideof the Chamber, ana it is necessary that I should make clear the point that I am not in any manner abandoning the position I hold, that the correct duty 
is a revenue duty, and that I support this particular schedule because it is a 
revenue duty, and a very moderate revenue duty, and only about half or less than half of the average duty which the Senator himself, three years ago, 
when in charge of the bill, assisted in putting through this Chamber, where the average, if I am not incorrectly informed, -was 40 per cent. 
Mr. VEST, Lumber was on the free list. 
Mr. BACON. I know the Senator put lumber on the free list. I am bringing 
it up to test the question as to whether or not the present rate exceeds a revenue rate, and I said that my party, of which the Senator from Missouri is a most distinguished and honored and valued member, found it necessary,. 
 
 when it came TO put. through a revenue bill--under the name of a revenue bill--to have tariff duties which exceeded 40 per cent in the average. I was 
per cent and cra.ii not be said to l>e a protective duty, and therefore I am for it. Mr. TKST, Mr. P re sklent, I" enter my protest against the act of 1894 beins; 
considered as a. precedent for the Democratic party, or that those of us who voted for it, entertaining the opinions that 1 do. should be held responsible for the duties in that act. I have slated repeatedly that that bill was passed, so far as my vote was concerned, under political duress, because the President of the United States, the head of my party, and the Secretary of the Treasury said it was absolutely necessary to pass a tariff bill, and we had to make con cessions, even against our judgment, in regard lo the duties that were imposed. 
Mr. BACON. Will the Senator permit me to asiv him a question'.' Mr. VEST. Certainly. Mr. BACON, leaving that bill out of the question, if the Senator were called upon to frame a tariff bill, and to state what should be the general average of the revenue duties or the tariff duties imposed, so as to raise the requisite revenue, so as to confine it strictly to a revenue basis, what would the Senator say would be the lowest limit of the average duties -which the measure should contain? Mr. VEST. That would depend -ent rely upon the necessities of the Gov ernment. 
Mr. BACON. "Well, the present, necessities. Does the Senator think it would be so low as 2o per cent on all? 
_-i/nment-- - 
Mr. BACON. Ah I Mr. VEST. That is the first thing to be considered. Then 2o per cent would be ample, and -would make a surplus. Mr. BACOX. Does the Senator think it could be reduced below 25 per cent? 
Mr. VEST. I think it could go below it. Mr. BACOX. Below 2O per cent? Mr. VEST. It is impossible to answer the question, without going into a discussion as to the necessary expenses of the Government. I can not, by any possibility, say, as a matter of conjecture, what the per cent ought to be. I content myself with s;iying that 1 would lay no duty for protection. If there come incidental protection, as it is called, it must come of" itself. It should not come from any vote of mine. When we passed the bill of 1894, 1 sta.ted at the time, and I repeat, that it had three things in it which mollified .its objectionable features, and those three things, the only three, according to those who believe like I do, were free salt, free lumber, and free wool; and I am sorry that a member of my party--he has a. perfect right to do it, and I have no right to criticise him-- is now willing to strike otit free lumber and to put this duty upon it which the advocates of the duty themselves say is a prohibitory duty. A Senator can not say that one per cent or the other is proper in any ease and is a revenue duty. You must consider each article for itself in framing a tariff bill. Take the article of lead and put the duty upon it at 2 cents a pound, which is an Jiisignificant one, not amounting possibly to 15 per cent, and yet it is an enormous duty when you consider the condition of the interest. You can exclude an article from this country with a 5 per cent tax. It depends upon the amount that is produced abroad. It depends upon the competition. It depends upon *lie condition of the interest at home. I do not care to enter into a general discussion as to raw materials, but I will say incidentally that i never had any doubt that the true policy of this and every other civilized country is to admit raw materials free, in order to enable the domestic manufacturer to produce as cheaply as possible, which necessarily gives the perfected or produced article as cheaply as possible to the consumer. You must follow the relative conditions of the country -when you consider the imposition of tariff taxes. France is the wisest country in the world to-day as to manufacturers, as I said the other day,' and -why? Because French statesmen admit raw materials free, increase their values in French factories, send them abroad, and sell them for an increased prtce and 
 
 at a pro tit; ami it is not to be wondered at that France has paid off its euor'. mons billion-dollar debt, tlie result of the disa,stixms war with Germany, and 
to-day its credit is equal to that of any other country in the world, not except ing Great-Britain. France is inferior to Great Britain only because it lias no 
if I could. Mr. CI-iAY. Mr. President------ Mr. BACOX. I hope my colleague will pardon VY. Certainly. CON. The Senator from Missouri need not worry himself in regret- 
of the Democratic party. The Democratic party haw never said MO iu a platform. When the great 
issue was made for iree raw material, there were some very curious whisper ings as to the particular influences which were behind that doctrine--very 
borne equally !iy his fellows, is not Democratic. The thing which seeks to put a benefit in the possession of one man and 
deny it to another is not Democratic. Standing upon that as the fundamental principle of the Democratic party, I say that it is an impossibility that anyone should be out of sympathy with the great fundamental principles in general who stands upon that particular platform 
Mr. VEST. She has paid Germany 
tion of all those people is represented. I should like to know by what right it is sought, in order that there may be 
a general public benefit, to put all the pi-ofit and all the benefit in the posses sion of the man who puts i_fae finishing touch upon it, and to sa.y the others 
so distribute these tariff duties that whatever benefit there may 
 
 10 
.arising from them may be enjoyed not only "by tlie man -who puts the finishing touch upon the article, but by every otuer man who has contributed his labor or money to produce it, so that -whatever burden there is shall be equally borne by all of them. 
 
CONGRESSIONAL Tuesday, June 8, 1897. 
 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I move to strike out paragraphs 215, 216, 217. and 218 and insert in lieu the following paragraph: 
215. All live aulmala not specially provided for lu this act, 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. In line 14, after the word "barley," I move to strike out "30 conits per bushel of 48 pounds" and iusei-t "SO per cent ad valorem;" so as to read: 
220. Barley, 30 per cent ad valorem. 
 
Mr. VEST. * * * I shall content myself simply with moving to strike out the rates proposed in -the bill and to insert those under the existing law. Barley is proposed to be taxed at 30 cents per bushel of 48 pounds. That is the McTSinlcy rate. Under the Wilson Act it is 30 per cent ad valorem. I move to insert "30 per cent ad valorem" instead of "30 cents per bushel of 48 
pounds." 
 
Tlie reading of the Mil was resumed, as follows: 
 
221. Barley malt, 45 cents per bushel of 34 pounds. 
 
Mr. VEST. I move to strike out "45 cents per bushel of 34 pounds" and in 
 
sert "40 per cent nd valorem." 
 
a 
 
***** 
 
# 
 
* 
 
* 
 
The Secretary read as follows: 
 
222. Barley, pearled, patent, or hulled, 2 cents per pound 223. Buckwheat, 15 cents per bushel of 48 pounds. 
 
Mr. VEST. In paragraph 223 I move to strike out "15 cents per bushel of 
 
48 pounds" and insert " 20 per cent ad Valorem." 
 
* 
 
* * 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
# 
 
* 
 
The Secretary read the next paragraph, as follows: 
 
224. Corn or maize, 15 cents per bushel of 56 pounds. 
 
Mr. VEST. I move to strike out the duty proposed in the pending bill and 
 
to insert 20 per cent ad valorem, the "Wilson rate. 
 
******* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
The Secretary read the nest paragraph, as follows: 
 
225. Corn meal, 20 cents per bushel of 48 pounds. 
 
Mr. VEST. I move to strike out "20 cents per bushel of 48 pounds" and in 
 
sert "20 per cent ad valorem." 
 
******* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
1 Mr. BATE. I desire to state in this connection that I for one should like to have an opportunity to vote upon the question of the duties upon these necessaries of life, these cereals, particularly corn and corn meal, etc. I do not believe in imposing any tariff upon them. They ought to be free. I should like to have the minority members of the committee, if they see proper to do so, move to put them on the free iist, so that we who feel this way can put ourselves upon record properly, and show that we are in favor of placing these products upon the free list. 
Mr. VEST. I should vote for the Senator's motion if he moved to put it on the free list, but I am afraid we would be a little more lonesome than we are now. 
 
Mr. BACON. I move to Insert as a new paragraph: 225>4. Raw cotton, 20 per cent ad valorem. 
 
 11 
1'lie V1OL;-I'RE'S 1JJENT. Tin; question is -oil agreeing to tih'e amendment proposed by the Senator from Georgia. 
Mr. B'A'CON. Mr. President, I am unable to understand why the Republican members of the finance Committee, in their general disposition to give at least equality to some extent in The recognition of all agricuJtural products,, should omit, one of the principal agiicnl rural products of the United States. 
Before I pursue 'that, Chougli, I* want to say somet'hmg else. I am going to return 'to it, and I hope to have same explanation from the learned and dis tinguished gentlemen as to -why they maice thisT discrimination. 
I want to say that I offer I'lie amendment in flue utmost good faith. I belieTe that a duty ought to.be placed upon .ill importations of raw cotton, amdi I belliere the ra'tQ which I 'huve suggested in tins amendment is a strictly mod erate revenue rate. I do not desire to repeat what I have already said to the Senate upon, a similar question, and therefore I must omit a great deal ttiat Is apt and pea'liiiont to this particular discussion. 
I recognize tlie fact that there can foe .such a thing as a legitimate revenue duty, and I recognize the fact ;lliat one wlio opposes tho principle and the sys tem of protection, can legitinTaltely favor and support tlie imposition of a duty which is ;a revenue duty. 
Mr. PR1TCH.ARD. "Will tlie Senator from Georgia yield to me for a mo01 put? 
Tine PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GALLIC GEE in the chair). Does the Sena tor from Georgia yield I'o the Senator from North Carolina? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. PRITCIIAItD. Does not the Senator think it would l>e a better ideato put a specinc rate on cotton as well as on tbese.-otlier articles? Mr. BACON. I do not think so. Mr. PRITCHARD. I have offered an amendment fixing the rate on cotton' at 1% cents a. pound. Why not agree on that? Mr. BACON. 1 .-will state to the Senator from North Carolina the reason, why I do not think a specific duty is a proper one. outside of any question as to whether as a general proposition specific duties are to be preferred to ad valorem rates. We have two distinct kinds of cotton. One is wo.n{ih twice as much as the other----sometimes three trums as much as the other. Thai:, I think, is a sufficient answer to the suggestion of the learned Scjuator from North Carolina. I appreciate, of course, the fact that lie favors the imposition of a piopertarlff duty upon the importation of cotton, and it is simply a question of dif ference between us as to what is the proper method of imposing the duty. If it were net for the fact which I lia.ve mentioned, 1 would be willing to waive whatever preference I might have on the subject of an ad valorem in favor of the specinc duty, in order that those w-ho favor a duty might not be divided. Mr. PI/ATT of Connecticut. Wlttait is the pijfce of Egvprian cotton as com pared with other cotton--the foreign price? Mr. BACON. I do not know 'anything a,bout ilhe foreign price. The com parative statement, I think, s'hows the value of the imported cotton. Mr. MIT-iLS. T'he imported cotton is 12 cents a pound. Mr. JKACON. Twelve cents is the averr.ge. J^ut the Senator will unaerstand tbiat that :is not the extreme price. Some of it is very much higher. Mr. PIjATT of Coimeolicut. The principal importation is of Egvptian cot ton, is it not? Mr. BACON. I presume it is. I know it is the principal importation.., but it is not tine exclusive. I am not prepared to state to Uhe Senator the extent of the 'importation. Mr. JOXES of Arkansas. If the Senator from Georgia will permit me, I will read from the imports.. The imports on unmanufactured cotton show that there is >a small 'amount from Germany; a small amount freni Russia and the Black Sea 0c*notry; from the United Kingdom 9,530,000, and Peru 1,661,000pounds. There -are small quantities from other countries. From Turkey tn. Africa and Kgypt the importations amount to 43,574,000 pounds. Mr. PRITCHARD. Making in all 55,350,520 pounds. Mr. MASON. Those are the 'importations ? Mr. JONES of Arkansas. The importations. 
 
 12 
Mr. McLAURlN. 1 liave 'here a dispatch from Mexico that bears on this point. I should like to give the Senator from Georgia tilie benefit of it, and. I ask the Secretary to read it. 
The PRESIDING OFB'ICER. Without objection, the Secretary will read as requested. 
The Secretary read as follows: 
MEXICO SHIPPING COTTON--THE HIGH RATK OF EXCHANGE FAVORS UEB I'KODUOTS. 
, nth is about 50,000 pounds, which is handled here al man. Me, by tlie high rate of exchange .at pros en t !>ro vail ing, 3s 
S1STivo niartfe lotsf, the1 first of 400,000 pounds and^thc second o 700,000 pounels, have already gone forward. 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, as I was proceeding to say, I am offering this amendment in the utmost good faith, because I think as a Democrat and one who does not believe in tlie protection principle it is a legitimate duty, an>d a proper duly, and tli'at its omission from the schedule 'is >a violation of the principle enunciated iu the Democratic platform, whicli says: 
-discrin'iiuiLo "between class 01- section. 
I want to illustrate, if 1 do not trespass iipon the time of the Senate, by what 1 will admit to be >au extreme case, "but wihicli will prove the rule. Everyone wiU -admit that the imposition of 'duties upon* imports raises the price of similar articles 'in this country, and necessarily s'o. 
Now, suppose, just for the sake of the illustration, that the tariff bill should lay a uniform duty of 25 or 30 per cent on every article imported into this country except one. 'Can any nran doubt, \rheJhei- it raises the price to the extent of '25 or 30 per cent or not, that it would raise the pniee of all these various articles very materially; and can any man cloubt that the oii .single article which was omitted would be left behind and "would not have its pricti raised to the same plane and in the same proportion as 'the others? If: tliat were done, is there not tho gravest injustice, outside of any protective fea ture, considering it solely as a revenue measure, conilned strictly to revenue duty? Is then? any possibility of denying 'the proposition that th'ere is a grave injustice to the particular article of. produce which is left not includ'ed in this list of duties? If it would be true in that extreme ease, it is true, in a different degree, Imt equally true, -when there is a large number of articles not included In the list upon which duties are imposed. 
Now, the particular article that we have under consideration is one which can derive at best exceedingly small benefit l>y the way of 'the raising of its prices equally with the prices of other .articles winch its producers have to consume.  There is no class of producers in this country upon which there falls with such .absolute dead weight the burden of the tariff as the class that produce cotton, for the reason that in the main it is impossible for a tariff duty to affect the prices iu the way of raising them, and for the other reason that there is not a single thing that the cotton planter has to use in the- pro duction of his crop that lie 'does not 'have to pay a 'high price upon by reason of the imposition of the tariff. Every implement that he uses--plows, trace chains, harness--every imaginable appliance that lie lias to use in the pro duction of his crop is raised in price from 25 to .L00 per cent by reason of the tariff; and yet, while he has to pay these extreme prices, he is to be left in the lurch. 
Mr. President, before I proceed to ask the distinguished gentlemen of the majority of this committee the question that I nope they will answer me, I want to call attention to another fact in connection with the question of tlie propriety of the imposition of this duty. I Slave not the slightest idea, and I presume no 'Senator will pretend, that the imposition of this duty Would ex clude a 'Single pound of Egyptian cotton or cotton from any other country. The comparative statement shows that last year there were imported into this country 55,350,530 pounds of cotton, and tfha't the value of it TV as $6,580,- 
 
 823. The imposition of a tariff of 20 per cent ad valorem would yield to the Government over $1,300,000 of revenue. Therefore I say this is a legitimate subject for the Imposition of a revenue duty. ' Mr. FAULKNER. How much would it produce? 
Mr. BACON. It would produce, *a.t 20 per cent ad valorem, more than $1,300,000 to the Treasury of the United States, if there was the same amount of importation iiii the future that there was last ye'ar. 
The uses for imported cotton seem to be constantly growling, because the Importation constantly grows. In 1887 there were Imported into the United States only 3,900,000 pounds. In 1896--I trust the Senators who are in cha.rge of this bill on the other side will notice these figures--there were imported 55,000,000 pounds. To be accurate, the quantity was 3,924,531 pounds in 1887, and in 1896, 55,350,530 pounds. Therefore there is no reason to apprehend that this slight duty would deter the importation of that cotton for which there seems to be this growing and increasing- demand. 
Mr. CI.AY. I desire to state to my colleague that I hold in my hand a letter addressed to both of us from our State in regard to this matter. It gives tlie details, 'and with his permission I will .send it to the desk 'and let it be read. 
Mr. BACON. I hope it may be read. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Secretary will read as requested. The Secretary read as follows: 
Blaekshenr. Ga., Juno, 18<J7. 
Florida, held^n Va I dost a! Gfu/aml onTM wasf i-om1 ^coiVvcit'i^^oJ^th^ijlant'ej^of * Flor ida, held in Galnesville, Fhv. "When the matter came tip before (lie Ways and Means 
We be^'to inclose you tabled showing the size of the various crops the pas! eigh teen years, the average price of the grade "fine" in Savannah, anrl" the number of bales consumed annually in the United Stal es and abroad. You will see thai this is a growing industrv, or, rather, promises to bo if not killed by the competition of Egyptian long-staple cotton. 
Last year the Imporfs-af Egyptian long-staple cotton exceeded the production of our homo crop of sea-island cotton._ Tho New York _ Dry Coods Chronicle is authority 
timie on an increasing scale (and this is verv likely), prices ivil! still further decline This means ruin to the planters producing this crop. 
The negro Is, equally with the whites, a producer of this cotton, and nearly all of it is gathered by them. At the present prices for this crop, wages must, be cut in half. This means that the laborer must be brought to a condition hard to contem plate. 
lars a year in the United" "states Treasury, and would not be a hardship on those 
 
importations of long-staple cotton, have put though not a single yard of this bagging is is an additional hardship. 
The rate of freight from Alexandria, Egppt. via direct; ship to New England points is no more than the freight from our ports to New England points. Ton no doubt well understand that the Egyptian planter will receive.his bagging free of duty, and that he is enabled to buy, trading as he does with free-trade England, many articles of consumption at a very rnnch lower price than our -planters have to pay. trading as they do In the United States. 
titioii with tlie Egyptian without reducing labor to the condition of fellah labor of 
 
" 1 'we> 'inclose a schedule showing the cost of the bogging used for sea-island cotton 
 
for the past eighteen years. 
 
Itcspeetfullv submitted. Yours, very truly, 
 
A. P. BANTLEY, President. 
 
Mr. BACON. I want to call the attention of the Senators on this side 
 
of the Chamber as well as of Senators on the other side to the 
 
 14 
question as to whether this is a proper thing to do according to the measure of propriety which they themselves have set up. I do neat suppose It will be contended by anybody on either side of tihe Chamber tfi'at there is anything peculiar in cotton '-which makes 'it 'an improper subject-matter for the imposition of a revenue duty. Some migiit g-o further; but there is noth ing peculiar in the cotton Itself, or in the people wlio raise it, or in the meth ods by whlicih It is raised which would properly exclude It as an article to be incluued in a revenue tariff. It' that is true, llr. President, then whatever is recogrnizd as a proper revenue rate for other agricultural products ought to be accepted as a proper revenue rate for this agricultural product, unless it dan "be diff erentiaJted in 'Some -way. 
Now, 'What said the Republicans as to other agricultural products? Almost eveiy agricultural product which could bi> named, certainly every important one, was put into the tariff bill by the Republicans at a rate of from two to four times as high as till at which I now propose for cotton. Therefore the particular rate can not be objectionable to Republicans. 
What have '.said the Democrats as to what is the proper rate to impose upon the importation of agricultural products? Tl'e "Wilson la'w has been brougfat here as a. test in this particular tMiig, and the distinguished Senator'on my right [Mr. VEST], the leading member of the minority, as 1 understand., on the Finance Committee, himself offers, in behalf of that minority and as the representative of the party, amendments putting a rate of 20 per cent on each 
one 'Of these agricultural products. Now, I "want to know by wlmt right and upon what reason the Democrats would say that cotton should not enjoy an equal rate of 20 per cent ad valorem? So it seems to me that, raking this questicn by the rule of consistency, tliere ought to be a. unanimous vote on each side ol" this Chamber, if we are controlled by the rule which they them selves have laid down, and that this amendment s'houl'd be adopted. 
Mr. Pr.vsidenfr, I asked the distinguished Senators composing the majority of the Finance Committee fast week a question which they woukl not answer. I say I a,t--ked it. The semior Senator from Texas [ilr. MILLS'] tirst asked the question, and they did not answer him. I do not know th;ir he. put it in the form of aque^-tion, but I did mul I called for an answer. It was stated hy tlie Seiiiiiioi- from Texas that not only in this Mil, but iu former turitT bills controlled by the Republican party, they had exempted from all duty the articles which are used by the wheat growers in the preparation of their crops for market an^ in the bringing of them to market, and that they put binding twine and the material out of which grain sacks are made upon the free list:, and at the same time they refuse to put cotton bagging upon the free list and refused to put cotton ties on the free list. Yet the cotton bag ging and the cotton ties are as essential to the cotton grower in the; prepara tion of Ms product for market as binding twine and grain sacks are to the 
wheat, grower. The distinguished Senators in cha.rge of the 1)111 not having responded to 
the statement made by the Senator from Texas, I took the liberty of putting the question to them direct; and I asked them to explain why this discrimin 
ation w;vs made between the wheat grower and the cotton grower. I said to them that it" there -was a good reason for it we ought to know it, in order that our action should bo controlled by that reason; and that if there was no reason for it, they ought to say so, in order that the country might recognize it a.s a square case of favoritism in favor of one and against the other. 
Mr. President, when I took my seat I expected, of course, there would be some reply from the distinguished Senators who sat there, and yet not only was there no reply, but there was no further reference to the subject, and they called for a vote, the question being whether cotton ties should be put on the free list or whether they should have a high duty placed upon them, which would involve an expense to the cotton planter of the South of $9OO,OOO a year at the lowest estimate, taken out of the pockets of the cotton planter, 1O cents on every bale of cotton at the same time when they were letting the wheat grower have his binding twine and his grain sacks free. I say that being the question the vote was immediately taken without any re sponse from the learned Senators as to why it was that this discrimination existed. 
 
 15 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I dislike very much to delay the Senate in the consideration of this amendment. Some things have been said here, how'* ever, which makes it necessary that I should occupy a little of the time of the Senate, and I triist I rray be indulged. 
If positiveness of statement and vehemence of assertion would establish a proposition, then the distinguished Senator from Missouri has correctly es tablished that tor Which he contends. But in Chi-s forum 1 submit that argu ment is the thing which is to control action and that neither I nor any other Senator is to be set down by the vehemence and unqualifiedness of assertion of the distinguished Senator from Missouri, however long he may have been a member of the party, however great an ornament he may be to it, however much we may all respect him. 
What is the proposition upon wMoh I base my support of this amendment? I base t, first, upon, the proposition that the rate of duty does not make it a protective duty. I stated that plainly. Does the distinguished Senator from Missouri take issue with that proposition? I am always very glad to follow the distinguished Senator, and I endeavored to do so to-day. I had in tended to put a liigiier rate as that which I would suggest to the Senate to be imposed upon the importation of cotton. I had suggested to my distinguished friend on my left [Mr. MILLS] that I would put it at 30 per cent: but. as I sat here the agricultural .schedule was taken up. and the distinguished Senator from Missouri himself rose in his place, as the representative not only of the committee but of the party, and as agricultural product after product was named he himself offered as the rate of duty which he would recognize as a 
revenue rate, 20 per cent ad valorem, lie certainly does not regard 20 per cent ad valorem as a protective tariff rate. Otherwise he would not have proposed it. 
Mr. VEST. Mr. President---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Missouri? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. VEST. It is well enough for us to understand each other, in order that we may avoid any criticism or adverse argument. I stated distinctly to the Senate "when the Sen'ator from Tennessee [Mr. BATES] suggested that we put agricultural products on the free list that I agreed with" Mm, but I said to bim in the present instance, knowing I would be defeated, I should content myeeljf by simply going back to the duties of the "Wilson Act. I was op posed to them at the time they were put there, in 1894, but a majority of my colleagues overruled me. That is all. I do not concede that those duties are necessary- I do not tnlnk they will help aJiy farmer, even those that I pro pose. "Where we export enormously and import nothing, I would put all th'ese articles on the free list. 
Mr. B'ACON. The difference between the honorable Senator from Missouri and myself is this: I ask tihe Senate to impose a duty w&Ich I earnestly be lieve is <a correct duty, and the Senator rises in his place and asks the Sen ate to impose a duty -which he himself says he does not believe is a correct duty. That is the difference between us. I do not ask this duty because of any other fact than that I believe it is a proper duty. 
I was stating, in order that we may determine this matter by reason and not by bald assertion, that the fundamental principle upon which I base the application to the Senate to include this amendment is that 20 per cent ad valorem is not a protective duty; and the distinguished Senator has not taken Issue with that fact. 
Mr. BERRY. Will the- Senator from Georgia allow me to ask him a ques tion? 
Mr. BACON. C<? ,<tinly. 
Mr. BERRY. I wish to ask the Senator if lie believes the tax proposed by him will increase the price of American cotton throughout the United States? 
Mr. BACON. I will state to the Senator that I think it will have very little or no effect upon the general class of cotton. How much effect it will have upon the particular kind of cotton that is imported, I am not prepared to say. 
Mr. PRITCMAR-D. Will the Senator permit me? 
Mr. BACON. In just one moment. 
Mr. PRITCHARD. I wish to have a statement read. 
 
 Hj 
Mr. BACON. Let me complete the sentence, antl tlien I will yield to the Senator with great pleasure. 
Everyone admits--the distinguished Senators themselves admit it either in direct terms or necessarily by implication--that the imposition of the duty will have an effect upon the price of the articles similar to that upon which the duty ja imposed, and the article which will come in competition with that upon which the duty is imposed. Therefore, it will affect the price of the long-staple cotton. How much, I am unable to say. Now I yield with, pleas ure to the Senator from North Carolina. 
Mr. PRITC-tiARD. I desire to have read a letter from Mr. Wilbur F. Wakeman, secretary of the Protective Tariff League. 
Mr. BACON. I hope the Senator will not stop me to have letters read. Mr. PRITCflARlX It bears upon the amount of cotton imported and the character of the importation. I presume the Senator -would like to have that information. Mr. BACON. Yes; but I should like to have it introduced at some other time?. It breaks up the thread of iny argument. I hope the Senator will ex cuse me. However, I have no objection to its toeing read. Mr. PR IT CHARD. I send the letter to the desk and ask that it may be read. The Secretary read as follows: 
THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE, 
New York, June 7, 1897. Dear Sir: The phenomenal increase in the imports of cotton deserves the attention of every legislator. Until recemly the importations have been chiefly of Egyptian cot- 
 
189O . . 
 
55! 35<\520 
 
We e 
 
1 nTs ""-TaS^ the import si Ho ns of If396. a duty of 3 cents a pound would produce a 
 
TVILBUR F. WAKEMAN, 
 
Hoii J C. Fritchard, 
 
, 
 
United States Semite, Washington, D. C. 
 
Mr. CAFFERY. I should like to ask the Senator whether he advocates 
 
placing -wheat, barley, oats, and these other agricultural products on the 
 
protected list? 
 
Mr. BACON. I follow the leatl of my distinguished friend on my right in 
 
making it 20 per cent ad valorem, which he himself proposed and which the 
 
Senator from Louisiana voted for. 
 
Mr. CAB^FERY. Very well; but I ask the Senator whether he now advo 
 
cates placing the agricultural products mentioned by me on the protected list? 
 
Mr. BACON. I listened to the distinguished Senator from Missouri without 
 
interrupting him, when he had said some things very decidedly personal to 
 
me and when I could have interrupted him. I listened to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas without interruption. I am endeavoring to reply to 
 
them. I think nay distinguished friend from Louisiana will have enough to 
 
do to answer the questions which the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 
HOAR] asked him yesterday about a duty on sugar, without stopping now to 
 
interrupt this argument, 
 
Mr. CAFFERY. The Senator from Georgia has quite as much to answer 
 
as to lumber. 
 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. 
 
Mr. CAFFERY. And not only to the Senator from Massachusetts, but to 
 
the Democratic principle in that regard. 
 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has the floor. 
 
Mr. BACON. The difference between the distinguished Senator from Louis 
 
iana and myself is very much like the difference between the distingxiished 
 
Senator from Missouri and myself, and that is, I advocate that which I say I believe, while these distinguished Senators put their support of the particu 
 
lar things which they advocate on some other ground. 
 
 I was endeavoring to reply to tlie argument of the Senator from Missouri with some degree' of continuity. 1 -wanted to present a fact. I bad stated 'the proposition which I submitted to the Senate, giving the reasons upon which I base it. I had enclaavored to place them clearly before the Senate, and the Senator from Missouri "had replied to me with very great earnestness and very great vehemence, and never once alluded to either of the things which I had presented as arguments. It may be that they were not argu ments, but I am asking again to have thorn considered by the Senate. 
I say the ilrst proposition upon which I base it is that 2O per cent ad va lorem is not a protective duty, and therefore, everything which the learned Senators say with reference to the support of a protective tariff has no appli cation to this particular duty. Is there an answer to that? There can be but one answer to it--that is, that it is a protective duty--and yet we have two distinguished Senators, one of them saying that it will raise the price, and the Senator from Texas, on the other hand, saying it "will not. 
Mr. VEST. I said it would raise the price of the manufactured cotton goods. Mr. BACON. The Senator does not think it will raise the price of cotton? Mr. VEST. I do not think it will. 
Mr. BACON. Then here we have these two distinguished Democrats who believe in raising revenue out of goods that do not coine in competition with domestic production, and we have the plain fact that $1,300,000 can be raised out of this duty, and yet they are objecting to it in the face of the fact that they do not believe it will raise the price. If that is the old evangel, it is 
time for a new one. That is the first proposition upon which I base it, and -which I say has not 
been answered, that 20 per cent ad valorem is not a protective tariff duty, and that therefore nothing- which is said with reference to a protective duty has application to this particular amendment. 
The second proposition which I made was that there is nothing in the na ture of cotton or in the methods by which it is produced or in the locality in which it is produced which makes it an improper article for the imposition of a tariff duty. 
Mr. President, if those two propositions are correct, where is the impro priety? If it is a rate -which is recognized as a revenue rate and if no reason can be produced here why this particular article should not be subjected to the rate, where is the heinousness of the offense? 
If a man is a free trader, then any tariff is an iniquity. If the Senator says he is a free trader, then his argument is good; but if he is not a free trader, if he believes in a tariff for revenue, there is no basis for his argu ment, because this is within the bounds of a revenue tariff, and no reason Is shown why it should be excepted from it. 
Mr. President, the learneu Senator from Missouri talks about a new evangel. What is the new evangel? If it is anywhere, it is in the platform which he says he himself assisted in making. 
Mr. VEST. It is in the new interpretation. 
Mr. BACON. I do not put .any interpretation upon it. I let the language speak for itself. I will read it. I ask the Senate if this language from the Chicago platform needs any interpretation ? 
We hold that the tariff ilutios should bo levied lor the purposes of revenue, suc.*h duties-- 
They are talking about nothing but duties-- 
to be so adjusted as to operate equally throughout the country and not discriminate between class or section. 
I say that is plain; it o*^ o not need any interpretation, and yet as the dis tinguished Senator see ^ to think two constructions can be put upon it, it is proper to examine the construction. What is the object of the convention when it says that tariff duties shall be so levied that they shall operate equally throughout the country, unless, forsooth, the convention had in mind the fact that in the past the tariff laws had not been so framed as to operate equally throughout the country; unless they had in view the notorious, wellrecognized fact that for a generation the tariff has been so framed that a particular class of industries has enjoyell all its benefits and a particular section of the country has been the one in which those particular industries have been most found, and that therefore it has operated in the past to the 
 
 18 
benefit of class and to the benefit of section? What else could they have meant? How did they propose to remedy it? 'They proposed to remedy it, if language means anything, by i-ecognizing the fact that so far as an article comes within the legitimate rajtig-e of a revenue duty it shall be included in a revenue tariff. What else could it mean? Do we not stultify ourselves when we seek to way that it means anything else? 
Mr. President, that is all there is in the new evangel, that the country shall still levy a tariff for revenue purposes; but, recognizing the fact that wherever a revenue duty is laid it affects tlie price of the particular article upon which it is laid, recognizing the fact that there is an injustice in raising the price of one class of articles and leaving the other class unraised, the platform seeks to establish the principle and to inaugurate the plan by which there shall be a more general inclusion in a tariff bill than there has hereto fore l>een of all articles upon which, legitimately, revenue can be raised. What other interpretation can be put upon it? I stand here and present an article which, according to the papers upon the Senators' desks, is one where a revenue duty of 20 per cent, will place in the Treasury over ,$1,300,000. 
Mr. President, I deny that there is any new evangel in this matter, so far as principle is concerned. On the contrary, I say it is a recognition of the great 
fundamental principle of the Democratic party as expounded by Jefferson, that the guiding star of the Government in its administration is that there shall be perfect equality in burden and benefit, and I say that it is an im possibility that there shall "be an equality either of burden or benefit so long as one class of industries and one class of products have whatever benefit there may be in a tariff law and another class of industries and an other class of products have no such benefit, keeping in view all the time that there should be only a tariff for revenue, because when you go beyond that you are doing that which these gentlemen and "which I condemn, to wit, the taking of one man's property for the benefit of another. 
Mr. GRAY. May I ask the Senator from oeorgia a question? Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly. 
Mr. GRAY, If the imposition of this tax should result largely in prohibit ing the introduction of Egyptian or foreign cotton, the Senator thinks part of his object will lie secured, does he not'? 
Mr. BACON. What is the question? Mr. GRAY, If the proposed tax results in prohibiting in whole or in large part the importation of Egyptian or foreign cotton, "would not the Senator think that his object had been attained? 
Mr. BACON. No, sir; I would not; but I would be glad if the Senator, when he speaks of my object, would specify which particular object he means. He may have one idea and I another. 
Mr. GRAY. Would he be content with the tax, then? .Mr. BACON. No; I would not. 
Mr. GRAY. The Senator would not? Mr, BACON. No, sir. 
Mr. GRAY. If it should result in reducing the importation of Egyptian or foreign cotton, then he would not be in favor of retaining the tax, for then it would not be a revenue tax. 
Mr. BACOK. The Senator goes a little too far when he says "if you suc ceed in reducing it." That depends upon how much the reduction is. If it were prohibition, I should oppose it. 
Mr. GRAY. Suppose it should substantially reduce the revenue? Mr. BACON. There is no revenue now. 
Mr. GRAY. Suppose that by prohibition or the reduction of imports the revenue should be inconsiderable? 
Mr. BACON. If the effect of the imposition of the tariff is to prohibit, practically, the introduction of cotton, I should not be in favor of that high tariff, because I am not in favor of a prohibitory tariff on anything. That is the answer to the question. 
Mr. GRAY. The Senator ia in favor, if I understand him aright---- Mr. CHILTON. Mr. President---- 
Mr. BACON. One at a time. 
Mr. GRAY. I shall not interrupt the Senator from Georgia if he intimates to me that he prefers not to be interrupted. 
 
 19 
Mr. BACON. 1 have not tbe slightest objection. Mr. GRAY. I do not Relieve in breaking in on a speech. Mr. MASON. Mr. President, I should like---- s The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is speaking. Mr. MASON". I simply ask for order, so that we may enjoy this family jar. Mr. GRAY. I uudersxand the Senator from Georgia to say that he is for a tariff for revenue, and that on the principle of a tariff for revenue he advo cated this tax. Tsow, tne question, which I do not think he has exactly an swered---- 
Mr. BACON". I desire to say to the Senator that I am not in favor of a tariff for revenue only. I am opposed to auy tariff that has not for its primary purpose the raising- of revenue. 
Mr. GRAY. Does not the Senator think that is Democratic doctrine? Mr. BACON". But I am not one of tliose who object to a tariff by reason of the fact that somebody is going to get a benefit from it. I only object to a tariff so far as it is an injury and a burden. Mr. GRAY, Isoes not the Senator thinif that a tariff for revenue only is good Democratic doctrine? Mr. BACON. I do not think---- Mr. GRAY. The Georgia Democratic convention declared for a tariff for revenue only. Mr. BACON. They followed the national platform which was adopted be fore that. I take the platform as it now exists. Mr. GRAY. I have the Georgia, platform before me, and it declares for revenue only. Mr. BACON. We were loyal to the party and we adopted the platform just as the national convention of 1892 had adopted it, but the platform of. 1896 does not say that, and I am one of those who stand upon the platform adopted at Chicago and agree to every line and every letter of it, and until 
bound by it. Mr. GRAY. Then I understand the Senator from Georgia to say that a 
tariff for revenue only is not Democratic doctrine to-day? Mr. BACON". I mean to say that a tariff for revenue is Democratic doctrine. Mr. GRAY. I said "for revenue only." Mr- BACON. If the Senator means by the term "for revenue only" that 
in framing a tariff bill the Congress of the United States should have ex.elusive regard to the question how mtieh money it will raise, and should utterly ignore the question whether it does justice or injustice to any particu lar section or any particular class or any particular person, then I say it is not Democratic. 
Mr. GRAY. AH right. Mr. BACON. I say the Democratic doctrine is that primarily the object of a tariff is to raise revenue. I say that must be the great object, that without the necessity for revenue there should be no tariff; lint as we have to raise revenue, when we raise it we ought to nave regard for the needs, the necessities, and the advantages and disadvantages of different classes and different sections, so as to carry out the balance "of the platform adopted at Chicago, to -which I owe allegiance---- 
So adjusted as to operate equally thrcmghfw.it the country, and not discriminate be- 
Mr. GRAY. Mr. President---- Mr. BACON. So, if the learned Senator will -permit me long1 enough to 
Mr, GRAY, I sha' 1 jot interrupt the Senator if he objects. Mr. BACON. I '' j not object to the interruption if the Senator will merely permit me to complete a sentence. Mr. GRAY. I myself submit so freely to interruptions that perhaps I tres pass upon others. Mr. BACON. I am perfectly willing-, and I think the Senator knows by experience that I do not object to interruptions. Mr. GRAY. I think I do, and I think the Senator is right about it. Mr. BACON. The Senator has so 'interrupted me that I am not sure 
 
 Ill, 
 
20 
that I am continuous in my expression. The Democratic doctrine and that 'upon which I stand, not only as a loyal Democrat, but which I believe as a man, is this: That a tariff should be a tariff for revenue; that that should be the prime purpose and object, but that in the levying of that taring keepIng that primary object always in view, there still ought to be a reference to the question of equality of burden and equality of benefit growing out of it; and that in the sense that the expression "tariff for revenue only" means that it shall Ignore everything else but the question of the amount, that it shall be indifferent to equality and justice between sections and classes, it is not Democratic, and never has been so declared but once, and was repudiated by the party as soon as we had a lick at it. 
Mr. GKAY. I will not interrupt the Senator again if he will allow me just 
Uhere to say a word. Mr. BACON". Certainly. Mr. GBAY. If I understand the Senator then, being in favor of this tax 
because it is essentially a revenue tax, as he supposes, if it should result by its prohibitive effect in not producing' sufficient revenue, he will not be in favor of it? 
Mr. BACON. I would certainly not be In. favor of it if it had the effect to prohibit importations. 
As these Senators are so persistent upon that question, I want to see whether they are iii favor of protection or not. 1 think that the very \vorst form of protection, the very rankest and most offensive and unjust form of protection that can be devised, is a tariff law which puts upon certain classes of products a tariff, and thus increases to tl\e consumer the price of those ar ticles, and at the same time says to the producers of another class of products, "Yoii shall not have your property raised correspondingly, but the man that we liave already benefited shall have the further benefit of getting your property at loss than he would have had it if he was put on the same plane as yourself.'' 
Now, let us see how that works. I want to see whether the distinguished Senators who take issue with me on this question are for equality or whether they hold to the purpose of protecting certain industries. Take any particular article that enters into the process of agriculture, in the raising of cotton, for instance. Take the man who makes plows. You put a tariff upon the importation of plows of a certain kind which he is obliged to use, so tha( the manufacturer gets 50 per cent more for those plows than he woiiM other wise set. "When the cotton planter comes to carry on his business he lias to use those plows and lias to pay the 50 per cent increase on the price. 
In the same "bill you say that cotton shall be free. Now, for the jmrpose of argument, we will assume that if a tariff were put upon the cotton it would raise the price of the cotton correspondingly to the rise in the price of the plows. Then the putting of a tariff upon plows and the putting oJ! a tariff upon cotton would be equal in its operation, because while the cotton planter paid that much more for his plows he would get that much more1 for his product, and there "would be an equilibrium. Tint -when you say, ""We will put it on the plows and we will deny it to the man who has to use the plows as to his product," you are taking from that man who makes cotton his pro duct at a less price and you are giving the benefit of that reduced price to the other man who makes plows. Are you not in that wav benefiting the one to the loss of the other? 
Senators grow eloquent on the subject of lumber and say tliat lumber is manufactured into furniture and the man w*ho manufactures the furniture has to use lumber. You have a tariff on furniture. The price of that furni ture is raised by reason of the tariff. The manufacturer of lumber has to buy the furniture, but you say to him. "You shall have no tariff upon your lumber." If there was a tariff on lumber, the price would be raised, and he would have a corresponding elevation of prices. But you say to him that the man who makes the furniture, in whose favor the Senator from Dela ware grew so eloquent, shall have the lumber of the man at a less rate than he would have had it if the law dealt equally with each one. Is not that protection? Is it not the worst form of protection, because there is no possibility of excuse of any revenue feature in it? 
Mr. President, I -will not detain the Senate. I desire to say, however, as we Iiave been talking about platforms, that you may look through the 
 
 Democratic platforms for the- last forty years, further back than that, to the period the Senator from Missouri himself referred to, and you will find that while here and there there are extreme expressions, through them all lias rim. that recognition of the great fundamental .Democratic doctrine of eqtiality, and while all have held that the principle that tariff for revenue is the 
guiding star, that it shxrild never be lost sight of, at the same time they have held that it s proper in -the framing of a tariff bill to have regard to the question of equality i,et \veeu. different occupations and different industries, so that tilery might be no injustice to the one at the expense of the other. 
Mr. President, if Senators are free traders, then their argument is good. If 'they are free traders, then it is right to oppose every feature in a. tariff bill. If they are not free traders, if they recognize that there should be a tariff, if they recognize that the Government can not be supported properly in any other way than by a tariff, if they are opposed to inaugurating direct taxation and wish to adhere to the collection of revenues, in the main, upon imports, then it is not a question whether every tariff rate is necessarily un 
just, but it is a question as to whether a particular article has too high a rate of duty put upon it or whether from any particular reason it should be except ed from the general rule, which would put upon all imports equality 
of tariff, at least approximately. 
Mr. President, as I said the other day, the great defect in the protectivetariff system is the impossibility of equality in its operation. The great de 
fect in it is that it does not benefit all men alike, and that consequently bur dens are placed out of which result greater benefits to some than to others. 
But that is an inseparable and unavoidable characteristic of a tariff so long as we have no uniformity of tariffs. So long as that is necessary, the high est obligation to my rnlrid is the obligation to see to it that tariffs are as near as possible equal. 
Now, Mr. President, only a single word more and I have done. Certainly 
I had no expectation of occupying the time of the Senate. Senators have time and again spoken of the fact that my State is interested in the particular articles upon which I advocated duties. Is that :i good argument? Jf I ad 
vocate any duty which is not right in itself, then that of itself is a suffi cient argument against it; but if the argument that it will affect some in dustry in my State is pressed, I say that oi" Itself is not a, good argument. I am free to say. and 1 do not he-si taLe to say, that while 1 will not abandon 
the view which I hold as to the impropriety of a. protective tariff, I am not indifferent to the fact that my people will be injured or benefited according as this tariff bill is equal or unequal in its operations. 
I propose, so far as 1 am able, not to do that which is improper, not to seek to get that which ought not to be granted because somebody els may suceeed in geiLing it. 1 have no patience with any such doctrine jts that. But I do 'say that so far as I am able, recognizing the propriety of a tariff duty, of a tariff for revenue, I do propose to .see to it, so far ns 1 am able, 
that the industries in my part of the country shall be placed upon an equal ity with those in other parts of the country. 
Mr. President, if I may quote from the Bible, there is an expression in it somewhere substantially to the effect that the man who will not provide for 
his own, and specially for .those of his own house, is worse than an infidel; and so far as I am able, without going outside of the lines which I recognize as proper, so far as I am able within legitimate limits in what I consider to be revenue duties, I propose to see that the industries in my State have the same impositions that are made upon the products of other States. 
 
KFtOrVL 
 
Friday, June 18, 1897. 
 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, the Senator from South Dakota [Mr, PETTIGEBW] ery much misunderstands the purpose and the scope of the action of the (Senate in 
 
 placing a 20 per cent duty upon raw cotton. It has no relation to the political status of the South. I was not in the Senate yesterday when the amendment was offered by the distinguished Senator from Towa [Mr. ALLISON], putting what is known as a compensatory duty upon certiari cotton manufactures. I came in pending the discussion, without kii nviug what had been said, and I did not feel free at that time to participate in it. I did not, in fact, know what had been said until I had the opportunity of reading it this morning in tho HECORD. 1 do not know that I should havf' said, anything now but for the remarks of the Senator from South Dakota, and. while I will not immediately direct my remarks in reply to him, pos sibly what I may have to say before I finish may be an answer to his suggestions. 
Mr. President, I think the action of the committee, representing the majority, in the imposition of this which is called a compensatory duty was not warranted by the facts. The ground upon which I base that statement is this : The duty already given to cotton manufactures is sufficient fully to include any expense which may be caused by the imposition of the duty upon raw cotton, i have had something to say on the propriety of the imposition of a tariff duty upon raw material, and I do not wish to repeat what I then said except to emphasize that I do not believe in the imposition of any higher duty than is recognized as a fair revenue duty. 
Mr. ALT.ISOX. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me ? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. A.LLISON. I stated yesterday--I have not had time to examine the RECORD, bn.t I have no doubt it is correctly reported there--that the amendment is tentative in its character and was only ofle'red for the purpose of drawing, in conference or in the Senate hereafter, such provisions as will equalize the duties, if any equalisation sliall become necessary. My own judgment "is that the amount put in yesterday as an ad valorem is far beyond any necessity as respects the articles embraced in the various paragraphs, but it is purely tentative. it is not intended to become a parfc of the bill, hut only to remain there for the purpose '.if future and more careful examination. Mr. BACON. I am very glad to hear the statement by the distinguished Senator fvom Towa. "because 1 i'eei that a very great injustice is done by putting that item in the bill. But as the subject"hss been discussed. I desire to call attention to some few fea tures coimecVcd with tlie question of compensatory duties. 1 do not think, 1 repeat, that there should be any, for the reason that the cotton schedule already gives to the cotton n.anufaotures a rate of duty amply sufficient to cover everything which relates to these products from the, beginning of their existence as raw material until their completion as finished articles. As evidence of that, I call attention to a statement of the Senator from Missouri TMr. VKST] >esterday, which was not controverted., and which I presume can be fully substantiated. Replying to tlie suggestion of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Aii'isow], tho Senator from Missouri said . 
When the Senator fvom Rhode Islarid made bis initiatory speech and outlined the RenoraJ effect of tho bill th;tt w;is reported by the majority of tho Finfiiiue Committee, we were toM that there wa# very little increase as to the cotton schedule : that there had been some changes made in the bin, hut he dismissed tho cotton schedule with tho remark that very little change had been made in that schedule. We find, now increases -above the MvKinley Act. We hiid that, not satisfied with the existing law, there have boon enormous increases over tho Wilson Act. 
That statement is significant in view 01 what I believe is the accepted fact, that the cotton schedule in the Wilson Act was drawn by parties interested in the manu facture of cotton. In fact, I have been informed that a distinguished Senator, now a member of this body, was practically the author of the cotton schedule of the VVilsqn Act, I have had it stated to me within the past twenty-four hours by dis tinguished Republican Senators that there has been no dissatisfaction an.oiig the cotton manufacturers with the cotton schedule in the Wilson Act. If so, there certainl y could be no higher evidence of the fact that the cotton schedule in the Wilson Act wa,8 ample for the desires and demands of those who as protectionists claimed that that industry should be protected. 
Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Georgia pardon me? I do not think the cotton manufacturers of New England go so far as that. I believe they thought the schedule, so far as the distribution of protection was concerned, the scaling, was a great improvement on all previous laws, but if I remember aright, there was a proviso at the end of the schedule limiting the amount of the duty, which, in some ca=es especially, they thought worked great hardship. 
Mr. BACON. I do not controvert that, but I do state the fact, which has been repeatedly stated---- 
 
 23 
Mr. ALLISON. I do not wish to interrupt the Senator from Georgia, but he seems to be basing his remarks by an observation made by the Senator from Mis souri yesterday that there have been enormous increases in the cotton schedule. 
Mr. BACON. I did notemphasize the word "enormous " with quite the degree of power that the Senator from-Iowa does. 
Mr. ALLJSON. The Senator from Missouri of course did not go into t"etaila. If he had, he p would ha_ve shown that the increases are upon very fine cotton fabrics and not upon' the fabrics that are generally made in this country ; that they were added to the schedule for the purpose of enabling our people to make those very fine cotton fabrics, and that they apply to a very small proportion, i understand, of the manufactures of cotton. 
Mr. BACON. The statement of the Senator from Iowa ig exactly in the line of the suggestion which I was about to make. 
Mr. AI.I.ISOS. I beg pardon. Mr. BACON. The strength of it I think he will recognize. I was endeavoring to present the proposition that the present schedule as provided for in the pending bill is ample to cover anv possible increase to the manufacturers by reason of the increase of the raw material. That is the proposition. 
 
,, 
 
,. 
 
.. 
 
._._._ _3 propo 
 
sition which I submit--the injustice of providing a compensatory duty because of 
 
the fact that there has been a 20 per cent duty put upon ra_w cotton, when all the 
 
raw cotton which can possibly be affected by the duty is material which goes 
 
exclusively into the manufacture of the fine goods upon which the rates have 
 
already been raised to this enormous extent. 
 
So far as the coarser grades of goods are concerned, it is true, as stated by the 
 
Senator from Iowa, that they are not affected by the bill ; that the bill does not 
 
raise the datiea on them. They have begun to be manufactured in the South and 
 
have ceased to be the object of the care and solicitude of some gentlemen, as they 
 
formerly were. But the finer goods, the lisle thread, the laces, manufactured out 
 
of this particular grade of cotion, are the ones upon which there has been this enor 
 
mous increase of tarifi duty? and I say the enormous increase of tariff duty is ample 
 
to cover the increase upon raw cotton when it relates to raw cotton whicli alone en 
 
ters into the manufacture of these particular goods. 
 
I say that of itself would be sufficient, but I think I may be justified in calling 
 
the attention of the Seriate to the fact of the extreme solicitude and sensitiveness of 
 
Senators on the other side of the aisle when anything relates to the particular in 
 
terests of a particular class of producers in "this country. Within the very limited 
 
time after the incorporation in this bill of the provision for the levying of a duty of 
 
20 per cent upon raw cotton, here are those interests putting themselves in com 
 
munication with this committee, and as a result, without notice to any of us, and I 
 
must confess in great surprise to myself, although the Senator from Missouri had 
 
confidently anticipate*! it. we have this proposed increase of duty. 
 
I recognize the statement of the Senator from Iowa, at which I expressed gratifi 
 
cation, that it may not be so, but I take advantage of this opportunity to say some 
 
thing on it in the hope that it may conduce to the result which the honorable 
 
Senator anticipates. But, as I was saying, while it is true that they are so sensi 
 
tive, they have not manifested that sensitiveness as to the interests of other por 
 
tions of our country and of other classes and of other industries. I have twice 
 
before upon this floor called the attention of the Senate to a most flagrant and 
 
marked discrimination made by the Republican members of the Senate in the 
 
framing of the pending bill between the interests of the farmers of the North and 
 
the interests of the farm^- _- u.ie South, Twice upon this floor I have asked them 
 
to state to the country upon what they base the right to make that discrimination, 
 
and neither time have we had a response. 
 
Mr. ALJjISON. I wish the Senator would name the special articles where we 
 
have discriminated in favor of the North and West as against the South. 
 
Mr. BACON. I was about to do so. I have done it twice before in the hearing 
 
of the honorable Senator. I have asked for an explanation. There may be an ex 
 
planation. If there is, I am willing to accord^to them the propriety of their action. 
 
The farmers of the North and West need sacks in which to carry their grain to 
 
market. They need binding twine with which to prepare it before they can send 
 
it. Both of these articles are upon the free list. I think it is proper that they 
 
should be there, in view of tlie fact that we have the kind of tariff bill that we do, 
 
 1 
24 
although I should vary much prefer a tariff bill that did not recognize much of a free libt. At the same time that the grain producers of the North and West are ac corded free bags and free binding twine the cotton producers of the South are re quired to pay a high tax upon bagging and ties. 
Mr. WIIITE. I. may be mistaken in this respect, but it is my opinion, from reading i ho bill, that grain bags are not on the free list, 
Mr. AI.LISON. Certainly not; none of them are. Mr. WHITE. I was preparing some observations in criticism of that provision. Mr. ALJjISON. Lf the Senator from Georgia will allow me, I will say that while he is preparing to criticise us for having" these articles upon the frets list, the honor able Senator from California is making great preparations to show they ought to be there, Mr. BACON. I Tow about binding twine? Mr. ALJJ.SOX. That is a very different thing. I will a-sure the Senator that so far as the committee is concerned, before we finish the bill as respects the things he is criticising now, they will be treated in thu same way that we treat the South ern products. Mr. BACON. I am more than giad to hear it. Mr. BERRY. Let me ask the Senator from Iowa a question? Mr. AIjLLSON. Certainly. Mr. BERRY. Does the Senator intend to bring about the equality by putting cotton bagging on the free list along with binding twine, or by putting a tax on. binding twine ? Mr. A-LLJSON. The Senator from Arkansas will take note that the committee, so far as it can, is deliberating upon all these subjects, and it will endeavor to keep an equilibrium with respect to these articles, and in one way or the other the matter will probably be accomplished. Mr. BERRY. I have learned that the committee is deliberating. I have learned that much, and that is about as much as I knew before I asked that question. .Now ; will the Senator from Georgia permit me for.one moment ? Mr. BATON. Certainly. Mr. BERRY. Binding twine, used to bind the grain of the Northwest, is on the free list. Cotton bagging, which is used to cover the cotton oi the South, ia on the taxed list. Wow, if the benator from Iowa will put cotton bagging on the free list along with binding twine, I will feel that this discussion has not been entirely in vain. Mr. WHITE. How about cotton ties? Mr. BERRY. I was speaking particularly of this schedule at the present time. Cotton ties, as a matter of course, ought also to be upon the free list. Mr. BACON. I must say, in justification of myself, that my statement in refer ence to grain sacks being on the free list was based upon a statement made by the Senator from Texas [Mr. MILLS] in the Senate, and Senators were asked upon that particular occasion to state why it was done, and no response was made. I did not examine the bill. I supposed, of course, that the statement made by the Senator from Texas was correct. Mr. AIjIjISON. I did not hear the Senator from Texas, if he made that state ment. Mr. BACON. I can show it to the Senator from Iowa in the RECORD. Not only so, but the Senator from Missouri called attention to it, and as nothing was said in response by distinguished Senators, I took it upon myself to ask the question why it was, and to ask them to give an explanation. It was upon that that I based my statement. I am more than delighted to hear the statement of the Senator from Iowa, because practical results are what we are after. We desire that the cotton fanners of the South, who, as I said before, feel the dead weight of all this imposi tion of tariff, shall have the benefit, as far as practicable, of free material in the preparation for the market of the crop which itself in the main can have no benefit either direct or indirect from the imposition of a tariff. T am extremely gratified to hear the assurance of the distinguished Senator from Iowa that it is the purpose o the committee and of tlie Senators upon the other sidt; of th Chamber to see that tliia important industry lias fair and equal and impartial treatment. Mr. President, I desire to say one other word in this connection with reference to the matter of compensatory duty. I trust it may turn out that in. this particular instance there may be no compensatory duty. But Senators upon this side of the Chamber wh^ littered with those who acted with myself in favoring a tariff duty 
 
 of 20 per cent ad valorem upCm cotton seem to regard the fact that the dis 
 
tinguished Senator from Iowa, representing his party, had proposed a compen 
 
satory duty as one entirely vindicating their original position that 20 per cent ad 
 
valorem duty on 'raw cotton was an improper duty because, as stated by them, it 
 
would be taken as an excuse for the imposition of that compensatory duty. 
 
The particular point that I want to call the attention of the Senate to is lhat 
 
even if my contention were erroneous and the compensatory duty in this particular 
 
case is a proper duty, it would not change the proposition that a revenue tariff upon 
 
cotton is a proper tariff. 
 
"- 
 
In considering that question one important fact must be borne in mind. While 
 
this tariff is one which is proposed to be levied upon the importation of all kinds of 
 
cotton, it in fact relates to a very small proportion of the cotton crop, and can have 
 
no effect upon the general crop. There are about 300,000 bales of long-fiber cotton 
 
made in the United States. They arc nil made in the States of South Carolina, 
 
Georgia, and Florida. There are at the same time about 100,000 bales of similar 
 
cotton imported into this country. So, instead of its being a tariff duty levied upon 
 
an article where there is a product of nine or ten million bales of: cotton, it is a 
 
tariff levied upon a product of which there are in this country only about 100,000 
 
bales. And it is a tariff levied upon a product where there is an import of about 
 
the same amount as that which is made in this country. 
 
Mr. President, 1 say that, tested by every, rule which s has ever been recognized 
 
by the Democratic party by which should be determined whether an article is a 
 
proper and legitimate subject for a tariff for revenue, an article which is produced 
 
in this count y to the extent of about 100,000 bales, and in which there is an im 
 
port of about an equal amount, is such an articfe, arid can be defended anywhere 
 
.,-.... _ .,,_ _,._..,,..,._- ... ,,,_.,, ..,.,, jay that if a compen..----.,, __., ,,,,,,,,.,,,, shows that the original duty upon the raw material should not be levied? The argument is that it is practically taking it out of one pocket and putting it into the other; that the Republicans consent to this suggestion on the part of those of us who come from this section where the particular cotton is raised, and at the fame time turn around and tax it the same amount. 
Well, Mr. President, that is not a correct statement of the case. The object of free raw material as stated by those who contend for it, is to put a cheap material at the command of the manufacturer, so that he can manufacture more cheaply for the consumption of the people. 
The distinguished Senator from Missouri [Mr. VEST] and the distinguished Sena tor from Texas [Mr. CJTIT.TON] said that the effect of this duty on raw material could not be to raise the price of long staple cotton. The Senator from Texas has said it, and the Senator from Missouri echoed it and affirmed it and approved it. If so, Mr. President, it can be no ground for the placing of a compensators' duty. But the truth is it is not so. The truth is that the placing of a duty on tbis cotton will raise the price in the hands of the producer. 
The objection is made by those who oppose this 20 per cent duty on cotton, on the ground that it raises the price to the manufacturer, and that therefore the man ufacturer must raise the price to the consumer. 
If the argument is carried out, what does it mean? It means that the cotton must be cheapened to the manufacturer in order that he may cheapen his finished product to the consumer. 
Now, Mr. President, who are the consumers? The consumers are those who use fine goods among 70,000,000 people. It is true these consumers will not be the common people at all. They are the people who wear laces, and Lisle-thread clothes, and .Lisle-thread socks, and Lisle-thread underwear The proposition is that in order that these people may have cheap underwear and cheap articles of luxury of this kind, the pricp - . jt be made cheap at the expense of those who pro duce the raw material. 
. Let me give an illustration. It is estimated that under this duty the cost of the cotton, the raw material which is to be consumed by the makers of these fine goods, the duties upon which have been so enormously raised, as we have heard, will be in creased to these manufacturers to the extent, say, of $1,300,000. Therefore it is argued that the cost to the consumers will be increased, necessarily, $1,300,000. If a compensatory duty is put npon manufactured goods, of course that increased cost will be distributed among all of the consumers, among the 70,000,000 people who use this grade of goods. If the prices are not to be increased to that extent, then the prices are to be cheapened at the cost of somebody. 
 
 1 
26 
Now, who is that somebody to be? Who is to lose $1,300,000? Is it to be dis tributed, among all those consumers by the compensatory duty, or is it to rest ex clusively upon and be borne by the producers of this cotton ? Are the few men who produce this long staple to be made to lose $1,300,000, or shall the enormous num ber of consumers of this class of goods pay it through the methods of a compensa tory duty ? 
Mr. President, how many men do you suppose there are engaged in the produc tion of this cotton? I said that the production was limited to the States of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, ; but those engaged in those States in the production of this particular cotton are comparatively very few. I doubt if there are 15,000 people engaged in the cultivation of this particular class of cotton. Yet the propo sition which will deny the right to impose this duty because forsooth there might be a compensatory duty is that the 15,000 people must bear this loss of $1,300,000 rather than that the entire community of 70,000,000 should have that amount dis tributed among them, each paying his proportionate part of it. 
So I say, Mr. President, taking whichever horn of the dilemma you will, if there is no propriety in the compensatory duty, then of course there is no increased cost to the people in the imposition of the 20 per cent duty ; and if there is propriety in the imposition of the compensatory duty, it is much better that the $1,300,000 should be borne bv the entire people than that the loss should fall upon 35,000 peo ple or less in the three States of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. 
Mr. President, I do not desire to continue this discussion, but it does seem to me that Senators who oppose this proposition have been extremely inconsistent. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. May I ask the Senator from Georgia a question? Mr. BACON. Certainly. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The Senator makes a calculation that the duty will be increased 51,300,000? 
Mr. BACON. I judge that on the amount imported last year. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Will not that be paid really by the persons engaged in manufacturing Egyptian cotton into fabrics? Mr. BACON. I think that very probably they will raise the price of their goods. It will be paid ultimately by the consumer. I believe that all things are ultimately paid by the consumers. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. But they will be obliged to pay that much more for their material. 
Mr. BACON. I think so. I think the people who raise that class of cotton in this country will get the direct benefit of it, A great many things which have been said here and which have been sa_id elsewhere about this as a duty_ laid upon the general cotton crop have no possible relation whatever to the subject. It is just as distinct as if it was not named cotton. It is just the simple question of a product of 100,000 bales in this country, two-thirds of which, I will say in passing, is raised in my own State. Generally speaking, 100,000 bales are raised in this country and 100,000 bales are imported, and it might as well be jute or anything else so far as the principle is concerned. And I say, Mr. President, that you may look through this bill, you may look through the Wilson bill, and there are without number instances of revenue duties laid upon agricultural products for which the argument in favor of them is not half so strong nor a tenth so strong as in this par ticular case. 
Senators, I repeat, have been inconsistent in this matter. My distinguished friends on my right announce, with the utmost positiveness, without qualification, that they have no regard to anything except the question as to whether or not a particular levy of a duty will raise a revenue ; and yet the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Arkansas both yesterday affirmed, as a positive principle which could not be ignored, that the levy of a duty upon a raw material necessitated a compensatory duty upon the finished product. 
Now, if so, why ? Does the levy of a duty upon the raw material make the com pensatory duty necessary in order that there may be a revnnue upon the fini&hed product ? Can it be defended upon any ground except the single position that, the revenue having been laid upon the raw material, it is necessary that there should be a compensatory duty in order to protect the manufacturer of the finished product ? 
I say there is no possible reconciling the position of the Senators who claim that they have an eye single to revenue and who at the same time announce in the most emphatic language that wherever there is a revenue duty laid upon the raw material there must be a compensatory duty upon the finished product. 
 
 Mr. VEST. I know the Senator from Georgia does not intend to misrepresent me. = If he will look at the RECOTTO, he will observe that I did not say that. 
IvTr. BACON. I beg the Senator's pardon. 
Mr. VEST. I was arguing against the compensatory duty, and I said that our Republican friends always put on a compensatory duty. It is not right to do it, and I am opposed to both duties. 
Air. BACON.. I am delighted to^hear the Senator say that; but I am. going to read his language to show that I did not purposely misquote him. 
Mr. VEST. I did not revise what I said. Mr. BACON". I am delighted for this reason: If there is no reasonable ground 
for a compensatory duty, if no compensatory duty is right, then the fact that some body else is going to do wrong in imposing a compensatory duty is no argument why we should fail to do right in imposing a revenue duty on raw material. 
Mr. VEST. If the Senator wilt excuse me, I will state what I meant to say. I have not revised any remarks I have made in the debate. I do not know what the 
CONGRESSIONAL BjEcoitD shows, but I know what I intended to say. I was arguing against the compensatory duty of 10 per cent, and I said that I was not at all sur- 
Tjrised that it had been pot there, because I had never known a case in my experi ence in tariff bills where there was a duty put upon raw material that it was not 
followed by the Republican party bv a compensatory duty paid to the manufac turer. But I never was in favor of a duty on raw material to commence with. 
Mr. BACON. I understand that. 
Mr, JONES of Arkansas. Will the Senator allow me. Mr, BACON. Yes ; I am going to read what both Senators said. 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I have no objection to your reading what I said, but---- 
Mr. BACON. 1 beg pardon ; go on. Mr. JONES of Arkansas. What I have said, and what the Senator from Missouri has said, all the time, was that we did not believe in duties on raw materials, but 
whenever you load the cost of raw material to the manufacturers you handicap them, unless you make ^ome compensation to them for the tribute that the Government 
levies upon their raw material. It is our opposition to a tax on raw materials that made us say that this thing ought not to be done, and I say whenever you put a tax on the raw material you are compelled to put on a compensating tax i you would allow the manufacturer to live at all. It is to show the utter absurdity of taxing raw materials that I mentioned the thing at all. 
Mr. BACON. Do you mean to say that they ought to have a compensatory 
duty ? Mr. JONES of Arkansas. They are bound to have ib if you want them to live. Mr. BACON. Do you think they ought to have it? 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I do not think they ought to be robbed any more than anybody else. I do not think we ougtit to levy a tax, in the first place, on raw materials. I do not think that the robbery there, because it is levied, would justify another robbery. 
Mr. BACON. I want to ask the Senator whether or not he thinks as a matter of right they should have a compensaborv duty? 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I do not" believe any tax ought to be levied for the benefit of private individuals, but it ought to be levied for revenue, and it ought 
not to be so levied for revenue on articles as to create an injustice. A man ought not by taxation to rob somebody else for his benefit. The whole thing is wrong. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator declines to answer my question, I have asked him two or three times. I will not press it. 
Mr, JONES of Arkansa= *. have answered distinctly in plain English, so that anybody can understa- . what my position is. 
Mr. BACON. I have asked the question------ Mr. JONES of Arkansas. Ask the question again and I will answer ves or no. 
Mr. BACOX. I wanted to see whether the Senator from Arkansas agreed with the Senator from Missouri. I asked the Senator whether he thought it was a matter of right, in case there was a duty upon the raw material, that the manu 
facturer of the finished product who used that raw material should have a compen satory duty. 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I answered that when I said I did not believe that any 
taxes ought to be levied except tor revenue. Was not that a plain answer to the Senator's question ? 
Mr. BACON. No. 
 
 Mr. JONKS oi' Arkansas. Then I will answer no. 
Mr. BACON. You do nob believe there should be a compensatory duty ? Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I do not believe that any tax ought to" be levied any where on the face of God's green earth except for revenue, and that alone. 
Mr. BACON. Very well. Now I have the answer of both Senators plain and explicit. I did not have it before. 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I think you did if you had read the language. Mr. BACON. The position of the distinguished Senators is this : The fact that there is a duty levied on raw material does not as a matter of right and justice make it proper that there should be any compensatory duty. That necessarily leads to this proposition, that the argument which they use against a duty on raw material because of a compensatory duty on the finished product falls to the ground. If a tariff for revenue upon the raw material is a proper thing, then we ought not to be deterred from it by the fear that somebody else will do an improper thing. That is the answer to the position of the distinguished Senators. Mr. President, as we are on that point, 1 desire to cail attention particularly to one thing. I went over it just now, but I think I will emphasize it, in ^iew oE what tho Senators have just said. They say they do not believe in free raw material. Why? Because they want manufactures------ 
Mr. JONES of Arkansas. I did not say I did not believe in free raw material. I said I did not believe in a tax on raw material. 
Mr. BACON. Very well? that is what I intended to say. The Senators say they believe in free raw material. That is the same thing as saying that they do not believe in a tax on it. The distinguished Senators say they believe in free raw material because they desire that tho manufacturer should get that raw material at as cheap a price as possible, in order that they may manufacture clieaply and sell cheaply. 
Mr. President, there are two ways in which the manufacturer can make a profit able business. One is by decreasing the cost of the material that he manufactures ; the other is by increasing the price at which he sells. In other \vprds, it is the difference between the cost of manufacture and the price of sale which makes his profit; and it does not make a particle of difference to him, 'so far as that profit is concerned, whether it is secured by increasing the price at which he sells or by decreasing the cost of the material which he manufactures. That is a plain propo- 
 
ght? Protec 
 
erstand it in this country, is designed for t 
 
rice at which 
 
. 
 
, 
 
. 
 
s he 
 
is opposed to it also. But L do say that those Senators who favor free raw material ar 
 
in favor of a system of protection that is more odious to me than the system which 
 
raises the price of the finished, article. Why? Whenever you raise the price of a 
 
finished article without decreasing the cost of the raw material, the increased cost 
 
is distributed among all the 70,000,000 consumers of this country. On the other 
 
hand, whenever you increase the profits of the manufacturer by lowering the price 
 
of the material that he uses, he makes the same profit ; but that loss in the cost to 
 
him of the raw material falls exclusively upon the man who produces the raw 
 
material, and is not distributed among the 70,100,000 people who consume it. Is 
 
there any answer to that, Mr. President? 
 
Mr. VEST. Yes. 
 
Mr. BACON. I say again, at the risk of repetition, because L now have the 
 
attention of Senators, that I illustrate this by the case of duty upon long-fiber 
 
cotton, because that is what it means. I use that aa an illustration of the proposi 
 
tion. The manufacturers of fine goods who use the long- staple cotton are not those 
 
who purvey to the tastes and necessities of the common people of this country. 
 
They are those who make articles which are consumed by the rich all over the 
 
country. 
 
The proposition of the distinguished Senators is that the 15,000 or less people in 
 
South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida who make this long-staple cotton should furn 
 
ish to the manufacturers their cotton at $1,300,000 less than it would cost them if 
 
an ordinary revenue duty were put upon it, and if that is done the manufacturers 
 
can sell to the consumers, who, I say, are the rich class of people, this, product at 
 
$1,300,000 less than they could sell it if a duty were imposed. Therefore they say 
 
that in order that the men who consume these fine goods, these laces, this fine un 
 
derwear, may have their goods cheaper, the people who produce this long-staple 
 
 20 
cotton, and who are barely living from hand, to mouth, shall be compelled to furn ish Jo the manufacturers their goods at $1,300,OQQ less, and that instead of the ' people who consume these fine goods paying the $1,300,000, this cotton shall be furnished at the practical loss to this small class of people of the $1,300,000. 
Mr. Presidfinfc, what is there in-this particular article which makes it ao odious to the distinguished Senators? 1 was not in the Senate when the Wilson bill was passed, but I recollect that I read with a great deal of interest the fight made by the distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] who sits in front of me against the putting of iron ore upon the free list- Who then claimed that the Senator from Alabama was acting outside of the tenets of the Democratic party? And when the compensatory duty of $4 upon pig iron and some other rate upon manufactured iron were put upon it, who said that the distinguished Senator from Alabama had abandoned the tenets of the Democratic party ? If anyone said so, point to the RKCOKO. Senators before me were here then. 
Mr. BACON. If -I had my way, Mr. President, there would be no tariff bill passed at this session. 
A Senator on my right says in an undertone -that as the Republicans are doing it 1. want my share. T absolutely and utterly repudiate any such suggestion. 
Mr. VEST rose. Mr. BACON. Tf the Senator will pardon me, I will endeavor to tell him that I have no possible recognition of the propriety of any such position. I put it absohitely behind me. 1 have no sympathy with the cry that, if the Treasury is being looted, rny section must have its part of it- I absolutely abhor the idea. I do say this, however, that whatever revenue bill is passed ought to be equal in its opera tions to all. Mr. TIT-LMAN. And the Democratic platform demands it. Mr. BACON. Yes; the Democratic platform demands it. I have read that plank of its platform in this Chamber, and  wili read it again if any body, desires itI say whatever revenue bill is passed ought to be equal in its operations. I say there ought not to V>e a revenue bill which makes a producer of the. raw material buy in a, protected market and makes him sell iri a free market. Mr. VEST. If my friend will permit mo, has be not just stated that he would not pas^ anv tariff bill tind that there was not any need for revenue ? Mr. BACON. Very well, and I am not going to assist in the passage of this bill. Most undoubtedly T will not. lias the Senator ever had any doubt upon that sub ject? Mr. VEST. No j I hope not, Mr. BACON. I am not going to assist In the passage of this bill ; but when this measure is before the Senate it is just the same as any other measure that is pend ing in this body where amendments are being offered. Many Senators who are opposed to a measure offer amendments to it, because, if it has got to pass, they want it to be in such shape that it will be the least harmful ; and that is what 1 mean to do here. T am endeavoring to see to it that my people in my section who ' produce raw material, and who have to pay the protective prices upon all they consume which this bill proposes to put upon them, shall have their products pufc on the revenue list and not on the protected list. The Senator speaks about bringing up the dissensions of the Democratic party. I appea-l- to the Senate, who did it? The Senator said he offered these various 
imposing ad valorem duties on agricultural products bad been offered by the Sena tor before my amendment was offered, so that the Senator could .not have been influenced by what I did. 
Mr. President, since that time I have sat in my seat while tr- Senator has time and again by open and covert allusion referred to me and tho ^ with whom I have acted, and I have been silent. I have been silent even when I had a disposition to speak ; but when on yesterday the Senator pressed this question about this com pensatory duty, and when there was an evident exultation manifested that these Republican Senators had done what Democrats had said they would do, that they had done that which they had urged as a reason why a tariff of 20 per cent upon raw cotton should not be adopted--I eay when that was done (and many things were said in the brief discusion yesterday afternoon after I came in the Senate, evidently in allusion to Senators with whom I had acted), I felt it proper that I should speak. I did not design to make an attack upon the Senator, becatise T 
 
 30 
have no such idea ; be is not an antagonist to be lightly taken hold of, and there is no man I know of that T would more carefully avoid an unnecessary contest with; but I can not sit here day after day and have allusions made by the Senator to myself and to my associates and still be dumb. 
Mr. President, when 1 offered an amendment for a duty of 20 per cent upon cot ton, I offered it in a very imobstrusive, quiet manner. But what led to the debate? "Was it not the attack of the Senator from Missouri? 1 have not desired it. But I do say that it has been ray dutv, and  still recognize it as my duty, so far as I am able in the making of this tariff bill, to have it rest as equally as possible. I shall be glad to sec it defeated altogther ; but if it has got to be passed, I want it framed so that it will rest with as little burden as possible upon my people, and that what ever benefits may result from it, they may have their due share, not in the wav a Senator suggested to me, not in the way of taking that which nobody ought to take. I will not vote for any protective duty which can be offered if its effect will be prohibitive upon any article which is laised in my State. I will say that to the Senator, although perhaps I have not the public spirit which he claims for himself. 
Mr. TLLLMAN. I should iike to call the attention of these Democratic .brethren of O'srs who are attacking our loyalty to the Chicago platform and to Democratic principles to the duties levied by themselves in the Wilson law. 
Now, they declare here, as we all know, that these articles are articles of export and that any pretense of protection is a humbug and a fraud ; and yet they them selves aie only disputing with their Republican brethren over there as to the amount of fraud--whether the duty shall be 20 per cent ad valorem or 25 cents a bushel on wheat, and so on through. Now, let us have a clean record on this business. I stand here myself and announce that if we are to have this stealing from the people by protected interests, I want my share for South Carolina, and I am not ashamed to say it. [.Laughter.] 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, T do not agree with my distinguished friend from South Carolina in that particular. 
Mr. TITjLMATST. But the people of Georgia will agree with me. Mr. BAOOX. 1 do not represent them if they do. I do not think, however, that that is the opinion of the people. 1 do not think the people desire that there should be an improper tariff' upon any article. I do not think the people desire that there should be an advantage given at the public expense to any particular class or section, and I do not think they wish to participate in anything of the kind. I certainly do not. My position is this: T am not in favor of a protective duty on anvthing, but 1 am in favor of a revenue duty on almost everything except on some very few article-, like salt. That is my creed. Mr. President, if I had the drawing of a tariff bill it would not be 6 inches long. I would simply put all those articles under a certain duty, let it cut where it wovild. That is the only revenue law you can have which will be stable f would put a 20 or 25 per cent tax upon articles coming into this country. There are some articles, however, which ought to be free now which we could then afford to pay a duty on under such a tariff by reason of the advantages we would have in the general lower ing ol' rates. Mr. President, until you have something of that kind you will never have a stable tarilTlaw. As long as you have a tariff law changing with every change of Administration you will have parties interested in this article or that article coming to Congress and each contending that it shall have the advantage over others ; you will have an unstable tariff' law, and you will never have a stable tariff law upon which the business of this country can rest in safety until you lay down the law thai you are going to have a certain rate, and that whenever that rate is not suf ficient to yield sufficient revenue for the support of tVie government it must be so changed as to 3'icid that revenue, whether that change be in raising it or in lower ing it, so that all may come in together upon a common level. I had no expectation when 1 rose to do more than suggest the reason why this compensatory duty should not be put on the manufactures of cotton, and further to suggest the argument I have made upon the subject of duties on free raw material. I certainly had no expectation of antagonizing the Senator from Mis souri. There is no man I have a higher respect and regard for than he, and if I have, in the heat of the debate, said anything which is unkind to him, I most cheerfully and gladly retract it. I had no such intention. 
 
 1 recognize him as the fortmost--I will not make any invidious comparisons--I will say that I recognize him as one of the foremost men not only on this side of the Chamber but in the Senate, and that is putting him among the foremost mea of the highest deliberative body of a!! the world. . But I said I had no idea of antago nizing him, of doing w-ha* he says has been done for the delectation of Republi cans. . I simply desired to put the ease right, We are not here for the purpose of asking protection for any article. We are not here for the purpose of participating in any grab, game. We are sinrply desirous fchat there shall be equality of burdens and equality of benefits. 
 Mr. President, I have oniy one single additional word to say. The Senator from Texas [Mr. MILLS] spoke of " the forgotten man," and thai has been reechoed here. Certainly ' if the forgotten mail " is the man to be remembered. ; but who is he ? According to the contention of the Senator from Texas--I am delighted to see that the Senator has come back to the Chamber, because I want to give him a criticism to think about--according to the Senator's contention, "the forgotten man" is the consumer; but in that he is very much mistaken. All consumers are not "forgotten men." All "forgotten men" are consumers. But there are a great many consumers who are not ' ; forgotten men." All these protected classes are consumers; all these men who are to realize this great wealth out of the pro visions of this and former tariff bills are consumers, but they are not the '* forgot ten men." 
Who are " the forgotten men," Mr. President? " The forgotten men" are the producers of raw material, who at tlie same time are consumers; the "forgotten men" are those who have to sell what they make cheap and to buy what they con sume very dear, and there is nothing which contributes to the swelling of this crowd of "forgotten men" like the extension of the free list among those who are the producers of raw jnaterial out of which those men no.t forgotten make their great wealth in the finished product. 
Mr. MORGAN, (Alabama). w * * * I do not agree at all, that raw material, as it is called, ought to be free. There are subjects that ought to be free, but they are not what we call raw material, in respect to the processes of manufacture. The admission of the raw material of the manufacturers "free of duty, ig that muchbounty conferred upon them. 
 
 ** We see 110 reason wlay a. 'JTariif' ir.si.w. as well a,s a>siy otlaes* Isiw 
 
" slionld not !>> ja,<ie to >jevite e^jissslly i>i its tuiSB-cieaaw ;m*S its 
 
benefits-- tor injsel*' * mestia, wheisn B say ttiiit-- upon i&BK classes, of 
 
imiiistry." 
 
, 
 
__ 
 
Disregard of Southern Interests in the Tariff Bill, 
 
FREE COTTON BAGGING AND TIES. 
 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON, 
OF= GEORGIA, 
IN THE SENiTE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
July SO, 1897. 
oil tlie disafuvcics votes of tli* 1 two Houses on thc" amoc.ainVnls "of tJiV Keimle to t bill (II. "R. 379) 10 provide revenue 1 for the Govorumint suid (o t-ii-mif tries of tli United fcituios, and iffirtionlarly the ivporl. imnofeiny cotton taassiiig- ;mrt ties- 
Mr. BACON said: Mr. President: I realize; the fact Unit possibly nothing that can bo said will have any effect, T>ut 1 do think a question -\YhU;!i 1ms beou nsketl in tlio Senate threti limes ooalit lo be aiiwweroa now tba.t it is asked Uie fonrtli time. Three times, when this particular 111 at tor has boeu up, t liave tisked the Sejitors on tlie othei- side of tlio (^j;-)iuber a question, and each time it hn,s eiiher been passed in silence or has been T>arried, and svheii t]ie measure is probably iip for the last time, 1 am ^oiiij;- to* ask them a sain if. they will aiis\\Tcr it. or if they will say they will i-etiisG to ajvwvrer it. JJiroe tin;es I h,ve asked tlie Senators on tlie other side the question upon what ground do t.h<^y ba.se Uio action by n^liicli they make tliis discrimination iji favor of the w he o.t- grower against the cotton-grower. I can take i.he ilecord and point to three particu lar instances where that question has been asked. Once the distinguished Senators paid no attention to it and proceeded with the vote. Another time, I recollect in particular, the Senator irom Iowa. OJr. Allison) challenged rne to point to the instance in which that disc rim inaticm was made, and when it was pointed out that binding twine for the benefit: of the wheat grower, in order That lie niip;ht carry his product to market, was put upon the free list ami that at the same time bagging and ties, which were 
uct"\o" the market, were upon the duiiaWe list, the Men at or from Iowa said fuat before they got through with tlie lull t:]jy -iul ended to see Hint each w.-is treated exactly alike, or substantially alike; and in thai: way the question was parried. 
Xow, in the filial stages of this business I agin is ask the Senators to st;Ue upon what ground their action is based, in order, as I have said before, thn t, it" there is *l reason tor it Uie country may know it, so ihat the action may bo justified, and ftinner that if there is no reason, the country may know it is a - piece of absolute, indefensible favoritism in behaK OE one and against the other. 
I speak earnestly about this matier. because, as the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Tillnum) says, we feel an indignation, and a jus finable one. We see no reason why a tariff lavr, as well as any other law, should not be made to operate equally in Us burdens and in its benefits for myself I mean, when T say that upon al! c-Jnss<-w of hJd:;s(;-y, and T desiro to kiioiv the reason, if there is a. reason, why it is thai binding: twine is put upon the free lifc;t and bag-giiig is put upon the dutiable list? If there iw one, 1 confess I have 
 
 not boon able to divine it. lu response to the question which I have asked heretofore three times, and now the fourth time, we have never had an an swer. If there is a reason, I should like Tor it to bo known, in order that our people niav be informed whether or not there is such a reason. Lot it be known whether it is true that in the framing of this bill there is a disregard for the equality of burdens upon those two classes, or whether there is a. rea son for it which will Justify it. 
Mr. ALLTSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia says throe times tliis question has been asked. Tt may have been. It. was asked of me, I rcinenibor very well, and I stated then in a g-eneral way that we hoped in the consideration of the bill there would be justice and equality between the sections. 
Binding twine is upon the free list. There was no motion made that I know of to put it upon the dutiable list from either side of the Chamber. The bill came to us from the House of Representatives with binding twine upon the free list. It was not within the competency of the conferees to change it, and no one, I a.m bound to say. proposed to change it. But there is this difference, The Senator wants to know what it is. There is a plain a.nd distinct difference between these two articles. So far as binding twine is concerned, it is used for the biudtug of grain, ami is then absolutely lost. It is destroyed by its vise. 
MR. CTTLLOM. Tt has only one use. Mr. AIYM8ON. J fc has only one use, arid thereafter it has no value. As to cotton bfigg-ing, it is perfectly well known, ns respects the price of cotton, that the bagging- for all the cotton sold in the "United States is sold as though it were cotton. Mr. BERRY and Mr. MORGAN. No. Mr. ALLISON. I so understand it. Several Senators. Oh, no. Mr. BERRY. It is deducted at Liverpool. Mr. ALLISON, I am not speaking of Liverpool, I say that the cotton bagging sold and used in the United Slates is sold as though it were cotton. Of course the cotton bagging sold abroad is taken out as tare. Mr. Bl^HRY. Mr. President------ 
Mr. ALLISON. Wait until I get through. In addition to that, the cotton, bagging-, although if may not be sold as cotton, is a valuable article afterwavtl. 'Every pound of. H is uwecl in manufactures afterward. So the two subjects suggested by the Senator from Georgia do not stand in the same re lation at all. sis cotton bagging is sold and used either for paper-making use, in its final analysis, or is sold for other purposes. 
Mr. BACON. Til reference to the disposition of bn^ging iind lies, and of " the deduction which is made on account thereof, I am informed by one \vho 
has accurate information tha.t 0 per cent is deducted from the weight of a bale of eottoji in Liverpool on account of tare. That would make 30 pounds lo a bale of oOO pounds. Everyone must know that ill fixing the price of cot ton on this side, that allowance is taken in consideration. Whatever may bo the disposition oi" 1lie bagging which is taken from the bales by the pur chaser, two-thirds of the cotton crop goes to Europe, and there is certainly no return to the cotton planter here ou account of the deduction of 6 per cent for tare. 
The learned and distinguished Senator from Iowa. says, in explaining the fact that this discrimination wns not guarded against by the conference com mittee, that there, was no suggestion in that cominiitee as to the disci'iiniua- 
lee, which had the dealing- with 1his question and with its decision, therewas no man from (lie South. There was not a single man present to repre sent the interests of the eoiloii planter. There was not a sing-le man to make a. suggestion in bis interest. The consequence is that as to liis interest there was an utter forgotfulness and a denial of it. 
This was the case not only as to cotton bngging ami ties, but let anyone 
(here is in it for any interest at the South. Take it schedule by schedule. 
 
 g 
 
"The North swarms with factories of all kinds, and there Is not a single sched ule there in which there Is not full and running over a. provision of law which shall fill their coffers at the expense of the people of the section from 
 
which I come. 
 
 j - .'. 
 
It is estimated, speaking in round numbers, that the "bill will yield as much 
 
as $200,000,000. It is generally estimated. 7 believe (I am so Informed by 
 
those more familiar with the subject than myself), that twice the amount of 
 
revenue is estimated as the amount represented in the increased cost of do 
 
mestic products of similar character. Therefore if the bill, in its provisions 
 
will yield $200,000,000, it represents $400,000,000 in addition thereto as the in 
 
creased price of the products of the factories of the Norlh of all kinds, which 
 
will have to be paid by the consumers, of which number of consumers those 
 
residing in the cotton belt represent no small part. 
 
"What are they to have in compensation for R? What is the basis of the 
 
prosperity that these Senators hold forth to the country? The basis of it is 
 
the increased cost to be received by them in the sale of their products. By 
 
whom is it to be paid? Is it to be paid by the people from without or by our 
 
own citizens'? When in one section of the country there is a great class of 
 
people producing the cotton crop--a. class which can derive no benefit under 
 
the bill and which under the bill is to receive a, great and" almost incalculable 
 
increase of burden--and they ask this simple a.ct of justice, this incomparably 
 
small amount compared to that which they are going to be called upon to pay 
 
under the bill, -we are answerer! that there was no one in the committee to 
 
Suggest their interest or to guard it. Mr. ATjTjISON. Mr, President------ Mr. BACON. I yield to the Senator from Iowa. Mr. AIjTjISON. I stated to the Senator and to the Senate that this matter 
 
was not in conference. Mr. TILLMAN. How did bagging and ties get back on the dutiable list 
 
then ? Mr. BACON. It certainly was in conference. Mr. AIjLISON. The question of binding t\vlne "was not in conference. 1 
did not speak of cotton bagging or cotton lies. Of course that was matter of conflict in conference, and we reduced the duties one-half upon all of these articles that were in contest because of the vole in the Senate. 
Mr. BACONS'. I do not want (he duty put back on binding twine. I do not think it should be put back on binding twine, because the wheat grower 
 
stands next to the cotton grower. 
 
Mr. PKTTUS. Mr. President------ The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the 
 
Senator from Alabama.? Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me a moment. I will. I lust 
want to finish the sentence. I do not think the duty should be put back on binding twine, because, 1 say, the wheat grower stands next to the cotton grower in furnishing the great article of export -which keeps upon a com paratively sound basis the financial system of the country. If you struck from the exports the cotton and the wheat, what would become of the other Industries in the country? "SYhat would become of your gold reserve? Wha.t would become of your exchanges? I s;iy not only as to the cotton grower, but a.s to the wheat grower, they ought to have this recognition on the part 
 
of the lawmaking power of this Government. When the Senator says that there was no one there to suggest that binding 
twine should be put upon the dutiable list, that is not answering the question. The Senators knew that binding twine was upon the froe list. The Senators knew that the question had been asked in the Senate why the discrimination was made. I say there was no one there to suggest the interest of the cotton Krower of the South that bis necessary articles for carrying his product 1o market should be put upon the free list, and that it does not answer the ques tion to say that no one proposed In put the "wheat grower upon the same plane so far as to make binding twine that he had to use also a dutiable 
 
article. Mr, BUTTj'RR. The Senate put. them upon an equality when we sent the 
bill to our conferees to fight and keep them on a.n equality. 
 
 Mr. BACON, I did not hear the Senator. Mr. BTTTIvKK. The Senate pi.it these two articles, binding twine and cot ton ba.gging, on an equality, and then we sent the bill to the conference com mittee for onr conferees to fight and keep them on ail equality. Mr. BACON". Most undoubtedly. The Senate, after a contest and after a vote, put those articles ("cotton bagging and tics) on the free list, and tho Senators on tlie conference committee were charged with tho duty of rep resenting the decision of the Senate in that regard. Not only so, Mr. Pres- 
wonld have represented this interest, and yon shut: your doors to them, You not only shut the doors of the conference committee to them while you were making up your judgment, but after you opened those doors and caller? them in, you refused to allow them even to read the bill before it should be reported to the House, much less to hear from them any remonstrance ax to any injustice done to the great section of the country from which there 
was no representative upon that committee. Now I will hear the Senator from Alabama, begging his pardon for HOT 
having yielded more promptly at the time lie desired. Mr. PETTUS. I^merely desire to ask the Senator from Georgia to state 
that there is no man from that section of the country who has the least de sire to have binding twine placed upon the free list. 
Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly. Mr. PETTi: S. We want our Western people to enjoy what little they have. If we never get anything, we want the farmers of the "West to enjoy the little they have. Tt is a trifle. But what we want is to be put on an equality with all the people of the United States, and we will forever combat 
anything that does not do it. MR. BACON. I am glad that I had suggested the same thought before the 
Senator expressed it- Otherwise it might have been thought not to have been a genuine expression on my part. If the question -were put to the Senate now independently, "Shall binding twine be put upon the dutiable list?" I would vote "nay/ 1 even though I knew at the time you would still continue bagging and ties upon the dutiable list. I would <lo so because I think both are en 
titled to be placed on the free list. Bnt that fact does n< t change the situation. Here the Senators charged with the duty of representing the de cision of the Senate which put bagging and ties upon the free list, refused to maintain that decision and at the same time they knew the fact that in such refusal they were perpetuating tills discrimination against the cotton grower and in favor of the wheat grower. 
As I saicl in the beginning. I do not know that anything I can say can 
not regard as less than an outrage. With the great cotton-growing section keeping safe as it does the exchanges of the country by this important ex port, the largest of all exports--with the great cotton-growing'section paying this enormous tribute to the manufacturing interests of the North, you at the same time say that upon the nine or ten million bales of cotton (.he South produces it shnJl pav a bonus to the ma.imfacturer of cotton bagging of over .$300,000 a year. You might just as well send your taxgat.herers down and go to each man's door a.nd ta.ke it and put It into your pockets as to put it in this bill, because that is the effect of it. When you put on the top of that all the cotton ties, you have between six and seven Imiidred thousand dollars that you take from this laboring and hard-working, hardly self-maintaining class, in. order to enrich those who are also going to be enriched under the bill at the cost of all other classes of the community. 
Mr. President, I can not believe that Senators will justify this action in their hearts. I can not believe that their judgments approve it, I appeal To Senators who have control of this matter to know whether they will nor stop and grant this slight meed of justice to this important class. ' r,et it re main with the wheat growers of the West, but give also to the cotton grow ers of the South not only their bagging, but their ties. The smallest thing that you can <To is to compensate thorn in the one hundredth degree for what they will liav^ to pay of increased cost under this bill in favor of the thousand and one, or the ten thousand and one manufacturing industries and interests of the North. 
 
 THE RECOGNITION OF'CUBAN INDEPENDENCE. 
Committee on the Cuban resolutions. 
SPEECHES 
HON. A, O. BACON, 
OK GEORGIA, 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
APRIL 16 AND 19, 1898. 
 
 SPEECH 
OF 
RON. AUGUSTUS 0. BAGOTST. 
 
  4 and independent, it did not mean to say that all doubt as to whether that independence had been established was removed, Imt it simply meant to say that thereafter France recognized tho sovereignty of this people, and denied that thereafter there was or that thereafter there should, he, in the recognition of France, any sovereignty in the British Government over this territory. Therefore, -when we say to-day that we recognize the independ ence of the Cuban people, wo mean to say that we deny that thereafter there is or shall be, in our recognition, any sovereignty of Spain in that island. 
Mr. President, one word more on the subject of the rules "with reference to what shall justify a government in recognizing tho independence pC a ntjw government. All the rules witli reference to what shall justify a government in recognising the independ ence of another nation are rnado for the benefit of the parent na tion from which "the new government is to be sundered. It is to prevent injustice to that parent government; and therefore the care and particularity with which it is laid down that so long as there is a- possibility, if 3*011 please, that that government can re store itd authority, independence of the new government shall not be acknowledged. 
Mr. President, one-half of the argument of the learned Senator froin Wisconsin yesterday was devoted to that question. While I would gladly reply in detail, I think it can. all be disposed of with one single coinra.cn!-, and that is that, applying aw it does only to the question of maintaining the rights due to the parent nation, to see that no injustice is clone to the sovereignty of tho parent nation, it has no place in a consideration where we avow at tho same time our pui'Dose to strike down the power and sover eignty oi: that nation in that connection. 
Mr. President, i would be glad if I con-Id elaborate this subject, but it is manifest that I can not do so. I want to say one thingmore. There never was a man who sat in the Presidential chair more zealous of the Executive prerogative than Andre\v Jackson, find here is -what he said abont it in his message to Congress about Texas. I c;ui not read all of it, only a part of it: 
essage be ever seiit to Congress, in which, he said lie recognised tho R,cp\i"biiti of Tosas in response to the resolution which had been passed by Congress, recognizing it, as he said, as a decision of tho question. Utter ances to the same effect are found in other state papers, and the. doctrine has been repeatedly asserted by Congress, arid in one or the other House thereof. 
Mr. President, aside from, tho suggestions which have been so strongly urged, that it is to our personal interest to recognize the independence of the Cubans, tho merest justice requires that we 
 
 There lias never been a more lieroic struggle for liberty than lirts been made by that people. There have never "been greater sacri fices inacle by a people to obtain their liberty than have boon inado by tliem. Tiicry have not made the ordinary sacrifices that other contestants for liberty have made. Many of us in this Chamber have known what it was to face tho dangers of battle, but no one liere has ever f;;ced a danger of battle such as the Cuban, patriots through long years have faced. No man here has ever entered battle lino-wing that if he escaped the bnllet and became a captive he -would meet with death by execution. Yet that has been the case of the Cubans in their ten years' war, as well as in the present 
I read from the American Cyclopaedia. Volume V, page 555, aa to the execution. of Cuban soldiers in. five years between 18GS and 3873, inclusive. I have not the records for "the succeeding years of that war, or of the present war. 
According; to official reports forwarded from Madrid "by the United States 
My Qocl, Mr. President, can we turn our backs upon men \vlio have shown such heroism and such heroic sacrifice: .For one I will not, either by my voice or by my vote. 
The Senator from Connecticut (.Mr. PLATT] who has just taken his seat, sneers at G-pmez. Mr. President, iL; there is a certain fact, that fact is the independence of Cuba, and as certain as ia the independence of Cuba, so certain will it be that in the future the name of this man G-omez will be foaiid on. the list of those im mortal names that were not born, to die: It will go down in his tory with the names of Washington and Bolivar, the great libera tors of men from the bondage of tyranny and oppression. 
Mr, President, in the histories of peoples a time comes for sacri fice. Such a time seems now at hand. I doubt not that the North is equally ready to make sacrifice with the South, but in tho con dition of things the sacrifice to be made in this war must be more serious in the South than in the North. The great volume of money which is to be spent in carrying on this war will be spent at the North and West and will quicken their industries. 
We have few or none of the factories at the South which will make the munitions of war necessary to furnish the clothing and supplies for the armies, nor are we the large producers of the food crops which will be needed to supply them. On the con trary, our enterprises will be largely paralyzed by war, and our great product of cotton is to be piit to a price that will not only not be remunerative, but be an absolute disaster to the man who produces it. 
If communication with Cuba, through those who come and go, brings the yellow fever to our shores, the South will be the prin cipal sufferer from this cause. The first hostile gun that is fired will find its echoes in our hills and valleys. Iff disaster should by possibility come, the seaports of the South will be those to be ravaged, 
Nevertheless, Mr. President, our people will not be laggards in the struggle. But we do ask this: If we are to make this sacri fice, let it not he a sacrifice in the interests of the holders of the Spanish bonds, but let it be a sacrifice in the interest of humanity, If this sacrifice has to be made, let it not be for the purpose of in vasion and conquest, "but let it "be "because the great clock of the 
3260 
 
 -world lias struck the- morning- hour when there shaJl be Lorn to in dependence arid freedom a new and Iieroic people. 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Senator from Georgia has ono minute ]ei'fc of Ms time. 
Hr. BACON, Mr. President, I utilize that moment fcy asking that there may be road from the desk what I desire to bave placed in the permanent records as a piece of evidence relative to the question whether the Hftiiiie was Wown up by torpedoes fitrmsheil "by the Spanish G-ov eminent. I desire to call attention simply to the fact that what is to be read by the Secretary are extracts from two Spanish newspapers pnblislied in Madrid. One of tliem is an. interview with the former minister of marine under the ministry of C'anoras, which, of course, preceded by several months the time of tho explosion of the Maine. The other is the comment of the Impartial iipoii the publication of that interview, and express ing regret for it for the reason tliat it might give rise to tlie very use which I now make of 'it. 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as requested. The Secretary read as follows: 
MAUTITTX ^2-n-rt 11, 1-333. 
SP tliey secured the passage of these resolutions. I want to call attention to the fact that neither the Senator from Maine nor the Senator from Wisconsin has ever voted for these resolutions, aiicl tlie RECORD will not show that they did. 
Hi-. TELLER. They voted against the resolutions. Mr. BACON'. They voted against them every time, and there 
 
 is no place which either of the Senators can put his finger upon to show that he ever voted for tho resolutions, and I \vill prove It right here. 
Mr. HOAR. "Will the Senator from Georgia allow me? Mr. BACON. .Pardon me for a moment': Permit me to com plete my statement, and I will yield to the Senator with pleasure. The PliKSIDINa OFITICEK. The Senator from Georgia de clines to yield. JVIr. BACON. There has been but one occasion upon which the Senate has voted on the resolutions which iinallv passed the Sen ate, and that was on Saturday last, when the identical resolu tions were- passed by a vote of 07 yeas to 31 nays, the only differ ence between tho resolutions and those which came back from the House being the amendments" to the first resolution. The first resolution related exclusively l:o the independence of Cuba, and of tho Republic of Cuba. Now, t4ie first resolution, which is the only one that ever came into dispute, had no reference what ever to intervention or to any action on the part of this Govern ment. It related exclusively to the simple question of the recog nition of tho independence of the people ei! Cuba and to the rec ognition of tho Republic of Cuba. The other resolutions aro the-e, and I want to read them in order that flic point may be made clear. I begin with the second .resolution that passed the Senate on Saturday night last: 
byain sit om-o relinquish, its siutliqrlty siiict government ill Tnf Island of Cuba, 
 
iople. 
I assert as a fact, and as a parliamentary fact, that tho Senate voted on those three resolutions -which I have read but once, and that was last Saturday night, and that upon that occasion there were GT yeas and 31 nays, and the Senators who then voted in the negative hare never had an opportunity since to vote in tile affirmative on. it, and have never voted in the affirmative since. 
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President------ Mr. BACON. Will the Senator from Wisconsin pardon me for 
 
,SPOONJJIR]. 
 
[Mr. 
 
Mr. SPOONER. That is risjht. 
 
Mr. BACON. The nays aro us follows ------ 
 
Mr. SPOONER. That is ri>,ht------ 
 
Mr. BACON. Pardon me. The 31 nays who voted against 
 
those three resolutions, and who hare never since voted for them, 
 
and who will never again have an opportunity to vote for them, 
 
are as follows: 
 
Aliirlch. Allison, Burrows, 
 
Hale, Harm si, tfaivltsv, 
 
Moi-i-ill, Plittt. Conn, Plait, N. V. 
 
"\Volliuaton, Wotmore, 
 
 8 
TfiJtt ia the only record that ran be found Tip to tlie pre.sent date where the c{uestioii whether the Senate should, or should not pass those three resolutions was over acted upon hy tho Senate, and. upon that occasion 1 lie twenty-one names which I have mentioned were recorded in (he negative. 
IMr. HOAR. Will the Senator yield to me for a moment? Mr. BACON. I will yield for a question, but I do not propose to occupy the iioor any jength of tinac. I do not desire to yield for tlie purpose of a speech. Mr. HOAli. I do not wish to make a speech and T do not want exactly to put a question. I want to repeat a verso of Dr. Watts. Mr. .BACON. I prefer that tho Senator should indulge- in his poetical diversions in his own time and. not in mine, and I object. Mr. ilOAil: It is so exceedingly apt that I should like to do it now. 
Mi*. BACON. I object to tha Senator's proceeding. Mr. II OAR. Of course, if------ 
Mr. IJ/vCO-N". Tlie Senator will have ample opportunity. lie ;,y g-ii'ted in that direction. lie has voi-ylarg-e resources. I'prefer that lie use hi 1?, own time for that Tjnrpote. 
Mr. ALJ;i;iOX. \Yill tlie BemxCoi- iruin. Georgia yield to me for a auction? 
Mr. BAC:ON. "Yes, sir; for a question. Sir. ALLISON. What becomes of those who voted for the third r_eadi?ig- of tho joint resoUition and its passage? Mr. BACON. The passage? The question of its passage was never before tlie Senate except that one time. Mr. ALiTjISON. Did it not pass the Senate after its third readins1 yesterday? 
Mr. T.K;LL"KB, Mr. COCKRBLL, ana others. I-TO, no. 
Mr. RPOONEB. Mr. President------ 
Mr. BACON. And tlie REGOKU will not show it. Mr. COC'KHKLJj, I!; vras read tho third time but ones. No sneasTire over is read the third time Imt once. Mr. SPOONEtt. Could it possibly have become a law without the adoption of the conference report by both Houses? Mr. BACON, Of course 1 am coining- to that point. Yester day the question was on, tho conference report. Mr. Sl/'GONEK. Yes. Mr. BACON. And so tlie conference report------ Mr. SPGONE.R. Could it ever possibly have become a law. I ask the Senator from Georgia, without the adoption in bo'tli Houses of the conference report? 
Mr. COCKRELL. Yes; another conference could have been ordered and another conference report adopted. 
Sir. BACON. I am coming to the conference report. The con ference report had no relation whatever to either of tlie three resolutions -which. I have read--none whatever. Tho conference committee had no relation to that, and no vote upon tho confer ence report could have any relation or any reference to the three resolutions which I have read. I repeat that the EEOOTID-- and everything that was dono is in print--can not show tlie p'ace where either of Hie twenty-one Senators whose names I have read ever voted Tor either of these three resolutions. 
ill'. TlLiLMAN. Yet the Senator from Maine now cairns thev did. 
Mr. BACON. Of course. 
 
 Mr. TF'LJ.ER.- I suggest to the Senator from Georgia tliat of those three propositions the coiit'ereuco committee had no possible charge. 
Mr. BACON. None on earth. - Mr. COCKRELL,. They coulcl not touch them. 
Mr. BACON. It Is a matter of elemcmtavv knowledge known to every Senator here and to every tyro elsewhere that matters of difference between the two Houses are the only things which go into conference. Nobody can dispute that feet. 
What was the differences between the two Houses? "Was there any difference between the two Houses as to the three resolutions I have read? Not a particle. We passed a -ion-it resolution here ccmta:niu# those three resolution^ and ova- action so far as those three resolutions were cors corned' was rhial. The joint rtfsolut.'oii went to the House, and the House passed the same three resolu tions without amendment, and their action as to those three reso lutions was final, and they had no further opportunity to act upon them. As to the first resolution ------ 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President----Mr. BACON. Will the Senator from Indiana pardon rae for n. moment? I will tlien yield with pleasure. As to the first resolution, there were two differences. We had passed the first; resolution on Saturday last in these ivorda: 
 
That is what we passed. When it wont to the House, as to thai resolution, and that alone, the House made a disagreement. It made no tlis agreement as to either of the other three resolutions or any part of them, any line or letter of them, but they did make a disagreement as to the first resolution. They made two dis agreements. They said, in the first place, tliat the wordi? "arc, and " ought to come out, so that it would simply read " That the people of the Island of Cuba of right ought to bo free." That was one difference-. We said the "words "are, and" ought to be in. They said they ought to be out. 
Another difference was that they said tliat part of it which rec ognized the llepu'blic of Cuba ought to come out. Wo said it ought to "be in. There were two di Iterances, and a conference com mittee was aslrcd of the two Houses. For what? To pass on the throe resolutions I have read? Certainly not. Each House had agreed to. them. The Senate had agreed to them, although the twenty-one gentlemen whose names I iiave mentioned voted against them, and the House had agreed to those three resolutions; but as to the first resolution there were two differences, arid we had a conference for the purpose of settling ilic differences on the first resolution, and that alone. 
 
cept as to the differences between the two Houses, and that those differences were snch as I have here stated and related in no man ner to anything else. Therefore when the conference committee reported------ 
 
Mr. SPOONEB. allow mo------ 
 
If my friend the Senator from Greoi-gin will 
 
Mr. BACON. Permit me to complete tlio sentence. Therefore 32GU 
 
 10 
vv-h&n the conference committee reported, they could report noth ing beyond their jurisdiction. 
Mr. SPQONEJl. Of course not. 
Mr. BACON. They attempted nothing beyond their jurisdic tion. They simply attempted to (compose the differences between the two Houses, to compose tho differences as to those two amend ments to the first resolution, and -when they came in and when we refused to agree to the recommendation of tho conference com mittee, we made no refusal as to the three resolutions with which they had nothing to do, and when we agreed to their recommen dation wo did not agree to anything "which related to the three resolutions with which they had nothing to do. 
Mr. SPOONER. My friend the Senator from .Georgia, who is not only very able, hilt always frank, will agree that whatever measure may bo passed by the two Houses of Congress, whether there may be one resolution or two or three or four or ten, when as to one of them there arises a difference, none can become effective without an agreement as to that difference. If there is ,1 deadlock between the two Houses as to a single difference con cerning ono o!: a do^eii resolutions, it kills tho whole business. 
Mr. BACON". Unless there is a final agreement, of course. Mr. SPOONKR. I say if there is a failure to agree. Mr. COCKRELiL,. There was no failure to agree. It went right back into conference. Mr. BACON. When the Senator from Wisconsin wishes to ask me a question, I am glad to yield, but I do not think ho ought to stop me to argue the matter. Mr. SPOONER. That is right. Mr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President------ Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senator from Georgia---- Mr. BACON. The Senator from Indiana some time ago asked me to yield, and I now yieM to him. 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. I ask the Senator from O-eorgia whether or not a vote in favor of concurrence in the final conference report was not in effect a vote for the various resolutions to which the Senator has just alluded? 
Mr. BACON. It might have been in spirit; it was not in fact. Mr. FAIRBANKS. Was not a vote for or against coiic\irrcnce in the final conference report in effect a vote for or against the resolutions? Mr, BACON. No; by no means. Mr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President------ Mr. BACON. The Senator will parclonjtao for just a moment. It was l?y no means, as 1 was endeavoring to show when I yielded to the Senator from Wisconsin. The conference committee has 110 jurisdiction outside of the differences between the two Houses, the matter in difference between tho two Houses. Their report can cover nothing1 except as to matters of difference "between the two Houses; and therefore, inexorably, our vote can not have ref erence to anything except as to matters in difference between, the two Houses. Mr. SPOONER. Unless it is composed, the whole business drops. Mr. BACON. 1" yield no" 
 
 11 
Mr1. SPOONER. I rise to a point of order. I do not exactly know Low the Senator from Georgia, can tell why the Senator from New Hampshire did anything. 
Mr. .BACON. I will state why I did, and will leave out tho Senator from New Hampshire. 
Mr. CHANDLER. That docs not concern tho Senator from 
Wisconsin. Mr. SPOONKR. If the Senator from New Hampshire----Mr. CHANDLER. The Senator from Georgia, and I had a com 
mon, purpose in those votes, and I propose to ask the Senator a question about it, if the Senator from Wisconsin will let me. 
Mr. SPOON KB. Mr. President------ Mr. CHANDLER. If the Senator from Wisconsin would not interrupt me except with my consent, I -would "be very much obliged to him. Mr. SPOONER. I hog pardon. Mr. CHANDLER. I ask the Senator what the assumed motive was in voting to nonconcur in the House amendments:1 Mr. SPOONKR. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER; The Senator from Wisconsin 
\vill state it. Mr. SPOONER. I should like to ask the Senator from New 
Hampshire, if it will not "be an unparliamentary interruption, what he means bv an assumed motive as a "basis? , Mr. BACON. "l will ask that "both Senators will------ 
Mr. CHANDLER-. If tho Senator from Wisconsin is done and Y.'iH kindly sit down. I will go on vnth mv "business. 
Mr. SPOONER. I will ait down, when the Senator answers tho 
question. Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I claim the floor. Mr TILLMAN. Ti: the Senator froi'i Georgia- will------ The PRESIDING- OFlM.OE.Lt. The Senator from Georgia has 
tlieTnoor. Mr. TILLMAN. Mr. President------- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georg-ia has 
the floor. Mr. BACON. It is very much easier for each gentleman to 
argue in his own. timo------ Mr. TILLMAN. I am merely trying to answer the Senator 
from Wisconsin. Mr. CHANDLER. ,1 will ask the Senator------ The PRESIDING OFFICER-. Does the Senator from Georgia 
yield to the Senator from >Tew Ilamp shire? Mr. BACON. Yes. if I may yield to him alone. Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President------ Mr. BACON. But I see that that contingency han already fallen 
through. Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President------ Tho PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair must sustain the right 
to the floor of the Senator -who has it. The Senator from Georgia has tho floor, and ho yields to the Senator from New Hampshire fora, question. 
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President------ Mr. CHANDLER. I do not yield to the Senator from Wiscoii- 
Mr. SPOONER. I have not asVed the Senator to. The PRESIDING OFFICER.. Tho Senator i'rom New Hamp shire declines to yield. 
 
 Mr. OBANDI/BR, I will aslr my question of the Senator from Georgia in another form. "Was it not the object in voting not to concur in the House amendments to scen.ro, if possible, action "by the House receding from, those amendments? 
Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly. It could have been nothing else. 
Mr. CHANDLER,. Was not that the object of ever? vote against concurring and in favor of insisting^ 
Mr. BACON". Undoubtedly. Mr. CHANDLER. Thou I will ask the Senator tins question: Whether, no matter how long that voting- continued, the object 
Mr. BACON. Tho purpose in each case was to secure tlie action which we had originally taken, and to embody that as law, which action wtia the only part about \vhicli there was any difference, and which nctioii was one relating exclusively to tho question of the indepc.iidoiieo of tlie people of Cuba and of tlie Kepublie of Cuba. 
Mr. President, I did not rise with any expectation.--I IUTI occu pying the floor by tho courtesy of tho Senator from Missouri------ 
"Mr. OOOKREL.L. Proceed. Mr. BACON". I rose with no expectation of occupying- so much time. I desired to call attention from the RECOUP to the fact that the Senators who now claim that they alone passed the joint reso lution, that those who have occupied the floor of tho Senate for this purpose, bare had but one opportunity to vote for tho resolu tion, and that then, so far from availing themselves of that opportivnitv, tlie HiiooiiD shows they voted against it. Mi\ SPOONEB. Will my friend the Senator from Georgia allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Mr. BACON. For a question? Mr. SPOON EH. No. Mr. BACON. Then I decline to yield. Mr. SPOONEB, Tho Sciiatoz' does_me injustice if he imputes to me the position or declaration that 1 voted for these resolutions. Mr. MONKY. The Senator from Georgia says the Senator from Wisconsin did not. Mr. SPOONEB. 1 have not said that I voted for the resolu 
tions. Mr. BACON. Very well. Mr. SPOONEB. 1 do not want the Senator------ Mr. BACON. I will take it back, if the Senator admits he did 
not. If lie admits that he did not, what I said does not apnly to him. 
Mr. SPOONEB. Of course, when these resolutions----Mr. BACON. Now, Mr. President------ Mr. SPOONEB. If rny friend will permit me as a matter o fairness, I will state that when these resolutions were before the Senate I did not vote for them. Mr. BACON. The RECORD shows that the Senator did not. Mr. SPOONER. I voted against them. Mr. BACON. So the RECORD shows. Mr. SPOONER. 1 voted against the first one because I regarded it as a legislative falsehood, declaring- a fact which I did not be lieve to be a fact. Mr. BACON'. I voted for it because I regarded it as a legisla 
tive truth. 
 
 13 
Mr; SPOONEB,. I voted-against tlie last one, which Is what is culled an ultimatum, upon tire ground--I may have "been mistaken, "but I was sincere about it, and as good a friend, of Cuba, loo, as my friend the Senator from New Hampshire Mr. GIIANJ^LERJ, not talking so much about it, however------ 
Mr. BACON". Mr. President------ Mv. fSPOONKR. Pardon mo for a moment. Mr. BACON. I thought the Senator from' Wisconsin was thi-ou'^h. Mr. SPGONEU, No. I di'l that because I believed it was not a function of Congress to declare an ultimatum against a foreign government, and that it w^s in no sense a law. But wlien tlio time came tliab there WHS an agreement oil the main pi-opositio>i be tween the two Houses and a disagreement as to one point, even though, if it had been left to mo, t would not have voted for it, I yioldech Mr. BACON, But the Senator never had the second oppor tunity to vote for it. Mr. SPOOLER. Wait a moment.. I yielded. I voted at the end, "when the conference committee had reported an agreement, for the report in order to compose the difference's, in order to bring about a legislative adjustment between, the two Houses, when 1 feurod there might be no other way. J-ii a souse I voted for some thing which I did not believe. I voted for sonielhing which I had , demmneedupon the floor of the Senate; and I did-it not because I am fond of swallowing, or am willing to do KO ordinarily, rny own words, or in any scr:se stultifying myself; but I did it--and I thank my friend the Senator i'rom Georgia for permitting mo to say it-- because I regarded it as a great and momentous transaction. I thought small differences of opinion ought not to hold us apart, and r!iat we should, if it were possible to do it, come to an agreement tliat something might emanate from the legislative ctepartmentto the"President, that the reconceiitrados who wore starving might be relievedj and that the people who claim to love Cuba so much might afford the President an opportunity to aid Cuba. Mr. BACON. I want to make two remarks in regard to what tho Senator has just said. In the first pJaco, I have iabored with considerable earnestness to prove that the Senator has never voted for these three important resolutions. 1 think I have proved it; and in the second place the Senator has admitted it that he never did. fllr. SPOONEB. If the Senator---- Sir-. BACON. I object to the Senator talking me entirely off the floor. Mi-. SPOONER. If the Senator will allow me one moment, I will not intejTiipt him again, T3ie PRESIDING- OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Wisconsin? Mf. BACON. I said I was going to make two remarks, and ho has allowed me to make one. I \vill repeat the first one, as the Senator was engaged in the conference he was having with tho Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAiiJ, and possibly did not hear it. I said that I had labored with considerable earnestness to endeavor to prove that the Senator from Wisconsin had never voted for the tlires important resolutions. Mi-. SPOONER. I admit it. Mi-. BACON. And I went on to say, which the Senator did not 
 
 hear, and which I am now repeating for his benefit, that I had not only proved it, but that the Senator now admitted it. 
Mr. SPOONEK. I admitted it from the beginning. Mr. BACON. Very weU. The second remark I desire to mnko in regard to the Senator's remarks during the interruption is this: The .Senator in tt\e course ol' his interjection, and in tho latter part of it, went on to say why lie had voted for the resolutions, although he did not ao;ree with them. I say the Senator is mistaken, iie never voted, i'or tliem. Mr. SPOONER. I never said I did. Mr. BACON. I think the Rucoitu will show that the Senator did. 
Mr. SPOONEK.. I said I voted for the conference report, which, if adopted, would adopt the three resolutions for which 1 had not voted. 
Mr. BACON. Tho Senator is entirely wrong. The conference report had no reference to these three resolutions, and i there is anything -which, can ba demonstrated in logic it lias "been demon strated and need not be repeated, that tho conference report had nothing to do with these throe resolutions, because there was no difference between tlie two Houses on the three resolutions. The conference repoi't was limited, to the differences on the first reso lution. 
Mr, SPOONHR. How could they liavo "been passed with out an agreement to some conference report? 
Mr. BACON. The conference report simply related to those dirnereiices as to------ 
Mr. SPOOJSTEK rose. Mr. BACON. The Senator will certainly permit me to make u, statement; without interrupting me before I got through a sentence even. Tho trouble is, tho Senator is engaged in a colloquy, and in the midst of a number of his advisers around ho does not liear what I reply, ami then lie makes an interruption which relates to something I did not sav. 
Mr. SBOONK.B. I did not utter a word. I simply sliook my finger. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator shook it in a. way so that I thought possibly it might go off. The proposition is a plain one, that the time when the Senate passed upon tlieso three resolutions, -which 
have probably now become a law by the signature of the President, was on the evening of Saturday, the IGtli day of April; that the Senate voted upon them then, and lias never voted "upon them at any other time. 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. If the Senator from Georgia will allow me j-ast a question, I will ask him whether the resolutions -which have now probably become a law would have become a law except in pursuance of the vote found 011 page 4401 of the CONG-IIESSIONAJJ RECOTVD? 
Mr. BACON. The question which the Senator from Indiana asks me is, in substance, exactly the same question that the Sena tor from Wisconsin asked me, and -which 1 was trying to answer at the time when the Senator from Indiana interrupted me for the purpose of asking it again. It is necessary to have a logical se quence in a statement of a proposition, and before I can get to the conclusion the Senator repeats identically the same question. I was coming exactly to the question as to "what was the effect of the vote of last tiiglit, if the Senator will permit me to get that far. 
 
 '- 
 
15 
 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. I ,1111 willing that the Senator should an swer one inquiry or the other. Either will satisfy me. 
Mr. BACON. I will certainly do so if the Senator will *ive me an opportunity, at least to the best of my ability; -whether satis factorily to others or not, they must judge. 
1 repeat the proposition in order to state it propcrlv. The only time these three resolutions which re-late to mterventicm m Cuba have ever been passed upon by the Senate -was Saturday evening-; that the only differences between the two Houses were as to the first resolution, relating entirely to the matter of independence, and that they did not relate i:i any manner to ei fcher of these Hires propositions: that upon those differences the conference commit tee was appointed, whose duties were limited to those differences, whose report must have been limited tu those differences, a.ud that \vhen. it came to the Senate for a vote the votes were limited to those differences. In other words, when -we had. the vote last night we did not vote for these throe resolutions in any maniier, directly or indirectly. We could not change them. Our action as to them had been final. The action t>f "tho House as t:-> them had been final. We could not amend them. The House could not amend them. The conference committee could not amend them. Thoy were all three final. 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Will tho Senator fiJlr,\v me to ak h'm a question? Would the joint resolution h-ivo gone to the President for his signature and have become a law without the vote of last evening? 
Mr. BACON, Most tirtoifbubteclly not: and If the Senator had permitted mo, that was the next step which I was about to take and which I was about to state. 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. I ask the Senator, then, if tho joint resolu tion would not hayo become a law but for thy vote of last evening, whether he aided in making it a law by his vote ngaiiist it?  "Mr. BACON. If we had prevailed, it would have become a law .lust tho same. Those three resolutions would have become a lav," just the same. 
Mr. HOAR, Mr. SPOONEIl, Mr. CUKLOM, and others. Oh, no! Mr. BACON. I beg the Senators' pardon. Possibly I might be allowed to state a, proposition before tlie Senators enter thtir judgment and verdict finally. 
Mr. SPOONE.R. It was so plain a case that i i'e'L at liberty to do it. 
Mr. CULT.OM. So did I. Mr. BACON. The differences between the two Houses related exclusively to the first resolution. H wo had prevailed, the mat ters to which tho Housu objected would have remained in the joint resolution anil it would have become 1 aw"wi t-h that matter in it. So the joint resolution would not have been defeated if we had prevailed. I am speaking about the Turpie amendment. On the other hand, when the Turpie amendment was not per mitted to prevail,as under the conference i-eport it was excluded, the resolutions have become a law without the Turp-fe amend ment. But under our action, whichever side prevailed, the three resolutions -\voiild have become law, just as they have become law, without alteration. But in the one case they would have become law with the recognition of tho Cuban HepYtblio. JTI the orlier case they would have become Jaw, as they probably already 
 
 16 
at or from Maine in the course of his remarks twitted the Senator from Missouri with the facfc that the Democrats iu the House had voted in the affirmative on the conference report and the Demo crats in the Soiiato had voted in the neg-ativo on the conference report. I dcsiro to point, I think with perfect ease, to the fact that in each case the Democrats, both in the Senate and the House, voted for the accomplishment of practically the same purpose. When the House agreed to the conference report, they liad no vote to make on the Turpie amendment, because they had never agreed to tlie Turpie amendment. Consequently, it not having been recommended that they should agree to that amendment, It was not before them in any way. Tho Honse had stricken out the words "are and,'' and they were called upon by the conference report to restore those words. Now, when they voted to restore those words, they voted that the resolutions should declare------ 
Mr. IIOA'B. "Who has stricken them out? Mr. BACON. Pardon me a moment. When they voted to re store the words "are and" they voted that the declaration should read that "the people of Cuba are and of right ptig'bt to be free." Consequently their vote in that instance was in the interest of the independence of Cuba. On the other hand, -when tlie report came to the Senate for our action, we had nothing to do with the voting on the question as to restoration of those -words, because we had already put them in and we were not called upon to restore them. What we were called upon to do was to recede from the proposition that the Re public of Cuba should be recognized as free and independent; and when we voted "nay,'' we voted in the interest of the inde pendence also of the Cuban Republic. So, while the House voted in the affirmative on the conference report, they voted in the interest of the independence of Cuba; and In the Senate, while we voted in the negative oil the conference re port, we equally voted in the interest of the independence of Cuba. They voted on ono proposition and we voted on another, and both propositions were included in the conference report. 
" 3200 
o 
 
 W.AR-REVETSTUE BILL, 
SPEECH 
HON. A. O. BACON, 
OF GEORGIA, 
X 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
FRIDAY, JUNE 1O, 1SO8. 
 
  s p is sen 
OF 
II O Is . A . O . BACON. 
now except for a very few minutes. I was opposed to the passage of tlie bill when it was before tfio 
Senate. I am still moro opposed to the conference report. Jn other words < I think the bill is moro objectionable now than it was then. If I was opposcd^to the issuance of 300,000,000 of bouds at that time, of course I nmsfc be still more opposed 1o the issuance of 8100,000,000 of bonds. There are other features in the bill which are very objectionable to me. but which I can mani festly not now indicate in detail. I think very many of the taxes imposed ought not to have "been imposed, and I think there are very many things left free of taxation which should have been subjected to the burden equally with other interests. 
Mr. President, I do not favor the raising of revenue for tho Government, either State or Federal, by criminal process. I am opposed to a system of taxation which lets go free of criminal pun ishment the property holder who secretes his property, as has been stated by learned Senators in this debate, and -who thus screens it from taxation and who can only be reached by taxation through a succession tax when the man comes to die and his property has to be transferred, while it imprisons another man for a Jess oli'ense. I am opposed, I say, to a system of taxa-tion which allows the man to go free who secretes his millions and screens them from taxation, and puts another man to trial bsfore a court and jury and puts him in the penitentiary for the violation of a very small stamp duty. 
I am also emphatically opposed to retroactive taxes. I can not go into details, Mr. President, but I desire to say this much, in order that it may not bo understood that I_am opposing the passage of this bill from any partisan motive. I opposed tho original bill and I oppose the adoption of the conference report because 1 believe the principles involved in the hill to TJS vicious and not entitled to my support. I am sorry that I can not ag'ree with the distinguished Senators who have lauded the work of the conference committee. Upon the matter of silver, upon which the Senate lias been congratulated, 
 
  Mr. 'WOLiCOTT. Under the existing law the President was to coin in his discretion as It might be called for for redemption. Under the plan as agreed upon by the conference he is required to coin a minimum of a million and a half a month. Is that nothing? 
Mi-. BACON. It is something, but very little. Mr. WOLCOTT. I understood the Senator to say that it vras nothing. 
Mr. BACON. It is very littlo. 
Mr. WOLCOTT. I understood the Senator to say that it was nothing. 
Mr. BACON. I do not know whether the RETCOKD will show that 1 said it was nothing or-not. 
Mr. WOLCOTT. I understood the Senator to say no recogni tion at all and 110 change of existing conditions? 
Mr. BACON. The Senator would not understand me as speak ing in anything but general terms when I used snch. an expression as that. Of course, the question of mathematics comes in, and mathematics is an exact science, and if there was a difference of a cent, if the Senator held me to a, strict .interpretation oi: the lan guage, it -would I-G an incorrect statement to say " nothing." 
Mr. WOLiCOTT. I did not mean for a moment to put that sug gestion to the Senator, trot I understood the Senator to say tUac there had teen no change, and this is a change in which the mini mum is stipulated. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator has not listened to what I have said. Mr. WOLCOTT. I have listened with very great attention and with very great interest, ususfalways do to whatever the Senator says. Mr.BACON, I begthe Senator's pardon. I did not misunder stand him, nor misconstrue him. 
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. Does it not appear from the fig ures which the Senator has given that there has been coined less than an average of 1,000,000 a month? 
Mr. BACON. There has been; that is true. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. This provides for the coinage of a million and a half per month. 
Mr. WOLCOTT. As a minimum. 
Mr. BACON. That is true; but what is that? In tlie first three years alter the passage of the old act there was more than a million a month coined, and since that time there hag been an amount coined which would probably reach to over 810,000,000 a year; but in this great country and with the vast volume of cur rency which is needed, wiiat is a few hundred thousand, dollars a month in the question of coinage? 
It was to utilize to the Government a valuable fund which is to-day lying- idle in the Treasury; but wiU any Senator who de nies it rise in his place and say that with the whole amoTiiit of 140,000,000 of that million coined with legal-tender quality, it would not still remain on a parity with all other currency in this country, with gold as well as paper? Does not every Senatorknow that the legal-tender quality which is stamped upon this coin would haVG made-that amount of money easily absorbed in the great business of this great country? It can not be success- 
 
 0 
should be utilized in raising tlio money necessary to pay the ex penses of this war. How much of it will be utilized for this pur pose when it will take ten years to coin it--ten years to coin tho little amount of bullion in the Treasurv? 
JUr. WOLCOTT. 1 know tho Senator will be glad to be math ematically correct even to tho extent of a penny. It will take about five vears arid six months to coin the bullion. 
Mr. BACON. I ant glad to know that it will only be that long. Mr. TELL.BJft. There is 3141,000.000 to be divided. 
Mr. WOliCOTT. I understand there is is!O^OOO,000 still to b3 coined. Is that not tlie amount? 
Mr. TELLKB. No; $141.000,000 is to be coined, and the coinage value of the silver bullion in the Treasuryis 1-31 .:3f.i3,000. It will take seven years and ten months to coin it. 
Mr. WOLCOTT. Seven years, did my colleague sav? Mr, TELLErl. Seven years and ten month,-;. Mr. BACON. I had not made the calculation; but I hold in my hand the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made in February last, in which it is said it was $1 14,178,8:?!). The general remark had been marie that it vrouM take ten years to coin tlic silver bullion iri the Treasury, and I was speaking generally. Bn t even say it will take seven years, that practically would amount to EI denial of the privilege by the Qovermnent of using this bullion for the purpose of meefrm.tr tlie present exigency, and that was the purpose we had in view in asking that this silver bullion be coined. I am very frank to say that originally I favored the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado. I thought it was better that this bullion should ho coined before certificates were issued. I believe tlio issuance of certificates against bullion is a, vicious system, and 1 do not wish to see it adopted in the future. There fore I favored the amendment offered "by the Senator from. C,.lor;ido, v>-hich required that all the bullion shoidd be coined and that tlio certificates should be issued as fast as the dollars were coined. That amendment alsorequired to be coined not less than Hi V.000,000 a month, and that the seigniorage, amounting to $42,000.000. should be taken out of the first money coined and be used in paying the expenses of the war. But tho action of the confer ence committee changed all this, and, in my judgment, is ]iot to ba commended at this time, denying to the Government the use of this silver bullion, which is its property and which can be used in the prosecution of this -war, without putting our people to any additional expense either in the way of principal or o in terest, AVhy, Mr. President, this $400,000,000 of bonds means $12,000,000 a year in tho way ol' interest, and not only that, but it means 13,000,000 profit in premium to the purchasers of these "bonds. In. the twenty years these bonds are to run the interest to be paid on them will amount to the stupendoiis sum of $-340,000,000. In the issuance of legal-tender notes and in the coinage ot" tho silver bul lion we proposed to supply the needed amount of money and save this interest. Since 1878 to the present time we have carried 8340,000,000 legal-tender notes at par, and at ?> per cent have thereby saved in interest $207,600,000. With the vast increase in popula tion, as well as in business, which lias doubled since then, the country could more easily carry 500,000,000 of legal tenders now 
than it could $^40,000,000 twenty years ago. Who will say we 
 
 ought to have issued interest-bearing "bonds 1'or this $346,000,000 instead of the noninterest-bearing legal-tender notes? By issuing these notes-we have'saved a great deal more than 3207,600.000, because, the rate of interest cUtring the time has been greater than 3 per cent. Have they been a drug in business circles? Have they been below par? No; nor would the legal tenders we propose bo below par. Bnt if the legal tenders were issued, and if the silver bullion were coined, while the Government would save '240,000.000 interest, certain parties would fail to make their millions out of the bonds. I will not, however, now attempt to discuss that question. The stateinentof it is sufficient to show the folly, if nothing more, of refusing fco use a fund for which nothing is to be paid for" princi pal or interest and upon which there is to be no speculation on the premium. 
"What I started to say a. moment ago, when the Senator from Colorado interrupted me, was this: That the various features of this conference report illustrate to my mind the fatal defects midor which we labor in our present rules with reference to confer ence reports. The Senate ought to determine for itself what measures it will support and what measures it will condemn. The Senate ought not to be put in a position where, in order to 
appr recall what the majority in the Senate was in the vote on the coinage of the seigniorage, but it was certainly very large and 
certainly very decisive. There is no reason to doni-fT bnt what if th/it qnostlon conhl bo 
submitted to the Senate to-day it would vote the name \vay, and yet in order that tlio conference report may be adopted in other features which Senators approve, they must also vote for the adoption of the report with reference to this particular measure whioh they do not approve. The same thing is true, Mr. Presi dent, of the amendment offered by thp Senator from Texas [Mr. GimvTON], -which. \vas adopted by the Senate. 
Mr. President, one other -word in conclusion. In the de-hate upon this bill, in which, as I have said heretofore, I did' not par ticipate at length, a suggestion was made by several Senators vrho favored tlio bill that those who are opposed to it-were not giving proper support to the Government at'this time. I do not'think that that is a proper construction or suggestion. It is trim in all instances i>at a revenue measxrre for the support of the"Govern ment, whether in peace or in war, is a measure to a large degree controlled by the opinions of Senators as to the particular way in which revenue should be raised. 
For instance, when a tariff bill is under cor.si deration \vhurli is proposed by the Democrats, if they are in power, the 'fi.epubrk-ans oppose that bill and vote against it. They cortaJiily could jiot be charg-ed with a desire that the Government shooltl not have 
proper revenue. They are simply contending that tho rerentio shall be raided in accordance with their particular views. So wo, in this instance, are as anxious as the Senators who favor this biil that the proper revenue shall be fTirnislied,- but we differ with them as to the particular wayitiwhieh the revenue shall be raised. 
When it comes to the question of appropriation, whatever >uay be required by the Government, by the Administration, wiil bo voted as cheerfully by us as hy those who now support this bill. There can not property be a snggestlon. of this hint!, for even at a 
 
 time before war was declared, when there was simply a speck of Avar in the sky, we did -what, so far as I know, is unprecedented-- without dissent, without party division, we voted to put $50,000,000 in the hands of the Executive, to bo expended in liis discretion; and since then there has heen no sacrifice required by the country for the proper prosecution of this war which -we have not made as 
cheerfully as Senators upon the other side. Nay, more, Mr. President. Some of us who did not "believe that 
there should be a war, some of us who deplored war and sought to avert it, some of us who thought that other measures should be adopted, when finally it was inevitable that war must come, when the President in his message said to Congress he could do no more, those of us thus believing and thus situated, when we saw that by our votes we could not prevent war, waived our personal feelings and our personal views, and, standing as we did in the gaze of the whole world, thought we should present an un broken front when we flung down the gage of battle. As a patri otic duty we gave up our individual views and stood with those who favored the declaration in order that at such a supreme mo- 
merit there might not appear to be division among us. So, in all particulars, Mr. President, in the discharge of our duty 
in this grave emergency, we will be found as eager and as zealous not only in money, but in that which is more precious than money-- we will be as eager and as zealous as they in contributing every thing which is necessary to the prosecution of the war to a success ful issue. But to do this it is not necessary and we must not be required to support revenue measures which we believe to be vicious and opposed to the true interests of the people and of the country. 
 
 / 
REMAR KS 
HON. A. O. BACON, 
G E O I* G I A , RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY AS TO PAYMENTS OF MONEY 
UNDER THE CLAIM OF THE METHODIST BOOK CONCERN SOUTH, 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
JUNE 13, 1898. 
1898. 
 
 CLAIM OF METHODIST BOOK OOKGEEN SOUTH. 
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Chair lays before the Senate resolution No. 383, offered by the Senator from Massachusetts 
VIr. LODGK |, upon which the Senator from G-eorgia [Mr. BAOONJ recognised. Mr. OOGKRETjL. I-.et the resolution be read for information. The Secretary read the resolution submitted by Mr. LODGE on the 9th instant, as follows: 
Hesolvrrf That the Committee on Claims be directed to inquire and report to whom tho moii^y was paid under the claim of the Methodist Book Concern South; and also as to all cironmstam-,i;s connected with the passage of the bill providing for the payment of said cilaiui, and with the subsequent payment ol the money under said nr.t of Congress. 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, it so happens that I was active in the effort to procure the passage of the bill referred to in the reso lution. I -was a member of the Committee on Claims in the Fiftyfourth Congress, before -which the bill was at one time, and al though, it did not pass both Houses in the Fifty-fourth CongresBit was acted upon by that committee of that Congress. I was 
I sup ported it because 1 thought it was an eminentJy just measure. I thought that not only had there been great in.iury and damage doiio to the claimants, but that in addition the Government had really received a benefit equal to the amount asked for in compen sation to tho Methodist Book Concern. The bill passed the Senate in tho Fif tv-fourth Congress, but failed to pass the House. 
In the Fifty-fifth Congress it was again introduced, and although I am not, in the present Congress, a member of the Committee on Claims, 1 was still an active friend of the measure. I not only advocated it in the usual way. but I also did ao ill. making' repre sentations to my colleagues of:'the Senate in the effort; to get them to support it. "Having done so, and being in a measure respon sible for the passage of the bill, but. of course, not to the same extent as some others who luul devolved upon them tho leader ship in the matter, I feel under the charges which have been made in tho public press that it is due to myself to state what V know about the matter. 
1 had not tho remotest suspicion that there was anyone repre senting that bill before the Senate who had any pecuniary interest in its passage. I thought that those who were working for it were doing so because of their interest in the great and influential re ligious denomination which was specially'interested in the passage of the bill. H there was anyone known around Washington City as a professional attorney connected with the matter, I was not informed of the fact. As is known by all, the principal advocate outside of the Senate was a Mr. Stahlman. T know him to be a mail of large wealth. I knew him to be the hiisl^nd of a very ardent and zealous member of the Methodist Church: and my im pression and. belief was that his interest in the matter was clue to that relationship. Whether ho himself was or was not a member of the church, I did not know, but my information was that his 
 
 In the Fifty-fourth and in the Fifty-fifth Congresses I had never 
heard a suggestion that anyone was interested as a lobbyist or as an attorney "in the passage of that bill and would get a large fee .if the bill -was passed, until a very short time before its passage-- I have forgotten how long--when the suggestion was made to me by the -jumoi' Senator from Indiana [Mr. FAIRBANKS] right in that part of the Chamber back of the Republican side. Ho stated to me that he desired to vote for the bill, that he was friendly to its passage, but that he had. been informed that there was a very largo fee to be paid out of it to those who were pressing the matter before the Senate and before the House of representatives, and that he would not support the bill if that wero true. -1 replied to him that I did not think that could possibly be true, but that I would ascertain what were the'facts and report to him. 
1 immediately sought Mr. Stahlman,. who was the only man I knew connected with the matter. I stated to him the report which was being circulated, and asked him whether or not it was true. He stated to me personally and emphatically that there was no contract of any kind I'or the payment of a fee to anybody-- to himself or to anyone else--out of the money which was sought to be recovered on account of this claim, adding that of course there were some necessary expenses -which would, have to be paid; and while the amount of those expenses was not indicated by him in any way, the impression left upon my mind was that they were comparatively insignificant, such expenses as would naturally be incurred by persons for hotel bills, traveling expenses, and things of that- kind--absolutely necessary expenses. I state that as the simple impression left on my mind, but the statement -was dis tinctly made that tliere was nG contract of any kind by which a 
fee -would be paid out ot the amount recovered. 1 immediately thereafter saw the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
FAIRBA N icri] and repeated substantially to him at the time--which he doubi less will remember--the statement which was made to me. 1 ftmde the samf .statement to the Senator JrYom Tennessee [Mr.B.vrr.j, I think also to the Senator from Florida iMr. PARCO\ and others "who were prominent in the advocacy of this claim, that such representations had been made to me by Mr. Stahlmaii. 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Will the Senator allow me? Mr. BACO^J". If tlie Senator will pardon me i'or a moment, the Senator from Tennessee recalls to my mind what, I had forgotten, and that is that when the Senator from Indiana called my attention to the matter, before going to see Mr. Stahlmau I saw the. Senator from Tennessee and orheis. and toid them of the report, and, at their instance. I went and saw Mr. Stahlman. 'After having had an interview with him. I came back and reported to the- Senator from Indiana and to theseseveral gentlemen."whose attention, withmv own, had been called to tho matter by the Senator from Indi ana. I now yield to ihe Senator from iiidiima, ji' he dosjz'os to say 
anything, and shall be slacl. to hear him. Mr. FAIRBANKS. I was merely going to suggest to the Sen 
ator from Oeorgia that when his attention was called to the rumor that a lee was to bo paid and that those Senators 011 this side who were favorably disposed toward the claim would oppose it if the rumor were true, the Senator from Georgia said, if! I remember ccn-ectly, that he would himself oppose ft it' there was any truth in the report, but he was positive that thisrc was no truth what 
ever in it. Mr. BACON. 1 do not remember having said to the Senator 
that I would have so voted, but such undoubtedly would have 
3454 
 
 been my action, and I have no doubt that I did so sts.ite. because th;it was my feeiJng. 
Mr. President, i do not think tliere has ever "been any action by Congress in the allowance of a claim where there was a more gen erous and beneiiuent desire on the part of Congress to do a good 
great religious denomination, if not as"a matter of strict law. as a matter which could properly "be treated m this generous arid lib eral manner in dealing- with a great religious denomination: and that the idea, that it was a business transaction, to "be lobbied through Cong-rosP, would have been abhorrent to the mind and thought of almost every Senator and Representative -who sup ported it. 
For myself, Mr. President, regardless of any personal relations or feelings, I should certainly have refused to have supported tlie passage of the bill if I had known that a third of the amount ap propriated was to be paid to the promoters of the bill, and that it would be diverted from the beneficent purpose and end -which we had in view. 
Mr. President, \v\ien one conies to relate t"he substance or tlie words of a conversation ordinarily, there is frequently hesitation in one's mind as to the exact words spoken or even the substance of them, but that is not true where there are attendant circum stances which fix the matter very strongly in the mind. If this conversation with Mr. Stahlman had been had with me in the or- 
nd others that I would go to see Mr. Stahlman and ask of him whether or not the rumor was true, and my immediate return and reporting to those several Senators of what he said, leaves no pos sible doubt about the entire accuracy of my recollection, and there is no possible doubt about it. 
As to the question of percentage, that did not enter into the conversation with Mr Stahlman at all, because I had at that time never heard any specific percentage mentioned. The Senator from Indiana in reporting to me what lie had heard, simply stated that he had understood it to be a very large fee, without stating any percentage. In my conversation -with the Seiaator from Ten nessee and others before going to see Mr. Stahlman, no mention was made of any percentage; and in my conversation with him (Mr. Stahlman) there was no mention of any percentage. It was simply a question whether or not there was a large fee to be paid to him or others out of the recovery on account of this claim of the Methodist J3ook Concern, and his assurance to me was that there was no such contract, but that there would necessarily be some expense to be paid. 
Mr. President. I do not desire to go further into this subject, as other Senators have expressed very fully their own individual views and the views of others. I can only state that I deplore and regret it extremely. I regret it because of the fact that a very Jarge portion of this money has been diverted from the object \ve had in view when we passed the bill, and 1 regret it extremely on account of the mortification which must come to this very large class, this religious societv. who are among the most respectable people in our section of "the country, and who would be among the last to be parties to any imposition by which money -was to be gotten from Congress under anything like false pretenses. 
 
 INTERNATIONAL BANK. 
DISCUSSION 
HON. A. O. BACON, 
OF GEO-ROJA, 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
JUNE 13, 14, 15, AND 17, 1898. 
I8g8. 
 
  DISCUSSION" 
 
" '' 
 
BY 
 
HON. A. O. BACON. 
 
June 13. .WJS. 
The Senate having under cousidersition tlie bill (S. 3-H-i) to carry into effect the recommendations of the IntBi*na,tional American Conference by tlie incorporation of tlie International! American Bank- 
Mr. BACON said: Mr. PRESIDTCKT: I should like to ask tlie Senator from Ohio if lie thinks the General Government lias any power to charter a bank except it be for the performance of some governmental function? Mr. FOKAKKB. No; I do not think it has. Therefore I answere.d aa I did a moment ago. If the Senator from Qeorgia was listening, he would have remembered that I said ------ Mr. BACON. 1 was called momentarily from the Chamber and possibly did not hear the Senator. Mr. FOBAKEB. 1 said there was 110 specific fauction desig-nated by the terms of the bill, yet it was, after all, an incorpora tion for the purpose of discharging this particular governmental function, namely, assisting> reg-alato commerce between tho States and with foreign countries. 1 said it was authorized by that provision of the Constitution, and it was an agency of the Government in thai respect. Mr. BACON. J beg pardon; I was absent from the Chamber momentarily "when the Senator made that explanation. The Sen ator, then, understands this charter to be designed for the pur pose of aiding the G-overninent in the regulation of interstate commerce. Am I correct in that? T should be glad if the Senator would call attention to the particular sect ion "which is intended to carry oat Uiat purpose. Will the Senator kindly refer to the sec tion of tlie charter? Mr. FOBAKEB. I will react from the report made by Mr. BROSIUS, winch I referred to a while ago. and which will be printed as a part of inv r>inarks. Mr. BACON. As the Senator is speaking of the powers of the company. I should like to have him rei'er to the particular charter power by and through which the Government will perform the function of regulating interstate commerce. Mr. CAFPERY. Through the banks? Mr. BACON. Yes; through the banks. Then I should like verv much------ 
Mr. FORAKER,. I do not say to regulate it. The provision of the Constitution is that Congress may be empowered. I will read the exact clause: 
 
eign mitions. " ' 
 
" 
 
Now, that does not mean simply that the Congress shall say 
 
upon "what terms the products of other countries shall be brought 
 
3455 - 
 
3 
 
 into this country or the products of this country shall be exported; 
but it may mean a great many thing's. It means. among others, that Congress shall have tho power to create governmental agen cies to facilitate tho conduct of our commerce and trade with other countries. That has been held repeatedly by the Supreme Court, and in the report made by Mr. Bi-iOSiL'S to the House of Representatives, and to which I referred a moment ago, some of the authorities are cited. 
I will not take the time now to read them, but, considei-ing them now in that light, as an agency established by the G-overiiuieut for the purpose of facilitating pur trade with other countries, you will find, in the enumeration of the powers this bank shall be invested "With, that it has the power to handle exchange and to do a great many other things having relation to trade, whereby our tradewill be facilitated and whereby it will be unnecessary hereafter, as has been the case heretofore, that, we shall trade with those countries through the banks of London and elsewhere in Europe. It is in that general sense, and it is no other specific sense that I 
know of. Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me. of course no one 
disputes the fact that there is a constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce bet-ween this country and I'ureign countries and also between the States, bitt the point I desire; to"ask the Sen ator to g-ive me definite information upon is whether this hank is intended to exorcise those governmental functions: whether it is intended that the Government of the United States shall delegate to these private parties the official functions of regulating com merce between this country and foreign countries and of regulat ing commerce between the States:1 
Mr. t'O RAKER. Oh, no. Mr. BACON. The Senator will pardon ine a moment. He savs no,-'' I understand. Mr. FORAKER. Certainly; i have said i; no" all the time, as 
repeatedly as 1 have been asked. I say no in th;;l specific sense, and 1 sav it is an agency simply in the sense that it facilitates these: transactions; that is all. 
Mr. BACON. If it ib intended that this shall be a governmental agency, it is a very serious question. If it is intended that tin is shall be a governmental agency in tbe performance of these very g-reat i'tmcfcions, I say this measure onglit to have very careful consideration. If it is merely the charter of a private institution 
for the purpose of carrying on commerce, it is one thing. Mr. FOBA.KTCR. That is what it is. 1C the Senator from 
G-eorgia wii] allow" me to say again, it is a private corporation in tended to carry on tli. busiiiess which it is expressly authorized to carry on, and the constitutional warrant for it is found in the provision to which I have referred that ex necessitate it facilitates g'enoral commerce- It is not an agency of the Gf-ovoruiiieJi I in any such sense as the Senator speaks of, as I understand him. 
Mr. BACON. Very well; we now come back to that point. I originally asked the Senator whether it was competent for Con gress to charter a bank which was riot intended to perform some governmental function. The Senator said it was not. The Sen ator said he did not think it was competent for Congress to charter a bank unless it was clothed with the power to perform govern mental functions; in other words, that the general business of incorporating1 companies for private purposes is not a part of the business of Congress. "When 1 ask as to -what those particular 
governmental functions are, the learned Senator, as I understand, 
 
 says that they are not governmental functions, but that they are the private business of a private corporation, in the performance of which the general "business of the country' will be advanced. 
Mr. President, if the Senator will pardon mo a moment. Of course I dislike to make any suggestions which may be unfriendly to the bill -which has the support of tlie Senators -who are evi dently interested in its passage, but at the same time 1 think it is an extremely grave and important matter. I have been unable to appreciate any suggestion which has been made of the advantages which are to flow from this bank. I am. unable to recognize the correctness of the suggestion made by the Senator in his openingremarks that this bank \vill have any power in foreign countries that a bank woiild not have if it were chartered by-a State. I do 
not think it will have one. - Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me to correct him, 
I did not nay this bank would have any more power- in another State. Well, possibly I did say what amounted to that, too. What I meant to say was that no State, according to the provi 
sions of its constitution, where I happen to know anything about the State constitutions of the Union, has power to authorize a bank to go into the various States and transact banking- business, much less to go into foreign countries and transact international banking business, as this bank is authorized to do. 
1 did not contend in that connection that this bank, because chartered by the National Government, would have by reason of that fact power, regardless of the wishes of. foreign governments, to go into foreign countries and there transact business; but I say it is competent for the Congress of the United States, in tho exer- 
 
lish any other agency or facility for the transaction of this busi ness with other countries which may, in .1 general way, have the effect of regulating, if you want to use that word, tlie commerce of this country with the other countries. It remains a private corporation engaged in private business, not a governmental ag-ency in the particular sense in which you speak of it; and yet it is an agency established by the Government for the facilitating of that business and in that sense warranted by the Constitution, as I understand, 
Mr. BACON. If it were necessary that the General Govern ment should charter a bank in order that that bank might have power to exercise corporate functions in a foreign country, there would be a sound basis for the application for this charter. l?ut such, Mr. President, is" not the fact. Any_ independent sover eignty even within such limitations, as our' States exorcise such overeignty, has the power to make a corporation. It has the 
er to give that corporation all powers not prohibited within 
 
i go 
 
_ 
 
of those powers in the foreign jurisdiction nrust necessarily de 
 
pend upon the consent of the foreign jurisdiction; but the State 
 
has the same power to clothe a corporation with corporate power 
 
that the General Government would have if it had 110 limitation 
 
upon the incorporating of companies. 
 
The Senator says that 110 State, so far as he knows, has the power 
 
to clothe corporations with powers wliich etmld be exercised in a 
 
foreign State. It is done every day. Mr. President. I do not know 
 
how it is in the State of Ohio, because I have never had occasion. 
 
to look into it, but the State of New Jersey (and I mention that 
 
3455 
 
 t States in the aranth corporation which 
Ktato. except so far n it ' Ban!?' of Augusta,''in % qMstioX, aucVnnderit1 tlierc CM 11 that a banl^chnrtered ill one 
may seam to be a, very simple it is a very serious thm if wo |;he last sixty years and il we are 
Oil evasion of UK; spirit if - ill depute tlie fact., [1 M--r-.--T- El- ,r=,-K"n'l,.-Dth,ast- 
to'pomt' out in a vawue and iiidefmilo is d. sifriied to per! or,,: s,-mo 
^j^tiS?^^^^^ pressed by them: and yet when 
from Gfiovgiti allow mo to think the S^nalor from Oeoi-p-ia niber \v"h<yn ii_\ tho co.svrie r,f my iv-siK'.vks upon the point mad'.' by liiui yofticiL'iay - "- - express provision in the pro- 
 
 agency created by the Government to perform: that it is for tho court- to deU.'i-mme \vheUior or not the corporation, by the power conferred tipoa, does in i'i'ici, do anything that can be construed or justly held by the court to be in the nature of a TOgu'latipn of commerce. I do not think the Senator could have heard the decision. 
lii that connection T pointed out that the proposed statute does, as ilecided in oTher cases to which I called attention, rojralnt<; and deal with comnic-rce in the sense thiit negotiable instruments, drafts, Sine'1 Inns ol excua-.ige areiiist.rxvm.eiit aiities, to use the lan guage of the Supreme Court of the "United States, necessary in the consummation of these transactions which our people are haviiiy -with tho people of other countries, and ailythirii? that relates to these instrumentalities is m tKc iitvtuL-y of <& rejrnljitTon ol' com- iiiei-ce. Oi! course it is only hi that sense--it has never been claimed in any other---that this'is an agency created by the Gov ernment to aid in the regulation of commerce among- the .States and with foreign countries. 
Mr. BACON. I understand. t did hear the Senator from Ohio state that proposition, and I heard him read an authority upon if. I understand the proposition ol: the Senator to be this, then, that the fact that a bank is clothed with the power to issue bills of ex change and other instrumentalities by vt'liicii commerce is carrietl on br-tvyeen different countries clothes it "with such agovermxien tal function in the regulation of commerce as puts it within the juris diction of Congress to charter such an institution, if that propo sition is correct------ 
Mr. FORAKEK. The bank is required to make provision for the issuing of bills of exchange find for all tlieso branches that nvd to be established in other "cotmtriea. The, hank is required, to do those things which are essential to the facilitating of our business. 
Mr. BA<"-'< >N. if that proposition is true, then" it is true that in all cases Congress has the constitutional power to charter banks, because all banks deal in those things which, create these agencies by winch interstate and foreign commerce is carried on, 
Mr. LOGKAKEli. if the Senator will pardon mo, ail "banks do not have the authority, as t undertook to say yesterday, to estab lish, by reason or the powers oonl'ei-red upon them in their cbarter, branches in other States than those States in which they are chartered, and especially are they without po\ver to establish, branches and conduct business in other countries: and. the Con gress is the only body in r,ll this country--I mean there is no State legislature with such authority--which has authority to confer any ^;ch power npon aiiy incorporated cojupaiiy. 
Mr. BACOiN". I utterly deny the proposition that this Govern ment can confer upon a, corporation a.iiv greater pn \verri to be ex ercised beyond the borders of this jurisdiction than the State can confer upon a corporation, and I road Iron! a decision which I cited yesterday from memory. I now have H before vue. 
Air. FOB-AItKIl. I fT'tdiiotiii&un t opiate th< a. proposition, exactly as the Senator from Cleorgia has stated it. ii be will allow me to interruit him, I did not moan to say that a corporation created by a .State- for instance, could not, by the comity of another State, ;o into thai; Stale and there v.r;-.."MSact the =.aiii<i kind of business 
that it was a,uthorixed to trausact a,t Ijorne. .8nt I do not believe, for his him-!,1, that n bank cliaiM-ered by the rfiatr- of G-eoryia could, wii""hin the contemplation oi: that charter, legitimately go into tlie State of Kentucky und there e^labiisli and carry on a banking bnsij;ess, unless the Senator has sonu-tliiiiy in his constitution and 
 
 g 
laws governing the granting of general charters very different from what we have in our State. 
Mr, BACON. I understand the Senator, then, to state as a gen eral proposition that a bank chartered in one Stale can not do "business in another State, unless that batik is specifically author ized in its charter so to do, and that when so authorized it can do it. 
Mr. FOKAKEK. I do not say at all that they can not trans act any "business. Of course, if they loaned money to a man who would go off' into aijother State and refuse to pay it, thev could follow him there and sue him. They could transact such business as might he necessary to carry on their business in that respect: but I mean to say that- it is not within t!ic contemplation of the charter, at least ordinarily, that they should establish a "bank in  the State whore they are chartered and another "bank in each of the other forty-four States. 
Mr. BACON. Agencies in the other States? Mr. FORAKER. i mean banks. They may have an ag-ent pos sibly in some particnJar case for some particular business, bvit what I say is this: Take my own. State- for illustration, for I know what the constitution and laws are in that particular ami gener ally. 1 do not believe that a State bank chartered to do business in "the State of Ohio could, in atldition. to establishing its banking house and conducting- its business within that State, go also into each and every other State in tiie Union by virtue of the power conferred upoii it by its charter from Ohio,"and in each and every other State establish a bank and conduct business as though there incorporated. Of course they would liave to do it by comity it' at all. But even in that way I think it would he ultra vires to go and do business in tiiat manner. Mr. BACON. 'When the Senator speaks about going into an other State and establishing1 a bank, I do not suppose he means what he says. If when he says " establish a bank" he means es tablish an independent bank, a bank complete of itself, that can only be done by the authority of the .-jurisdiction, in which, it is 
proposed to set it up. Mr. FORA KER. Ah, but------ Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me a moment, Hoes 
the Senator understand that this bill authorizes not only the estab lishment of a bank in the District of Columbia, Imt that inider this charter an independent bank can be established in every other State? 
Mr. FO RAKER. Not at all. I am talking- about the supposi titious case which the Senator put a while ago of n, bank under taking-to do business in other States than, the State in which it was chartered, and I am not talking about the actual case liefore us, which provides for one principal office and such, immber of branch banks as may be established, all belonging to the same corporation. 
Mr. BACON. Nobody that I know of ever suggested any other expansion of a parent bank except in the wav last indicated by the Senator, 
Mr. FORAKER. J. can put it plain enough so that there cer tainly can not be any difference as to the facts we are talking about. I do not believe, for instance, that a baiik chartered under the law off Minnesota, authorized by the charter of that State to carry on the banking business in that State, could also, in addition to having- its bank there, go to the city of New York and there engage in the banking business, keeping a banking 
3435 
 
 house there and conducting a "banking "business. I may be in error about it, but I do not believe tb at any corporate authority to do that would he conferred by the charter granted by the State, at least not under our constitution. 
>Tr. .BACON". I have gre&t.respnct for the Senator from Ohio, but he is certainly mistaken in that proposition. That question was settled in the case which 1 cited 'from memory yesterday and which I now hold in my hand, that of the Bank of Augusta against Earle, in Ki Peters, hi which there is a very learned and elaborate discussion of the (jiiestipn of extraterritorial powers upon the part of a hank, in an opinion delivered in behalf of the court by Chief Justice Marshall, and. in which the doctrine is clearly laid down that while it is true that a corporation is limited 
porate powers which are granted to it 1>y the parent from which ,it derives its being, of course subject to the limitation that there must "be no power exercised in that foreign jurisdiction conflict ing with the law in that jurisdiction. 
Mr. FORAKER. In other words, if the Senator will allow me, as I understand that decision (it is one with which every lawyer is familiar), the consent granted 'to the bank to do business in a foreign juvisdiction was "held to be the equivalent of a charter from th;it jurisdiction upon those terms. , 
Mr. BACON. Of course. Mr. FORAKER. That makes a wholly different case from that which we have been talking about. Mr. BACON. No, it is exactly what I have been saying all the time; bnt the Senator lias be"eii putting a case which did not exist. When he spoke about there being an independent bank as a branch of the original bank, of course it must be a branch and nothing 
Mr. FOKAKEH. But. if the Senator will allow me, the point I JIT ate is thai, it does not get the power to go into the other State by the charter from the State in whicjli it is incorporated, bnt by comity, which, when consent is granted, is the equivalent of a new charter granted bv the State without regard to the other. 
Mr. BACON. It is not the equivalent of a new charter. It is trne it gets the right to exercise those powers by the consent of the State in which it exercises them, but the fact that it has the power is due to the charter granted to it by the parent from which it derived its being. There can be no possible doubt-about that question. 
The point I am coming" to is this: If there is to be the grant of this charter, there ought to be a good reason for it. If it"be true that it was not within the original design, that the Federal Clovernment should engage in the granting- of corporate powers to companies, to be exercised outside of its immediate .jurisdiction-- oiitside of the District of Columbia and the Territories. I mean-- then there ought to he apparent some reason for the exercise of such a power at this time as -will show that it is iiecessarv that it should be done, even if there is a doubt about the power," con ced ing for thepurposeof argument that itis proper that it should be done. I \vant; to analyze find see what is tli& necessity. 
In the first place. 1 g-o back to the proposition which I was endea,voring to state when I got into the colloquy with the Senator from Ohio, that there is no possible power which the United States G-oveminent can confer upon this company to be exercised 
3455 
 
 outside of the District of Columbia and United States that conid not be conferred !Ne\sr V or_k, and [ stiintl upon that ;ts u !e,a;al proposition., cau 11*jt possibJy "by conti'overt(\l tiiut the Hi ate of ]\rew Y the power to confer upon a company chartered by it every 
 
inay go beyond the State am o do so by the other States: but 
 
!SSoS V l.;i 111II01J.U iii^LCttU- i-'J- uj OUJ.JJ.K, .j 1,0,1,1-, '-iii^ iji-iiig 
 
o to ;-i bank imncorpporated by it at uthority to <j< 
 
tli" wisli;-'p ot tlitit other State, into n.notbor i 
 
Btotl^dio''"b.ruJs!in,?e.s?sV. ,^I,?c.lla%imSlctShua"tr;t,Ih.!!e^?N,1,ea,-twtliv'oa!lny?ali' 
 
Government have pointed 
 
can out 
 
ill the ] iron; of '"on of our 
 
, ^, t .,,..-----_j .,,_- ^ ,_ ._ t. _.-_ -- .._.._. -_ -.,.-....-,..- .--3 n.tmu-it i-c'intl- 
 
l'iir, FORAKER. ll>eg pardon. The Senator ought not to look 
lit me so aDpeidinglyand invitingly, lie has suoil a gracious and  v ifnr>' wav thij'if 's impossible to resis 1 the tern oration to aii-"\ve-. 
 
Mr. J3A< Ul\. Tne ^on.ator answers i-n snn.cch an exceedingly pleasant way that it is with very great reluctance that T ask him t-t o l1 et1 i:>iiiev pf.vro,\rce- ed,\ \VTI-Tr-:fI-dI hsn(-.ti-:uiitei ut\ cr-.1 ^-"i-ie-ieili 0r:1i' (,-_> ,ToI i1-iirnini-i5t)ft\.-, jT i-nT-,.,ni~i'.,].-;--i^i1 am-,,1i the proposition of tho Senator to be this, and I Hope 1 may have his attention even it I do run the risk of interruotioii. 
Mr. FOR,.i!lEf4. I am always delighted to give the Senator 
 
1U Mr. BACON. Tt " .----." 
 
 
 
-., ,, 
 
 Mr. FORA.KER. I dislike to interrupt the Senator. . 
 
Mr. BACON". It is all right. I asked the question. 
 
Mr, FOKAXER. The charter provides that this bank shall 
 
have its principal office in the city of "Wash/in-t on or ill New York 
 
and eight branch offices located .at sncli points as its directors may 
 
select, to be approved, etc. 
 
Mr.. BACON". The proposition is that so far as those eight 
 
States in which the branches are to be located are concerned, the 
 
corporation is to have the right to do business not by virtue of 
 
the comity of the Slates or by "their consent, bill; by- virtue of the 
 
comimmd of the Federal Government that, it shall hnve it. 
 
Mr. FORAKER. That is my view of it. 
 
- Mr. 13ACQN. I say that proposition, is utterly witlfout an: hority 
 
in any provision of the Constitution, "We a re not to deal in refine- 
 
ments. It the argument of the learned Senator is correct, then 
 
the general proposition is practically established that it is within 
 
the power of the Federal Government, by an.y peculiar provisions 
 
which it may see proper to insert in a charter, to impose upon 
 
States, regardle.ss of the wishes and consent of those Scales, cor 
 
porations to do a banking business within the co " 
 
"" 
 
States, 
 
Mr. .FOHAKKR. I dislike to do so, but will tht 
 
me to interrupt him again? 
 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. 
 
Mr. FORAKTCR. My contention is whnt I have stated it to be, 
 
because, in my opinion, this bank is to discharge governmental 
 
functions in the sense in which I have explained, (t is an agency 
 
established by the Government to be used in the regrLlation of 
 
commerce among- the States ai>el with foreign conn trie-:.-?, and there 
 
fore something that is wit.hiiithe purview of the powers conferred 
 
by the Constitution upon the Congress, and whenever it comes to 
 
the establishiuent of; that kind of an agency, that heiii^ admitted, 
 
I think the Senator from Georgia will agree with me that that 
 
kind of azi asjencv may g-o into any State, 
 
Mr. BAC(.)N. With all cine respect to the Senator from Ohio, I 
 
desire to say that I regard the proposition that this is for the pur 
 
pose of performing a governmental function as a mr-re device to 
 
get a charter from the Government ol.' the United States for an 
 
altogether different purpose. 
 
Mr. FORAKKII rose. 
 
Mr. BACON. Now. if the Senator will pardon me a moment------ 
 
Mr. FORAKER. No: what I want to say was that that, of 
 
course, is a matter of opinion. 
 
Mr. BACON". I WHS going- to give my reason fur it. 
 
Mr. FORAKER, As a matter of opinion yom: argument is 
 
legitimate. My proposition was, conceding the charader of ihe 
 
or g-rmi nation to be what I have claimed for It, you would certainly 
 
agree that it could go into any State without legard to the wish 
 
of the State. 
 
Mr. BACON. \res; if it was in good faith chartered for a dis 
 
tinctly governmental purpose to carry on ;i governmental func 
 
tion, like the carrying of the mails, for instance, or the transpor 
 
tation of trooiis, if you please, or for any other thing1 of that kind, 
 
which would be a different matter. 
 
Air. HARRIS. Which the State could not do. 
 
Mr. BACON, Which the State could not do, as suggested by 
 
the Senator from Kansas most pertinently. But where it is in lib 
 
essential particular different iroin any otlit^r bank, and where it 
 
is proposed to clothe it nominally with other functions simply for 
 
 the purpose of endeavoring to take it out of a general rule, tlien it is a very different matter. 
Mr. President, I was proceeding to say when the Senator inter rupted mn that in my opinion these particular features which were ingrafted upon this bill, by which it was sought to establish the fact that it -was framed for a governmental purpose, constitute simply a device for the purpose of getting a charter from the Gov ernment, not that these governmental functions might be per formed, "but for a very different pin-pose, and that purpose is the ono stated by the Senator from Maine [Mr. FRY IB]. 
There is but one point in which this bank will differ from a b;mk chartered by a State. There is no power which it can per form but -what can be performed by a bank chartered by a State. As stated by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. TiLr,ER"|, there is now no trouble about exchange between this country and foreign countries through the instrumentalities of existing banks in the States and the national banks. There is no trouble about getting exchange on South .America. Every man who has ever traveled to Europe and has taken a letter of credit knows it well--that it is good iyr a thousand pounds, for instance, and upon the "back ol: it is printed the name of every important town in the whole world. There is not a city of importance in ."Europe, .Asia. Africa, or South America the name of which is not upon the back of that letter of credit. Thez'e is not a single one of those cities in the 
rid get his money by simply writing his name upon it and j. ,_. a receipt; for it. I say the contention that tliere is a necessity for this bank in order that exchange may be facilitated can not be supported by any fact. It is not true in point of fact. 
Wo, Mr. President. 1 say there is another reason. What is the reason? It can not be that originally suggested by the Senator from Maine, that it is for the purpose of enlarging our markets. The Senator from Colorado has answered that suggestion. There is hut one purpose, and I say that is a purpose not justified by any legitimate use of the powers -we hold under the Constitution of'the United States. That purpose is to incorporate a bank which shall have in its name and in its powers the prestige and authority of the Government of the United States^ There is nothing else in it, Mr. President. Tf you should take that out of it 1 would not give a bawbee for the bill. There is nothing else in it. There is no power which, this bank can exercise, I repeat, that it could not exercise if it held the charter from the State of 3S~ew York. The sole purpose, the controlling purpose, the pur pose without which the charter would not be -worth the paper it 
that the name and authority and prestige or this great Govern ment may be given to a private corporation. 
Mr. President, if it had been designed originally that the Gov ernment should go into that business, there would have been no doubt about it; it would have been given that power or it would have been found in some oi: the implied powers. But the Supreme Court oil the United States says that in conferring power iipon. Congress it "was not designed that it should have the power to grant corporate life, and that it could only be justified -where some great governmental function was to "be performed which could not be performed, by a State or by the agency of a State. If that is trite, ought we to pass this charter? 
Senat-ors say they are surprised that we should stand here to 
 
 13 
defend the rights of other riational banks. 'Well, Mr. President, so long as they are legal, so long as they are authorized and sus tained by the law of the land: they are entitled to be protected. And they are not the only banks. Some of the greatest banks in this country are not national banks. Is it proper that we should here set uu a great, gigantic bank -which is to enter into competi tion with "every other bank in the United States? - When all other banks hold their corporate powers from the State except the pres ent national banks, which are of a very different character from that of the bank now proposed to' be chartered, is it proper that they should all be brought into competition with this gigantic bank, backed up with the name and authority and the prestige of the great Government of the United States? I asked the Sen ator, if that is so desirable, whether it ought not to be made a general law, so that other parties, if they see proper to create banks of this kind, might have the opportunity so to do. The Senator said that in the committee he favored a provision of that kind, but the Senator did not say he would be willing to ingraft upOTi this bill a provision by which other parties might associate themsel ves together and come in competition with this bank. The Senator said that other parties might come to Congress and by showing that they had the ability and the character, financially and otherwise, to carry on such a gigantic business, they could get charters. Mr. President, if yon ever clothe -with life this cor poration, it, will see to it that Congress shall not grant to any other corporation simiJav powers. 
I repeat, as 1 have had occasion to say once or twice rather in a disconnected way during this discussion, this is one of the gravest questions that have ever uome before Congress since 1 have had the honor to bo connected with it. I asked the Senator from Ohio, it is true not in debate, but in private conversation, in what partic ular does this proposed bank, except in the fact tli at it can not issue bank billy. djfCer from the old national bank with which Jackson grappled and which at one time threatened the domina tion of. tiiis whole country, and the Senator was unable to point out any distinctive difference. In view of the history of this country, in view of the great events and the great contentions which g-rew out of the existence of a national bank in former days, is it so light a matter thafc we should charter tlie twin of it up'on such light considerations as are suggested here? 
Mr. President, I did not expect when I rose to do more than point out the fact that there was no power which could be con ferred upon this bank which could not be given it by a State; but I have been by my earnestness in the matter drawn into a much more extended presentation of it than I expected. 1 regret ex ceedingly that upon, a matter so grave, so wide reaching, so exceed ingly serious in the consequences which may follow it, we have had in this discussion a comparatively empty Senate, and that we are to have it voted upon without proper consideration by all tlie members who have failed to hear the discussion as it has pro gressed. 
June 15, 1898. 
Mr. BACON". Mr. President., [ do not desire to say much more than I have already said upon this subject, and only do so becau.se I regard as a very grave one the question -which is now about to be settled. 
3455 
 
 When the "bill came before the Senate it was for the incorpora tion of a particular "banking company. By an aTiiendment- and 1 hope I may have the serious consideration of Senators wheu I mako the suggestion which I am now about to speak or--it hay been practically made a general law. so that any other aggroga-tioii of individuals may make a similar association and be incor porated as a batik. 
The effect of that is that we will have upon our statute books two national banking laws. We have upon the statute books a law by which national, banks now existing have been incorporated and by which others may be incorporated. It is an elaborate HVStem, iit which all the details are arranged and perfected and through which the banking business of this country is carried on. It is now gravely proposed that, with one general banking- law \vhich answers every purpose that this banking1 law can possibly effect, \ve shall have upon the statute books another general bankins? law. 
Mr. President, I challenge either one of the Senators to point to a single function with which it is proposed to clothe this new class of "banks which can not- be exercised by the banks under the pres ent banking' law. If that is true, if there is no function which uemld lie exercised "by the proposed banks which can not be exer cised by the present banks, then for what purpose are these banks to be authorized? 
The whole of the jurisdiction of Congress to charter these banks is endeavored to be hung upon the contention that there is in cluded in the corporate powers of these banks the power to per form certain governmental functions, it might be possible, with the enumeration of powers in this charter, that the courts would hold that the act was constitutional, because the courts wovild say that they would not go back of the words of the .Legislature to'ascertain whether or not they meant what they said: that they \voald not construe the charter to have been granted in bad faith by Congress, and that, therefore, if the words used were suscep tible of being construed as creating a governmental power, they would hold the act to be constitutional. 
But the question I wish to submit to Senators is this: We have a responsibility in which we are directly charged with the necessity of good faith on our part. Now, "what do we ourselves say as to whether or not this charter is intended for tho purpose of carrying out the design of the performance of great govern mental'functions? The Senator from Florida [Mr. MALI.OKY] 
read a portion of the reply of the Senator from Maine \ Mr. FUYF/! , who is a member of the committee which reported this bill. The Senator from Ohio ("Mr. FOJAAKEH 1 contends that the-purpose is that there may be the exercise of governmental functions bv the bank, but the "Senator from. Maine distinctly said that the pxirpose was to give to the bank and to the parties who are the owners of it the prestige and the aiithority of this Government, and that 
that -was the sole purpose. I read again "what he said upon that subject; it was in a colloquy with myself: 
 
 15 
Mr. President, can- we disguise from ourselves the fact that that is the purpose; and does any man doubt it? It' it is the pur pose?, then it is not within the purview of the powers conferred upon us "by the Constitution in this regard. 
.We have had some experience with'a great-colossal bank. It was for a long- time a trnestion whether the bank should control the Government or whether the Government should control the bank. I hold in my hand volume 1 of Bentoii's Thirty Years' View, and I ask that the Secretary read the part I have marked on page 1WS, in which he describes the operations ,and the power of the great United States Bank, which was overthrown in the Ad ministration oE Jackson. 
Tho Secretary read as follows: "With its moneyed and political power ajicl numoi-ous intorostc-a aiaiia- 
truly a power, tmrt a great one; and, in answer to a question put by general 
mentioned (inid appended -witli other (|m--sticm>i and jiiiswers to that report'). Mr.Bidd1c,thepr4idt-nt,shoW eda power in t 
3 nii\)le its president to exhibit 
bank at any time oppressed anv or the St;v " Ney ( >r." Ami. us if that was not enough, Mr. 1 are very few banks which might not have beeii destroyed liy an oxertion of 
ill be rcmomljerecL by the generation or thtLt dnr 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, in the case of the old Bank ef the United States there was the solemn declaration by the president of that; bank that it was within the power of that bank to have destroyed-any State bank that it had sought t,o destroy. He, in a Congressional investigation, deliberately made the statement that while they had never done it, they had the power to do it. This bank which -we seek now to incorporate will have that power if this bi]l passes. 
Mr, .President, that Bank is to be but one of a great many, if we are going into this field. 
Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator from Georgia- tell me how that could be done? 
Mr. BACON, How it could destroy other banks? Sir. MOKGAN. Yes. Mr. BACON". That is a very broad question, and it might take a verv gresit length of time to answer it. Mr, MORp AN. I should like to have one answer. Mr. BACON. It seems to me it is a very simple suggestion, in response to the inquiry of the Senator, that a bonk which is in corporated to the extent of 3^,*,000.000, wtiioliwbail have the power to q-o inte any State of the Union, regardless of the consent oi! that State----- Mr. GRAY. And be at home there. Mr. BACON". And be at home in any State; which shall be 
 
 free from all control of State courts; -which shall have the ma chinery of the Federal Government behind it; shall have the Fed eral courts open to it; shall have the prestige of the national name, ancl shall have the power not only to have a capital of $35,000, 000, but to purchase and hold withoutlim.it a thousand million dollars or five thousand million dollars, it' you please, of the corporate stocks of hanks in other countries--for that is the authority given in this charter -which has just been refused "by the Senate to be stricken out--I say with such vast and unlimited powers, it is a very simple question as to how it can destroy small banks. 
Mr. CAP PER Y. May I ask the Senator a question? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. CAFF.ER.Y. I ask the Senator -whether these very banks that Mr. Biddle stated the United States Bank had the power to destroy did not destroy themselves in about five years after the deposits were removed from the United States Bank? Mr. BACON. Would the fact that there was a general panic and that banks failed show that they destroyed themselves? It may have been, and it was charged to have been, the result of the influence and acts of the United States Bank. Mr. President, capital is like everything- else. The greater power controls the lesser. The great danger is when wTe put in the hands of a few men such an aggregation of capital, in the shape of an artificial being, that it may be able not only to con trol other corporations and destroy them, if you please, but to control governments and say who shall be President, who shall be Senators, who shall be Representatives, and -who shall be judges. That is the great danger. Mr. President, I say this is but a beginning if we are going to g outside of the beaten path and incorporate great corporations by Federal act. I hold in my hand a very remarkable bill, which is now pending before this body, yet to my mind no more objectionable than the bill which is now under consideration. I liold in my hand a bill -wliiclx is iiow in order for actioTi.--it is unon the Calendar--to in corporate the National Association of Manufacturers. Wh;it does this bill -propose? It proposes to incorporate all. if you please, of the manufacturers in the United States, certainly so many of them as choose to go into this corporation, and gives them unlimited power to own the stock in every corporation in the United States of any character whatsoever. Mr, GRAY. Is it a House bill? Mr. BACON. A Senate bill. It is pending on the Calendar now. I will read the very simple enumeration of powers in this very innocent-looking bill. I use it simplv by way of illustration. The bill is not now'before the Senate, but i am trying to i?how \vhere we are drifting. T am trying to show -what is the spirit that is coming over this body bv which we do not si art agliast as we ought to at the idea of erecting into life and being a power whicli shall be more not only than an individual can grapple \vitli, but a, power which will be sufficient to control the policy and the laws anil their administration by this Government. Now, here is the illustration. After naming the incorporators, who are scattered all over the country, in twenty or thirty odd different States, 1 have forgotten which, it says: 
stylo, 
 
 L< Tlie Xatioiial A ssociation of Manufacturers of tiie United. 
Now.listen to the enumeration of powers: 
Senator from (rfeorgia when he first adverted to this hill, which was before the Senate temporarily yesterday, and I do not under stand, how it is injected into the belly oi! his speech upon the ba.nk bill. What I said yesterday, Jiowever, the Senator will - remember, was that the Association of Manufacturers is already in existence. The bill really gives it no powers that it has not now. There was a question in my mind, at the time the Senator from Arkansas objected, to it. as to the exact object of the corpo ration in regard to its powers to sell abroad, not to buy. 
Mr. BACON. Will the Senator please speak a little more dis tinctly? I can not hear him. 
Mr, QUAY. So I telegraphed to Mr. Search, who is president of the National Association, of- Manufacturers, which this bill pro poses to incorporate, and the following- is his reply: 
wl. 
If there is any amendment which the Senator can suggest to limit that corporation to the objects which the gentleman who I suppose will be president of the corporation, as he is now of the association, sets forth. I have no objection to it. 
Mr. SPOONEB. By whom is the telegram signed? Mr, QUAY. By Theodore G. Search, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. Mr. BACON. Mr. President, as I said before, this bill is not now under consideration, and I am simply using it by way of illustration. We are proposing here in the bill now under con sideration to charter a "banking association which shall have a capital of $35,000,000, which shall have the right; to impose itself upon the business of any State, regardless of the grant of any privilege by such State or the denial of the State, with the right to hold all the real estate in every State in this Union if it can acquire it in the natural order of its "business, because that is in. this charter. It can hold any real estate -which it may acquire in the operation of its business, and, of course, in the operation, of a. business of such large extent it can acquire a very great deal in the course of a very few years. There is no limitation upon the amount it can hold. We are proposing to incorporate a company which shall not only have power to go into any State without ask ing its leave and imposing- itself upon the State if the State says "you shall not come," hut we are proposing- to incorporate a com pany which shall have the rignt to own real estate in each and. 
3i55--2 
 
 18 
every State to an imUmited amount without the consent of the State. We are proposing to incorporate a company which shall have the right to own the corporate stock of every bank iti all the world outside of the limits fjf this country. \Vo are proposing to incorporate a hank the colossal proportions of which have never been equaled by any corporation that has ever been created in this country and. so far as 1 know, in any other. 
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] asks me if I include the national b;vu"ks. Of course I mol-u.de the national banks. 
Mr. MORGANS". There are 4,oOO of them. Mr. BACON, Each one of them is a distinct corporation, and a very different condition of affairs attends them from what must accompany the operations of this bank, and tho.?e banks are banks in the performance of governmental functions. But I will not be  diverted. I am answering the Senator from Pennsylvania. We are now proposing- to incorporate this great bank. We are proposing- to put a power here that no man can cope with and very few aggre gations of corporations can cope witli. and T am simply, by illus tration, saying that we do not propose to stop at this. We have launched upon a new sea. one boundless, and I am offering, in illustration, the fact that here we have this corporation wliicb., -while of course 1 grant to the Senator from Pennsylvania the ut most sincerity in the statement made by him that it is Tiot intended to be a trading corporation, nevertheless is one that in its terms is unlimited in its power to trade and its power to hold property of all kinds, real and personal. Mr. President, that was not the object for which this Govern ment was organised, and our Supreme Court has said so. This Government xwis not organised for tho purpose of creating cor porations. This Government was organized" for ail entirely dif ferent purpose, and the Supreme Court has said, and said so not once, but repeatedly, that the only authority lo prant corporate powers--of course speaking outside of the District of Columbia and the Territories--must be found in the necessity for the cre ation of. a corporation to have ome rmportaut govt-rtvmental func tion properly exercised. We are mirier a great moral obligation not to refine away tlmt restriction. It is not for us, by putting words which mean nothing or which are not intended" to mean what they sav into a charter, to assume a jurisdiction which the Constitution did not intend to confer upon us. If the words which are sought in this as the basis for this authority are legitimately here used, tlieu the restriction means nothing, because any other corporation which men may desire may come here and get a char ter by the use of.' words which are intended as a device and not as a real practical means by which governmental functions may be pov formed. Mr. President, in the absence of any necessity for this wide de parture, why should v\-e venture upon, such a sea. as this? As T had occasion to say yesterday, and I beg pardon for repeating it, in every function of foreign exchange the banks of this country have now every facility which a bank can have. It can not in any rnaimer advance the interests of this country. It is not de 
signed for the purpose of enabling' the Government to perform any groat -public function. The purpose, and the sole purpose-- and I desire it mug: in the ears oi! every man. and let him deny Who can--is to give to some few private individuals the advantage ol: the name and the authority and the prestige of the United 
3455 
 
 Mr. BACON. Mr. President, Idesire to say one more word before I conclude, in order that my position upon this bill niay not be mis understood. Senators have taken occasion during this discussion to say that they favor "banks and to deprecate opposition to banks. Sly opposition to this bill is wot founded upon any opposition to banks properly organised and in the performance of proper <ltities. I believe they are not only proper instrumentalities, but necessary "instrumentalities, to the conducting c_f the business and the com merce of the world, and I am \lad -to see them inci-ease and iiiiltiply and prosper. I think the prosperity of the country 
/ill put proper means in the reach of every person, either artificial or natural, by which business can be carried on. I am. opposed to this bank not because I am opposed to banks in general, but be cause [consider that this bank lias most objectionable features. I am opyiosetl to this bank because it lias po\yera that, i\obaiik. State or Federal, ought to have conferred upon it. There is no bank that ought to have the power which is syiven to this Lank to i^o out into all the world outside of the United States and purchase with out limitation and hold forever, during the life of the bank at lea^t. the corporate stocks of-^fvei-y oHifir l>nuk. 
Mr. President, it is dangerous to this countrv; it is dangerous to the business and to the "public interests of this country. Think for a moment what possibilities it opens! How can any man doubt it; Here is a bank with iSSo.OOU.OOO capital, and while it has a nominal capital of jp-25.000.OUU it has the ricflit to hold prop erty to tlie, extent, of a thousand million dollars: and \vliile this may be its home, it can own a capital in its magnitude beyond the comm-ehension or realization of man, represented by the shares of banks all over Europe. Shall we have "located in our midst such a gigantic bank in this day when consolidation' is so iriuch in vogue, by which 3500,000,000 or tfl .000.000,000 maybe in the hands of H few men to control the business, to say nothing of the poli tics, of this country? 
I am opposed to it because it is designed and is intended to have the power to dominate, and. if necessary, to destroy, any other bank in the country, either national or State: for. as the junior Senator from itaiiie [Mr. FiiYE) said in advocating this bill -- 
Mr. President, I am opposed to this particular bank because there is no reason for it. there is 710 necessity for it. There lias' been but one ground for it stated by the Senator I'rom Ohio or any other Senator who favors the bill, and that is the oft-ropoato(|as sertion that powers can be conferred upon this bank by the Fed eral Government to g'o into a foreign jurisdiction which can not be conferred upon a State bank by State authority. That. 1 say, is an assertion "which, can. "be sustained neither by argument nor by 
3455 
 
 20 authority, and I challenge the Senator, with all the books of all the libraries of all the world, to show in any elementary work or in a decision of any respectable court a dictum to the effect that the Federal Government can confer upon a corporation extrater ritorial powers -which a State can not Confer upon a corporation. I clia.il enge the Senator to point to a single line in a respectable authority or any decision of a respectable court where there is any such enunciation. 
The Senator may say, on the other hand, that mine is an asser tion and that 1. hare pointed to no authority when I say that a State can clothe a corporation with as great extraterritorial au thority and power as the Federal Government can do. I reply to him that I have cited here the leading authority upon that ques tion, and nobody has discussed it or dissented from it in any way--the aiithority of the case of Bank of Augusta -;;. Earle, in 18 Peters, where the whole doctrine is discussed, where the general power of any government in this regard is discussed, and where that pi-meiple affecting the powers of all sovereignties is laid down -without qualification, and which can not be met sncc< 
argument or by any ai y. Mr. President, I ai its incorporation by Congress would violate the ConstiUi construed by the Supreme Court of the United States. 3455 
o 
 
 HAWAIIAN ANNEXATION, 
SPEECH 
HON. A. O. BACON, 
OK QEORGIA, 
SEXATIi 01- THE UNITED STATES, 
 
  s r is K c n II OK. A. O. BACON. 
 
Mr. BACON said: Mr. PKESTDKXT: I presume it. will be recognized l>y all tliat there can be no more important question tUnn this before the coun try to-Gay. It is not simply the question of the annexation of a very smn 11 piece of territory, but, considered with reference to the merits of the case, it is one which involves the utter revolution of the practice and traditions of our G-overmncnt with reference to its benefits to the people and the obligations which it ] 113-3 upon 
 
time because the particular "bran eh of the discussion to which I shall direct my attention is one which goes to the root of the matter and which ought, if my contention is correct, to control 
the action of the Senate, Before proceeding with it, I think, however, I may be excused 
for remarking' that certainly this is a strange presentation to tho country, that in a matter of such gravity, that in a matter ot such wide- re aching- importance, the advocates of the measure have nothing to say. Ordinarily in measures of importance which come from the Foreign Relations Committee we have a report. In this instance the committee have not even honored us with a report. 
Ordinarily not only do we have a report, but -we have from the chairman .of that committee or some member representing- the committee an elaborate presentation of the reasons "why the legis 
lation is recommended by that committee. But hero we have neither report nor presentation. "We have simply presented to tho Senate a bill which has been passed by the House, and without re port and without discussion those who hold to the affirmative a.nk the Senate to act. It is as if, confident of a ma.joritj-, they should say, " We propose to do thus and so, right or wrongs and give 110 reason for it; ami what are you going to do about it?" That is tho attitude which the committee occupy in coming before the Senate, 
Mr. President, as I stated, it is "not my purpose to discuss; the general merits of the proposition to annex' tho islands of Hawaii, certainly not at this time; but I propose to present to the Senate 
 
. 
 
, 
 
e, as I have previously said, 
 
ought to control the action of the Senate and make them say "that; 
 
they will not pass the bill which the House bag sent to us. 
 
B305 
 
3 
 
 The proposition which I propose to discuss is that a measure which provides for the annexation of foreign territory is neces sarily, essentially, tlie subject-matter of a treaty, and that the as sumption of the House of Representatives in the passage of the bill, and the proposition on the part of the Foreign Delations Committee that the Senate shall pass the bill, is utterly without warrant in the Constitution. 
Mr. Prescient, the Senator from Colorado I Mr. TELJLKI;] says that ho would be very glufl to vote OIL this question to-day; that liia mind ia iiia.de np. The Senator from Colorado is one of the Senators whom I am anxious to speak to to-day, not because I be lieve 1 can ch;mge bis mind or his opinion on'the general merits of this question, but because I desire to nsk him and all Senators, especially those who arc lawyers, to consider the question whether or not they have the right, under their constitutional obligations, to voto Lor this resolution, however much they may favor the an nexation of Hawaii. 
Mr. TELLiEjl. \Viil the Senator permit me to answer that now? 
Mr. BACON. I be^; that the Senator will hear me before ho 
Mr. TELLER. I want to say that I will hear the Senator, but the Senator is not to understand that I have not myself considered this question very carefully. I will hear the Senator, of course. 
Mr. BACO-sT . Mr. President, of course I tlo not presume that the Senator from Colorado had'not considered this Question, but we are here for the purpose of interchanging views. I have great confidence in the Senator from Colorado, and am gratified by the fact that I seldom differ from him, and I shall bo more than grati fied if wo can get together upon this question. 
I assume that {Senators will not vote for a resolution if t"hey can be satisfied that if; is- unconstitutional. I assume that they will not vote for an unconstitutional resolution which directly impairs and strikes down one of the highest prerogatives of the Senate; and it is to that question that I propose to address myself to-day and upon which 1 am extremely anxious to have the hearing of Sena tors wlio favor the annexation of Hawaii. 
The proposition which. I had stated before tlie interruption was this: That a joint resolution for the annexation-of foreign terri tory wTas necessarily and essentially the subject-matter of a treaty, and that it could, not be accomplished legally and constitutionally by a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii is to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method: and if by a constitutional method it can not be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give his support to an unconstitutional measure. 
I trust, Mr. President, that the time has not come when a Sen ator can not appeal with confidence to Ms fellow-Senators in op position to a measure oil the ground that it is unconstitutional. It matters not how important it may be that Hawaii should be annexed. It matters not how valuable it may be, it will be too costly if its price is the violation of a great fundamental provision of the Constitution of the United States. 
Mr. President, it is a painful fact that not only people at large, but officials are losing to some extent the reverence which, they ought to have for constitutional obligations. It is a matter of a 
3505 
 
 say I bnve heei) Dained when I liave heard it in tins Chamber from yery learned Senators, and I haye been more than 
 
tobesmOoclbysncli clone s-o, ovury lover 
a blow Imd 
 
a, run the tins; of the TJiiiicd States no over it as nia of its power and its dominion -if he , all do so in one call do so in any. Pi-i.-3i.lout of the 
^^^Z^^^^^ 
came, that the President o the T.uitcd States haa 
of B n,\vaii liy a, proclamutioii as would 
 
sumo way t.lio Coiistithere arc, otl.cr laws 
as (TO.-.tffcri. - Tho 
 
 6 
be nullified by a treaty, and tliat where tliey conic in conflict the question of the later is the one invoked to determine which shall prevail. As to those two classes of law, each one of them supreme, there is provided in the Constitution an entirely distinct method by \vl\icli they may "bo enacted or made. I have stated the manner in which the statute law is made. Now, in an en tirely different manner, the Constitution of the United States de clares how si treatv, which is also a supreme 'Jaw, shall "bo made. It declares that a treaty must bo made by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. I am not quoting literally, but stating it sub stantially. 
I ask Ihc attention OL Senators to this most marked provision in the Constitution or the United States and the two distinct classes of law. each of them declared "by the Constitution to be supreme, each of them declared by the Supreme Court of the United States in con struing that provision to be equally supreme with the other, whicJi arc made and enacted hi specific ways in the manner pointed out in the Constitution, one totally different from the other. Is that pro vision of the Constitution a vital principle? Does it mean any thing? Is it possible that, tlie power whicAi is clothed by the Con stitution with Uic authority to make one class of laws can make the other class of laws? 
Is it possible that the power which is conferred upon the Con gress of the United States, the lawmalcing power, the Senate and the House, with the approval of the President, can be used to make that other supremo law which the Constitution says shall be made in a different way, to wit, by the President, witii_the ad vice and consent ol! tlie Senate? If it is possible for the House of Representatives and the Senate and the President, acting in the lawmakhig capacity, and known generally in the Constitution as Congress, can make a treaty, and in so making it make it the supreme law of the l;md, then this joint resolution is constitu tional. Ent if it be true that when the Constitution devolved upon the President and the Senate the power to make treaties it denied to the Congress of tho United States the right to make treaties, then the joint resolution is necessarily unconstitutional, as I shall endeavor to show. 
JMr. President, the Constitution gives to the President the power to appoint all officers of the United States by and with tho advico and consent of the Senate. If Congress can by statute make a treaty, why may it not by a statute make an ambassador or a chief justice or a general of tho Army? 
Mr.- President, there are two ways in which the provision in the Constitution conferring upon the President of the United States and the Senate tlie power to make treaties can bo absolutely nullified. One is the mariner I have suggested, by Congress openly and boldly assuming to raa'ke a treaty; and if constitutional re strictions are not to be respected, if no man. is bound by the Con stitution, it" a Senator or a. Kepi-escntative, "because forsooth he may be in the majority can e-tteol; his purpose by overriding1 tho 
Constitution and disregarding it, then that is the simplest way to doit. There is still another way in which this provision in the Constitution can be nullified, and that is by undertaking to put into the form of a statute that which in reality is a treaty. !S"o\v, one method is just as efiecrive as tlie other, and either method ia as absolutely illegal as the other. 
8-305 
 
 7 
territory not for til il endeavor to show words or witliOL'it any limit H " distWt dle^n^'nSS foUbo suppose?! that they for one moment 
p wliotiier a .ccrL-uin 
iSESilH^il 
S^adSettnS 
question until I reach that point, and 1 f.hafi be that time to take it up. 1 am now discussing anun coniinti" to the tinestioii of tne pov.'er to admit 
tho Senator wouhl repeat his Vestion' it^o^o^^if^l 
^SZ^J^^^^^^^igiZZ*^ 
tho joint resolution he will not vote for it, however much he n desire the annexation of Hawaii. It is true I am very imvjh , 
 
 couraged by tlio fact that the Senator said to me, In private con versation, when I asked him if he was "bound by the Constitution, yos, as he interpreted it. 
Mr. ELK1.NS. No; now tell the whole of it. I beg the Sena tor's pardon. I said as the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted it and as I interpreted it. 
Mr, BACON. Very well. Mr. ELK'CSTS, And not as the Senator interpreted ifc. Mr, TELLER. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me? Mr. BACOX. Let mo answer the Senator from West Virginia first. If the Senator from West Virginia will stand to that prop osition. I will promise to show him a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which says that tlie United States Gov ernment has no right--I do not go so far as the Supreme Court go in this particular, and Ijuii merely stating this for the benefit of the Senator from West Virginia--to annex territory which it does not intend to make into a State, and Senators themselves say they do riot i-nteiidjio make a Stato of Hawaii. Mr, ELKLNS. You can not state -what will be the intention oi" the Government a hundred years from now. Mr. BACON. I am not putting it on that ground at all. Kow I vicld to the Senator from Colorado. 'Mr. T ELL/ER. The position of the Senator from "West Virgin 
Ty 
Representative could construe tlie Constitution as lie understood it. Mr. BACON. Oi' course. Sir. TELL KB. And it was his duty not to look to the Supreme 
Court of the United States, but to his own judgment and conscience in these matters. 
Mr. BACON. I am perfectly satisfied if that shall be the rule. I was discouraged bv tlio fact that the manner of the repiv of the Senator from West Virginia indicated that he would not'bB con trolled by what some of the more distinctive lawyer members of the Seiifito might consider to be the law. He was going to take it into his own hands. 
But to return, 1 am coming to a discussion of the question, to \vhicli I ask the attention, of Senators, as to what the .t'ramers of the Constitution meant when they said * : treaties ; * and -what they must necessarily have meant. I asked the question wh ether it was possible that the t'rainevs of the Constitution when they put the word ' treaties " into the Constitution in this connection under stood that it simply meant an agreement or a negotiation put in a certain form, and that if it were not put in that certain form, it could be roilned away and the exercise of" the function could ho usurped by Congress which had been denied the riglit to make a treaty. I had asked that question when the Senator from West Virginia interrupted me. 
Now. Mr. President, has the word i; treaty "a definite, well-fixed meaning? Is a treaty only that wMcli is put iti the form of a treaty as we usually see it when submitted to the Senate on tlie part of the President, or does a treaty mean a certain thing regardless of the form? I say the latter. Tho distinction between a statute and a treaty does not depend on tlie form. A statute may "be in various forms. It may be in the ordinary form of a statute or in the form of a joint resolution. One has the same effect as the other. A treaty depends for the fact that it is a treaty according to tlie sub stance of it and what it proposes to accomplish. 
SaOo 
 
 Now, a, statute is this: A statute is a, rule of' conduct laid clown by the legislative department, wliicli lias its effect upon all of tliose within the jurisdiction. In other words, a statute passed by the Congress of the TTni ted States is obligatory upon every peraon who is a citizen of the United States or a resident therein. A. statute can not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be binding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent of the subjects oC the other power, speaking or giving their con sent thrcmgii their duly authorized government, to be bound by a certain thing which is enacted In this country; ami therein conies the necessity for a treaty. 
A treaty is that which is binding tipon the people of two coun tries by uautual agreement that it shall be binding upon the two countries. A. treaty is binding on. two countries because the au thority in each country undertakes that it shall be binding in its particular country, and that is the essential element and feature of a treaty, that it is binding on two cotmtrics because the atithorlty which makes it binding- is the particular authority in each country, not having a general authority ove" both. 
If-it were practicable for a-statute to be made obligatory upon the citizens of another country, there would be no need of a treaty. We could simply enact what we wanted, raid the people in the other country would have to obey. But as \ve can not do it. we have to invoke the consent of the people or the authority in that other country that they will also be bound by tlie same law, and. that makes a- treaty. 
Now, Mr. President, I refieat possibly, bat I desire to state it in another shape, that tho distinction "between a treaty and a statute is this: The statute affects only the people within the jurisdiction, of the authority by which it is enacted. There is no consent re quired on the part of those who are subject to such a statute. It is made obligatory upon them bv the authority of those who enact it. 
A treaty, on the other hand, is some thine: which involves nego tiation with another country. It requires tlio consent of the duly authorized department in this G-oveminent, and it also requires that they shall negotiate and obtain the consent of the power in the other Government. This is stated with very great clearness in a report made by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in IS-i-i--I have forgotten the number of tho Congress--when it had under consideration the Texas resolutions. I will read it. This is a definition of a treaty. I read from Senate Docu ments, volume 3,1844 and 1845. It is broken up so that the pages can not he told, as the documents are bound together, but it is Docume-nt No. 79. page 5 thereof; not the page of the volume. 
But let it l)e remembered---- 
And I ask tho attention of Senators now to this definition of a treaty-- 
on the othor hail!?, that although this troaty only acts for other powers anil in tho singular sphere of exterior co7icerns, within this sphere no c tiler power has privilege vo intrude; tho_domain, is all its own: in a property ex- 
the 
I do not know whether or not I make my distinction clear, but the fraraers of the Constitution had in view certain actions by this G-ovcrimient when they set up a distinct and separate de partment of tJ-overnnient for the making of treaties and -when 
3505 
 
 J&ate^^^^d^tof^ir^aSatS8^ ty of Hawaii, and all aw reports in connection witli it m.ulo public, so that I can with propriety spoak of 
 
 subject-matter of a'treaty. Mr. .WHITE. If the Senator from Georgia will permit rue, in 
line with the point ho is making, i!; may be that the treaty was suggested because of the provision of !h'e Hawaiian constitution, found iii the thiriy-secon-d at tide of that instrument, which pro vides specifically for annexation to the United Slates by treaty, which treaty, of course, has never been made. 
Mr, BACON. I understand, that. I have no doubt that point will be fully brought out by the Senators who discuss the merits of the question. 
What is it that the House of Representatives hits clone? And I 
say the House of .Representatives, not in any spirit of criticism of it particularly, because the Senate, through "its Foreign Relations Committee, had previously proposed the sumo thing'. Here was the case of a treaty, which was not only recognized by "both par ties as a treaty and acted upon by both parties as a treaty, but which, in its essence, must of necessity fee a treaty, which, was pra-cticallv abandoned in the Senate for the reason that in the manner and the method pointed out by the Constitution it could not be inado law. -The trainers of the Constitution, in their wis dom, had. provided :.hfit the President oil' llu: United States should make a treaty if two-thirds of the Senators present concurred in it. 
Now, whether wise or unwise, that is the law. If only a ma 
jority concur, the treaty can not be made. Therefore the effect OL th'e failure in the Senatxto ratify that treaty was the same as the failure of an attempted passage-of a statute Jaw. The friends of annexation, seeing that it was impossible to make this treaty in the manner pointed" out -by the Constitution, attempted then to nullify the provision in. the Constitution by putting- that treaty in theA-orm of a statute, and here we havo embodied the provisions of the treaty in the joint resolution which comes to ITS from the House. 
I will state the object I have in calling attention to this point. It is perfectly vyi thin the power of Congress--and when I speak of Congress in this discussion I mean the lawmaking power--if it has a majority in each House, if it can pursue' the method legally which is sought to be pursued here, it is perfectly within the power of Congress not only to nullify and destroy that provision in the Federal Constitution, but to effect by statute any treaty that can not command a two-thirds vote in the Senate. 
Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator it he thinks there is any treaty that we can not annul by a direct act of Con gress? 
Mr. BACON. I do not. I have so sintod already. But i ask the learned Senator------ 
Mr. TELLER. Then the legislative power can not be inferior to the treaty-making- Dower. 
Mr. BACON. The learned Senator hns certainly not read the decisions ol; the Supreme Court on this subject. 
Mr. TELLER. I have. Mr. BACON". The law on the .subject is not in doubt. I have stated it already. The Senator probably did not hear it when I first began. 
Mr. TELLER. Yes, I did. 
Mr, BACON. It was that- the Supreme Court have decided 
3505 
 
 >t ]ioint. Htiy that i\ treaty may be an milled by a statute, and" I say also that a statuto may be annulled In-a treaty. Xcw, the point I want to call the tieuntoi-'s attention to is that whilo a statute lina -[lie povrer to animl ;i treaty, an:l whilo a trenby has the power to nmmln statute, neither one of them has the^power to usurp the imnctjims of t!:o other. Let tlie Senator point out. if he c;-ii], miy 
,- i'or that. In other words, while a treaty nindo "by the 
fc iofli^'S'thSt'tlio''^^ 
 
Taey are two ver\- Jiifc.'tiit llnns"s. It can st-{, tho -i-^^^^reateatroaty. 
 
is risiit, the Senator says, and I am siad 
 
10 S; ^^el^^^'S^oinU^n^o1!^ l.lie iittrntioii or tin 
 
,, ^Sffloi^ 
 
to 
 
r will peris 
 
is just where the contention comes in. so; and .1 want to try to prove it, if tho 
 
^la^SleA^^ the Senator to anoth, 
Ho lias spoken of this treaty not . Senate. He must remember very T 
"ii?t 5ky was made to annex Texas to this ! 
Tho Henatc voted the treaty down a, 
 
 with me that while Congress in its lawmaldng- capacity in ay de stroy a treaty, it can not make a treaty. The Senator admits that. 
Mr. TELLER. I do not want the Senator to understand that he has first put that Idea in my mind. 
Mr. BACON. Oh, no; by no-means. Mr. TELLER, I have nut come "to that conclusion from any thing in tho Senator's argument. -That is one of the things that 1 tliiiik every ordinary lawyer in this body would recognise. 
Mr. BACO.N". Well, I am not claiming any very great origi nality in this matter. I am simply trying- to suggest a view of it, and, I hope, wiili becoming modesty; and I am not assuming to "be suggest ing anything which the Senator did not know "before. I am sorry, 1 say, that there is this contravorsial spirit, because I was in hopes we might have a judicial consideration of this ques tion. - If, therefore, not by reason of my argument, but by reason of a fundamental principle which every ordinary lawyer recog nizes, it be true that Congress can not by statute make a treaty, then if this procedure is one by which Congress does make a treaty there is no answer to the proposition that it is unconstitutional. I propose to show that by this process Congress does make a treaty; and when Congress assumes to make a treaty, I say it violates the Constitution, find not only so, bnt it strikes a blow at one of the fundamental and most important prerogatives of the President of the United States iiud also of the Senate. 
Now, why do I say that if this method can be proceeded with su r:c ess fully it does put- within the power oi.' Congress the oppor tunity to make a treaty? Vwill have to repeat a little in order to show it, because of the interruptions, to which I do not object. I have called attention to tho fact that here was the subject-matter of a treaty. It was a negotiation between this G-overumont and another government. It was something which could not bo made effective by the independent action of this (.irovernment. 
It was something which required the action of this Government and the reciprocal action of another government. And I say, rec ognizing that to be a necessity, the President of the United ytal.es and the Hawaiian authorities had, for the purpose of effecting- it, entered into a -negotiation and had come to an agreement to make 
to the commands of the Constitution of the United 
States, the President sent the treaty to this body; and that this body, composed as it is nine-tenths of lawyers, and. some of them very great-lawyers, recognised It as a proper subject-matter of a treaty and considered it i'or weeks and months as a treaty; whereas If it had not been the subject-matter properly of a treaty they would have refused to consider it; and that because oi: th fact that they could not command, the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution the treaty was abandoned, mid the same treaty, word for word, is embodied in a 301111 resolution passed by the House of Representatives, and it comes here and we arc asked that we shall pass it: and that that which would have been ia\v as a treaty if it could have commanded two-thirds majority in this bady, shall now become law in the absence of two-thirds by virtue of a majority vote in the House and the Senate, winch. Is only required for a. statute, and which, is not sufficient for a treaty. 
Now, Mr. President, if that Is effected, if the joint resolution winch lias passed the House passes the Senate and receives the 
approval of the President, wliat has become law? The treaty? 
3505 
 
 fas, the ,as. if it 
 
ar-astte treaty it^l? is concerned and th^rSa^ 
 
etl by this Ijo'iy. 
 
ohibited the House of Reprcsent-alives from taking 1hat 
 
i c-iiiuort.> ug jc in  (j joint; le&Giauon. cop\iny it TAOIUIOL T i-lYlli -.r"1 \-i-.-irv '**- in "-i Ti-ii-iif- n-Di'-.l -if- 4 ,! 
 
i-vj-ini  -ii-,- ;+ T.-.Ii cl fo-> 
 
sending; it to the Senate: anrt it tins joint resolution, by 
 
s^s^^ n majority vote of the two Houses, can become a !,i\v, 
 
I'ovoiSu state tl'jat v.:e will annex it in futiiro. that j,laybe done'by " tro'^tv co^icr'Tip"' n"ii Ihe ol'ili^^f'oii to 'i i:or"'i tvii vision But^ if we- strip it of all that and incur no obligation^ wbateyor to any 
 
come into tiie LJuion. it is only ojicratetl iiiHjri; it conies i;i by its 
 
^ 3fi-."jU\VCO^ I"T'liuC SQn"tOT is s'pealiua; of the admission oi: a 
 
 Mr.' IIOAB. I will say Territory, whii-h is the same thing. I mean the admission of territory under our control. I do not speak of amieiiin! it to tuo United States. Lot me repeat. tuko onv tiiue. Is it not the essence of a. treaty, the i an oblig.itioii to a foreig-n country? And therefore, 
 
' 1 
 
i -^" '^S^f.^ ^-K,TM;* 
 
 '' 
 
15 
 
that is certainly a most fun clam ental and. vital agreement between the two. 
Mr, President, we could not annex Hawaii l~>y a statute or by a joint resolution if Hawaii had not consented. It-won Id be bmtuin fulmeii unless we proponed to enforce it by war. We can only annex Hawaii by a .-joint resolution or a statute in case Hawaii lias her self assented to it.- Therefore ifc involves a feature of: ne gotiation, and. necessarily the feature of agreement. Whenever vou have the feature of negotiation and of agreement voii have 
saential characteristics and qualities of a treaty, and whcii- 
 
another Mr, HO AH. Take the case of Texas. Mr. BACON. I will conic to that. 1C I 
Texas from this case, I will give tip the qncs Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. "Will tlio " Mr. "B'VCON. Certainly. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The Senator seems to thliilc that 
there can be noacrjuisition of territory without y. treaty or bv war. Mr. BACON. Yes, or by war. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Hupposo that, as on a former oc 
casion, without; any previous .tic,y'otJ;.itioii whatever, Hawaii had made a cession of her territory" and sovereignly to the United States, does the Senator hold that Congress could not accept that? 
Mr. BACON. Most undoubtedly; it would require the treatymaking- power to do it- -^** 
Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. aPOOXER. Only for in formation. The first line of the joint resolution reacl as follows: 
ThUt snid ces&km ---- 
Mr. BACON. I have the joint resolution in my hand for the purpose of reading- that clause, but I am very g-lad to have the Senator read it. 
Mr. SPOONBR. Very well. Mr. HACON. No: 30 on, I insist that you go on. Sir. 3POONES. It ready: 
That said cession is accented, ratified, and couiirmcd. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I am not dHcuasing this question. Mr. SPOONER. In other words, lias there been any attempted cession------ Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. 1 am no^ discussing that. Mr. SPOONER. I have not finished my ciuestsoii. Has there been any attempted cession except by treaty? I mirlersfand my friend from Georgia is arguing the question whether Congress has the power to accept, ratify, and confirm a cession made bv treaty not ratified by the Senate? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I am not as familiar with what has been done as the Committee 011 Fortig-n Relations, but I TLIIderstand that there lias been an offer to cede. Mr. SPOONKR. An offer to cede is not a cession. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. One moment, 1 waw not discuss ing this case particularly, but I was asking- a question which, as 
3005 
 
 hould, upon complying with certain conditions ttmse und others 
 
a^S^ofCoiSS^he e case with Texas. She had ce; 
 
.,<*. 
 
as an independent or she could come Vv-hile the treaty-maldi 
 
~SevsS ^^^!SSiiP^^^ 
 
festly impossible for mo to do,so if I am interrupt. ' ' " not for tlie pTLrpose of a question, ljut for purposes 
 
 readied a stopping place at any-particular division I shall "bo rnora than happy to yield i'or any question Senators may wish to ask. ' Mr. FO&AK'ER. 1 hope the Senator will not think that I was undertaking to do more than make plain to lihn what was in my mind. - 
Mr. BACON". The Senator's interruption was very much less than that-of some others. 
Mr. FOKAKEK, I wished the Senator to know while lie was on the floor what I had in mind. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator from ohio makes a ver-y important concession, -ind if he stands by that I think he will he bound to vote against this joint resolution, The Senator from Ohio con 
cedes that it the purpose were to cede to this Government a part of the territory of another government .it must iiecessarily be in the form of a treaty, bnt that if the purpose is to cede the cnjtire country a treaty is not necessary. 
Mr. President, I am utterly unable to see the force of that ar gument. It is in either case an agreement by which sovereignty existing over certain territory is abandoned, or rather annulled, and by. which the sovereignty of .this country is given to it. "Why should the change of sovereignty as to a part be the .subject-matter of negotiation and the change of sovereignty as to the whole be not the subject-matter of negotiation? 
Mr. FORAKEK. In a word I can" answer that. Because there is no continuance of a compact. The whole thing is at an end by its consummation. 
Mr. BACON. I do not agrs^with the Senator, for this reason: The vital essence by which this agreement is marie binding is not that anything is enacted in this country which can have force there, but it is because by an. agreement in consideration, that it shall have force tliere we say it shall have force here. 
But, Mr, President, I was on a practical point, and I want the consideration of Senators to it. The Constitution has clothed us with the high function, in conjunction witli the President, oi1 making a certain class of laws, which, the Constitution says shall be supreme, to wit, treaties. Now, it' this .loint resolution can be legally passed, constitutionally passed, I submit the proposition as one which can not be successfully answered, that there is no treaty rejected by the Senate because of a lack of two-thirds vote, if the foreign government had given its assent thereto, as it has done here, or as it did in the arbitration treaty, which, could not be made law by the enactment of a statute in the House of Representatives and in the Senate and by it being signed by the President. I see the Senator from Colorado assents to that. 
Mr. TELLER. I do not know that I assent to it; but I do not think that the fact that that can be done is any argument. 
Mr. BACON. That may be. We shall see whether it is an argtimentor not. But,Mr. President, I want to say to Senators, if there is any treaty -which could be entered, into between the Presi dent and a foreign government, which, when it failed to receive a two-thirds vote in the Senate, could not be made law by this process, although it could not command a two-thirds vote in the Senate, I want Senators to point it out. If there is any treaty which can be devised which can not command a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which can command a majority in the Senate, which can not be made a law by this process, I want (Senators to suggest what that treaty is. 
3506- 2 
 
 18 
What does that lead us to, Mr. President? If it bo true tliat \vlienevcr a treaty fails to get two-thirds majority in the Senate, bnt can command a majority here and also command a majority in the House of Representatives and command the approval of Hie President--ii; it be true that such a- treaty, although it (ran not be enacted or made in the way tho Constitution provides, can bo made in. the way of putting- it in the form of a statute or of a joint resolution, do we not, when -we give our assent to sucli a proposi tion, absolutely surrender tlie power which tlie Constitution con fers upon ITS for tlie making- of treaties? 
Mr.'President, what docs that- lead to? The Senator from Colo- 
trcaties. It can not possibly be denied that it was the contempla tion of the Constitution 'that no treaty should be made which was not initiated by him. .fs there any denial of that proposition? If so, let Senators, when they come to speak, answer it. It was ih.o design of the Constitution that every treaty should be made by the President and should be initiated by him. and it was the de sign of the Constitution and the command of the Constitution that there should be 110 treaty which did not have his approval; and yet, if this can be done, the House of Representatives can orig inate a treaty. 
The House of Representatives, when England, for instance, has signified her absent by an act of Parliament, or in any other way, can pass a. joint resolution saying there shall be such and such an agreement between this countrv and another country. It can pass the House of: Kepresentatives;" it can come to tlie Senate: it can receive a majority of each; and it can go to the President and re ceive his disapproval. It can go bac"k to the House of Keprcscntatives and get two-thirds in that body, and come to this body and get two-thirds in this body, and we have a treaty absolutely over and above tlic consent of the President. 
Do not let- Senators confuse this proposition. It can not be said that at last it would rest with the President whether lie would proclaim that treaty, because, if this form, is adopted, it becomes law, and law binds tho President as well as everybody else. Whenever he disapproves it. and it is passed by a two-thirds vote of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds vote of the Sen ate, it is a law which binds him. and it would be an impeaeliable offense in him if lie refused to carry it out. 
On the contrary, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, he is part of the treaty-making jjower. A treaty is not obligatory until he himself proclaims it as a treaty. It may be even ratified by the Senate and he can withdraw his approval,, for there is nothing that malses it law until he does proclaim it; 'but when you put it in the form of a joint resolution or a statute it becomes law whenever it has what the Constitution says shall be requisite to make a law, and it is then as binding 011 him as on anyone else. 
So I say there is no escape from the proposition that if that which, in its essential character is a treaty can be enacted in the form of 
 
 10 President as \vnll as that of th& Senate. PJis Is the principa.1 pre rogative, and the prerogative of the Senate Is an incident to it. If this precedent can be" established, it will return in an evil hour to plague the President as well as the Senate. 
Mr. President. tTiis is a very "serious consideration; and it is the duty of all of us to maintain every provision in the Constitution. It is dovu>ly the duty of Senators to see that they do not absolutely abdicate the power which the Constitution confers on. the Senate; and I can not, for the life of mo, see any escape from the argu ment thai, J-? this method is constitutional, then, wherever the assent of a i'ore-igii government can be gotten in another way, practically a treaty can bo made withoufthe consent of two-thirds of this body. 
tut ion and we violate the rights of the States stipulated for when they entered tlie Fedoi-al Union. ' 
I propose to read what George Washington said about it. Tho House of Representatives called upon President Washington in. j 79G to lay before the House copies of instructions to the ministers of the United States who had negotiated a treaty with Great Britain, and the President, replying to the House of Representa- 
reasons for it. I read from the first volume of Messages and Pa pers of tlie Presidents, by RICH ABES OK, page 104: 
UNITKLI STATES, lkTarcJt.30, 179C,. To tfiefTotifif of Representatives of the U~iutet$ A'trites: 
With, tlie utmost attention I liavo considered yoilr resolution of tlie 34th. Kin; 
tho principle principle! 
The very principle now tii-der discussion. 
 
 As stated by him, some States objected to the ratification of the Constitiition 'because when it came to the question of tiie acqui sition of territory the votes of three-fourths both of the Senate and of the House of Representatives were not required. Then lie goes on to say: 
erstood  amity 
tlio Joof the tio 
In. other words, it appears by the ."journals of the convention wldcli framed the Constitution of the United States that there was a proposition that if the President and the Senate made a. treaty it should not be bindi ng until an act of Congress approved it, und that proposition was explicitly rejected. That is what George Washington said about it. 
3505 
 
 The colic In. di As, therefore, i 
 
. 
 
L. 
 
, 
 
^^ WASHINGTON. 
 
Mr. .President. I desire that Senators will mark the peculiar significance of this utterance by Washington. The distinct ques tion which he was having under consideration was whether the House of Keprcseutatives had the right to any consideration whatever of the subject-matter of a treaty. They had called on him for information with reference to a treaty, and he had stated to them, practically. " It is none of your "business; that is a inatter which belongs to the President and to the Senate, and does not belong' to the House of Representatives." 
I confess that 1 am -utterly unable to understand how anyone can possibly get away from the proposition which I have submit ted, which is, that if what is here contended for is legal, whenever a treaty is rejected "by the Senate because it can not get a two-thirds vote, and whenever the project can command the assent of a for eign government, a majority of the Senate and a majority of the House of Representatives, with the approval of the President, any treaty thus rejected by two-thirds of the Senate can be enacted into law. If that is BO, the p9^ovision in the Constitution wliieli gives to the President and two-thirds of the Senate tlie treatymailing power is not worth the paper or the ink which, it has taken to express it; it can be nullified at will. , Mr. President, it is contrary to every rule of. construction that such a construction shall be put upon any constitutional provi sion as will enable it to be utterly nullified" and made of no effect. The strongest argument which you can make against any con struction of any provision of any constitution or any law is that that construction will nullify it. 
A great many people, officials and others, have jumped to a con clusion as to the power of Congress on what occurred in the ad mission of the State of Texas. There is no doubt that Texas was admitted by a joint resolution, but it is equally undoubted that it was admitted under the express grant of power in tlie Constitution given to Congress to admit new States, and that the claim that there was no power in Congress to negotiate what in substance would "be a treaty was absolutely disavowed "by the men who were most prominent in effecting it. 
I have here the Congressional OS-lobe, in which there is a discus sion in the Senate at the time the resolutions were under consid eration for the admission of Texas as a State. I read from the speech of Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, who was not only a very able man, so recognized throughout the length and breadth of this country, a man of very great learning, of admitted promi nence, but one of the most earnest advocates for the passage of th resolutions by which Texas was admitted into the Union. I read from the Congressional G-3obe, second session Twenty-eighth Congress, page 2-10: 
 
Mi-. Walker said that lie was rc.ioicsed that the groat American question of 
 
 Mr. President, I could go 011 and. cite innumerable utterances from tho Senators and Representatives who were active in that debate to show that while in some instances there were proposi tions looking to enact what really would have been a treaty be tween tho United States and the Republic of Texas, they were all abandoned, and the advocacy of them was abandoned and the ad mission oi: Texas put exclusively on the ground that she was ad mitted as a State tiuder the provision in the Constitution which specifically authorizes Congress to admit States. 
The President and two-thirds of the Senate could not admit a State. A State could not be admitted "by treaty. A State can only be admitted by act of Congress, and the Congress of the United States in passing tho law which did admit Texas did not annex Texas and did not acquire one single foot of foreign terri tory. It admitted Texas as a State, and Texas herself reserved every inch of territory within her borders. 
This question "was again under consideration twenty-five years after that in this Chamber. That discussion occurred in the old Chamber, but in this Chamber twenty-five years ago or more, twenty-eight years ago, when there were as great lawyers in this 
3505 
 
 body as over graced it, tins- very question "was again tinder dis cussion, when the qrostion. of the annexation of Santo Domingo was before tlie Senate. 
There had been a treaty negotiated by the President with the Dominican Government which had been rejected by the Senate, and the President had sent a message to Congress in -which, -while he did not recommend tho annexation of thp island, be used lan guage that indicated that such was the design; and tipon a reso lution which -was introduced to send commissioners for the pur pose oi: getting certain, information this debate came up, and this question was discussed by the groat lawyers then in" the Senate as to whether or not by joint Tesolutioii foreign territory could be annexed. 
In the Seiiate were such men as" Carpenter and ConMin and Thurman and Edmunds and Morton and Garret Da.vis and Stun ner, and every utterance that there was, was cither in accordance with the doctrine -which I have stated here or else was an utter failure to accept the challenge when it -was laid down to them that that was the doctrine. 
Mr. President, what was good law in 1844 and 1870 is good, law now. "What such men as Carpenter and Sunnier and Edmunds and Tlmrman thought to "be good law we can not g-o far astray in recognising as good law, for I repeat no greater lawyers have ever "been members of the Senate of the United States. I do not pre tend that each one of the lawyers "whose names I have mentioned gave distinct utterance to the proposition 1 make, but I do say that it was given distinct ut^irance in the debate, and that in that debate TJmrnian, Garret Davis, Simmer, Morton, lUdmuiids, and Trumbull all participated. 
ISfot only were they present but they participated in the debate, and while the doctrine was boldly avowed by some, it was denied by none and takeai issue with by none. I read from tho Con gressional Globe, part 1, third session, Forty-nrst Congress, page 3 90, what Judge Tlmrznan said on the subject. If ever there was a man in this Chamber -who was recognized by everybody, not only in this bodybnt outside, as a great lawyer that man-was Thurmaii. If ever there -was a man who cast a doubi; oil the question as to his standing in the very front rank of lawyers I-never heard him. Here is what he said: 
Mr. TEIURJIAN-. I believe, sir, it is proper enough for me to r,ny, for I tlinik 
Certainly directly parallel to the case we now have before us. 
 
th 
 
._,,_ ___ ._ 
 
I repeat that the joint resolution which was introduced was not for annexation, "hut for the purpose of sending parties there'to get information. The discussion, however, proceeded upon, the ground that that was the object. 
3;o-> 
 
 Mr. PASCO. A preliminary step to it. Mr. BACON". A preliminary step to it, aiid ; therefore, Mr. Thurmaii conies to the discussion as to whether or not that could, be done. If it cotiki not be clone, why l/ho preliminary step? Ho was opposing- the preliminary stop. l\"o\v, tlio first thing- tliat strike?-? me Is tlii*: Is the Senate ready to recede 
4ct--1U Ui ' lt t- onlle<:tlon l l"?s le -* v  to c;l11 tne attention oi: the tecnate to the 
Listen. This is what Thru-man, this great lawyer, said: 
to admit' IKIW States' into tho XJiiion^ that it was not limited to len-'itoi-y "beloiicfinpr to the T/nitecI States, but that territory belonging to a, foreign power 
I am now answering- the question of the Senator from "West Vir ginia [Mr. EL.KIXS] "by reading to him what Mr. Thnrmari said. passed. But no one has ever pretended-- 
This is very strong language, because he had. reference to tho former debate in 1844-- 
tob^i^ndoned'tthe'pi^oiiositioii- 
 
willing tcffake uer'iifas a Btatcv ^ ~ ^ B' rU ^^ ^  Un SSS S TM ^  
That is what Alien G. Tliurman said in this Chamber in the year 1870. 
I say ag-ain tbat no man 011 this floor, I think, has the least idea that a 
 
question is. Will you annex Dominica as a State? 
 
In the same debate G-arrett Davis, of Kentucky, on the same day used language which I will quote. I ask the attention oi; 
 
Senators particularly to this, because G-arrett Davis. in the courso of his speech, said he was a member of the House at the time tho 
 
Texas resolution, was passed. I read now from the same volume, 
 
page 195: The qnc.sttou so rcm 
 
4ldnerit1oi 
 
reaty wti 
 
laid by Prcssidoiit Tyler bef tin3 Senate for its 
 
;ither of r atittcatioi 
 
it. Tho treaty v rej ected by the a 
 
the Senato. Afte: 
 
L a .joint resolutit 
 
introduced to E 
 
Te xasasaS'bate of tht 
 
Union-- no 1t as a Territory, but a State of the Unioi ind the o;uly powej 
 
 would defend the right of the House of liepresontutives and tlio Senate to pass a law under such, circumstances and to such effect. 
Mr. STEWAUT. From whom does tlie Senator read? Mr. BACON. From the speech of G-arrett Davis, 1 had road previously from the speech of Alien Cf, Thurrnan; The Senator from Nevada was not present. Mr. STEW ART. I can cite the Senator to others. Mr. BACON. I have no'doubt the Senator would be very irmch edified "by reading them, and if the Senator had pointed them out to me "before I began I would have taken pleasure in reading them; but att it is I Imve trespassed ,so Israel3- upon the time of the Senate that I hope that will be allowed to pass by. Mr. STEW ART, They are not in line with the Senator's argu- 
T repeat that the debate that day was participated in "by Thurman, Davis, Simmer, Morton, Edmunds, and Trumbull, and that 
3505 
 
 in the face of such enunciation and in the face of snch denuncia tion there was no man in the Senate to rise up and say, ' You are wrong: we can do this by joint resolution." On the contrary, tlioy all acquiesced in it. 
There is "a very significant fact connected with this matter. This, as was stated "by G-arret Davis, was a pet project ol1 the President of the United States. That President was Ulysses S. Grant, the very idol of the country at that time certainly. In this body were those who were his extreme partisans, and yet while the suggestion that it was his purpose to have a joint resolution passed to annex Dominica was denounced in this body, \ve do not iind one single man. who would defend the doctrine that there could be any right by a joint resolution to annex Dominica. 
Mr. TELLER,. It was denied that there was any such proposi tion. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator from Colorado certainly is not can did in that suggestion. The proposition before the Senate was 
__.. hich Dominica could be annexed to the United States, and he 
distinctly stated it, and he stated that his opposition to it was that the second step could not legally "be taken, that there could "be no such thing as annexation of Dominica "by joint resolution, and that therefore it would "be foolish to take the preliminary step and incur the expense of making an investigation unless it was going to be admitted as a State, which nobody claimed. 
Mr. FOKAKER. I wish to ask the Senator from Georgia whether or not he deems it conclusive that Senators who were in their seats conceded the correctness of the proposition advanced bv Senators on the floor when they did not rise to take issue with them? 
Mr. BACON. I will not say a Senator who "was in his seat, "but I do say tliat when Senators participated in the debate on that particular proposition, when that was the question involved and upon which and around which the discussion revolved, when Sen ators did not take issue with it, it was equivalent to saying that they could not successfully do so. 
Mr. FORAKKR. I simply desire to place on record the nega tive o that proposition. Every day wo sit here and to-day we have sat here and heard propositions advanced -which Senators who are in their seats do not agree with and the correctness of which they do not concede. We do not take issue simply because we do not wish to break the continuity of thought, the logical ar rangement of the argument which the Senator is presenting to the Senate. 
At the proper time we may have something to say in answer to the propositions of the Senator from Georgia. , I as one, in view of the position taken, want to say now that while I agree with a great many of the_ propositions of the Senator from Georgia, I do not at all agree with some of them. I think there is a fallacy un derlying his whole argument which disposes of all of it whenever it is presented; and at the proper time it will be presented. 
Mr. BACON. If the Senator thinks that, I hope the avowed purpose of those who sympathize with him, not to be heard in this debate, may be changed, and that -we may hear from him and other Senators: arid I think we will "before we get throtign. 
U505 
 
 Mr. FORAKER. It is a question of policy in debate whether or not every proposition that is advanced shall be met in. argu ment. Sometimes there' are othpr considerations th,-m the mere meeting- of,argument that may induce Senators to sit stiU and allow a-Senator to proceed. All I want to register my protest against is, it "being taken for granted that because we do sit still and listen to the Senator with pleasure, as we al wavs do, for he is always entertaining, we are on that account to be presumed to bo in accord with evervthinir he expresses. ' Mr. WHITE. . Mr. President------ 
Mr. BACON". Please pur don me. I am nearly through. I have 
the question. I desire to" submit to the Senate what I consider to be a very grave qiie.-jfclon. It is a question, ii: we pass this joint resolution, not only of one revolution, but of two revolutions. If we pass the joint resolution we enter upon a revolution which shall convert this country from a peaceful country into a warlike country. If we pass the joint resolution, we revolutionize this country from one engaged in its own concerns into one which shall immediately proceed to intermeddle with the concerns of all the world. If we pass this joint resolution we inaugurate a revolu tion which shall convert this country from one designed for the ad vancement and the prosperity and the happiness of our citizens into one which shall sealc its gratification in dominion and domina tion and foreign acquisition. Mr. President, if we pass the joint resolution we have entered upon a revolution which shall change the entire character of the (3-ovo7'iimeut. which is a government oi! equals, a government solely for the benefit oi: its citizens, into a government in \vhich the flag shall float over eomimmlties that we would never agree should be equals with us in this G overnment. 
That is a great enough revolution, Mr. President, but if we pass the ."joint resolution, we have entered upon a revolution which I consider greater and more to be objected to than that; that is a revolution where, because the majority hss the power, it will in this body surrender the great function which the Constitution gives to the President of the United States, and also to us as a part o!: the trcaty-inaliiiig power, and wo have entered upon a field where the restraints of the Constitution are no longer to bo observed and whore the will of the majority shall obtain regard less of constitutional restrictions. 
3505 
 
 HON. A 
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 3899. 
III NG 
1899. 
 
  ST B E 0 H 
HON. AUGUSTUS O. BACON. 
and control of tho islands to tlieir people. Mv. BACON said: Mi-. PRESIDENT. I have introduced, these resolutions not simply 
for the purpose of procuring a basis upon which to make a speech; I have introduced them for the practical purpose, if possible, of furnishing a basis upon which the question relative to the future policy of tlie Government in connection with the Philippine 
 
 Islands may bo satisfactorily adjusted and agreed upon, not only by the Senate "but by the other "brandies of tho lawmaking power. 
The fundamental requirement in these resolutions is that the Govenrmcnt of the United States will not undertake to cxerci.se permanent dominion over tho Philippine Islands. The resolu tions are intentionally made broad, so that those who agree upon tliat fundamental proposition may stand upon them even tliougli they may differ materially as to a great many otlior things relative to the future course of this G-overnmeiit in connection with the Philippine Islands. 
Those with whom I am in sympathy in this discussion do not favor tlie acquisition by the United States of distant territories, of territories so remote as not to be within, tlie proper sphere of the influence of the United States, and more especially of terri tories peopled by an altogether alien and different race. Further than that, we do not believe that it is consistent with, our views and in harmony with the principles of our Government that any territory, speaking generally, should be annexed to the "L'jiitetl States against the will of the people inhabiting such territory. We do not believe that it is possible to safely incorporate as a, State any community lying on the opposite side of the globe. We do not believe tliat it is either to the interest or within the governmental power of this country to annex territory with a view to its being held as a colony, and its citizens, or rather its inhabitants, held as vassals. 
3STo\v, Mr. President, many wlio are reluctant to relinquish the Philippine Islands and who ara at the same time unwilling to commit themselves to tho doctrine of forcible annexation, who at tlie same time are not willing to put the Government in tlie posi tion ot ruling a people and subjecting them against their will, en deavor to reconcile themselves by the proposition that tho gov ernment which we propose to give to that conntry shall bo a goorl government, tiiat it shall be a governmentwhieli will better their condition, and tliat it will be one which in its administration will be consistent with, free institutions. 
That proposition, while of course a very m.n eli more considerate one than the extreme of the subjugation of a people, is still incon sistent with free institutions. Wherever a people are required to render an obedience which is involuntary, that requirement is 
an enslavement of that people. There arediftoreiit degrees of enslavement. If we put our yoke 
upon a people, if we rule them arbitrarily, if we send them gov ernors and judges, if we raako laws for them without their partici pation, if we enforce obedience to such laws by our Army, then it 
 
 5' 
'? 
5s an absolute-enslavement. . If, 011 the contrary, we allow them free institutions, but at the same time prescribe to them that they shall owe allegiance to a government a-gai7ist their will, it is none the loss-an enslavement, although leys in degree. 
Mr. President, there is but one government among the leading nations of" the earth that recognises the right of self-g'overiimeiit in a people, that recognises that the consent of a people is an -essential to their government, and when this Government practi cally denies that right, in the march of tree institutions the hand iipon the dial of the clock of the world has been set back an hun dred years. 
It is impossible to conceive that this Government will know. iug'ly and purposely deny to a people the right of self-government; 
it is incredible that the liberty-loving people of this country will by force of arms impose a government npcra at)other people against their will--a people who owed us no allegiance--who are struggling to be free. There is no public man who will admit that he is in favor of that proposition; there is no official, no Sen ator, who would not repel tho charge, if it were made against him, that he -would thus violate the right of self-government-. 
Senators argue as to -file power of the Government to acquire dominion over foreign territory; they argue as to the duty of the Government to exercise this authority; but when the question is squarely put to them, when the issue is put where it can not be evaded, " Do yoti favor the subjection of another country and the impositiqn ot: the power of this Government without the consent of that people?" they shrink away from the acknowledgment of such a position. 
The learned Senator from Ohio ['Mr. FoKAKUit], in his speech the other day, in speaking of the purpose of himself and those who agree with him as to the future of the Philippine Islands, used this language: 
Philippine Islands with tlie idea and view oi' permanently holdin- them and dnyhifr to tho people there the right to have fi sovc7'iirnent oi' their own if 
that. The President of tho United States does not, I know, and 110 Senator 
And also the learned and distinguished Senator from Dela ware [Mr. GRAY] is reported in a public; speech made in his own. State within the past few days to have used similar language. Of course, I assume that tho newspaper report is correct: and, if it Is not. I shall be glad to be corrected. In the course of his speech, delivered in the city of Wilmhigton, Del., on the 14th day of this month, at a complimentary dinner given to him by i:h& 
 
 TM >"i: 3-0".0 I^"'' 
e vie%vs O-L' the ^President with regard to LUIS from Ohio in Ins speech anil "by the distinguished Senator from ^^elawaro inliis spesch, "STJiic-Ii 1 li v,*e aipe to act, there is very iittlo f thoritativB expression from liie lawmaking power of the Unitea Sraten iu 11 joint resolul.ioii tlu-t such is tlie purpose of the future. 
war. We" kn'ew the fact 'th- a' t our young 
of tho . tluit we <lid not was o it for c it, or proposed to wage it, in the i 
 
 dared that when a stable government was secured In Cuba, we would.' withdraw from tit at island and leave the affairs of thatcountry to its own inhabitants; 
That war has practically passed; the sacrifice which v\~c uiitieipated was not exacted. oC us; the sacrifice in life was comparatively trifling'; a special danger which \vc anticipated did not come, for be hind all of the anticipations of possible sacrifice of "blood and treas ure there was the specter, which wo now remember, although we may in the hour of victory have forgotten it, of the possibility o European intervention and a consequent world's war. Not only baa there "been little sacrifice, but there has "boon no intervention, and there will be no intervention, and we now know not only that we are to do as we see fit in Cuba, but that we are to work our will with the Philippine Islands so far as other nations are concerned. 
What I desire, Mr. President, by these resolutions is this: That now, in the hour of oiir victory, in the time of our uncliEvputecj physical power, we shall accord to the Philippine .Islands exactly what we proposed in tho beginning, when the matter was in doubt, we would accord to the Cubans. 
When the declaration of war was made the Philippine Island a were not within, the contemplation of Congress. We were think ing only of the Cubans. But suppose wlion the learned Senator from Colorado [Mr. TILLER] introduced his fourth resolution, as an amendment to those resolutions, in which we declared substan tially what is declared in these resolutions, that the war was not to be vro.g'ed for aggrandisement- or for conquest, but that \ve proposed at tho proper time to surrender the control of Cuban affairs to the Cubans--suppose when that amendment was pro posed there had been a further amendment proposed excepting the Philippine Islands, and suppose we had said that, while we did propose to deal thus with the Cubans, so far as the Philippine Islands were concerned, we proposed, if we could take them, to do so, and to appropriate them to ourselves. With, the feelingthen upon us, with the intention which we then had to exhibit to the world the purity o our motives, can there be any doubt as to the action of Congress in voting down those resolutions? 
If we had passed resolutions and made the exception as to tho Philippine Islands, it would have utterly defeated the purpose of the disclaimer in those resolutions. If, on the contrary, we had expressed at the time our intention with reference to Cuba, and. purposely withheld our expression of intention with reference to tho Philippine Islands, it would have been the practicing of an unworthy deceit; and there is no principle which was involved in the disclaimer with reference to the Cuban people which does not also apply to the Filipiuos; and the object I have in these resolu tions, Mr. President, is that we may put ourselves in that position, 
yato 
 
 If the ideals which wo "had at tliat Slaie required that announce ment with reference to Culm, it" our past hirifcory required it, if tho recognized principles of our system of government required it, they all equally require it with reference, to the Philippine Inlands, 
Mi'. President, I am impressed with the importance that \vo should have, not action in tlio future, or, rather, in the distant fu ture, but action as near as possible in tlie present, in the making of a declaration cither as expressed in these resolutions or in some other declaration which -will have the same effect. 
In the first place, if we males this declaration, in my opinion it; will be a- practical .settlement of all tho (questions which grow out o!i tho adjustment of matters with Spain; in the second plane, what is not less important, and, indeed, more important, it will relievo the Government of tho XTnited States from a most embarrassing position now occai-pied in the Philippine Islands. 
"We can not shut onv eyes to the fact that there is clanger of col lision in the Philippine Islands; we can not shut om- eyes to tho fact that there is there an American army and that there is there a Philippine army, and while there is no declaration of war between thorn, while there is no announcement of hostile intent,- each is animated by a different purpose and a different resolve. 
Whatever may toe the intention, of: tlie civil officers of the Gov ernment, the thong-Jit and feeling is in the minds of the American Army that they are to take possession of the Philippine Inlands; and there can be no donbt that an equal determination and thought is in the minds, not only of the Philippine army, but of those who direct and control it, that our Army shall not take possession of the Philippine Islands; in other words, that, while tho American forces contemplate the occupation of those islands as a pa.rt of the terri tory of the United Slates in the near future, the Filipinos, who liave drawn Die sword for their own freedom, do not intend peace fully to submit to the occupation of the islands by the United States for that purpose. While there is no declaration of war, while there is no avowal of hostile intent, with two such armies fronting each other with such diverse intents and resolves, it will tal>o but a. spar!; to ignite the magazine "which is to explode. 
'Why is it, Tar-. President, that the FiKpinos refuse to recognize file right of the American troops to occupy the islands? Is ifc be cause il\ey are hostile to American troops? By no means. Is it because they arc unwilling- that the United States Government shall assist them in tho establishment of n government'.-1 Cer tainly not, Is it because they are reluctant that the United State-; phailhold possession until it can be ascertained whether or not they can lie safely left without becoming' a. prey to other foreign governments? Assuredly not. 
 
 They would be glad to have the United States troops there with the avowal oi! such purpose from L'he TTnitcd States G-ovenimciit, but they ;irc opposed to the occupation of their islands "by tlie Ignited States troops "because of the apprehension that it is Ilie purpose of the United Slates Cvoverunieiit to maintain pc-n-iuanoiit dominion in those islands; and whenever we shall- by such reso lutions as these, say solemnly to the world tliafc such is not our piirpooe, there is 110 longer any danger of difficulty. Without it, even as we sit here to-day, there is very great danger of it. 
It is a famous saying that the shot at Concord rang around the world. If that shot, Mr. President, which we dread and fear, should "be heard at Manila, or in any other part of the Philippine Islands, it also will ring around the world, "but it will carry no cheer to the down trodden and tLe oppressed anywhere in the world. 
We hear a great deal about- the obligations which we owe to the Philippine Islands. Some curious logic has been evolved on this question. Ordinarily tiie man wlio is under obligation is the one who has to contribute something .for the benefit of the man to whom, he is under obligation. The obligor is the man who bears the burden; the obligor is the man who makes tlie sacrifice: the obligor is the man who pays the debt. The obligee is the man who receives the "benefit from the oblig-or. 
Yet. in this instance, those who favor the acquisition of the Phil ippine Islands, and who try to put it tipon the high ground that we are tinder obligation fco the FiJipinos. reason it out that we, the obligors, are to receive the islands in discharge of the obligation! Without stopping to analyze so untenable a proposition as that, I desire to ask the attention of the Senate to the consideration of the question, What are the obligations that we owe to the Phil ippine Islands or to their inhabitants? 
Outside of one fact which I propose to mention, I do not think we owe any greater obligations to the Philippine Islands than we owe to any other possessions of Snaiii. Bat there is one fact which did devolve upon its a peculiar and special obligation. That fact is that at the timo when we sent our fleet to the Philip pine Islands the Filipinos were, and had been for years before, in active rebellion against the power of Spain. 
When we went there to attack Spain, we accepted of the coop eration and alliance of the Filipinos for the purpose of further ing our cause. We gave arms and we gave ammunition to them, and while tlio WAT progressed there was over a month niter tlie battle of Manila during which there was not an American regi ment upon the Philippine Islands, and during all of that time the Spaniards were beleaguered by D-swey on the sea and Aguinaldo on the land in cooperation and alliance. 
 
 at tlio conclusion of our 11 evolutionary war tlia.1 France- shou! make a treaty witli Great Britain and i ;ike th-ercrmder a (session of the American colonies. The very ^aiiio facts -y-'hich ]uid u|-;on ns the obligation to break tlie power of Spain in tlic Philippines laid npon us tlio obligation to recognize the freedom of that people. When -\vo accepted of the cooperation and the alliance of the Fil- 
necessarily recognized that they wore in the prosecutio ~ 
rightful belligerents., put arms and ammunition in th< anfl accepted of tlieir cooperation and their alliance, we not only became, by every high, and honorable obligation, bound to see to it that the power of Spain was broken, in the Philippines, hut we fell tinder an obligation, no less imperative, that when it was broken the Filipinos should get the benefit of it, and not the American people. My contention is that we certainly incurred that obliga- 
 
 m tlie lit'giunnig of inv re:iiarl;s to will, I think, be n reply to the inquiry of 
While I am very glad to have him an 1 have expressed it, It 
Mr. CAFFKRY. I did not s any right to place those people i 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, at tho time the Senator from JIIH imy.tiry. I \vas endeavoring to ID ring tlie 
f the Senate to an analysis of the cvnestion of the obli- 
obhg-ation arise? Tho simple inct that we went to war with Spain did not devolve upon us nay obligation with reference to 
all the evils with, which her people were afflicted; we went to war with Spain not to break the chains of tyranny with which slu. liny; lit be liiiidirii;,' licr cliiEeront colomos: "\ve did not iiiidcrtiilve i.o bo the great nnirers.il bonefactor nucL to right all the vrrono-s of all the world, or even all the WVO'ULTH that Spain" miglit lie inflict 
any of lier peonle. Yv'c v/eul to In? colony which she way afflicting lay at our doors; we went to war because the disorders of that Government affected, trie peaco 
snid tliore was 0. coiichtion. of afl.;"iirs whk'h was n.iiljfin.ra.'hio ;iud that w-e wo-ald put an end to it. 
To that extent and to that alone we claimed and avowed tho So it follows that the i 
i of war did not affect iu nuy i 
 
 the PlrilippitJo Islands except to put us in a state of war with, them as a part of the Spanish domain, and in 110 manner laid any obliga tions upon -us as to those islands. We were not- charged with the duty of preserving order in Asia. "We were not charged with the obligations ot seeing that they had a stable and orderly govern ment in any part of that hemisphere. No such duty rested upon us. ISTono such was assumed "by us. 
Therefore the simple declaration of war did not lay any obliga tion upon us to the Philippine Islands, and I desire that any Sen ator will put his linger upon the act which laid ns under any obligations to the Philippine Islands outside of the fact that in the war which ensued wo took those who were the insurgents in those islands to be our allies and made a common cause with them. 
Now, sir. all that grovrs out of that--all that grows out of the fact of that cooperation and that alliance--is to impose upon us a single obligation which wo must not ignore. How far does that obligation go? Does it require that we shall for all time undertake to be the guardians of the Philippine Islands? Does that par ticular obligation ]ay upon us the duty hereafter, not only now but for years to come, to maintain an expensive military establish ment, to burden our people with debt, to run the risk of becoming involved in wars in order that we may keep our hands upon the Philippine Islands and keep them in proper condition hereafter;1 
I am unable to see how the obligation growing oat of.tlie fact that they were our allies can possibly be extended to that degree. No Senator has yet shown any reason why such an obligation rests upon UP, and I venture that none which is logical will or can be shown. 
Sir. President, I desire to say here that even though Senators may differ from mo on the question whether it is our duty to see that there is a stable government there, these resolutions were purposely made broad enough so that those who differ upon that detail may still agree to the resolutions, and may still stand on the fundamental proposition that it is not our purpose to maintain permanent dominion in those islands. 
Another obligation that it is contended we owe to the islands is to see that no foreign government interferes -with them: that we will see to it that foreign governments do not divide them out among themselves. That is a very large undertaking- on our part, because it is not limited to the present. It has to extend to all the future. We have to stand armed and ready to face the whole world and say that we are the special guardians of the Philippine Islands; that they are onr wards, and that we will protect them. Mr. President, I do not admit any such obligation, I am not willing that the blood of our young- men shall be expended for any such 
 
 the guardianship of the Philippine Islands as that proj may be affected by the interests of the Mipirios and our duty to them. But that is not the only view which is , me. In fact, it is the 1 me is, what is onr duty to ourselves and how will on DQ uitGcted by such a. course? 
I do not propose to take the time of the Senate in i ' as to the 
which have already been so ably i which are yet to be further ; 
to limit myself, in a large degree at least, to connot simply of policy, but of 
of what is not only due to t io bo free. Irate 
 
 important than anything 
 
What is tho effect of the acquisition of the Philippine Islands? 
 
It will be an entirely new departure. It will commit us to a co- 
 
' 
 
oitis not possible, it is not within 
 
. or the American people, that^he Philippine 
 
L' Ije converted into a StRte or into States and 
 
proposition, Will you hold the Philippine 
 
If the Philippines are annexed this territory mast either be ill 
 
. the end admitted as States in the Union with their people as citi- 
 
. 
 
^.ens, entitled to equal rights and power with the citizens of other 
 
States, or the territory must bo held as coloaios with their people 
 
f 
 
as subjects and vassals of tile United States. 
 
\ 
 
What is the result if these islands are acquired and held as col- 
 
 34 
onics'' 'file losic of (ho situation trill be to acquire more Asiatic territory, and after ilnit to reach out for still moro. There is no reason for the acquisition of the Philippines which will not apply to the acquisition of other parts of Asia, each acquisition furnish ing a reason why another part still beyoll:! should be also acquired. The acquisition of the Philippines -will commit this Government to the colonial or imperial policy. M'U.J logic of that policy will certainly require that we actively enlarge our efforts and seek to 
to icsi 
 
This reach-out for empire will ine-.-ituhly lead to wars, not such s ns tho little one, with its trifling sacrifices, through which 
wo have just passed; but great wars, with all their sacrifices. It 
 
ready on a day's notice to cope in bloody conflict with tho Rreat 
 
military powers of the earth. Ill 
 
" 
 
i no coi*taiiit3" but tliat tlio i 
 
rvlr. President, let us not he misled by our recent war in which ye suite-red sitch little sacrifice of life. Such is not the nsnal forcme. War seldom fails to claim its victims, and there are many low living who remember a war which laid its bloody hand on 
i- o( nearly every family in the land. It wo would r:a of such days oi: i 
 fortunes in distant ventures to . ;as. If wo are to ent 
 
Why is it? Why has ] est? Why hns she this anxiety that wo shall take tho Philippine Islands? Why is it that the London papers are daily burdened 
ciso dominion in the Philippine Islands? Is it because 
 
 IS 
s. this anxiety. 1 read part of it: 
, l.y the Amociat,.<1 Pi-CM. 
Of course I need not say that what coin iatcd Press is always recognized as enti i ie;l to very great c 
ivcs npon their accuracy, and it i:. their cy which gives vulne to their business. Here is 
I'.'/ I'- 
 
tlie ardor ot tlu; 1 irltish Co,, nu A' DOlicy in tlio far F.ust l,y 
Mr. HA\VLBV. Will the 
ls it riot possible that one of th= motives of Great 
 
Is it not <ir,ite possible that there may be such a rush for tlio acquisition of 
 
Mr. BA('0>T. Srmposa lt is . Are we 
 
for the peace 
 
Mr. HAWIjEY. England may be. Mr. BACON. England may be, but I am speaking of our duty. Mr. IIOAK. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to saggest. in answer to the miestion of the Senator from Connecticut, that the Marqnig of Sliiiilrary, tlio .Kuglish premier, has very lately said that in his judgment the advent or the United States in the Bast was not likely to be in the interest of peace, or tLat it was very dorditful that it wonld be? 3Tr. H.-Uvr.,E\-. \V<m\<\ not onr sn<ldc;i (Ifparinro. from tlio 
 
Mr. TEI.LSll. I should like to ask the Senator from ilassa- 
 
 16 
assumed by everybody to lie true. They are tlio remarks of Lorfl Salisbury, made tlio other day at a bunqTiet. 
Mr. T.lStjIjER, That is entirely different from tlio public press of Ovoat Britain. 
Mr. HOAI1. Thoro is no more doubt, I suppose, that it is what his lordship said than any report of a recent occurrence wliieli stands mi contra die ted. 
Mi-. TmUjER. I do not mean to cliallenge it, but merely to say that the English papers, as a rule, take a view the reverse of that. 
Mr. HOAR. Sir. President------ Mr. TELLER. Mr. President------ 
The PRESIDING- OFFICER (Mr. F.I.ULJCXKB in the chair j. Senators will ploa-ve preserve order. They will address the Chair when they desire to interrupt & Senator ou the floor. 
3Ir. HOAR. -Mr. President------ TUoPJaEBlDINttOtfFICEtt. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to lltc Senator from Massacli'a^otts".-' Blr. BACON. With pleasure. Sir. HOAR. I desire to repeat; that a very much rnoro p:>tfnt arid^rave authority than any one JOngl isli newspaper or all the Kng'Jiyh newspapers put tog-ether, to wit. the jHni-.-juis of Salis bury, premier of (.Treat Britain, head of the foreign offi.ce, has declared, in discussing this very crisis that is -upon Amei-ica, that while they should welcome Uio advent of tho Unifetl States as a power in the Etisfc, it \vas tjnitft doubtful, in iiis jutl^iiieiit, whether Uiat advent TV coil d conduce to the interest of peace. -Mr, 3tc:LAUlUN. Mr. President---- TIio PRESIDING OFFICER, Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from South Carolina'/ Mr, BACOIST. Certainly. jVlr. McLAURIN, I ahonUl lilce to twig-ajesfc that ni the same remarks he said that in any event it wonld foe in the interest of Great Britain, too. M"r. HOAR. Yes; that is it. Mr. BACON. Mr, President, of course it would, "be very inter esting' to go into all the utterances of the British press and tlio British oificial.s, hut I am discussing a particular utterance. I am discussing1 what was in the mind a the British people \vheii tho fact \vaa suggested to them that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FO-RAKF.R], from tlie President's own State and speaking-, as he said, from personal know!etlg-o of the intention of the President, had said that :t\vas not the purpose permanently to occupy those iylrtmls, and here was the e/foct produced npon -the British mind. Tlio last claiiHo ivliich I read, and %vhieh I v,T ifl reread, slio~ws what' was the thought in tho mind. It may lie that there are 
 
 I?" 
additional thong-Ms; it may be that tliere are additional motives; "but the particnlar thong-lit. Hie one which made the announce ment fall like a dnsli of cold water on the British public, on Brit ish officialdom, was this: 
They hop-nil to question wnat w:is tho profit, of this friendship if America did not propose to Lmck up G-retit Britain's -policy in the far East by i-titjiinijis 
Not what was going to be tlie effect in maintaining1 peace, but what wmVld. be the effect if America failed to back up Great Brit ain in a -war over China. There is where -we have the utterance which exemplifies.the unselfishness and disinterestedness of our English cousins in this particular desire on their part that we shall annex tlio Philippines. In practical eii'ect they said this:  "What is the benefit to us of American friendship if America is not going to back up and aid G-reat Britain in a Avar over China:" 
Community of blood, community oil language, community of social and political interests as well as commercial, intimate re lations of all kinds--these arc all very well; from these spring friendship and g-ood will from America to England: but "what is that friendship wortli if the Asiatic waters are not to be reddened with A\nerican blood when England measures her strength against the gi;mt.force of continental Europe? That is what it means, anil there is the reason that the English people are so anxious that we shall take the Philippine Islands. It is in order that if war comes we also may be involved in it. Ifc is in order that if the Em'opean coalition against her is too strong she may have as an ally the great- United States of America. 
Sir. if that war comes it will not bo confined to the Orient, If that war comes it will involve every leading nation of .the world. If that war comes, not only will our young men lay their bones upo;i the distant soil of Asia, but our own country  will have to stand to its defense. When that "war comc-s, tliere is not a seacoast city but that will bo iu danger of destruction from the allied navies of the world. This may be a remote possibility, but if so it is a possibility so fraught with disaster to the United States that I will do nothing to tempt HO dire a fate. 
Mr. President, I am not without sympathy for the English. I am not hostile to them, but quite the contrary. AH tlie blood that I have in me comes from English ancestry. 1 am proud of the fact and would not have it otherwise it I could, I am proud of the English race: I am proud of the grand civilization given to tlie world by England; I am proud of tier history; I am proud of her achievements; and if the time came that the great powers leagued themselves together to destroy her, I would be -willing- to go to her side and bare our breasts in her defense. Whenever her life was at stake I think we would owe that much to the mother country. 
 
 18 
But, sir ; when it fames to being- involved iir war, when it conies to being liable to sacrifice everything in this country that peace can "bring us and endure everything that war can inflict upon us, in order that England may carry oat her schemes of foreign colonization and foreign dominion, then I am opposed to anything- which will involve us in any such conflict. Who can sliwt his ryes to the fact,-who for a moment can doubt, that "if \ve reach out and take these inlands we Lave put ourselves in a. position where we arc in danger at any time of being involved in a world's war? 
Mr. President, the subject is vast; but I feel that I muwt not trespass too much upon the Senate. Yet there arc some consid erations that I desire to present, omitting many which now occur io me and which. I had intended to cover. Is it only a iruestion oi; clanger and burden to us in. case oE war with foreign 001111 tries? Is it possible to ignore the fact that, even, it' we remain ;.it peace -with all the world, if we are allowed to work our will with. tl;e Philippine Islands, if we arc allowed to do with them a.s WG piease, without let or hindrance from any other nation, it puts upon this country an immense burden which our people should not "be called upon to bear? 
I can not go into that question--I mean lit length. But it must necessarily result in the maintenance, of a great army in the Philippine Islands. Ten millions of people can not be held in subjection by a regiment or a brig-ade or a division. Ten mil lions of people, especially such as they are, must bs held in sub jection by a large army--not only a large army, but, situated as they are, upon twelve hundred islands, by a large navy. Are we to have war taxes forever? Are wo never to have relief from the war burdens which the people cheerfully took up, expecting them to be short. Are they to be annoyed and burdened forever with, the war tax? Is it to be increased? 
"Who can believe that it is possible to do away with the war tax if we take the Philippine Islands? The ordinary peace expenses of the Grovornment can not be met by customs revenue and the former peace internal revenue. If we take on these new burdens, the extent of which no man can foretell,, we must not only have continued war taxes, bat we must also certainly have continued bond issues. 
Again, Mr. President, do Senators consider the "Herc-alean task which we undertake when, we say that we will maintain a mili tary establishment in the Philippine Islands? Do they realize that even when not at war with a foreign power we must main tain there an. army oL' at least SO,000 men? Do they for -A moment realize what it is to transport a. hundred thousand men across tho sea? And. yet, if we became involved in a war with a foreign 
 
 19 
power, we would have to transport more tlian a hundred thousand men across the Pacific Ocean. 
If we become involved in a, war witli a foreign power, the Phil ippine Islands would be o 
ported across the Pacific Ocean, 7,01)0 miles. Mr. President, do we know what it is to transport troops across 
the -water, even when the distance is short? Do we remember What it was to transport the little army of 1(5,000 men from Flor ida to Cuba? Do we remembsi: what precautions were thought necessary to guard that little fleet of transports, and how nervous we were in anticipation even that the weak and.decayed power of Spain might meet our transports on the ocean and sink our army to its bottom? 
Do we remember that even after otir troops were loaded upon the ships at Tampa and had started upon the voyage, there came a report that a Spanish man-of-war had been seen, and then the ships wero ordered back to Tampa because of the fear that a manof-war might sink our transports, although convoyed by two bat tle ships? And, 3Ir. President, it was no Spanish man-of-war at all. It was a phantom ship, a mirage made of clouds and mist, the military masts of which peered above the Cuban horizon and gave this fright for the safety of our transport ships laden with American, soldiers. 
Now, sir, in a war when we seek to send 100,000 or even 50,000 troops across the Pacific Ocean it is not to be in a war with, a de- 
^ navy; and there is not a mile of that course where our ships would not be liable to be met and sunk with all their precious cargo, for, Mr. President, there is nothing' so liclploss as a transport ship at sea filled with soldiers. 
Mr. President, I am going to suggest but one more thought and then I will not further trespass upon the Senate. It has been sug gested by another portion of the dispatch from London which I have read, which quotes the London Spectator. In speaking about the Americans and the Philippine Islands the paper, wliicli this dispatch calls " the solemn Spectator/' says as follows: 
 "belie 
 
 20 
Fifty yeiii-A, ]\lr. President; fifty years of brirde;i to the Ameri can people, fifty years oi; & great army and a grent navy, fifty years of" liability to world's -wars to get them into tlie condition of the Hindoos! 
Now, sir. the word ' Hiiicloott'" lias brought the suggestion to mo which I am now to make, and that is that the colonization of people like the Hindoos, people like the Filipincs, unavoidably, in order th;it they may be kept in subjection, brings to the gov ernment which controls them the necessity of cruelty, of the hard iron Liuid, of utter indifference to the shedding of blood. 
I have here a book written by Mr. John RusncH "Young." the official of this G-overnmeat v.dio to-day lies dead, and about whom I know I may be permitted to pause to say what Senators will indorse, that ho had the respect and the confidence and the affec tion of all the men who knew him. It is a book published by him, called '-Around the World -with General Grant," and he gives liei-o an account of the cruelties practiced by the British authorities for the purpose of keeping- the Hindoos in subjection. 
It; is a brief account of the treatment of one regiment of Sepoys, not all of them; a regiment which had been disarmed: a regiment which had tried to make its escape; a regiment which, it is true, had murdered some of its officers. Now I am going- to read the account OE this as given by Mr, Young- in the second volume of that work, on pago 93: 
The Tvrcmy-slxth ZSTative Infantry-- Speaking of the Indian infantry-- Tlie Twenty-six til Xatlvo Infantry liad been disarmed in May and kept undor euard. On July 30 some madman in tlie regiment killed tlie major. 
liim. Tlso ^cv-oaiit-ma.joi- wns nl^o blairt. Tlie Tweiity-^ixth had served with tii&lmotion ill many campal^Tis, notably In the Af^hnn campaign of 
kiiij?. L!,it they took a noi'tliern clii-ociion, av/ay from the war, anxious to reach 
Ca-h uifsrc. to be o^^t of India.. They had jio yuu-3. There was a drcjnohmi? v.im, aiiu rlic country was almost- llOL-aed. The troops carne np with them, shoot- 
ami famished, as they imist have bi?eii after their 40 miles''ni^hfc, to battle with the flood."' The main body escaped, s\vrm7iii 11 {? and floating to an island, "where they might bo descried crouching like a brood of wild fowl." "Sir. CooiK-i- started out to rai)tiiv thorn. 
After stating the fact of the capture, it goes on: The doomed aien, with .joined palms, the Hindoo attitude of entreaty, 
or fifty clashed into the stream and di-appeai-ed." Xo order was:given to tiro, 
sensed 01 a^'Riidden and ;:is:;mi idea that they were g'oiiig to be tried by a court-martin'- after some hixuriou-i refreshment." 
a-19 
 
 " Tiaht tl-.o iiHsc.ncrs to tlinlr fate." 
Hi. 11 .1, Mohammcrtan troo,,!,. ieaa.iue they might hesitate to .hoot Mol^mm^luTM. 
 
n he goes on to state the demeanor of 1 by where Mr. Cooper was, etc.: 
That is, the number who had 1 
 
i as they 
 
, fright,, 
 
?aTMong"syonlfTe'" ' Ym 
 
(to bo Mo,,TM ir I do not T 
 
,), oadnl for the 
Oil tlie contrary, 
 
 them as the most Christian and the most humane nation of? Europe. But only with the sword and gun can millions of tho senv.eivilixod "be kept in subjection. The very "best that can "be said, and -what is proper to be said, is that it was necessary that the Eiig-liali should perpetrate this cruelty, this butchery, if they would, main tain their dominion in In din, and that is the purpose for which I have read it. I have read it to illustrate the fact that in order to maintain dominion over such people only such desperate reme dies can be applied for the purpose of keeping them in subjection. 
Sir, I was a schoolboy at the time the events narrated in. this book took place, and I shall never forget the impression made upon " me in looking at the pictorial newspapers. Harper's Weekly I re collect particularly, "with tlic pictures of the sepoys "bound to the mouths of cannon and blown to pieces. And, sir, if we are to maintain dominion over these millions of people in the Philippine Islands, nothing but the strong hand, nothing but cruelty, noth ing but the iron rule will enable us to maintain that dominion. 
Mr. President, I do not want any such transactions under the American flag. 
Mr. HAWLEY. Will tl\e Senator from Georgia kindly yield for a moment? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. HAWLEY. I see that his resolutions contemplate staying a long time in the Philippines, because we are to stay there------ Mr. BACOiST. I hope the Senator will not interrupt me unless he interrupts me on the particular part of the speech I am now on. If he will do that, I will listen to Mm with pleasure, but I do not desire to be diverted to a different part of it. Mr. HAWLEY. I think it is germane to what the Senator has been saying. We have got to stay there for a time, tin til they establish a free and independent government, according to the Senator's o\vn. resolution. It- may bo one year or twenty-five years. Mr. BACON". I did that- in order that the Senator from Con necticut might ho allowed to vote for the joint resolutions. If I had had the drafting of them according' to my own special particu lar preference, it would not be expressed that way; but I purposely made the resolutions broad, so that any man -vvlio "believes that this Gt-overmneiit should not enter into a colonial policy and upon a career of imperialism would be able to stand upon them, although we might differ as to other matters of adjustment. Wow, Mr. President, as I was saying, if we are to maintain do minion over this foreign, alien people, these Mohammedans, these people accustomed to revolution, and to blood, and to disorder, if you please, we will be compelled to do it \vitlx an. iron hand, ro- 
SC4) 
 
 gn.rdI<'6S of the shedding of blood. And I repeat, I "want no such transactions under the American flag. I do not -want it to be that wo wiU hii-ve to send governors and j n.dgoa there to be brought hack here to be tried for their oppressions of a people like them. % want no Warren Hastings arrayed before the bar of the Senate to be tried upon impeachment articles for oppressions of a people whom wo are seeking- to rule. 
I ira?rt to hear nothing of anothci- Black Bole or anotliw Lucknow in the Philippine Islands. I want to hear nothing, Mr. Presi dent, about the blowing of people from conn on by Americans. I want to hear no tiling of the shooting of hundreds of men of one regiment, all done in the name of the United States and under the American flag-. 
The PRESIDING- OFFICES, The hour oC 3 o'clock huviiig arrived, it is the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate the unfinished "business, which will be slated. 
The SECHETAHVT. A bill (3. 4702) to amend the act entitled 'Aii act to incorporate the iriiiitime Canal Company of "\"fenragua," approved February -20, 1.-SSO, and to aid in the cojistrnctioii of tho Nicaragua Canal. 
]\Ir. MORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Georgia be allowed to finish his remark without displacing the rognlar order. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama auks unanimous consent that the Senator from Georgia be permitted to finish hiy remarks, displacing temporarily the unfinished busi ness. Is there objection? The Chair hoary none, and. the Senator from Georgia, will proceed. 
Mr. BACON". Mr. President, I appreciate vevy much the cour tesy of the Senate, an d 1 will trespass upon it but n. very few minutes longer. I said that that was tho only feature I wished to present. There is another. 
Sir, in one respect we are certainly the most blessed nation oE the earth. It is in the fact that if we continue to attend to our own business, if we continnc to look to the development of our own resources, if we stand upon the great principles of the right of a people to self-government, and do not seek to extend our dominion over unwilling lands; if we do this. I say, we are the most "blessed of all people in one particular, nricl that is that we have tho power to absolutely command peace on this continent. 
Situated as we arc with an ocean on each side, with the great power that we have, it is an impossibility, so long as we maintain this position, for any nation to make war against us sncceasfnlly; and no one will ever attempt it. But. Mr. President, if we reach out to Asia, if we become embroiled in the politics of the govem- 
 
 meiits of Europe, more especially i-t-' in so doing we surrender our rig-lit to maintain the Monroe doctrine and invite all Europe to come and intermeddle with the affairs on this continent, then tliiit priceless immunity is gone forever, and wo are remitted to a period of wars the end of which no man can s ofi 
It has become fashionable to sneer at the ad that we avoid entangling tilliimces. Sir, thei when that advice was so important as now. 
Mr. President, the greatest curse that can befall a people is war, even though that war be, as has been the last, an unbroken series of victories; not simply because it involves death and bloodshed, but because it accustoms onr people and familiarises them with scenes oi! violence and of blood; because it accustoms them to tlv 
demoralizing to the public sentiment. And. sir, it' I may be pardoned in this presence for saying it, 
I know of no greater illustration of the demoralizing and poison- 
 
 RESOLUTION OF MR. McENERY AND AMENDMENT OF MR. BACON. 
POLICY REGARDING THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 
SPEECH 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON, 
OF GEORGIA, 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
FEBRUARY 14, 1809. 
iSgg. 
 
 He-solution of Mr. MeEnery and Amendment by Mr. Bacon. Policy Hog-arilisig- tliR I'Jullppiae Islands. S P K B O II 
HON. AUGUSTUS O. BACON', 
 
amendment ottered 
 
--***# 
 
-* 
 
Mr. BACON" said: ' Mr. PRESIDENT: I desire very briefly to give tlio reasons why I can not vote for tins resolution of tlie Senator from Louisiana, and why I do not think anyone who is opposed to the permanent or indefinite occupation of the Philippine Islands by the United States can properly vote for it, nor Iiow anyone who is in favor of ever allowing those people a free government could under any circumstances vote for the resolution unless tho pending- amend ment offered by myself is adopted. I am of opinion that an analysis of this resolution will show conclusively that it not only does not recognixe that this Government will give up the perma nent control, and does not recognize that the Filipinos are to have any freedom in the future, "but that it distinctly gives authority for the continued occupation of tho Philippine Islands and for the continued subjection of those people. If so, Mr. President, those of us \vh_o are known as airti-auuexatiouists can. not with, propriety vole for that resolution unless amended. Without any preliminaries whatever. 1 desire to ask the Senate to go with me in a brief analysis of this resolution. I will read the entire resolution, which is as follows: 
 
Resolved l>i/ f!,ff Senate, awl Hmt.se of Rapre.se.ntntives of tJia United Staffs of 
 
 i integral pai-t of the te 
 
position ul said islands as will beat promote tne in United States and the inhabitants of said islands. 
 
cii disistsof thecitizi of the 
 
Mr. President, this is a most ingenious resolution. It was evi 
 
dently drawn by a master hand. I -will not suggest that it was 
 
intended as an annexation resolxition in disguise, but it is so in 
 
practical effect. In my judgment, it is a Trojan horso and cornea 
 
from the Greeks. 
 
There are, sir, in this resolution four distinct declarations, and 
 
I propose to take up each one of these declarations and analyze it, 
 
and see whether in either of the declarations there is a, recogni 
 
tion of an intention on the part of the G-ovcrnmcnt of the United 
 
States to surrender the control of those islands, to cut loose, to 
 
annul the aunsxation which has beon accomplished "by the ratifi 
 
cation of the treaty, or whether there is any expression of any in 
 
tention at any time to accord those people freedom and independ 
 
ence. I think an analysis of the resolution will show that each, 
 
one of these declarations, taken separately and collectively, so far 
 
from mailing any such recognition, distinctly gives authority for 
 
the contrary. 
 
The first of the four declarations is this: 
 
the United States. That is a distinct declaration. Now, what does that mean? I 
will not say that it was intended to produce the impression that the resolution meant that the United States would surrender con trol over those people, but I do say that that is the impression which it would make upon anyone upon first blush. 
But T call the attention of the Senate, bearing in my mind the fact that the particular point we are considering is whether there is an intention in this resolution which looks to a surrender of the islands--I say a surrender, I mean an annulment oC the act of annexation---bearing that in mind, it will be seen tipon exami nation that- that first declaration i.s simply a declaration of the status of the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. It is a declara tion as to how that status is affected by ratification. It declares 
3741 
 
 that tlie act of annexation is not intended to. and does not, incor porate those people as citizens. It declares a status, but does not aver any intention to change that status. It says the act of rati fication does not make them citizens, "but it docs not say that tin status which is thus declared shall ever in the future be changed, It is simply a. declaration of a- status without any declaration of future intent to cliango that status. 
If this declaration were that it is not intended to hold tiiese people subject to tlie dominion and sovereignty of the United States, it would amount to a declaration against permanent an nexation. Hut as it stands it is a declaration under which, the Filipinos can be held indefinitely as subjects, although not as citizens, 
Consequently there is nothing in that first declaration which looks to the sundering- of the tie which has been created by annex ation, nor is there anything- in the first declaration vrkich looks to the i'uture freedom of those people. It looks simply to the ques tion of what is their relationship and wiiat it shall be in the fu ture, and it declares simply that they are not to be incorporated into citizenship. 
Mr. President, this particular view of it has considerable light shed upon what is tlie true meaning and intent oi: this declarationby irho contention which, we have heard so earnestly in this Senate for weeks past to the effect that the acquisiUoiiof foreign, territory does not confer citizenship upon the inhabitants of that territory; and therefore this declaration is simply carrying' out tlr.it view of the ca.se, a:i;l simply endeavoring in this manner to have the Con gress of the United States make a declaration that, while those people have become subject to the dominion of the United States Government, they have not become and will not become citizens. That in all there is in t'iiat declaration--not a word more. 
Mr. President, I am now endeavoring to analyze this resolution for the purpose of asking tliosw Senators -who favored the ratifica tion of tlie treaty by which annexation necessarily follows, and who do not favor the pernaaiicnfc annexation of tlioso islands, whether or not they can support this resolution. And thus going through the analysis, dividing- this resolution info its four distinct declarations,! have endeavored to present the view which. I think 
 
 is conclusive, that there Is nothing In the first declaration "which looks .to that -which the oppDnents of annexation, desire; which desire is, that there shall he no permanent connection between those islands and this country; that they shall neither he States HorshalJ they be vassal Territories; hut that in. the proper manner, to he hereafter determined, if you please, -we shall cut loose from this Asiatic territory and resume our former status, attending to our own affairs at home. 
As to the next declaration, the second declaration of this reso lution, it is; 
of the territory of tlie United States. That declaration conies nearer mailing snclx a declaration as 
those of us who are opposed to permanent annexation might de sire, and, upon first blush, if it stood alone, we might say that that was the intention; but an analysis oi' this second declaration will show that such is not the plain, 1111 ambiguous meaning of this part of the resolution; in other words, it is not the simple language which would be employed if the intent -were that those islands should not in the future continue as a part o the territory of the United States. If such -were the purpose, the simple lan guage would have been used, leaving out the word ''integral." "Wiry the use of the word "integral?" 
If this resolution intends to commit Congress to a proposition that it is not intended to hold those islands at all. it would have said: 
ritoi-y of tlis United States. 
The "word " integral' : Is a word of limitation and is put there for a purpose. It is all fours with the other contention as to the relationship which the inhabitants ol! those Islands shall bear to the United States. It is contended that they will not be citizens, and In the same way it is the purpose to contend in the future that by the use of the -word ' Integral" Congress meant that it did not intend to Incorporate these islands as a part of tho territory of tli9 United States in the same sense that Arizona or New ller-dco is 
 
 each a part of the territory of the United States: Tmt "by the use of the word " integral," a word of limitation, it is the purpose to commit Congress simply to the proposition that in holding the islands it is intended to liold them simply as an outside piece of property, not entitled liereafter to admission as one of the organ ized Territories of tlie country. 
Mr. President, I am not discussing the question as to whether that is a proper relation for those islands to "bear to the United States Government in case we permanently hold them. I am simply discussing the question as to whether this language ex cludes the idea of the permanent retention of the Philippine Is lands. I am limiting this discussion to that. I am not discuss ing the question as to whether these people will under the law become citizens; I am not discussing the question whether or not under the use of the "word '' integral " those islands would properly become a part of the territory liable and of right entitled to organi zation as one of the Territories; but I am simply discussing tho question whether the language used is intended to imply that there shall be no annexation of any kind and that the.se people shall bear no relation to our people of any Miid, either as citizens or as vassaly, because I do not want them either as the one or as the other. 
Mr. President, I am addressing myself more particularly to the judgment of Senators who announce that they are opposed to the permanent annexation o those islands, and who are opposed to the subjection of the Filipinos to the dominion of the United States Government, either in tho capacity of citizens or as subject vassals. I desire that they with whom I am in thorough accord on the qiiestion of annexation shall carefully consider whether or not they can with propriety give their support to resolutions which, if my analysis be correct, can be quoted in the future as a justification for the indefinite holding of these islands, in one re lation or another, and in the indefinite subjection of those people to the dominion of the United States Government. 
Under the first two declarations--first, as to what is the status of the Filipinos under the annexation; second, as to the purpose of the Government not to permanently annex those islands as an in tegral part of the territory oil the United States--I wish to ask this 
 
 question: Suppose twenty years from now or fifty years from now, tlie Government of the United States in the meantime holding" these islands, not admitting the Filipinos to the rights of citizen ship, not organizing the islands into a Territory, but holding' them "by a governor, either military or civil, appointed in Washington, allowing them no rights in common with, the people of the United States--suppose in that condition of affairs a Senator, then here, should rise in his place and say that the pledge of the Government required that that relationship should end, and that the United States under that pledge should cease to hold the Philippine Islands in any capacity, 
I respectfully submit that there is not a word in the pending joint resolution which could not, so far from being urged as a rea son why that relationship should end. be urged in justification of indefinitely maintaining such relationship. If so, Mr. President, those who support the joint; resolution -will give their consent, their approval, to ma-ice authoritative a policy which will permit ";hose islands to "be indefinitely held, and those people to be con tinued indefinitely nndor our dominion. 
Tlie last declaration as to not holding these islands as an inte gral part of the territory o the United States gets further light from tlie latter part of the joint resolution. We say we do not intend to hold them as an integral part of the United States, and then, in the latter part of the resolution, say that '' in dne time " it is our purpose " to make such disposition of said islands as will best promote the interests of the citizens of the United States and the inhabitants of said islands." ISfow, of course, "due time" may mean one year, it may mean five shears; it may mean, as the distinguished author of the resolution, if I recollect correctly, stated the other day, a hundred years. If I recollect arig'lit, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. McENKirr] , construing his own reso lution on Saturday, said, that it might mean a hundred years. A hundred years is not what we want. 
It matters not to us, so far as tlie great interests of this country are concerned, so far as it aifeoi-g the material interests of our our own people, whether these people are given an enlightened government or whetlier they are held by tho hand of despotism. The great reason, so far as we personally are concerned, why we 
8741 
 
 8 
do not desire the retention of tliese islands in any capacity is be cause such retention in any capacity will lay a great burden upon our people, because it will necessitate not only continued taxa tion, but increased taxation, because it will necessitate not only taxation, but, 0,3 a note of warning already sounded at tlie other end of the Capitol indicates, no taxation will be sufficient to meet it, and. increased indebtedness in the shape of boiu"s must be resorted to. 
"Whether they are held as an enlightened community under an enlightened government or as a subject community, the same bur den will be upon us both in money and in the lives that we must expend for the purpose of defending those islands. It matters not, so far as this particular branch of the case is concerned. It does matter a great deal in other considerations, but it does not matter so far as the particular question of burdens to be imposed upon our people is concerned what kind of a government we give them. The great tiling with us is that there should be no connection be tween this Government and tho Philippine Islands, whether they Bhall be equals or whether they should be subject vassals, because in either caso we must bear the burden of taxation and make the sacrifice of lives of thousands of our soldiers, and be in constant danger of foreign wars. 
And, sir, the proposition that the islands will not he held as an " integral " part of the territory of the United States has further illustration in the latter part of the joint resolution, which says that in due time we shall make such a disposition of them as onr best interests may dictate. In other words, it involves two propo sitions. In the first place, that we will hold them indefinitely. In the second place, that when we do cut loose from them it -will not be to give them, a free and independent government, but it will be to sell them to some foreign power. 
Mr. LINDSAY. If the Senator from Georgia will pardon me, in this connection I call his attention, to the qualification of the word "self-government." 
Mr. BACON. I am coming to tnat point. Mr. laiSTDSAY. It is not an independent, but a local selfgovernment. Mr. BACO2tf. I am coming to that point later. I skipped it 
 
 and was discussing a later phrase in the resolution, for the reason that I was'discussing th^t particular purt In connection with the prior part of the resolution. Now, here are the three declarations, and I wish-to know of any Senator here who is opposed to the annexation and the subjugation of these people if he can give his support to either oi; the threo propositions, 
Now, "what is the fourth proposition? It is the third in order of sequence, "but it is the fourth as I consider them, and it is the one to which the Senator from Kentucky has n^st called my attention. 
Mr. President, those of us who are opposed to the permanent annexation of these islands and wlio are opposed to the United States Government going into the "business of subjugating for eign peoples believe that in due time--and when I say due time I mean a short due time--these people should be given their free dom. We think they are entitled to their freedom. They were fighting for it before we ever went there. Whether they were fighting for it at that particular moment or not matters not. They -were a people who had shed their blood in order that they might be free, and they were a people who joined with na in the war against the Spaniards in the Philippines, not because they loved us, but because they thought it was to he a step to aid them In securing their liberty. "Who doribts that? We think they ought to have their liberty, and the fact that they are not upon the same plane of enlightenment and civilisation as ourselves does not in any manner militate against the proposition that they are entitled to their freedom. 
Mr. President, what says the language of tlie joint resolution? Does it look in any manner or at any time to the freedom of these people? Does it not aver that they shall not have it? Does it not say that so far as we are concerned they are never to bo free? Here is the language: 
Now, wliat is the plain construction of that language? The plain construction of that language is not that we intend to let them have a government of their own. The plain avowal is that it is the purpose of the United States Government to establish a 
 
 10 
government of the United States there, and that they are to be subject to it; a government which shall be one of our own mak ing; a government winch, if it follows the precedent, will probably "be a military government; if not a military government, then a civil government, organized and appointed from Washington. 
It distinctly negatives the idea that -we are to let them have their own government, but we say that we are going to establish a government for the purpose of tutelage; that we are to establish a government of our own in the islands to prepare them for what? For independence? For the management of their own affairs? For freedom? By no means. To prepare them for local selfgovernment. Why the word "local?" If it had said to prepare thorn for self-government, unless we toolc the last part of the sen tence in with it, to which I am going to allude directly, it might have been supposed that it was intended that we would do there somewhat as we do in Cuba. 
&## 
Mr. BACON. I was proceeding to say when interrupted, that if we had simply said to prepare them for self-government it might be understood that we meant -we were going to do somewhat as we are doing in Cuba, arranging to see that those people have a government which shall represent the best sentiment of the islands and put thorn in a position where they could maintain that government. But when it says "local self-government " it evi dently means that it is the purpose of the United States Govern ment to continue the United States control over those islands, and even after they are found capable, Tinder our tutelage, for selfgovernment that they shall simply have local self-government, and that our connection with them as the dominating power is to be continued in ono shape or the other. 
******* 
Mr. TITjLMAK. I will state, if the Senator from Georgia will permit me, that the evening we ratified the treaty the McSiiery resolutions, which had "been presented that morning, were amended out of all shape as he presented tiicrn, and then printed the next morning as though he had introduced the resolution which we now have, whereas if we will get the original typewritten copy we \vill see an entirely different measure. 
 
 11 
Sir. BACON. I do not know anything about how that may be. I only heard the resolutions offered by the Senator from Louisiana when they wore read from tlie desk, and I can not say whether these are the same or not. I am dealing with, the joint resolution as it stands. I am very glad to have the attention of some of those who stand with, me in opposing- the permanent annexation of these islands, because I am exceedingly reluctant that they should give their consent to resolutions which will diametrically oppose what they wish to accomplish. 
I was discussing the third declaration in the resolution, which is the fourth in the order of discussion, as to whether or not it is the intention of the Government under the resolutions ever to give to these people free government. If not. then I am sure the dis tinguished Senator from Illinois [Mr. MASON] , who asked that we should vote upon the joint resolution, will not give it his support. 
Mr. President, not only, as I was proceeding to say when the Senator from Texas desired to he heard, do we say that we will continue our government and onr dominion, for an indefinite term, over these people, but we say that when that time ends they are not to have thc-ir freedom, but we are to dispose of them to other people. If: there is anything in what we have heard here------ 
Mr. MASON. Iho^e the Senator will permit me to interrupt him for a moment. 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. MASON. "We are not to dispose of them, to other people, but to make such disposition as may be for the best interests of this country and the people o the islands. Mr. BACON. Yes. Mr. MASON. That is the only redeeming line, I think myself. Mr. BACON. But when it says disposition, does it mean that -we aro going' to turn the islands over to the people? If so, why do they not say so? Certainly the word "disposition" includes the words "to sell." It does not necessitate it, but authorises it. Mr. MASON. "We have sovereignty over Cuba------ Mr. TELLER. I do not think it is proper to carry on this dabate on the narrow suggestion that that means to sell. Mr. RACON. I am sure I have not been confining my criticism to that. I am giving1 a criticism upon that particular word. I 
aril 
 
 12 
say that if it had been intended to say that after the people had beon tutored up to the point where they were capable of selfgovernment they should "be given their freedom it would have said so. No man can. dispute but that under this language the Senator who votes for it votes for the authority of the United States at the proper time to dispose of them either "by gift or by sale, because sale is one class of disposition. 
Mr. MASON. Or we could dispose of them as we are to do with Cuba--to the people themselves. 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. I do not mean to say that it will necessitate a sale, but I say if 1 vote for these resolutions I vote that it shall be in the power of the Government of the "United States with my approval at the proper time, in due time, if they see fit, to sell the islands. The words " dispose of " certainly will authorize that. 
Mr. President, there are resolutions here which are entitled to recognition and which would command my support. I desire to state that here is a resolution offered by the distinguished Sena tor from Illinois [Mr. MASON] which has no ambiguity about it. Why the Senator from Illinois did not ask that his resolution be voted upon I do not 3mow. Here is a resolution in words that can not be misiinderstood. Here is a resolution in accord with these great principles for which he has been battling here for the last year. I-lere is a resolution in accord with the resolutions offered by the Senator from Nebraska, reaffirming the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence. It is short, hut it covers the ground, and I would vote for it with the greatest pleasure. 
Resolved by ihe Sennte. of th? United Stales, That tlie G-overiimftiit of the 
3"ect them by force to our dominion Jigaiiist tlioir will. 
That is the whole doctrine. It is in a few words. It is not am biguous. It can not be strained to mean anything else; -whereas the joint resolution of the Senator from Louisiana can be con strued to mean that tliiri Government shall hold permanent and indefinite control and dominion in the Philippine Islands, and that it will hold them in subjection for all lime, until we see proper to dispose of them according to our own will in some other way. Nay more, sir, this resolution is so adroitly worded that 
 
 33 
whatever it may seem, to be to tlio casual reader, it is in fact im perialism, and authorises distinctly a colonial government in the Philippine Inlands, to "be maintained "by tlie United States until ws see proper to soil them and their people. 
Mr. TELLER. I would like to ask the Senator from Georgia if lie does not think it would "be rather unwise for us to make a general declaration that tinder no condition will we hold a coun try contrary to the will of the inhabitants? If we "were to carry on a war anywhere would we not necessarily for a time at least be compelled so to hold territory? 
Mr. BACOH. I, of course, recognize that tliis is a mere general enunciation of principle. 
Mr. TELLEIi. I want to say to the Senator that he is making a purely technical objection to the resolution. 
Mr. BACON. I am very much obliged to the Senator from Colorado for the information. 
Mr. TELT.Ji3.R. It is an objection based upon the words, and therefore I think lie sliould bo held to technicalities on the Mason resolution as well. 
Mr. BACON". I am not discussing the Mason resolution, except to contrast it with the pending joint resolution. 
Mr. TELLER,. The Senator just g-;.ive it his approval. Mr. BACON. Certainly I do, and I approve of the Declaration of Independence,; and the remarks the Senator makes on the reso lution of the Senator from Illinois are equally applicable to tlie doctrines in the Declaration of Independence. Mr. HOAB. May I ask tlie Senator from Georgia a question that I may understand him? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. HOAR. Do I not correctly understand the Senator from Georgia when I understand him to be discussing a permanent peace policy for the United States arid not a temporary policy as to /what we shall do for a short time while war is going on or shortly after it closes? Mr. BACON. Of course not. This joint resolution, as I said last week, is now to be taken as a solemn declaration of Congress, of the great lawmaking power of the greatest Government on earth, as to what it will do, not this year or next year, but for all time 
iii-il 
 
 14 
to come as to the Philippine Islands. Therefore I say every -word ought to be weighed, and there ought to "be a technical as well as a liberal construction of the words we are going to use in making this great enunciation to the -world and to ourselves. 
Mr. President, I hope that the .joint resolution will he voted down. I think it important that we should malre an enunciation, through carefully prepared resolutions as to what shall be the policy of the Government of the United States in the future rela tive to the Philippine Islands. 
In the contest over the ratification of the treaty Senators may be said to have been divided into three classes. There wore those who favored the ratification of tho treaty and the permanent annexation of the islands. There were those -who were opposed to the pormaiienb annexation of the Philippine Islands, Imt who favored the ratification of the treaty as n. precedent act to the con sideration of what should be done with the Philippine Islands afterwards. The third class were those who were- opposed to the ratification of the treaty because it accomplished tho fact of an nexation, and who desired that the treaty should bo amended, or that there should "be an accompaTiying resolution which, would practically prevent the annexation of those islands to this country. 
The difference between the Ifitior two classes has been swept o,\vay. The treaty has been ratified. So the only question, so far as concerns those in the last two classes, is how we shall act. "What measures shall we support which will prevent the permanent annexation of these islands'? Therefore I hope that the joint reso lution will be voted down, in order tluit the Senate, in mato.ve consideration, may determine what enunciation shall be made. It is proper that there should be an enunciation which shall be ex pressive of the will and the determination of this Govern in ent. 
Mr. Pros-dent, I have no criticism to nmke upon what has been done under tlie action already had by tho Government of the United States, for that is beyond recall, but I do think the time liasc-ome. especially in view of tue early adj;>\vairaeiit of Conyrcss for nearly a year, when we should, say to our pc-op'e vrliat '.ve intend by this thing1. It was given out that ratification was net intended, to accomplish permanent annexation. It "was so stated by Sen ators wlao were in favor of the ratification but who opposed 
8741 
 
 15 
annexation, and in my Imml/Ie Tmlgment tlie time lias now come for- them to make the promise good that after the ratification we would make an eiitmci.'ttion which would be satisfactory to the people of the United States as to tlio 1'utnre policy of this Govern ment, 
One word, Mr. President, as to amendments. I have no discus sion to make as to whether or not future amendments can "be pro posed, or rather, 1 should say, whether amendments can he pro posed after the hour arrives when wo have decided to vote. I find a difference of: opinion among Senators who have been long in service here, and I shall not attempt to offer my judgment in the matter. 
But as to an amendment which is pending-, by what possible rule can a unanimous-consent agreement, especially a rinanimous- consent agreement obtained without notice given to the Senate that it was going- to be asked, lake of a pending amendment? The parliamentary sitttatioii is that the pending- question on tlia resolution is the amendment which was offered bymyself. When the Senate adjourned when it had under consideration the reso lution of tho Senator from Louisiana, the question was on the amendment offered by myself. By what parliamentary rule can it be said that that pending question is displaced? 
The amendment which I offered is an additional resolve. It is true. I think, that very much in the McEnery resolution should bo taken out of it, but i the Senate will adopt this amendment it makes no difference about what comes before it. The amend ment is as follows: 
RdKolvct? further. That the United St.-ifes hereby disclaim n.ny aistpnvitivn 
said islands, rind fisserL their datermiii;iLio;n, -when o, stublo and independent government sliall lisive "been erected tlierein. entitJort in the lindg-meut of tho CJo^cirnmctJt of tlio IJiiitocl States to I'poogrsii'ioji as siiCl!, to transfer to said 
If we adopt that amendment, it is a construction upon every thing that goes before, and it is in language so plain that nobody can misunderstand it. It is in language so plain that no perma nent annexation or indefinite control of those islands can be urged im.ler it; none could be deConded under it. It is a plain 
 
 10 
 
proposition: I>o we intend to permanently annex tlioso islands and 
 
to permanently sxibject tliose people to our dominion, or do we 
 
intend, through such agencies as we ourselves shall determine, 
 
and iit such tinio as we shall deterniiiie, and in such manner as 
 
we shall determine, to recognize a government when we find one 
 
there, which in onr judgment is entitled to recognition, and re 
 
lease and. free those people and leave tlieir affairs to themselves? 
 
If the latter is our intention, then the language of this amend 
 
ment plainly expresses such intention. 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
* 
 
K 
 
* 
 
* 
 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I trust that all those will vote for this amendment who, like myself, are opposed to the permanent an nexation of these islands and who favor that they shall "be given tlieir freedom at a proper time, leaving to the United States Gi-overnmcnt, as it does, the determination of when that time will come and the terms upon which it will he granted, leaving full power to the United States G-overnment in every particular, simply pledging us to the proposition that we will not maintain the per manent annexation of these islands and that we will not subject their people to our dominion against their will. I trust that all those who agree with that fundamental proposition will vote for this amendment. 
Now, sir, I liave but one appeal to make to those who are op posed to it. Let us have a vote on the amendment and do not let it be put aside on a- motion to lay oil the table. It is a grave matter. It is an important matter, Let us come snuarely up to it and say whether we are in favor of a permanent retention or whether -we ai'e in favor of letting these islands lo Jsc at a proper time, and whether we are willing to give freedom to a people who IIEIVO heroically staked tlieir lives to secure their liberties, 
3701 O 
 
 EEOBGAMTZATIOff OF THE AEMY. 
SPEECH 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON, 
OK GEORGIA, 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MONDAY, FEBKITAKY 27,1899. 
 
  SP BECH 
OV 
HON. AUGUSTUS O. BACON. 
 
The Senate ~being 3n Commifctue of t\i& Whole and having under cons33erntion tte following amendment to the bill (Q. 55W for inoroasmff tlie effici ency of tLe Army of the United States, ana for other purposes, witb tlie ol- 
-AuS provided also. That each stnd every prorisioa of this act shall continue in force until July 1,1901, and <?n and after that date all the general, staff, 
-nder tliis act shall ba <lischm-ged, to those existing at the passage of o of. the Army shall be teduued to to April I, 1S9S, cxclu. " 
 
, 1901: And provided further. That no officer wlio has been or may bo promoted under existing law or undertho rules of seniority shall be dis turbed in his raJilt-- 
 
Mr. BACOH said: 
 
Mr. PRESIDENT: I desire to detain the Senate but a very few 
 
minutes. The adoption of this amendment offered by the Senator 
 
from Maryland very much simplifies the question as to the pur 
 
poses for which this army is to "be organized. It is now a clear-cut 
 
proposition that the regular standing Army is estimated and 
 
fixed at 29,000 men. I understand that is the number which it 
 
will be under the amendment just adopted, and therefore the bal ance of 71,000 men is for an extraordinary purpose. What is that 
 
extraordinary purpose? 
 
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HATVI^Y] says he thanks 
 
Grod tha t thereare- 100,000 mt?n provided for tlift defense of the coun 
 
try. I think m that he makes amisstatement. We have provided 
 
39,000 men for the defense of the country and we have provided 
 
71,000 for the extraordinary purposes of the time. As I shall show 
 
in a very few inizmtea, these 71,000 men are almost altogether for 
 
, theservices required by the complications in the Philippine Islands. 
 
Here, now, is tlie demonstration of that proposition. 
 
Mr. President, outside of the regular force for the standing' 
 
Army, that which wiJJ be needed on a peace basis, we have the 
 
addition of Porto Rico, in which it may be said troops are required. 
 
I shall not repeat what has already "been said here to-day to show 
 
that the demand for troops in Porto Kioo is not such as would 
 
hav necessitated any increase of the Army, so none need be 
 
added on that account. We have also the demaii d for sotne troopa 
 
in Cuba. I will not in that instance either take up the time of the 
 
Senate to repeat what has already keen said find wh&t is conce&ed 
 
by all, that very few troops are needed there now. 
 
1 have the word for that, if I do not misnntlerstarid him, of the 
 
Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROCTOR] ,\vho has just returned 
 
roisa Cuba, that very few are needed there now, and that in a very 
 
short time none will be needed there. It follows that.no troopa 
 
need be included in this bill for this purpose. If any are needed 
 
srra 
 
3 
 
 ttie few can be furnished from the Regular Army. So that all the extraordinary force needed, and which, is provided for in this bill, is that which is called for by tho Filipino complications, and as to that purpose I desire to occupy for a moment the time of tho Senate. How much is that extraordinary force? Twenty-nine thousand for the Regular Army leaves 71.000 for an extraordinary purpose; that extraordinary purpose being now almost exclusively, and within a very short time will be exclusively, tho purpose de manded by the annexation of the Philippine Islands. 1 use tho expression, " annexation of the Philippine .Islands," because by tho ratification of the treaty these islands have been annexed. There- 
is no longer any question of annexation. The only question in this connection is "whether we can undo what has been done by the ratification of the treaty. 
Mr. President, 'those of us wlio have opposed the annexation of the Philippine Islands have been largely influenced by the fact that we believed it would commit the country to a policy which involved an immense expenditure. There were other paramount reasons, "but I am now discussing the matter of expense. We be lieved that it would involve an immense expenditure not only now, but for an indefinite time in the future; and it is proper that now, when we have a clear-cut item of that expense, we should, make a riote of it, that tho country may know of it, in order that we may count the cost, and in order to determine, so far as this feature is concerned, the groat question which is going to be presented to the people of this country--whether or not we will pursue a policy which rn.-u.st necessarily involve the continu.ance of this great expense. 
Sir, what is this expense in this particular instance? One hun dred thousand men. 71,000 of them by reason of the fact that we have annexed, the Philippine Islands.. How much is it in money? The War Department, if the published statements are correct, estimated that an establishment of 100,000 men, when it was pro posed to have a regular army of that size, would cost $145,000,000 per annum. A volunteer force will cost ag much. 
Tlie Senator from Missouri [Mr. CocKiiiiLTj thinks it will not cost probably over a hundred and twenty-five millions, and I pro pose to take the lowest figure for the purpose of arriving at the question, when we go to keep books on this question, how much is to be charged up to the fact that we have annexed the Philip pine Islands. It is but the beginning. If this particular expendi ture were all, it would be a different matter. 
If a hundred thousand men are to cost a hundred and twentyfive millions 7>er ami-urn, seventy-one one -hundred.ths of that amount is botween eighty-five and ninety million dollars per year. This bill provides for two years, so that doubling it we have at least a hundred and seventy million dollars to charge up under the provisions of this bill for the single expense attendant upon the maintenance of an army for tho purpose of making good the 
annexation of the Philippine Islands and the subjugation of their people. 
To that expenditure for the Army must "bo added tlie expense oE the Navy, which we can not ascertain "with similar accuracy, be cause it is more difficult to determine what particular part of the Navy is employed in that service and -what particular portion of the total expense of the naval establishment is to be charged up to it. But I have asked some gentlemen who are upon, the Naval 
3773 
 
 Committee, and they think it is a fair proportion to say that onehiilf of the expense of the naval establishment for the nest two years is properly chargeable to the service in the Philippine Islands. 
The annual expense of the naval establishment will be fifty or sixty million dollars a vear, and one-half of that -will carrvthe an nual expense for the Army and the Navy for the Philippine Islands to over a hundred million dollars. The annual expense will bo at least a hundred and ten million dollars solely for the Army and tho Navy, required solely by reason of the fact that wo have annexed the Philippine Islands. 
Of co-arse, there is the original cost of 320,000.000 to be paid to Spain, "but that is so insignificant in amount compared to the hun dred miUions a year and more to be paid out every vear for many years on account of the Philippine Islands that "this purchase price-drops out of sight and is almost forgotten. 
Sir. President, when is that to stop if this policy of holding- the Philippine Islands is to be pursued? That is certainly a most seri ous question. I doubt not. as has been said here to-dav, that it is within, the power of this Government to utterly crush out the op position in the Philippine Islands. I doubt not that it is in the power oi: this G-overnment to entirely exterminate the JTilipiiios. But unless we do exterminate them, the temporary suppression of what we call their rebellion will not relieve ITS of the necessity of a continued charge of this kind for the support of the Army and the Navy, which will be snlncient to keen them in subjection. 
Why. Mr. President, they are on the other side of the world. We can not withdraw from there an army with an idea that if a rebellion breaks out we can send it back, and wo can not have any possible reason to hope that that population, especially after 
must, so long- as we hold the Philippine Islands, keep an army and a navy there sufficiently large to deal with any rebellion which may break out among 10.000.000 people. It takes more than a month to send troops there. General Lawton left on a transport with troops on the 19th day of January, and he has not arrived there yet, in spite of haste telegrams which are being sent to him along1 the line where ho touches at different points. 
So, Mr. President, we have necessarily to face this proposition. We must either stop and turn back from the course upon whicli wo have started--we must either abandon our purpose to subju gate the Filipinos and to hold them in subjection, or we must make up our minds to an annual expenditure in the future of a hundred million dollars at least for the purpose of maintaining its the Philippine Islands the army and navy which will bs necessary to keep their people in subjection. 
Nor is it alone in the expenditure of vasts sums of money that we must pay the cost of the Philippine Islands. In that which is more valuable than money--in human life--in the lives of onr own people, must the price "be paid. And, sir, there is every reason to fear that before the autumn comes there will be inouris* ing in thousands of American homes for noble- youths sent across the seas who will never return. And so long as we persist in. retaining the Philippine Islands in any relation, this annual sacrifice must be made. 
This extraordinary and continued expenditure of money and. 
 
 J3ut I desire to say one worO further as to the reasons \vliy I shall support this bill in spite of the fact that it is a bill for a hundred tliousnnd men. I do riot do so because, I favor an avwiy of" 1- 0'0.0n0d0rmedent.hfoourstahnodcon--traryT is----tru-e-.---I-a-m--o--pp- o- s>e-d- t-o--a-n--a-r-m-y- 
Now, Mr. President, I can not bo accused by anybody, or bo suspected by anybody, of favoring the annexation of the Philip opfintehiIsslaaunndesx. atIiocan notbe.,th-o.u-g.ht to =f. avor anythi-ng -gro,wing out 
u uv ^"^i.,^*^^. -.^,^,^ui,ioiia auu pniitipies 01 oi^r o^vn country. Mr. President, no ono is more extreme, I admit it. on that ques 
tion than I am, and therefore it is from the standpoint of one 
 
  I say, Mr. President, tho war which has been determined upon, because I suppose frl*ere was no Senator so blind but that he knew when -we ratified the treaty and said that we would annex those islands, "when we Icnew that the people whom we determined to annex had for years been fighting' for their independence, when we knew that those people did not admit the sovereignty of Spain, when we knew that these people denied the right of Spain to sell them or onv right to buy them, I say I suppose there was no Sen ator so blind but what knew that war would result, unless, as many hoped, we would at the time of the annexation or immedi ately thereafter assure the FiUpiiioe that we did not intend per manent annexation. Many voted for the treaty upon the faith that this would be done. I did not believe then that it would be (loiie.and there is no reason now to believe that- it will be done. 
When the question of the ratification of' the treaty was before the Senate the argument used was to ratify the treaty and settle the question of the permanent annexation of the Philippines after wards; that tin til tho treaty \?ns ratified the power of" the Presi dent was supremo; but that after tho treaty should be ratified the question ot" the retention of the islands would be one exclusively for Congress; that the President then would have no rig-lit to de cide the question, but that Congress could and would decide it. The treaty has been ratified, but where is the evidence of any in tention to have Congress decide this question? An expression of intention to give freedom to the Filipmos is voted dawn by tho Republican, party. The term of this Congress is about to expire. So far i'roni intending to give Congress an opportunity to decide the question, an extra session is to ne avoided even at the price of the abandonment of pet measures of the Republican party. 
But., however this may be, for the reasons givoii I believe it to be my duty to vote for the bill, although I am in no manner re sponsible for the measures which make necessary this extraordi nary force for the Army. 
31T3 O 
 
 POLICY REGAKDING THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AS IT ATTECT3 THE INTEREST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. 
SPEECH 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0, BACON, 
OF CEORG1A, 
SENATE OF THE UMTED STATES, 
 
 II O AT . A U G TJ S T II 8 O . .13 A C O :>T . 
 
to tho people or Cuba. 
 
tinned independence, of "tlie same"-- *" ' 
 
Mr. BACON said: Jlr. PRESIDENT: Tho resolutions which Iiave just \iecn read, "when reduced to their final analysis, may bo said, in ease of tnoir adoption, to be a declaration on the part of the United States that it is the purpose and intention of this Government to 4-ivc to the Philippine Islands the same character of government, the same opportunities, the came assistance, the sains right to independ- 
 
3 
 
1027 
 
 break the peace of the world, we called upon the world to witness the purity of our motives, the absolute unselfishness with which. we proceeded in that solemn moment. We declared as follows: 
.at tho United i 
people. I desire to say that I would rather be the author of that resolu 
tion, I would rather have the credit that the senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. TEI.IVEII] lias in having offered that resolution, than to be tiiQ author of any legislative action with -which I am familiar within the past quarter of a century. If there is precedent for it in the history of the world, I confess my ignorance of the fact. 
In the fac:e of the recognized right of a nation which goes to war, although somewhat inconsistent with modern ideas of civili zation and humanity; in the face of the recognized right of a nation \vlicn it goes to war not only to frilly indemnify itself, but to have that measure of indemnity heaped up and running over, we solenmly abjured the right to avail ourselves of that which is recognised as strictly proper under such circumstances. 
Mr. President, were wo sincere in that declaration or did wo make it for the ptirpose of deceiving the civilized world? "Were we sincere in tlio declaration that it was not our intention to profit by the war? Were we sincere in the declaration that we under took this great enterprise from the high motives which are ex pressed in that resolution? Or did we intend to make the world believe that sticli was our intention while we at tlie same time re served in our own breast the intention to profit in come other direction without putting the world upon notice of our intention in that respect? 
Now, Mr. President, it was upon the theory that we were sincere, that we did mean "what we said, that we were animated by this high purpose, that we were unselfish, that a little over a year ago I introduced a series of resolutions very similar to those which, are now before the Senate. They were introduced in January, 1890. In the succeeding month, when the McEnerv resolution was before tho Senate, I offered as an amendment thereto in the way of an addendum the following: 
That resolution is a substantial copy of one of the resolutions which I had introduced in the preceding- January, resolutions in troduced before a gun had ever been fired on either side in tho Philippine Islands. The original resolution introduced by me in January never came to a vote, but this particular resolution, offered as an amendment to the McE-nery resolutions, did come to a vote, a.nd there was a tie vote in the Senate, the Vice-President casting a vote in the negative. 
4037 
 
 My purpose in alluding to the resolution at this time is that I may call attention to the difference between the resolutions now offered by me and this resolution, and to state the reason for such difference. 
It will be noted that the resolutions now before the Senate pro vide for the continued effort of the Government of tlie United States to restore pea.ce and order in the Philippine Islands, and do not propose any action by the United States which looks to the establishment of a government for tlie Filipinos until such peace and. order have been restored. 
The present re solutions also provide for action on the part of tho United States Government in providing the ways and the means, tho methods, by which an independent government is to be estab lished in those islands, whereas the resolution which was formerly "before tlie Senate, and which was voted upon, did not provide for syich action on the part of the United States, but looted to the ac tion of the Filipinos themselves, contemplating the recognition of a government to be erected by tlio Filipinos whenever in the j adg> ment of the United States that government should be foxmd to be entitled to such recognition. 
X^ow, Mr, President, what was proper a year ago is not possi ble now. A year ago conditions were such that in my opinion it was competent for the United States Government to leave to the JFilipmos the work of establishing their government, of so per fecting: it that the United States Government would rocognixe ife and would deem it capable of properly performing; the functions of government. They at that time had a government. They had a president. They had a parliament. And I will say, in passing-, that they had a- parliament the proceedings of which were very highly spoken of by persons competent to judge. They had. a judiciary; they had an army, and in all particulars they had the machinery of government. They not only had an army in name but they had one in fact. They had an army of efficiency, an army capable oi: sustaining the civil arm of the government. They had an army of 30,000 men, "which invested at that time the city of Manila and kept within it the entire Spanish army while Dowey beleaguered the city by sea. It was an army which in re peated "battles, after the naval brittle of Manila, had without ex ception gained victories over the Spanish troops and had captured 
either side. So I say, Mr. President, -while I am not going into the question 
now of the propriety of the action of the United States Govern ment in reference to that army, speaking' solely as to the reason why in my opinion at that time it was proper to leave the question of the organization of tlieir government to the .Filipinos, they not only had all of the other frame work: of government, bub they had a powerful, victorious army. 
Therefore it was that in the resolution which I offered as an amendment to the iiIcEiiery resolution no provision was made, or, rather, suggested, for the action of the United States Government except to judge whether the government which should bs framed by them should bo a proper government. But in those present resolutions there is provision that the Government of the United States shall take affirmative action, First, that it shall restore 
 
 peace and order: second, that it shall it Pelf provide the method, the machinery, and give the assistance which may be required to enable tlio Filipinos to organize a government which, shall be a sufficient and a satisfactory government in the opinion of the United. States, 
Now, why the change? Because, Mr. President, since that timo whatever there was of government in the Philippine Islands has been destroyed by the United States Government. Their army has been dispersed; tlreir government has been entirely dispersed; their president and the commander of their army is practically a fugitive in hiding; their army has "been practically broken up; their parliament lias been destroyed: their courts hare been dis persed, and there is no authority in tlie Philippine Islands to-day worthy of the name oi: autiioritv except the authority of the United States. 
Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, mav I ask the Senator a question? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. HOA.B-. Is it his information, and if so, I should like to know the source oi: it, that there are urban or municipal govern ments over tlie island of Luzon, and the group in. the neighborhood, the name of which I have forgotten, which the Filipinoa had without dispute? Are those also destroyed, or are they stili. in places where the United States does not penetrate, governing their villages and towns in peace and harmonv? Mr. BACON. I am not sufficiently informed to answer the question of the Sejiator -with s.ecnra.ey. Of course, 1 presume it to be true that wherever the United States forces have not actually penetrated the people are still carrying on their own municipal governments. But, speaking in a general war, I think the propo sition may "be properly stated that tho United States Government through its military operations has practically overthrown tlie local governments in those islands, and that -wherever they uow exist, even in municipalities, it is simply from the fact that tem porarily at least there is no presence of the United States troops in those places. 
Mr. RAWX1NS. If the Senator will permit me. I will attract his attention to a portion of the report of G-oneral Otis, in which he says that on and prior to December 10 Ag-uinaldo was the domi nant power throughout tlie island and of the government even within the limits of the city of Manila, of which the "United States had actual military possession, and that an order issued by Ag"uinaldo was so potent that it was almost universally obeyed by the Filipiiio people within the limits of Manila, of _which tlie United States was supposed, to have actual and exclusive military occu pation. 
Mr. BACON. Conceding all that the Senator from Utah, says, tho only purpose 1 have In alln-ding to the fact of the supremacy of the military authority of the United States in those islands is to give the reason why I think tlie duty now devolves upon the United States Government to restore, as far as possible, perfect peace and order within tlie islands, and to maintain that peace and order until there shall have been substituted for the govern ment--the military government, if you please--of the United 
States sueli local civil governiasut as shall be organized throngh tho assistance of the United States, and as sliall be deemed satis factory and sufficient by the United States. 
Of course, I do not desire at this stage, because these are really in the nature of preliminary remarks, to go into the discussion of 
4037 
 
 6 the questions which are suggested by the interruptions of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Utah. 
Now, Mr. President------ The PRESIDING- OFFICER. Will the Senator from Georgia suspend just a moment? Mr. BACON. Certainly. The PRESIDING- OFFICES. The hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, it becomes the duty of the Chair to lay before the Senate the unfinished business, which will be stated. The SECRETARY. A bill (H. R. 1) to define and fix tho stand ard of value, to main-tain the parity of all forms of money issued or coined by the United States, and for other purposes. Mr. SPOONKR. I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business be laid aside until the Senator from Georgia shall have finished his remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin asks that the unfinished business be laid aside without prejudice. It \vin bo so ordered, without objection. The Senator from Geor gia will proceed. Mr. BACON. I thank the Senator for the courtesy. Mr. SPOONER. Before the Senator resumes, will it be agree able to him to permit mo to put a question to him? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. SPOONER. The Senator made a statement as to the cft'ect of the declarations introduced by the Senator from Colorado [Mr. 
Spa a money indemnity for the expenses of the -war? 
Mr. BACON. 1 do not think we would, Mr. President. I do not think that we would have been barred from other kinds of indemnity for the expenses of the war, but I do think that in good faith the United States stood pledged before the world not to reap advantage from the war. I may, before I get through--I am not sure--have occasion to discuss the question a3 to whether or not tms is an effort on the part of the United States Government to reap advantage, or whether it was a proceeding for tho purposes of indemnity. 
Mr. President, there are two points of view in a general way from which we should look at the question or the action of the United States Government in the permanent retention of the Philippine Islands, One \vMcli has "been very much discussed, and which 1 am free to say I do not think has been by any means ex hausted, as able as the discussion lias been, is the question of right, the question of justice to the Filiphios, and the question of con sistency on the part of the United States in the treatment of the Filipmos, consistency with our avowed, recognized principles for over half a century. That part of the discussion I do not proposa to trench upon this afternoon. 
ically and materially, and it is to that part- of the question that I wish, with the indulgence of the Senate, to address myself this afternoon. 
Mr. President, it will bo noted that In these resolutions I have endeavored, as far as possible, to exclude the consideration of questions which might divert attention from the main, question. 
 
 the same kind; there will be no material cnang'e. '-Lncreiore, as the condition of affairs which will exist then exists now, we can determine as well what we should do as we can determine ten years from now. 
Mr. President, as I said, I desire to address the Senate upon tht 
4037 
 
 question, as to what is the interest of tho people of the United States in determining- what shall "be the future relations "between, the Philippine Islands and this Government. 
Wo have had in times past extension, of territory; and if it be true thafc this proposed expansion, if you please, will create be tween the G-overnment of the United States and the Philippine. Islands the same class of relations winch, now exists between the United States and the territory heretofore acquired, then \vo are in a position to judge whether or not wo can safely under take to con'atmo a permanent political relation with tliosc islands. 
It is a Question, vast and far-reaching in its consequences, whicli invokes tho most considerate and patriotic judgment by tho American people. In the outset o the examination, of this ques tion, in order that wo may consider and determine it intelligently, it is of vital importance to ascertain the relations which must necessarily thereafter exist between the United. States and the Philippine Islands if theso islands are permanently retained as a part of the territory of the United States. 
Will these islands, if permanently retained, bear thereafter the same relations to tho United States as those which are now borno or which havo heretofore "been borne to the United States by the various acquisitions of territory heretofore made by the United States? If the Philippine Islands do bear now or can bear in the future tho same relations to the United States as docs the terri tory acquired from France or that acquired from Mexico, then outside o the question of compulsion, which. I am not now consid ering, there ig nothing novel in the proposition for the acquisition and permanent retention of the Philippine Islands other than thafc arising from distant location. In that case there is nothing whlcli will work a revolution in our system of government, nothing which will subvert ancl destroy our boasted principles and cher ished ideals. 
Let T.IS examine and see what are tho relations occupied by formerly acquired territory, in order that we may determine whether it is possible that the Philippines can over bear tho same relations to the United States. All the- territory acquired through the Louisiana purchase or through tho treaties with Mexico, as well as the Florida purchase from Spain, is now divided up into States and Territories. Almost all or it is now divided into States, the neople of which enjov equal rights. privileges, immunities, and powers with the people of the original thirteen States. All of the:?e peoples in all of these new States wliich lia- r e "beuii carved out of the several territories acquired from France, from Mexico, and from Spain before the late war, are joint beneficiaries and joint proprietors with, the citizens of tlie original thirteen States in the great inheritance of personal liberty, and in the rights and powers of equal citizenship, and in tho right of: the eqvial influence ami authority of their votes in the making of the laws and in tho control of the affairs of then- several Slates and of the General Government. The parts of these several acquisitions which have not yet been admitted as States into the Union have been divided into"Territories, with tho design and certainty that in due time they will also bo admitted as States, at which tim_e their people will also have all the rights, privileges, and immunities and exer cise all the powers of citixens of other States. 
The same is trtie of Alaska. The time is near at hand when that country will be given a. complete Territorial government, and there is no doubt bnt that in the future it will be admitted, as a, 
State in the Union. 
4037 
 
 All tins that lias "been thus accomplished in tlie uses made of these several acquisitions in their creation as States, and all that it is intended, to accomplish as to tlie remainder in tho future, was anticipated and designed at the times of these acquisitions. This design may "be said to have "been part in eacl' case of the ae,t of annexation. It wa3 known from tile beginning that these cotinti-iea were so situated geographically, and that their inhabitants would "be of swell a character and complexion that States ootild be conveniently carved out of the lands, and that tlio people of such new States could "be safely and advantageously admitted to all tho privileges and powers o_C American citizenship in both Stato and national affairs. It wis foreseen and recognized by the wise and patriotic, statesmen who secured these vast and invaluable aeqnisitions that each o the States to he carved out of them would in their territory and in tlicir people acid to the strength, the dignity, and tlio glory of this great G-orernnient made tip by tho magnificent aggregation of States, each independent o the other, and each peopled by a homogeneous, free, self-reliant, and self-controlling citizenry, 
In the acrjmsition. of territory upon ouv own continent with this design and purpose, and in the practical accomplishment ot tins design and purpose, there was nothing at war with the design and pwpose of the founders oP our Government. Tliei'e was nothing1 subversive of the principles upon \vMc}j. those i'ormders rested tlie Government, nothing destructive of their ideals of representa tive free government which they intended as tlie spirit and the body of their great creation. 
In each of these vast acquisitions, and In the nses made of them, there was expansion, and great expsmsioii. But it was not simply e^pansioiiof tlie territory sn"taje^tto the jurisdiction of tho United States, It was an. expansion of territory accompanied by an ox- 
, s fii the making- oi' la\vs for the control oi' Btate ana. goveru ments This in each instance was legitimate expansion. It was legiti mate and harmonious growth. It wag not revolutionary change, It subverted none of our institutions. It did no violence to oirr political principles. It destroyed none of our political ideals. On the cont-fiiry, such expansion, strengthened our institutions by extending them into other political svstenis of: the same Idncl. It establ-j sheet our political principles b;''dcnjonstratiag that they were not limited in their application to the poopln of tho original States, but tlia.t free, representative, seli'-coiitroliirig government could be safely exercised by all of "our race. It vindicated the Wisdom of the founders of our claal government, -State and Fed eral, by proving- that.solong1 as our political institutions and politjcal systems and political principles were adhered to, this dual p;overirmerit could, be safely capable of indefinite expansion, at least within the limits of our own continent;. Such expansion g'ave promise of perpetuity to our ideals of per sonal. civil, religious, and political liberty "by extending them to all within the acquired territory, as rights sacred and to be denied to none within our free Government. But is it possible that snch expansion can restut from our per manent retention of the Philippine Islands? What shall "bo said 4027 
 
 10 
of an expansion which fa simply an expansion of territory, which does not carry with it an extension of onr polit'cal system, oun political principles, and our political ideals? What shall be said. of an expansion by the acquisition of territory where it is not in tended, that there shall be statehood, and where it is impossible that there can ever be statehood, with the rights of citizenship in a State--where it is not intended, and where it is not possible, that the inhabitants of the acquired territory shall ever be equal par ticipants -with ourselves in the making of the laws of the General Government? 
Is such expansion as this the harmonious and legitimate growth and development of our political system or is it such a change 311 our political sj-stem as amounts to revolution? If the acquired territory is never to be admitted to statehood, and in the nature of things can never bo so admitted, then it must be a dependent and subject colony of the United States- If: the people in the ac- 
they, as well as ourselves, are to be governed, and from their character can never be so admitted, then such people can be none less than vassals and voiceless subjects o!; the United .State?. 
Revolution, means a turning: over. In political matters it is used to signify a complete or radical change. There could scarce] y be a more complete or radical change in the institutions of a country than a change from a condition whore all were free citi zens aiid none were subject vassals, to a condition where in a partic alar locality all are subject vassals and none are free citizens; a change from a condition where all are allowed through their votes to participate in detprnrmmg the legislation of the General Gov ernment, to a condition in a particular locality where all are made subject to laws in the making of which they are forever denied the privilege of having a voice; a change from a condition in. which the people have all the rights, powers, and privileges of so%~ereigti statehood, to a condition -where for all time they are to be allowed no governmental organization of their own exceptingonly such dependent organization as they are permitted to main tain at the will and pleasure of the General Government. 
The proposition is not to be successfully controverted that snch radical changes iu the principles and practices of our Government will constitute a revolution of the most pronounced type. 
If, therefore, the acquired territory is to be permanently held without statehood snd without the privilege or right of their peapie to participate directly or indirectly in the enactment of the laws of the General Government by which they are to be gov erned, and if it is impossible that they can ever be given such, privileges and rights, the permanent retention of these islands is an expansion of territory without the extension of our system, of government; it is an expansion which destroys to that extent our political principles and'our governmental ideals; it is an expan sion which is neither the natural growth nor the legitimate de velopment of our system of government, but it is an expansion which is a revolution in that system. 
Now, sir, applying these propositions which I have suggested, -what are the conceded facts \vitli reference to the Philippines? How is it with regard to the fittitre relations of these islands to the United States if sovereignty is to be permanently maintained therein by the United States? There is no possibility that they can ever become a State of this Union. Tliere is no possibility that 
4.03.~ 
 
 11 
a star can be added to the flag which shall represent an Asiatic race 7,000 miles beyond the seas. There is no possibility that we should ever admit to an equal participation in our Government these Asiatic people, so differing from us in race, habits, traditions, interests, laws, and religion, so utterly unassimilable to ourselves. It is impossible that we should ever consent that this Asiatic race should send here Senators and Representatives to participate in the mating of laws "by winch Americans are to bo governed, or that they should, in some closely contested election, through their electoral vote, decide wlio should "be the President of the United States, 
The conditions which, now exist;, and which will undoubtedly exist hereafter if wo permanently retain the Philippines, make it impossible that they can ever "become a State: and to hold them aa a subject colony makes necessarily a revolution in our system of government "which should not be Elided by anyone who is loyal to the principles upon which that system is founded. It is a revolution whicli requires those who support it to deny the most venerated principles contained in tlio ZJeclaration of Independence, and compels them, to openly challenge and dispute their truth. It is a revolution, which tramples under foot the "warnings and precepts of Washington's Farewell Address, which we have heretofore rev erently read in this Chamber upon each recurring anniversary, and the teachings of wliicli the American people iucve iicM as sacred for more than an hundred years. 
It is a revolution which utterly scouts and derides the princi ples which have inspired in. us the contemplation of a republican government as a sacred thing, and which has heretofore ca\ised tis to make haste to recognize every republican government whicli has been set up by those who have overthrown any form, of mon archical government. It is a revolution which palsies our tongue when we "would, give voice to our sympathy for any people strug gling for liberty anywhere on the earth, and makes us with ac cusing conscience sit in dumb silence for fear the accusing- finger" may be pointed, at us. ISTay, more. Mr. President, it is a revolution which, while it denies liberty toother people, endangers the liberty of our own people. 
Senators can not fail to recognize that a people to preserve_ their own liberties must be true to the principles upon which, their lib erties rest. They must not only be true to the principles of liberty as applied to themselves aud. as enjoyed by themselves, but they must be loyal to those principles in according the enjoyment of them to ethers. The man who teaches his children that they can with propriety violate the Becalogue in dealing with the property of his neighbor and the persons of his neighbor's family can not pro mote or maintain personal honesty or personal virtue within the precincts of his own household. 
JUr. President, this is a most serious phase of this question, 0110 that I fear we aro not sufficiently appreciative of, and I may bo permitted to dwell somewhat further upon it. I want, however, to say in this connection that I accord to a,ll the absolute, untiu.'ilified desire that whicli is best for the public good. I impTigu the motives of no one, and therefore in what I say, while I may rise words that are not exactly agreeable, they arc not in any manner intended to be offensive. 
The advocates of the permanent retention of the .Philippines do not like to hear the term " vassal." 1ST ever th el ess, one who is the subject of a. government in which lie has no voice, wiio only has 
4037 
 
 12 
siicli liberty as the government may grant him, and which itself may bo taken from him at tiie will of the government, is a vassal. And that is the only political relation tho Filipino can ever bear to the United States. The advocates of permanent retention do not like the term "imperialism." Nevertheless, whenever a re public owns outlying provinces, to be held permanently as depend ent colonies, never to "be admitted as a part of the republic in the control and administration of tho government, that republic is to that extent imperial. And. if held permanently, that is the only relation which the Philippine Islands can ever bear to the United States. 
Ah, sir, it 1.5 true that the terms " vassal " and ' imperial" grate 011 American ears. Tlipy are terms expressive of conditions violativeof every principle of tho froe institutions of America. They are 
their mothers' milk. Senators and others who can not find E _ ment with which to meet argument have been in the habit of pat ting this question aside with the reply that tho charge of imperial ism is all " rot." Men-whocan not meet argument with argument, men who can not meet a proposition with a logical reply, seek to answer the gravest of propositions \vitli such foolish expressions as that. 
To bring about such conditions and make them permanent, which necessarily result in imperialism and vassalage, is, 1 repeat, to revolutionize the G-overnment, because heretofore we have had no imperial colonies and 110 vassals, and we have vaunted political principles which have made it impossible that we should have either the one or the, other. 
!N"ow. sir, I use tho torzn "revolution" because it is the one 
come a Stato and the people of which it is also known can never be admitted to participation in tho legislation and administration either of a State or of the General Government, people who must be ruled by a standing army in their midst, is to work a revolu tion in the system of government as it lias hero t of ore existed in the United States, a revolution o the most radical and far-reach ing character. 
There can be no such thing as an imperial republic. It will either be an empire or a republic. Under tho name imperial re public, the form of a republic may bo preserved; but the soul and spirit of republican institutions will surely die. To speak oi: an imperial republic, true to republican principles and institutions, is to speak of a free autocracy or a Christian infidel, or a lawabiding lawbreaker. 
Sir, in the view which I am now presenting I ain not pleading the cause of the Filipinos. I am pleading the cause of Ameri cans, that their Government may not be converted from a re public composed of free States into an imperial government holding vassal and subject colonies, ruled and controlled necessa rily by a standing army in their midst. If our free Keptiblic is to be "converted into this imperial government, it is not those- who are to be held and ruled as vassals in subject colonies who will be the principal sufferers. 
I am satisfied that this brief analysis which I have made of the chariictor of this expansion which we have accomplished in tha 
4037 
 
  The first feature in which this revolution will definitely and practically manifest itself to the injury of our people will bo in the immediate growth of militarism. If it shall bo finally deter mined to permanently retain the Philippine Islands, it is a nafe prediction that in less than eighteen months from this date, if the imperialistic programme is continued, the Regular Army of the United States will be increased to 100,000 men. 
Now, the proposition which I make, and which I hope I may have the pleasure of hearing a Senator who is, in favor of expan sion discuss, is that the retention of the Philippine Islands inevi tably and necessarily involves a groat'standing army, presumably at least a hundred thousand men, and under some conditions much larger. We have already had the suggestion of it. Jf I recollect aright, the message of the President to the last Congress recommended the creation of an army--I do not recollect whether the particular nivmber TV as stated or not., "but it was understood to be a recommendation------ 
Mr. OOCKRFjLiL. A hundred thousand. Mr. BACON. The Senator from Missouri supplies the infor mation that it was a hundred thousand. I was about to say that it was understood that is what was meant. Tiio House of llepresentative.3, in pursuance of that Tvcil-lmowii desire, absolutely passed a bill making1 the Army of the United States not for a, time, but for all time until thereafter repealed, H 00,000 men. The moatmre came to this Chamber, Owing1 to the opposition of lend ing members of the Senate, the bill was' practically defeated, and instead of it the law which now exists was enacted. No bill to this effect has yet appeared, during this session, in either House of Congress. It probably will not imtil after the Presidential election; but in the second session oi; this Congress, after the Presidential election, or in an extra session immediately thereafter, it is not to he doubted that such a bill will be passed and become a law. The only possible excuse for this radical change will bo this revolutionary policy upon which we have embarked. Almost our entire Army is to-day across the seas. Tlio number of soldiers of the Regular Army now remaining within the borders of the United States is a mere handful. There could "be no stronger demonstration ol: the fact that we do not need any large standing army in time of peace. The great and distinguishing feature of difference "between the United States and the European govern 
ments has been that we have had only a nominal Regular "Army, while they have each had a great standing army of hundreds of thousands of men. Our people have themselves controlled and maintained our Government. On the contrary, their govern ments have controlled their people with the menace of great sra-ncling armies. This revolution destroys this difference between us and the European governments and turns us from our peace ful paths into the same road of blood, and iron which they have trorl since the Dark Ages. 
The necessity of controlling the Filipiiios and of maintaining the sovereignty of the United States in those islands will bo the excuse for this lar^-e standing army. And, sir, there is no question that if the islands arc to be retained, a- largo army will be required for all time. Thore will bo no escape then from sitoh necessity. There is no reason, to believe that \vo "will find the i?lilipinos peace ful and submissive subjects. The testimony of our own officers is that they now hate Americans more than they formerly hated 
 
  10 
Sir, there arc in tin's hitherto favored land millions of those who have left tli'nr native land to escape the eurse ancl the burden of great standing armies. A.nd now shall tin's great monster, to escape which they crossed the seas, rise up "before thorn here to consume tlieir substance aiid bar their progress and that of their children in the en joymeiit of personal liberty arid i'ree institutions? 
Sir, among' all classes o the American people there is no senti ment more unrvefsa.1 than honor and admiration i'or the Amexicaii soldier. In every conflict from colonial times to the present, in foreign or domestic wars, on whichever side he has been ranged, he has sLed imperishable glory on Americaii ma.iih.ood. 
Onr small standing ;.irmy has ever had tho pride and affection of our people. It has never been to them either an oppressor or a burden. It has stood as the emblem and the nucleus of tlie gigantic reserve military power of the nation. It has ever been fondly re garded as the "type, the exemplar for the great army of citizen soldiery ever ready to spring to arms at the nation's call. Thus L would ever have it remain. That it may so remahi, it is nenessary that we sho'rJd maintain the condition under free institution's where 110 great standing army is required to dominate and. rule any people within the jurisdiction of the United States. In order that it should so ever remain, in the pride and affection of the American people, it is necessary that our G-ovcrninent should continue to bo one of the people and not be converted into a government ruling the people with an army. I want no territory permanently an nexed to the United States in which the conditions arc such that it is a i'act beyond the possibility o successful dispute that not only for a while, but for all time the authority of tho United Stales must be maintained only through the power of a great standing army, eni'orchig the siVbmibsioTi and obedience of an uiiwilling people. 
Mr. President, T spoke about practical matters, and I asked th;>t in tlio progress ot' this debate Senators would come sqivareiy up in argument and meet the proposition whether or not ("he reten tion of these islands in the relation which they must bear to this Government "was or was not revolution, and not simp!77 meet it by assertion. Now, I have a more practical request to make of Senators who are in favor of the retention of thene islands. The people are entitled to know what is going to be the cost of reten tion, and I ask Senators who are going to reply, not to my argu ment in particular, but Senators who are going to discuss this question upon the high plane of argument which should be had in this Chamber, to answer two questions: Is It or is it not true that the retention of the Philippine Islands necessitates a great standing army? And second, in the absence o the retention of tho Philippine Islands, is a grea.t standing army necessary? li' Senators answer the first proposition in the negative, that a'great standing army will not be made necessary by the retention of the Philippine Islands, I want them to tell us how it is going to be done without it. England, I think, has over 100,000 men,'if I am not mistaken, certainly approximating that, number, in India. She has to keep them there all the time, and although \ve see in the newspapers announcements of the loyalty of the Indian popu lation, Hhe does not dare to take that army awav from there in this day of her trial and need. 
Mr. President, another practical matter is this, and I hope that when Senators come to discuss it they will meet it, Or at least give -as (lie information tliat we think is proper. I am not as apt 
 
 at quoting Scripture as my friend from South. Carolina [Mr. Tfi-T,MAN] , but there is somewhere in the Bible a very wise statement that the man who goes to war sits down and count;; his enemies and counts what is necessary in order that he may meet him. Of course, this is not a literal statement of it. but that is the idea of: what is there. I say when we come face to face with the great question, whether or not we shall retain permanently the Philip pine Islands, it is the dutv of: Senators on this floor who are tfomg to determine this question by their votes to count the cost and let the people know not only what they think is to be the cost of war, but what is to be the conclusion, and upon that estimate to give the people the information, upon -which they can. ba.se their action. And in pursuance of that I say not only is there the practical question of a great standing army in time of peace, but the much greater army, the much greater naval ixTiii&inczit, which is going to be made necessary by the fact that we are going to bo in constant danger oi' entanglements in foreign wars. 
Another certain consequence of this revolution in tile principles ana structure of our Government will be the liability and proba bility of disastrous wars of which we have not hitherto stood in danger. There is no government on this Western Hemisphere which will ever have either the inclination, or the ability to mate war upon us. There can not bs the slightest danger oi: war from that source. With an ocean 011 each side of ns it would be prac tically impossible for any government in the Kastcm Hemisphe 
_.,. j. So that with conditions hereafter continued as they hav_ heretofore existed we are absolutely safe from liability to foreign wars unless we ourselves elect to make them. With our geo graphical situation, and with the observance of our policy of notinterfering in questions find quarrels which do not relate to the concerns of this hemisphere, wo can absolutely command the peace for otir country. Even if there arose cause of war, any European government would, be extremely reluctant to declare war against ns, because of the impossibility of successfully mak ing war upon us. 
But if the Philippine Islands become a part of our possessions there will be two most important results. 
First. Omitting the discussion of the question whether we will thereby forfeit the right to insist thereafter upon the mainte nance of the Monroe doctrine, wo will necessarily become compli cated in the contentions and competitions and. rivalries of the European governments, and from these complications there will be constant dangers that wars will be thrust upon us which we can not honorably decline. There could be no greater folly than for the American people to throw away this immunity from i 
shores. The Philippines and Cuba furnished theaters for the war where she could not successfully defend herself. The Philippine Islands will, if they become a part of our territory, in like man ner furnish to an enemy a field for the war where, by reason of the great distance across? the sea, we will bo exceedingly weak and 
4037--3 
 
 18 
painfully vulnerable. That vrill "be our vreak spot, and that will foe the point of attack "by our enemies "because it is the weak spot. All of our troops, all our munitions of war, and all of our supplies must be transported over 7,000 miles of water. Every transport cai'ryivig troop3 or supplies urast "be convoyed by n* naval force strong enough to resist tho entiro naval force of the enemy in thoso waters, "because it can not bo anticipated which transport will be attacked by_ that entire naval force. In a war with a European power, with tho Philippines chosen as the theater of active operations, the possibility of the disasters whicli would hefall us on the water and on the land, and the Immlliation which would overwhelm us in such a case, are appalling to contemplate. Even though no war vessel of our enemy Iiad appeared in Pacific waters, it -would bo necessary for us to concentrate there prac tically all of our Navy to convoy and protect the transports which carried our troops, hecause it-would "be impossible to anticipate when hostile ships would appear in that ocean through, the Sues Canal, 
Mr. President, the power wliioh could make no successful war against us "by invading us here--tho power which would be de terred from even the thought of making war against us "because she knew she could not be successful in it, can unhesitatingly make war against us upon alight provocation whenever it suits her interest to do so, because she knows she can carry on that war against us in the Philippine Islands, wliere we are weak, where necessarily, 7,000 miles away, we shall have to be weak, and where we would be as much humiliated "by defeat as tlie British Government is to day humiliated by the terrible chastisement which she is receiving at the hands of a mere handful of farmers. 
Is this a fanciful matter or is it a real matter? Is it a fact that we are setting1 an outpost, 7,000 miles away, where it would ba extremely difficult for us to meet even a vastly inferior enemy, or is this simply a mero fanciful picture? 
ISfow, Mr. ^President, there are other practical matters------ Mr. TILTLiYlAN. If the Senator from Georgia -will allow me before he leaves that point, I call his attention to the fact that those Visople there, with the government which v,-e propose to give them, would "be the allies of any power that might enter into war with 113. All tho nation at war with us would have to do would Toe to furnish the "Filipinos firms and we woiild have another re bellion on our hands such as we are now putting clown. Mr. BAGO^ST. The suggestion of the Senator from Soutn Caro lina is very pertinent, and I think the conclusion to which, he ar rives is certainly one with which no one can reasonably take issue. "We have no reason to believe that those people, if accounts are true, would hereafter be our allies. Again, with our Isavy necessarily concentrated in tho Pacific Ocean, our long seacoast on the Atlantic and on the G-ulf must de pend upon its land defenses to repel the attacks of the enemy's ships. With few exceptions, our seaports ai'e not adequately forti fied to resist modern artillery. Avast sum of money is necessary to properly fortify our 4,000 miles of coa.st, stretching from the Eio G-rande to Ifova Scotia. With the immense annual expendi ture required by the permanent annexation of the Philippines, not only for the Army and Navy, but for necessary fortifications, it w:'Ji be impracticable to furnish the great sums of money to ade quately fortify against tho power oi! modern guns this long seacoast. Without such fortifications along1 our coast, the first sound 
4037 
 
 19 of war would necessarily bring apprehension and fear and danger to the people at oyery exposed and undefended point. Two years have not passed since along our entire Atlantic and G-uIf coast the people -were importuning their Senators and Representatives, and they In turn were besieging the War Department, to give them some mearcs o.J: defense against tlie bombardment of the Spanish fleet, which they daily and nightly expected. 
I remember, sir, one incident which was told in the papers which illustrated the nervous apprehension which existed at that time. The news of one of our victories readied an Atlantic coast city at some time during 0110 night. Before the news was generally known some enthusiastic citizens ran out an old cannon and be- 
iiito the streets, thinking- that the Spanish fleet had arrived and that the nitich-dreaded bombardment of their unfortified ana un defended city had begun. And the next morning a newspaper p-vVblislisd in that city coiitainctl an iiniiiiftnt protest against tlio firing- of cannon by anyone at such a time, -when such noises would so alarm the people. And what was true of that city is true to-day of EI lar.q-e part of our seacoast ill that it is uncle fended by adequate batteries and grins. 
Mr. y\LDRCCH. It must have been in Georgia, Mr. BACON. No, sir; it was not south of New York. ISow you can fix the locality if you wish. And it was not a hundred miles from Rhode Island, where tlie Senator lives. Mr. ALDRICH. I think it was a good many hundred miles from there. Mr. BACON. Speaking; for my own State, I know it to be true that there is not a city or town on the coast which could not bo bombarded by a man-of-war -which could approach it by a water course -where there arc now no fortifications and no modern guns. And if this distant imperial colonization scheme iw to be perma nently adhered to, our seacoast must remain in an undefended condition. If those hundreds of millions of dollars are to bo ex pended on account of: the Philippines it -will bo impossible to pro vide the money to defray other necessary expenses of the (Govern ment and also necessary to properly fortify our long stretch, of seacoast. And thus it is that this new and revolutionary policy, while it will engender complications and disputes out of which wars are likely to arise, and while it will invite attack upon our distant territories difficult of defense, it will at the same time consume the money which would otherwise be available for the proper fortification of our own cities and towns. Mr. President, are these dangers to which we should, shut our eyes? Can we, in dealing with so grave a matter, fraught with such fearful possibilities and consequences to our people, put aside the issue with the assertion that there will be 110 war, or that there is little probability of war? There will bo no war? If that is so certain, why these millions annually expended to build rip a great navy? Why these coaling stations all over the world that we are seeking to secure? Why the vast armaments of all kinds? If 110 probability of -wars, why the ever-growing navy of battle ships and the demand for the great fortifications to resist modern cannon? They all testify to the recognition and consciousness of the danger of wars. Sir, when the e}*es are blinded with the glitter and the glare, 
40:37 
 
 when the blood leaps and the pulses throb under the excitement of victorious war, it seems almost a profanation to break in upon tlio most ardent and exalted emotions with the suggestion that, if we slitit our eyes to common prudence, there is clanger that, bravo and heroic and self-sacrificing- &s we may "bo and will" be, the in toxicated victors may at some tiina become tlie humiliated victims of disaster. 
Sir. President. rmblic affairs move now in the world with quick development. A condition of peace to-day m;iy to-morrow be converted into a state of. war with some European power. Espe cially is this sudden change within the range of reasonable possi bility since -wo ha.ye Hung aside the safe and prudent policy oL: t 
other side of the globe. A very large part of our Navy is __ Asiatic waters. It is only sis days' sail from Europe to our At lantic coast. It is almost as many weeds' sail from Manila to j^Tew York or Norfolk or Savannah. 
If our new Navy, small as it is, "were in Atlantic waters, it could be depended upon in large measure to defend our coasts. But with our Army and Navy in the Philippines, and with our long seacoast comparatively undefended by fortifications, will any Senator endeavor to realize and appreciate the plight we would be in if we should become involved in a war with a European power? Extemporized earthworks will not suffice for defense as in former times, "We must have fortifications sufficient to resi_st the projectile capable of penetrating more than 30 feet of solid concrete masonry. I doubt not that in siicn an emergency our people -would be found equal to tho occasion. I doubt not that with a splendid heroism which has ever characterised them, Americans would successfully defend their soil. But; it wotild bo at a sacrifice of life and property immeasurably increased by rea son of the absence of our Army and Navy in Asia. 
Again, sir, if under the argument of the imperialists the Philip pines are to be permanently retained, then for the game reason other countries of similar kind must also bo taken so soon as we can force the opportunity. The argument is that the Philippines are rich in natural resources; that on this account they are valu able, and that therefore we must subject them to our rule and keep them as a part of our permanent imperial dominion- But why in this majestic march to imperial power should we stop at the Phil ippines? The same thing ig true of the other tropical islands. The same wealth, of resource is found in greater prolusion in the feeble republics of Central America. In still greater profusion it ig found in the republics of South America, only less feeble than the republics of Central America. In all these lands there is the exuborant wealth of tho mines, of the forests, and of the soil. Why should the wide reach and grasp for imperial wealth be stayed "before all these lands have been added to our imperial dominion? Why should eloquence halt in stirring the blood of Americans with the portrayal of the spoils of an empire limited to the paltry area of the Philippines, when there is tho loftier theme, the wider vision, of the immeasurable spoil of an empire extended over the iiii\villing and eonfjuered people of Central and South America? Bo you tell me this is extravagant? I admit it. Kot only extrav- 
4=027 
 
 21 
agant, but to me the possibility of its realization absolutely repellaiit and abhorrent. 
And yofc, sir, I submit a. proposition in this connection the truth of which, no Senator will deny. If three years ago, in January, 1897. a Senator had in his place bore predicted that before Janu ary, 1900, tho Unite;! States would have sent across the Pacific Ocean, an army of nearly 100,000 men and a great navy; that they would with this great army and navy have conquered and sub,-jected to our i"ule a community of 10,000,000 of Asiatic people, and that the country of that people would have been annexed as a part of the territory"of the United States, never to "be possibly a Statet btit always a colonv. and the people never to be possibly citizens, but always vassals, and that to accomplish this over 8150,000,000 would have been spent and over 20.000 lives would have boon sac rificed; and it1 he had further predicted that to defend and justify such subjugation and annexation, not only one Senator, but many Senators would have said in the Senate that the principles announesd in the Declaration of Independence were untrue; that tlie counsel sand warnings ol: "Washington, in, his "Farewell Address were no longer worthy of respect, and. that the Constitution of the United States had become antiquated and out of date, a mere piece of waste paper, to be trampled under foot or thrown out of the window whenever it stood in the way of the majority--if these things bad been predicted three years ap:o they would not only have been regarded as extravagant, but the'Senator who made the prediction would in all probability have been sent to the mad house. 
does anyone believe that the greed inion will be sated, with the acquisition of the Philippines? Why should they? What reason is thcrowhich calls in one case which will not prompt in another? .Ko, Mr. President, unless met by superior power, there is no halt to the imperial tread when, once it starts upon its conquering and its despoiling march. Until it meets with disaster it can only be stayed by the command of the people, and then only when such command is given before: in the decay of free institutions they lose their power to command. The thirst for empire is like the desire for human blood, which is stirred to an unquencbable and maddening thirst in tho veins of every man who tastes it. The cry will be "More!" "More! " It was a long stop into the middle of tho sea to take Hawaii. It was a much longer step across the widest of all tho oceans to take the Philippines. From there across to the continent of Asia is a much shorter step. Every where the bounties which Providence has bestowed on foreign nations invite the greed for spoil and the lust for dominion. To the hunger for the spoils of foreign lands there is no satiety; to their acquisition there is no limit save the limit of OUT power. And thus, from step to step, the march of empire will go on, and as a. necessary inevitable conseq"ue"n.<',e ;\ growing standing avmy, not of 100,000 or of 200,000, but of 400,000 or half a million of men, and an annual expenditure, drawn from the taxes paid by the peo ple, the magnitude of which one would now scarcely venture to suggest. If -we undertake to copy the policies of Europe we must bear like burdens with them, and in prosecuting such policies in 
4037 
 
 22 
 
ay be a limit bo3Tond which the United States may not safely 
 
go. It is a much easier task to tickle the ear of the American peo 
 
ple with higli-ilown panegyrics of the possibilities of their achieve 
 
ments, and to excite their pride and enthusiasm in the glittering 
 
recital of the cla^xiing dream of empire. But those officially charged with tlie responsibility of the peace, tho safety, and the 
 
future of a groat nation, and with the duty of the preservation of 
 
its principles and its institutions, will find tho discharge of their 
 
highest duty not always in tho field most inviting to personal 
 
gratification and pleasing to the love of personal appip-uso, but 
 
they will find that duty more frequently in the ]ess inviting task 
 
of soberly saying things which are true, things not so pleasan c for 
 
the people to hear, things not so stimulating to their enthusiasm 
 
and their hasty applause, bnt things the knowledge of which will 
 
guard them from great dangers and remediless disasters. 
 
But, sir, ib is not simply in the contemplation of the possibility 
 
of a war entailing great sacrifices and possible reverses that I am 
 
opposed to a policy which will bring wars. I am opposed to a 
 
policy which will induce and invite wars, oven if it could be cer 
 
tainly known that they would bo victorious wars. War, at best, 
 
even victorious war in a righteous cause, is a great curse. It 
 
always works a change in the civil institutions of a free country 
 
and endangers the liberties of the people. It accustoms the people 
 
to the exorcise of arbitrary power and "weakens their loyalty to 
 
the authority of law. It familiarizes them with the contempla 
 
tion of blood and carnage. It brutalizes their instincts and de 
 
stroys the gentler and nobler humanities. Its baneful influence 
 
even invades the pulpit, and, strangely, some of those called to 
 
minister to holy things to-day endeavor to present the good G-od 
 
as a God delighting in war and bloodshed, forgetting that the new 
 
dispensation was ushered in with the divine message of "peace 
 
en earth and good will toward men," and not remembering that 
 
even under the old dispensation we are told that David was not 
 
allowed to build the temple because he was a man of blood. 
 
One of the greatest of the American generals has said that '' War 
 
is Iiell." No three words ever more graphically expressed a fact. 
 
War means villages and hamlets burned. It means homes de 
 
spoiled and a country devastated. It means the rent and torn 
 
bodies of unnumbered men with like capacity with ourselves for 
 
pain and suffering. Ifc means the desolated home, the broken 
 
hearts, and the ruined lives of those to whom these men were 
 
dear. 
 
Ah, Mr. President, I wish those who so flippantly talk about 
 
war, those "who read, in tho morning papers with so mucri uncon 
 
cern that a thousand men. ten thousand men, had been filled or 
 
"aat a villnge. hall " 
 
" "" 
 
no battlefield after 
 
nd there was only 1 
 
_ 
 
of men; ah, sir, I wish in my heart that it were practicable that 
 
the twenty-odd thousand men who, I presiime, in the Philippine 
 
Islands have been destroyed on one side and the other, could be 
 
laid out on a plain and the people of the United States could 
 
march by and look at them. There would be no more war--none 
 
whatever--except where honor or defense requires it. There would 
 
4037 
 
 23 
he no wars of aggression arid sntgiteration. Only the man who has seen it can realize the horrors of such a sight. 
Bnt. Mr. President, let that pass; 1 did not intend to say this. I must he brief, as I understand the Senator from Colorado j'Mi*. TEL-LTSH] desires to speak this afternoon. Ho shakes Ills head. Several SENATORS." It is tho Senator from Ai'kansas [Mr. 
Mr. B'KREY. Take all tlio time you want. Mr. BACON. I am nracli obliged. Mr. President, the people in the United States of to-day know less of war than those oi" thirty-five years ago; and the people o the North, as cilosoly as the great war of that time caiao to their homes and firesides, know much leivs of it than the people of tlia South. Because they know what war is. they are opposed, to un necessary war. And yet, sir, the people of my section, as much as they deprecate war, recognize that wars are sometimes necessai-y and that there are some things worse than war. They recognise that the loss of national honor is worse than war; they recognize that no war id too great a sa.crinee to secure and protect liberty; and, what is more, -whenever the country is engaged in war they give it their active support, regardless ol whether it is or is not a war which they approve. If the published reports are correct, the Stato which, in proportion to its population furnished the 
greatest number of soldiers for the late war was the State of eorgia. And although hoi' people in general deprecate and de plore tho present war in tho Philippines and believe it could have oeeii and should have been avoided, at is nevertheless tine that about two-thirds of the men of one of the volunteer regimoiitg raised dnring the past year for that service, and now serving in the Philippines, were enlisted in Georgia. 
The universal sentiment among cmr people is that when the country is at war, even if they do not approve the war, it must 7je Supported and that tho soldiers doing their drity at the front must also be supported. This general sentiment is reflected in a recent utterance of the Atlanta Journal, which is ono of the most out spoken papers in the State an opposition to a war of conquest in the Philippines. In a recent issue the paper said: 
 
e it. Wilco: 
 
- -- 
 
lans who went cut with ttie 
 
GeorgiausTin t uI^P^ifipjjiTiesf abato"ouef titkTof their Efforts iiTtliei diity in tno field. 
And in a recent speech delivered at Buffalo, N". Y., by the Hon.. Clark Howell, editor of the Atlanta Constitution, he used the fol io-wing language; 
 
control of" internal airiiii-s, combined with tho guaranty of independence' 
law and otdeis and meet tlie cLe'aT.aiids oi! civiUza.t.ioii. 
These t-wo utterances combined, in my opinion, reflect the sen timent of the people of my State. They may be s-ammed up in the statement that under present conditions, so long as the war 
4.027 
 
  soldiers to the Philippines. Of those who stir vivo, nine-tenths of them will in a few years be on tho pension roll on account of per manent injuries to health cliie to service in tliafc climate. Our pension roil, now calling for nearly 8150,000,000, will soon be $200,000,000. Every year that our Army is kept in the Philinpines will acid to the amount tor pensions. This means not "a yearly expense Tor a few years, but for fifty years. We are to-day still paying pensions to Revolutionary pensioners, a hundred and eighteen, years after the close oi tho war. 
Miv President, this 2s no fanciful picture. They ars plniii facts 
which can not "be successfully controverted. This larjre aggregate expense must "be met by the people of the TTiiitcu States. It can not he met "by tho revenues from the islands. "We can not collect a tribute from them, and thy revenues From the islands will never pay more than enough to defray tho expense of admin-Jstoring their government. Their entire imports have here < ofoi-e amcma ted to.only about 10,000.000. Tho imports are now be.ing stimulated "by the large American army stationed there; hut oven if largely in" creased tinder American government, it is impossible that within a great many yonrs the increase could be sufficient to yield any lar^e revenue from imports. 
Mr. ELK j ]SI S. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a, question? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. ELKIKS. The Senator from Georgia, I oelievc, did as jzmoh as anrorjo else to bring- on the war, did ho not? Ivlr. "BAGOH, M"o, sir; the Senator is entirely mistaken.  Mr, ELKINS. I thought tho Senator from C-feorgia was one of the Senators who favored tho war, Mr, BACON. No, sir; and I am glacl that the Senator gives me the opportunity to state inv position, as I have previously done in Ihe Senate. Tho President of tho United States would p-ive the Senator a very different statement from that which he hay made. When war was threatening after the Wowing up of the ZTaine, I had a conference witli the President of ths United States by his invitation, and ho will testify that I was exfrsiaely opposed to the war, and I thinl< the Senator from Indiana [Mr. FAIEW,-\^KHj , with whom I had a conversation relative to my interview with the President, can state the same thing. As the Senator has suggested the question, I-will say that I did vote for the war resolutions, bnt I did everything on earth I covild to prevent the war. I believed it wouM foe a great curse. I ap prehended that if sacrifice -was to come, it would, fall unequally in greater burdens upon my own people. I believed that it would be a-great curse to this country: and yo I was opposed to that war. But, Mr. President, when it was evident that there would he war, wlien it was inevitable that we were ^oinq- to fiinq- down the gage of battle, I thought it was the duty of "all of us to present an unbroken front to the world, iJiid consequently I voted f 01- the reso lutions, and for that reason alone, From that day to this, so far from having changed the view which I had, my conviction has remained that there ought not to have been, any war; and the 
freatest political regret of my life is that there was war, because think it is going to result--I fear it will re.snlfc--in a very mate rial revolution in tho political institutions of this country. 
In regard to the matter oi! expense, each Senator can figure it out for himself. I give the rule by which I have gone, so that it I am wrong I can be corrected. 
4027 
 
 29 
Federal taxation in this country is not based on property: it 33 based on consumption. And whenever a people in any part of these "United States consume the average, then an easy calcula tion is to consider the expense as one which falls nearly or quite per capita. I am quite sure the people of my section consume their full average, because they have from all time been known as a people of very liberal expenditure. So each Senator here, if niv rale is correct, can fit?tiro out the cost to his own people, and tell them not only what it has cost, but what it is going to cost in the future, because it is an utter impossibility--certainly an impossibility if a large statiding army is to be the result, a standing army which, would otherwise "be unnecessary--it is utterly impossible that the cost of the retention of the Philippine Islands can lie less, directly and indirectly, than 8100,000,000 a year, of which tlie people of"Georgia will pay over $3.000,000 each 
>eMr. TILBMAN. Mr. President------ Mr. BACON. The Senator will pardon me a rnoraent._ That being the cost each year to the people of G-eorgia, I repeat, 
that the United States G-ovornment has already spent from $150.000.000 to ^00,000,000 on the Philippine war, of which, the people of Georgia liave paid over $3,300,000. 
Mr. TILLMAJST. I hope the Senator will not confuse in his mind, or has not confused in his mind, the cost of the Spanish war with the cost of. the Philippine war. 
Mr. BACON. No; I have not. Mr. TILLMAN. When we got through, with Spain we could have stopped the war expenditures and have gone back to our old traditions. Mr. BACON. Yes; I understand that. Mr. TlLiLMAN. But we have gone off into tins new departure, and all this additional expenditure has no connection with the Spamsli war. Mr. BACON. None whatever. Mr. TILLMAN. I wish to call the Senator's attention to the statement ho has made. Unless he corrects his language he may be misconstrued by some people. He said he voted for the war reluctantly. Ho meant lie voted for the Spanish, way; but nobody had any opportunity to vote for the present Philippine war. Mr. BACON, Of course I supposed tliat everybody understood the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BLKINS] , when he asked me the question, to allude to the Spanish "war. I ask the Senator if he did not? Mr. ELKINS. Certainly. Mr. TILLMAN". We are not engaged in a war with Spain and have not "been for eighteen months. Mr. BACON". The Senator from West Virginia asked me about "bringing on the war, and I understood the Senator to refer to the Spanish war. Mr. BLKINS. The Senator is certainly right. Mr. BACON. Everybody knows I voted against the treaty and should have been very glad if I had had a dozen votes to cast against it instead of one. Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow mo to'ask him a ques tion? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield? Mr. BACON. Certainly, I yield to tlio Senator. 
 
 Mr. SPOONEB.. Tlie Senator from Georgia voted to enlarge the Army------ 
Mr. BACON". I certainly did. Mr. SPOONEIi. In order tlifit the Provident mi-l\t, after the ratification of the treaty, employ the forces of the United States in the Philippines':' Sir. BACON. I surely did: and here is the speech I made 111 the Setiate on the subject in the closing- days of the last Congress. [Exhibiting:.] 
Mr. fiPOONErl. It was a very loval and patriotic speech. Mr. BACOJN . As the Senator'has iiiado that remark about it, I shall not read it; but I vras 
 
lupporl ----------- 
 
- - ist "be 
 
Mr. President, to pass from this diversion, there are in addition the inevitable evils attending distant subject colonies--the cor ruptions of officials, their tyrannies and their cruelties; the insur rections and uprisings oi: an unwilling- people and their bloody suppressions--such as contribute the dark page in the history of every country which has by force dominated and controlled a subject race. 
But, Mr. President, it is said that all of the evils I have sug gested, and many others not mentioned, will be compensated for in the fact that the possession of the Philippines will open and secure for us the trade of the Orient. It does seem to rac that if there evex- was an argument absolutely without foundation, it is that argument. If there ever had been anything- in it, the agree ment which has been reached through the efficient and laudable action of our State Department with the European governments, or the leading European governments whose consent is worth 
having or desirable, that we sliall have equal rights of trade in the 
4037 
 
 Orient forever, makes that as an issue no longer of any importance. Mr, TELLER. Would it interrupt the Senator from Georgia 
if I were to ask him a, question? Mr, BACON. Not in the least. Mr. TELLER. I should like to ask the Senator what part of 
the world those treaties relate to? Mr. BACON. I have only seen the statement in the papers. I 
presume it is correct, from the fact that I have not only seen the general statement in the papers, "but I have seen an interview, which I suppose was1 authorised, with the Secretary of Agricul ture, in whicli he spoke--I am sorry I have not it hero with mi 
and _ app Mr, BACON. Certainly I do. 
Mr. TELLER. Then I want to ask the Senator if he does not tliink that is a simple partnership which we have gone into to allow those fellows to steal those countries and we are to have part of the pelf- 
Mr. BACOjST. The Senator misunderstands me if he under stands nie to say it was an agreement for a division of territory. Does the Senator understand that? 
Mr. TELLER. la it not substantially an agreement that they may divide -without any interference on our part------ 
Mr. BACON. By no means. Mr. TELLER. Provided we are let in on part of the theft? Mr. BACON. I should oppose that most vigorously and unre servedly. I understand the agreement to ho, as stated hy the Secretary of Agricult\-vre in aii interview published in the papers, that there shall bo no restriction of trade against us; that so far as they may have any sphere of influence, it" you please, they will not attempt to set up against us a closed door, but that we shall have that door for which we are contending as the open door. Mr. TELLER. Will the Senator allow me to make a sugges tion as to what! understand the situation is without interrupting him? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. TELLER. I understand the situation, is this-. Those great powers have done what the Senator is complaining that we are doing-, only to a greater degree and without any possible excuse. As I understand, ha approves of an arrangement that we have made that if they will simply allow us to have the same benefit in the transaction that they have we will not complain. Mr. BACON. I do not understand it in the way the Senator does. Mr. SPOOLER. Will the Senator from Georgia allow me to ask the Senator from Colorado a question? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. SPOONER. Does the Senator from Colorado object to an arrangement under which we shall have the open door to trade in China? Mr. TELLER. I have not seen the agreement. I do not know what the arrangement is. Upon the statement I haTe made I surely should object. Mr. SPOONER. "What would the Senator have us do? Mr. TELLER. I shall not undertake to say that in the time of the Senator from Georgia. The Senator from Wisconsin ought to know "what I think about it. 
 
 Mr. BAWLINS. Will the Senator from Georgia permit a qiies- 
 
tion? 
 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. 
 
TiT,- IP A "VS7T TTCTC! 
 
A ,, T ,-,.-,/ 
 
JXLT, jLiLijj_jjiijriy. x snhouilud., liiiikiwe itLoo say TtoO tchnee oScenaitor rthnaaut Ii acloc not understand the arrangement to IDQ what he says it is, which I un derstand, meets his approval. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator kno 
 
 30 
not a nation which could make the issue in a peaceful wav, to deny \is any privilege, from the fact that our trade with each and every one of them is too important for them to run any rislt. Whether that is true or not, they have made the agreement. "What more than this could. \ve get it' we owned every Pacific island and harbor on t'hs Asiatic coast? With this agreement, how much less of the China trade would we grot if we did not own a single island on the Asiatic coast? 
Is there any room for argument on this proposition? With the equal rights and privileges of all other nations of trade in China, it will simply "be a question of our soiling- the best goods for the least money. And if we do not sell bolter goods at, lower prices, there is nothing in the possession of the Philippines which will the bet ter enable UB to compete with other nations which offer better "bargains, if the freedom of trade is already assured to us, what possible reason can be advanced why, in order to secure thatwhich we already have without cost, we should permanently re tain the Philippines, when to do so necessarily revolutionizes our system oi: government, requires us to keep Tip a great standing army, subverts oar traditional foreign, policy, and involves us in constant danger of foreign wars, and subjects us to annual expense of at least a hundred millions of dollars a year for all the future. What is the logic which can justify this immense cost to secure that wliich is already ours without cost? 
And, JMr. President, even if we did not have this open door in China, the possession of the Philippines, peopled by an alien race, would not secure it for us. So long as we remained at peace the possession of the Philippines would not open the door of China for us. If wo went to war -with the European powers to trv to force open the door of China, the possession of tlie Philippines, so far from being a strength, would be a weakness to us, as I have endeavored already to show. The only strength to us would be in a few fortified harbors and naval stations, and those we can have without retaining the archipelngo. But it is useless to dis cuss this proposition, because the whole of China is already open to us, and the door is not to be forced. 
The simple truth is that it is not necessary to own foreign islands or lands to promote our foreign trade. Our great export trade is to Europe--a trade constantly increasing in great yearly volume. "Year before last we sent them over six hundred miilioiis more than we received from them. More than half our agricultural export to Europe goes to England. She buys not only our food stuffs, but a .great deal more than half of our cotton crop. To sell her all this we are not required to own any islands on her coast. We sell largely to Germany and France and other European coun tries, but we own no foot of land on the continent of Europe or any of the islands adjacent thereto, and we never will. 
Well, sir, China is as frca and open to us as is Europe, and there is no more necessity for an island colony in the one case than in the other. The whole of Central and South America invites our trade. Does anyone contend that we must own islands on their coast to insure that trade? When the Nicaragua!! Canal is com pleted, which wo hope will be in the near future, the whole rich -west coast of South America will be "brought almost to our doors. Will It- be necessary, then, to capture or purchase islands on that coast in order to carry on that trade? 
If I had time I should like to read here, which I will not burden 
4027 
 
 31 
the Senate with reading, figures of trade at our doors, the South American trade and the Central American trade, all of this being statistics published by the United States. I should like to show furthermore from the same statistics--I have it here--that within 
Without owning any islands or any other kind of territory in Asia, OUT trade with China has increased SoG per cent, and more than that with Japan. 
No, Mr. President; the pretense that the Philippines are neces sary to our trade in the Orient is a delusion and a snare set to catch the feet of the hasty and the unwary. And those who set the snare, like all others who set snares, are seeding their own selfish advantage. This programme of vast colonial dominion, of which the subjection of the Philippines is but the beginning, may and doubtless will be used to make vast fortunes for the few. A few hundreds, possibly a few thousands, will find therein the schemes which will yield thorn vast wealth, but the remainder of the people, the tens of millions, will find nothing but the subversion and decay of their institutions, the creation of a great standing army, and the mighty burden of great annual national expendi ture. 
Again, Mr. President, those who have their own purposes to subserve in the permanent retention of the Philippines, hold up as an inducement the mineral wealth and productive capacity of the islands which will be developed by American capital. In -what way are these resources to benefit the great mass of our peo>le? Take, for illustration, the iron business. It is said that there ia iron ore there in inexhaustible quantity. It may enrich the few Who will invest their money there in the iron business, but how will it benefit the iron producers and their employees in America to have the demand for iron in China supplied from mines and furnaces located in the Philippine Islands? Can the iron furnaces in America in that event any longer compete with, the mines and furnaces in the Philippines, with their short transportation and labor at 10 or 15 cents a day? 
How is it with the agricultural products? The capacity of the Philippines for the production of sugar is practically unlimited. "With that tropical climate and the cheap Asiatic labor, unlimited in supply, organized with American capital and directed by Amer ican brains, it would be impossible for the American sugar pro ducer to compete with Philippine sugar, 
It has been confidently predicted that the cane-sugar and beetsugar industry could be so developed in the United States that it would supply the immense quantity consumed in this country. ITond anticipations have been indulged that the day waa near at hand when this would be done. But the sugar industry is abso lutely doomed in the United States when, the sugar business be comes actively developed in the Philippines. 
The same thing is true of rice growing and of tobacco culture. With tropical soil and climate and unlimited cheap Asiatic labor it would be impossible for either rice or tobacco to bo grown in America and sold in competition with it. When that time comes, the rice and tobacco culture must be absolutely abandoned 121 the United States. 
As to long-staple cotton, there is no doubt that it can be suc cessfully raised in Luzon. Prof. Dean Worcester so states in his boob on the Philippines. In addition, he has stated to me per- 
4027 
 
 into this country from Egypt, and that small importation reduces the price of long-staple cotton in the United States -40 per cent or 50 per cent below tho price which it would otherwise bring. "Witli such cotton produced in the Philippines with unlimited 
cheap Asiatic labor, the cultivation of long-staple cotton in" the United States must certainly be abandoned. 
And so. Mr, President, you may go through the list of mineral and agricultural products in the Philippines! Their development will doubtless enrich the svndicaf.es aiiu the trusts that will invest their capital there for that purpose, but the great masses oi' the people of the United States, both the employers and the employees v/iioia tliey are seeking to rlelwle and mislead with the glittering bauble of.' empire, will have as their compensation the destruction of important, wid.e-rea.chmg' industries, in competition with pro duction by the cheapest and most abundant labor on all the earth. 
Mr. ALDRICH. May I ask the Senator a question? Mr, BACON. Certainly. Mr. ALDRIC'H. "Would that proposition be affected, by the -words ( -property of the United States.'-' or ' under the jurisdic tion of tho United States"? Mr. BACON. I think so, in two ways. There 5s no doubt about tho fact that when. American money under Amoricnn law is in vested in the island of Luzon it is going to qnicken the industries. There is 110 doubt about tho fact that there will he a great deal more long-staple cotton, a great deal more iron work done, a great deal more sugar raised, a great deal more tobacco grown, and a g'reat deal more rice under American auspices than has been pro duced under Spanish auspices or than would be produced under Philippine auspices if they were allowed to work out their salva tion. But that increased production in the Philippines will not appreciably benefit anybody in America except the trusts and syndicates which will engage in such production. "Mr. AT,I>UICH and Mr. BEVEEipGii: rose, Mr. BACON. I yield first to tlie Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. ALDRICH. Would what the Senator has just stated be an advantage or a, disadvantage to the Filipiiios? Mr. BACON. "I am not -speaking about tho interest of tho Fili piiios. I am speaking to-day about our people. There is plenty to be said about the Filipiiios; but I have too much to say about my own people, and I am too imich concerned about my own people to waste much time on the Filipinos. 
Mr. ALDRICH. I supposed the Senator was speaking from the standpoint of benefiting' the Filipinos. 
Mr, BACON. No, sir. The Senator did not do me the honor to bo present during tho first part of my speech., or he wovsld not have made that: remark. It is my own people 1 am concerned about: and I wish the Senator from Rhode Island were more con 
cerned about them, from my standpoint at least. lam concerned 
402;' 
 
 about them on account of their political institutions; l am con cerned about them on account oi their material interests; and I think, from either one standpoint or the other, that it was the greatest mistake in the way of a public act that the Government of the United States has ever proposed. 
Mr. BEVEIMDG-K. The Senator from Georgia having an swered the question put by the Senator from Rhode Island, may 1 now ask him a question? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. BKVERIDG-E. Are we to understand that the Senator from Georgia, does not want the Philippine Islands developed be cause it will hurt his people? 
Mr. BACON. I do not want the Philippine Islands developed at our expense for the purpose of doing that which would be an injury to my people, 1 do not propose, so far as I am concerned, that the Government of the United States shall go into the busi ness of developing tlie barren and the unfruitful and semibarbarous lands oi; all the earth tit the expense of the people or the United States. "We have got business enough o our own at home. 
Air. ALD.RTCII. Will the Senator allow'nio? Mr. BACON. Certainly-. Mr. ALUSICH. If I understand the position the Senator now takes, it is that the interests of the people of the United States and the advantages to them arc to be considered, and not the interests or the advantages of the FilipinosV Mr. BACON. I say, Mr. President, the Senator would neces sarily by that question, if I were to follow it out. carry me into a discussion as to how far we could disregard the rights of others in order to benefit ourselves. I do not propose now to go into such a discussion. I am speaking now without reference to the Filipinos. and have been during the whole afternoon discussing- the "single question as to what is to the interest of the people of the United States. There might be some things that would be in tho ijiteresr of the people of the 'United States ;md which would bo for the disadvantage of the Filipinos of which I would not be in favor if they could only be done at the cost of what I thought was right and just find uroper and fair. Mr. TfLLMAJST. I would remind the Senator from Georgia that tho new tlocfrino is that cJia-rity does not begin at home, but "begins abroad. [Laughter.] 
Mr. BACON. Yes. Mr. SPOOXER. Does the Senator from South Carolina agree to that? Mr. TJ.LLMAN. No: I do not nc-ree to that. Mr. ALDRICH. The difference bet ween the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Georgia in the discussion is that the Senator from South Carolina discussed the question from a, humanitarian standpoint for the benefit of the Filipinos, and the Senator from Georgia is discussing from his standpoint tho Inter 
est of the people of the United States. Mr. BACON. The Senator from lihode Island, if he desires to 
reply to the speech of the Senator from South Carolina, which was made yesterdav, will have his hands unite full without paying any attention to me. [.Laughter.] 
Mr. President. I do not mean it to he understood by what I have said in this colloquy that I am indifferent to humanitarian ques 
tions or to the rights of people, or to the right of self-government, I' X';--3 
 
 Si 
or to tho rifi-ht of personal liberty, or to the right of free institu tions, pven where onlv a ]ram"ble anil feeble nation is concerned, but 1 do mean to say tliat 1 am tins afternoon limiting myself to -A discussion of what I conceive to ]jc the interest of the people of the United States. 
1 want to say one wort! about ono other matter. There has1 been a great deal said to tlio effect that we are doing' what we are in the Ir'lxilippincs, and propose to clo tliat which we have set our . heads upon, became, a?, tho result of the war. there vr;;3 a duty, an obligation, n, respond "bilitv, laid upon us that we could not disre gard, and that that is tho motive; that the motive is to carry to thorn our free institi'tions, to give those who are engaged JR mlasieT\ary l.vork a, iielil Tor their Labors, to iii/t the iieoplo up, to do a g'reat Christian and Irnz-mimtaricm act. I nm absolutely certain the I'residentof tlio United States -will not say that, and. tiiatthosa who ay it for him misrepresent him. 
Mr. TIL'LiiMAN, He claims to have Divine Providence as his guide iu tins ImsinesK. [Lav^Mer,] 
Mr. KAOOJT. I tliiiilz lio has "been entirely misrepresented in that, regard. I do not believe he ever said it: and the reason i do not "believe it is "because we have Ills own statement as proof to tiie_coutra.ry. 
We are not at liberty to say any tiling about the Instructions to the comini'ssioiiers, except so far as they Jiavo 
I have here before me that coilorjiiy, but I shall only read so iimcti of it for the information of the Senate as will be necessary to re mind Senators of the occurrence. This was in open Senate. I will state that it is forma, in the CO^G-TIESSIO^AL UNCORD, on page 2443, volume 82, part 3, the Fifty-fifth Congress, third session. The Senator from Missouri, speaking; of the instructions given by the President to the Peace Commissioners, asked this question of Sir. FKYE: 
Mi-. VEST. "Wastlicre not a dispatch sent that notlung lerss than Luzon 
Sir. PiiVn-- " One o tno commissioners-- 
That is the testimony of Mr. FRVE, one of tho commissioners. What preceded that? 'How was that determination of the Presi dent to instruct the cominissioners to take Luzon reached? 
Mr. SPOONEH. When was this testimony given? Mr. BACON. That colloquy occurred February 37, 1800, the Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYJJ;] standing right where the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] now is. "What brought the President to give that instruction? "Was it to Vit iip tlio people of the island of Luzon? Was it to give them all these free institutions? Wag it to enfranchise them? Let us see what preceded it. On tho 13th of Atignst, 1898, the President caused a cablegram to "be sent by tho Navy Department to Admiral Dowey, which said, among other things--now, this is aliteral quotation from the cablegram which was published in the report: 
 
 signed, if my recollection is right, by Alien, Assistant Secretary of. tlic Navy, in which, lie said the President desires that he send that information. To that Admiral Dewcy replied "by cablegram, August 20. 1^98. and among other things--this is not the entire tlispa-tch; it is one sentence in it--ho says: 
Luzon is in all respects; tlie most desirable to retain. 
I am not malting any assault on the President. I never have done so and never expert to. I am simply calling him as a wit ness. I am simply producing that which tlio executive depart ment itself communicated to the Senate and 'what in addition thereto the Senator trom Maine himself said in open Senate. Now, wliat have we? In August, 189S, wo have the President of the United States sending; si special cablegram inquiring of Admiral pewey which in a commercial and naval sense is the most desirable island of the archipelago to retain: we have the reply of Dewey that 
 
stated by om 
 
. 
 
._ _ . 
 
. 
 
they left to enter upon their work as peace commissioners it was 
 
not only suggested to them, but they were instructed totako Luzon. 
 
I say those facts make it an absolute and utter impossibility 
 
that tiio President himself eould sav that the occupation of the 
 
archipelago was required "because a duty and responsibility result 
 
ing from the accidents of war liad fallen upon us Tchic'h we conlci 
 
not evade: because if that duty and responsibility fell at all as to 
 
any part of the archipelago,it fell as to all of thearchipelago; and 
 
if there was a duty and an obligation to uplift one, there was a 
 
duty and an obligation to uplift the other. But that is outside 
 
the question, because if the motive is to uplift, it v.-ill not be pre 
 
ceded by an immiry us to which is the most desirable and which 
 
is the most valuable. 
 
In tuls connection I am going to read something that lias been 
 
read before, but I am going to read it again. It is an editorial 
 
from the Washington Post. The Washington Post is second to 
 
110 paper in tlie United States in the ardor anrl zeal and anility 
 
with which it maintains the proposition that tlie Philippine Is 
 
lands should be permanently retained by the United States Gov 
 
ernment. It is as pronounced and unconditional as it is possible 
 
for a paper to be. That paper on the Mtli of this month------ 
 
Mr. 8POONER. What paper is thatV 
 
Mr. EA_COjST. The- 'Washington Post. I liave not seen anybody 
 
take any issue with it. This is, of course, simply the opinion of 
 
the Washington Po>t. I would not venture myself to say this 
 
opposing relation. 
Mr. 13EVERIDOE. What is the date of it? Mr. BACON. The 14th of January. It is headed " Let us be honest.' 1 I think the President is honest, but there are a great many people -professing to represent him and who are talking' about him. who are not entirely candid, to say the least. I am going to read it. I propose to represent Mm correctly. 
4CK7 
 
 86 
ilfje oiii.'sc.lvQf.i in n. /ifcfle honest en ml or. It 
NOT?, sir, these historical facts of the inquiry made of Dewey, Ms reply thereto, arid the subsequent instruction of the President to the peace commissioners to talie LT.IZOTI. all fortify and proyo tlie correctness of the statement in this editorial of the object in 
China, arid if the trade of tho Philippine Islands themselves w be insignificant compared with tlio annual cost of keeping them, what becomes, from a business or humanitarian point of view, of the argument in favor of the permanent retention of these islands? 
Again, sir, among the imperialists those who soar on a loftier vjiiig axe fond of appealing to the patriotic emotions and pride of the American people by the oft-repeated statement that the results of the Spanish war had made tho United States a -world power, and that they have now become one of the family of nations! Why, sir, one would suppose from these oft-repeated expressions, that this nation had for a century been kicked and ouiTed around among tho other nations like a mangy cur, and that it, had skulked around afraid to pick vm the refuse which its master threw it. 
What a wonderful discovery, air. President, that the United States have become a world power. Why, sir, when in the result oi' the Revolutionary war they made good the great Declaration of Jnly 'i, 1770, they instantly became the greatest of world pow ers: the greatest of world powers, sir, "because, in spite of the few ness of their numbers and the smalliicss oi: thoir resources, they had not only announced but maintained and secured a great principle thereafter to stand as tho menace of every tyrant, the hope and inspiration of every people, however humble, who longed for liberty. Tins principle, thus maintained and exemplified in the growth of a great and free people, has, in tho advancement of the free institutions of the world, been the most potential influence Of a hundred years upon the destinies of the world. Just become, 
 
 in the Philippines------ Mr. SPOOJSTEK. "Will my friend allcrvv me to interrupt him for 
one moment? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. SPOONEB. The "bill provides nothing- of the kind. JMr. BACON. I will get the Bemitor to state it. I may lie nn- 
nappy in my statement. 
4027 
 
 38 
Mr. SPOOLER. It rests In the person or persons appointed by fclio President------- 
Mr. BACON". This unlimited, power? 
Mr. SPOON ER. This power until otherwise provided bv Con gress. It is purely temporary. The Senator said, "for all time." I would, not support that any more than ho would. 
Mr. KACGN. 1 do not think it is temporary, because no time is fixed. 
Mr. SPOONEK. My friend will remember that the time can bo fixed any moment Congress sees fit to fix it. 
Mr. BACON. Oh, yes; Imt a statute may be upon the books and it may be an extremely dimcult thing to repeal it, as Sena tors know with respect to various statutes which have been tipon the books a long tinio. I am not attacking tho bill of the Senator 
from Wisconsin; I do not want to discuss the bill of the Senator; but I do say this----- 
Mr. SPOONEB. The Senator wants to state it correctly. 
Mr. BACON. "Very well, 1 will restate it, although the Sena tor has stated it., and it is not necessary for mo to encumber the UKCORD with a_restatement oi: it. It gives to the officers ap pointed by the President this unlimited power until otherwise directed. Is that what I understand, to be the effect of the bill? 
Mr. SPOOLER. Yes, sir. Mr. BACON. If that were a community like Arizona or New Mexico, in which, conditions were changing, it might be well to follow the plan which was adopted by the United States Govern ment in that case, where for a certain period similar authority was given to certain parties named; but we know that the condi tions are not going to change in tho Philippines. We know that there are eight or ten million people In those islands, and in our lifetime there is going to be no change of any particular kind, so far as population is concerned. Whatever change there may be will bear a very small ratio to the entire population. My proposition is that if conditions now are such that it is im practicable for Congress to make a wiser provision for the gov ernment of those islands than that--and the fact that my distinguished and learned and honorable friend can not find, anything better than that is the highest evidence, to my mind, that that is the best that can be done--if that is the case, and con ditions are such that you hare no reason to believe they can be changed within a generation or two generations or three genera tions, I say it is the very highest argument which could be given to me that this is an enterprise upon which we should not embark, an enterprise from "which we should withdraw ourselves as soon as practicable. Because if that is the best form of government that the United States can, under conditions now existing and which vyill continue to exist for a hundred years, bestowupon the Philippine Islands, there can be no stronger evidence that we should have no permanent connection with the same. Mr, President, as I was about to say when I was diverted to make the suggestion -^nth. reference to the bill of the Senator from Wis consin, or, rather, to the effect it had upon me--I may vote for it if 
nothing better is proposed------ Mr. SPOONER, That is tho reason why I introduced it. Mr. BACON. That is the G-oyernment of the Kusslas, though, 
I will say to the Senator. That is the absolute, the exact Govern ment of the Czar of the R,ussias. He is an autocrat and he dele 
gates his power to some people, 
4037 
 
 39 
Mr. SPOONER. The Senator will permit me to say to him that that was said in 1803 about the Jefferson "bill for the government of Louisiana. 
Mr. BACON. I think it was a mistake in that case. Mr. SPOONER. Oh! Mr. BACON. I think that was a mistake. Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me------ Mr. BACON. If the Senator from Ohio will pardon me, I will reply to the remark of the Senator from Wisconsin. It was a mistake to charge that on Jefferson. The Senator from Wiscon sin did not do mo the honor to hear the first part of my speech. Mr. SPOONER. I did. Mr. BACON. He did not sit where he is sitting now, and I thought he was not in the Chamber, because I was watching that seat. I was very anxious that he should be here, Mr. SPOONER. While the Senator from Gfeorgia was watch ing this seat I was watching the Senator. Mr. FORAKER. Before the Senator from Georgia------ Mr. BACON, Let me answer first. One moment, if tfie Sen ator from Ohio will pardon me. and then I will yield. Mr. FORAKER. It is in connection with this matter, and be fore he leaves this point I want to call attention to the fact that the same resolution was also adopted, or the same bill passed, in the case of Florida in 1819. Mr. BACON. Undoubtedly. Mr. FORAKER. So we have at least two precedents for what is provided in the Senator's bill. Mr. BACON". That was a vory different .state of affairs. I think the criticisms on Jefferson and the author of the Florida resolution are altogether unjust, and for this reason: That was manifestly and necessarily and certainly something which would, be temporarily ended by a population which would be capable of self-government. The tUfuerence in this case is that you are pro posing- to legislate as to a country where the population can never he allowed here the equal rights of self-government. Mr. SPOONER. Docs the Senator moan to say that the people of the Philippine Archipelago never will be capable of selfgovernment? Mr. BACON. No, sir; I do not. Mr. SPOONER. What is the difference, then, between that case and this as to a temporary government? Mr. BACON. The difference is this: E think the Filipinos will ' be forever incapable of such self-government------ Mr. SPOONER. Oh, I was not talking about tliat. Mr. BACON. Hold on a moment. 1'think tlio Filipinos will be forever incapable of such self-government as would make us willing to admit them into our family of States or to admit; them into an equal participation in making the laws by which we are to be governed as well as themselves. On the other hand, the population which it was known would occupy those Territoricswotildbe a population which could bo in corporated as States and which, could be, as they have been, prop erly admitted into equal participation with ourselves in the making Of the laws and the controlling of the affairs both of: the State and Federal Government. As is suggested to me by the Senator from ^Massachusetts [Mr, HOAR] ,andby some other friends sitting around, me, the country in each of those cases had a sparsely settled popvdaticn, which would 
403? 
 
 40 
invite immigrat.ioii and into which, immigrants wo aid certainly come, tiatl irmm;;ration o a land of people whicli wa could admit into the participation with us in tlie control of our State and Pederiil Government. 
Mr. HOAR, Pardon mo, There was one inhabitant to 13 crir.are miles: no common governJii<?B.t, up common action, no common scntimcrit, no possibility oJ; gathering together for a gov ernment. It was a j^i-eat wiisie space. 
Mr. BACON. Now, j\Ir. President------ Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will permit rue, his resolution contemplntcs that we shall remain there until a etablo govern ment shall be formed. Sir. BACO"I\r . Undoubtedly; stable for tlic-m, not for us. 
Mr. SPOOISTKB. And vs'ho is to regulate matters in the mean time? 
IMr. BACON. Tlia Government of the United States. So expresslv fcifiys rav resolution. 
Mr. SPOGKEH. That is not different from ths other re-solu 
tion. IMr. BACON. Oh, by no menna d:fferont from the resolution of 
the Senator. I \vonld. "be very happy if tlie Senator \voald just substitute mine for his, 
ilr. SPOONSK, No; I will not. Sir. BACON. Because being from the, ether side o tho Chainbor, ho might get his through. Mr. SPOONEB. I will not. Mr. BACON, Because mine expressly provides for the main tenance of peace and order and for the action of the Government itself in providing' the means, just as we propose to do in Cuba, "by \vliicli a proper government can "be organized, and wliieli when properly organized and properly approved by us shall thereafter be left to the administration of their own people, Now, Mr. President;, I am not one of those who believe that only the most enlightened nations can govern themselves. I believe in personal liberty for humble people and, il! yon please, people \vho are not upon our plane of civilisation. But the one "word I want to say before I take my seat------ Mr. LODGE. Before the Senator leaves that point------ The PBESIDEN T pro tempore. Does the Senator irom G-corgia yield to the Senatoz- from Massachusetts? Mr, BACON. Yea, sir. Mr. LODGKE. I should like to ask him if ho thinks that sparseness of population and extent of territory have any bearing on the qtiestioii of the right of self-government. He alluded to that in connection with the Louisiana Territory. I want to know whether the number of population and extent of territory over which they were roaming- or in which they were living had any bearing on the question as to their right of self-government. Mr. BACON". Most undoubtedly not. Whenever they reach such a population------ Mr. LOB-&E. Ah, not------ Mr. BACON". One moment. TTntU then a temporary govern ment must be provided, of course, just in the same way that we have governments in the Territories which inig'lit not par ticipate------ 
Mr, LODGrE. Will the Senator indicate to me at what point in the census the right of self-government adheres? 
Mr. BACON. Probably the Senator will have that to ascertain 
4037 
 
 41 
when lie comes to pass upon tlis question whether or not Arizona shall "be admitted as a State or whether K"e\v Mexico shall be ad mitted as a- State. 
Mr. TILLMAN. I shonld like to ask------ Mr. BACON". If the Senator will pardon me a moment, that is something- which can not bo laid down, by a definite- rule of mathe matics. It is something to be determined by each legislator for himself when the question is presented, whether there luw come 3 time where there is such a population within the given area that it can, bo erected either into a, Territo?:y or into a State. In the particular case that we have in view it is already populated. It is known--the Senator from 'Wisconsin Knows and the Senator from Massachusetts knows, that noi; within his lifetime or the lifetime of his grandchildren, if ever, will there be a population in those islands that you can permit to hnvo a govern mo nt which shall bo like the government under winch each one of them lives, and whore tho inhabitants shall enjoy tlio privileges \vliich ho enjoys. Mr. LODGE. Now, if the Senator will permit me, the point I should like to a,<k him to make clear to TJ.IB is this; There were .some 30,000 people settled about the mouth of the Mississippi at the time of tho Louisiana, jmrcbase, Tho treaty was made and ratified without any allusion to tho consent of the governed, and they wero governed for some time under an act precisely similar in. terms to that introduced by the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. BACOISr. I beg your pardon; there was a limit. Mr. LODGE. There is no limit of time expressed in that act of Jefferson's. Mr. SPOONER. Yes. Mr. BACON. Read and see. Mr. LODGE. Until Congress passed upon It. Mr. BACOIST. Bead and see. The Senator will find out he is mistaken. Mr. LODGE. As soon as action is token at tho session; that 13 all. Mr. TELLER,. The principle is the same. Mr. LODGE. The principle is tho same, I suppose, is it not? Now, why wero those 30,000------ Mr. BACON. Ho; the principle is not the same. Mr. LODGE. Oh, then, wo have tho right to deny self-govern ment for a limited time? Mr. BACON. No, sir; not at all. But we can not accord it until the conditions in the way of population are such as to justify it. jnst as yon do an the Territories. 'Mr. SPOONER. If God gave it to everybody, it is not for us to accord. Mr. BACON. That is not the practical way in which legislators recognize it. On the contrary, we have proceeded from the begin ning of this Government upon the theory that tmtil a Territory did have a certain number of people in it it should not hare gov ernment otherwise accorded. Mr. LODGE. Why was it all right to take those 30,000 white people at the month, of the Mississippi, Frenchmen, and Spaniards chiefly, without their consent and govern them for alirnited period without their consent? Mr. BACON. Now the Senator------ Mr. LODGE. I want to get at the point at which the consent of the governed and fitness for self-government applies. 
 
 Mr. BACON. That is exactly the question that the Senator has no rig-lit to ask. because it1 lie had been here all the time ho would have understood that I hail distinctlyjsaitl I was not going' to dis cuss tho question of the rights of the ullipinos, that I was talking about the rights of our own people and interests of our own. people. I can not go into that. That is a different discussion altogether. 
Mr. SPOONKB. K the Senator from Georgia will permit me, the Senator from Massachusetts ought to look at this resolution, which provides that they shall have that right when we say so. 
Mr. LODGJ'E. The resolution of the Senator from Georgia? Mr. SPOOLER. Yes. Mr. LODG-E. I am perfectly aware of that, "but what I wanted to get at is whether the right of self-govern in cut is an abstract right of an;" man--one or ten thousand or ten million--or whether it is a right to be applied and given only when we or somebody else see fit. Mr. BACON. Mr. President, this is a practical question. Mr. LODGE. It is a practical question. Mr. BACON", It is a practical question: and in the beginning oi: my remarks, when the "Senator was not in his seat, I stated that 
resolution and these resolutions now under consideration 
n S' 
to bring the OiVbaiis to a condition of self-government. Mr. P.ETTIQREW. Mr. President------ Mr. STKWAHT. Will the Senator allow me -just one moment? The PRESIDENT pro tcmporo. Does the Senator from Georgia 
yield to the Senator i'roiii South Uakota? Mr. BACON". Yes, sir. Mr. PETTIG-REW. It seems to me that this whole controversy 
is answered by the terms of: the treaty under which Louisiana was annexed. Article 111 of the Louisiana treaty i>rovidt;s: 
That tho inhabitants of the coded tovvitorv shrill be iimorporntecl In tho miion '.if tho T Tiiitccl Stsitcs, and admitted HS ,= oon as possible, a^ording to the pi-im-hjloK of the Federal Coiist.itution, to tlio en jovmeiit of all tho rights, advantages, and iiinnrinilies of tho eUizevts at flio'lTmtcd. St sites, rind, in tile meantime they shall be maintained ".mi protected ill the _freo cnjoy- 
Itfsoli-ed, elc.. That, liy the ratification of the treaty of pease with Spain it is not intended to incorporate the inhabitants of tho Philippine Islands into citizens!.ip oi! tbo "United States, nor is it intruded to permanently simiax tho said laltinAs as an integTal part of the territory oi' tho United ^-tatey. 
Tims marking the line of the complete and absolute departure from every treaty we had heretofore made in the acquisition of territory aiitl adopting an imperial and colonial policy. 
Mr. STifJWART. Will tho Senator from Georgia allow Jiie to ask him a question? 
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does tho Senator from G eorgia yield to the Senator fvoni Xovadn? 
Mr. BACON. Yes. sir. Sir. STEWART. .1 should like to ask the Senator if under our Territorial system the people of cmr Territories have free governnient. self-government's1 Mr. .BACON, i have gone over that. Here is another one of 
 
 43 
 
the Senators who goes out and attends to private business or Ms private pleasures, and then comes in and asks me a question about something I have been over. 
Mr. STEW"ART. It is a (insstion the Senator, I tliinfc, could have answered ves or no. 
3[r. BACON. JTo; it takes more than yes or 110. Mr. STEWAHT. They cither have self-government or they do not have it. Mr. BACON. No; that is a mistake. 
Mr. STEWART. They cither have it now or do not have it. Mr. BACON. The Senator did not formerly think so. He has come to different views .from, what be fcrinsr/y had. I do not think the Senator entertained that view himselC. The Senator once lived in a Territorv. Mr. STJ2WA11T. I did not hoar the Senator's remark. Mr. TlIjLiMAN (to Mr. STKW A TIT ). "You tire a recent convert, 
 
' Mi-r BACON. l\ro; I did not say that. Mr. STEWA11T. They cither did have free government or 
they did not have a free government. 
Mr. BACON. In a -word, now, the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Wisconsin, both of \vhom are capable of splitting hairs in very numerous subdivisions, ha.ve asked certain questions to which I give one general reply, which I think is suffi cient, arid it is this: It is recognized everywhere that the rights of a people who are a nation, so far as race goes--I am not speaking now of national organization--a people who are a race, a nation occupying the land, not as a few sparse, roaming individuals or tribes, but filling- the land up, are not -people subject in any man ner to any of the suggestions made by either of the Senators. O'n the contrary, the Senators, "both of them, recognize the fact that not only in this regard but in other regards a laud which is sparsely settled by a few roaming people with scarcely any local habita tion is not regarded in the same light, either as to the right of a country to take possession of it or as to the right oK a country 
 
,, .. 
 
,, 
 
.... nd where the 
 
people nave their own political institutions. 
 
Mr. JjODG-E. I am very much obliged to the Senator for mak 
 
ing that reply to me, for it defines what I suppose his position to 
 
be. that the rights of a man, so far as the consent of the governed 
 
goes, depend upon whether he is one of a wandering tribe in a 
 
sparsely settled country, and if in a sparsely settled country he is 
 
a member of a wandering tribe he has no rights. 
 
Mr. BACON. No; I do not say he lias no rights at all. 
 
Mr. LODGE. I mean he has no rights which wo are bound to 
 
respect. 
 
Mr. BACON. That was what the Massachusetts people said 
 
when they landed and fell upon their knees and then fell upon 
 
the Indians, [daughter.] 
 
Mr. LODGE. That is old, but it is good. 
 
Mr. BACON. A good application is always good, and I do not 
 
know of any place where it could be so well applied. 
 
Mr. LODG-.E. I want simply to say that so far as I know it was 
 
pretty rrmch the same in all our colonies. When a king who had 
 
no right in the land granted land to certain gentlemen who had 
 
no right, and they came and took what afterwards became the 
 
great State of Georgia, and the answer is that------ 
 
 44 
Mr. BACON. No; that is a mistake. Mr. LODQE. They obtained a good right because they were liofc wandering- tribes. Mr. BACON. No: that is an entire mistake. The Senator is wroug in his premises. The Senator has not done the Stale of G-eorgia the honor to read the early history of that State. Mr'. LODGE. I have read the history of Georgia. Mr, BACON, The Senator has never heard of TomocMclii. Mr. LO.DQ-B. I have heard of him. Mr. BACON. Who was he? 
Mr. LODGE. I have always supposed him to have been an In dian chief who played much the same pa.rt with the settlers of G-eorg'ia that William. Perm's Indian is said to have played with him when, they measured the land 'with the mimer or the strips of oxhide. 
Mr. BACON. No; that is a mistake. Tho Senator, I am nowsure, has not road it and does not know the history of it. 
Mr. President, I have been led oil:------ Mr. TILLMAN. Before the Senator gets away from Iliat I sug gest, if he will permit me, that the .Declaration'of Independenceis the best guide wo have had hitherto as to what are the rights of a. man. Tvlr. SPOONE'R. You do not have it in South Carolina, though. [Laughter,] Mr. TILLMAN. In what- way? Mr. SPOONER. The colored man. Mr. TILLMAN. The colored man under the Declaration of In dependence was put on a par with the Indian, and we have never acknowledged that he is fit for self-government, and especially to govern ns, and we will not acknowledge it now. Thomas Jef ferson did not acknowledge it. Mr. BACON. Mr. President, I will not detain the Senate. I have held the floor in deference to the desire of Senators to ask questions. Mr. TELLER.. Before the Senator sits down I wish to ask him a question. Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. Mr. TELLKR, The Senator's proposition does not. as I under stand, contemplate an immediate ttirning over of government to those people. Mr. .BACON. No, sir. 
Mr. TELLER. I wish to ask the Soiiat&r how long he expects to continue that relation? 
Mr. BACON. Just about in the same way that you are doing in Cuba under your resolution, I desire to repeat to the Senator what I said when lie was not in his seat. I said in the beginning' of my remarks that I would rather bo known as the author of the amendment which he made to the resolution which pledged this Government to that disinterested and unselfish act when it stripped itself to go to war than to be tho author of any other legislative act which we Lave had in the last quarter of a century. 
Mr. TELiLKB. I am much obliged to tho Senator, but I want him to answer the real question. 
Mr. SPOONER. Ho docs not answer ycur question. Mr. TELI/KR. I wish the Senator would answer my question. Mr. .BACON. Well, go ahead. Mr. TELLER. What I want to know is, what is the limit: who is to determine it? 
 
 45 
Mr. BACON. The resolution says ---- Mr. TELLKR. Who is to determine when, the time comes? Mr. BACON. Tlie resolution eays \vlio is to determine. Mr. TELLER. It leaves it, does it not. to the United Spates? Mr. BACON. Certainly; it leaves the entire control to the Gov ernment, you understand, hiifc it simply declares that wlio.il the conditions are ripe------ Mr. SPOONER. In our .Indgiiient. Mr. BACON. Ill our judgment, when the conditions are ripe. It declares that we do not intend, though : psrraaraant sovereignty. That io put down as a substantive decj ifiratior>. Mr. SPOONER, That is, ii7 in our judgment. Mr. BACON. It docs not so.v it- in tliat ~wtiy. It say?'.---- Mr. TELLER, Then a condition precedent to yielding- to these people the right of Keif-government is a paeiiieaticn, I suppose, of the conditions that e.vis(? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir. Mr. TELLER. In the meantime what is to lie done? Will the Senator tell us that? He is grumbling and finding i'ault. What is to "be done? Mr. BACON. I did not hoar the Senator. Mr. TELLER, I say you have been complaining- of the condi tion of affairs. Mr. BACON. No; I have not. Mr. TELLER. After waiting' for a pacification v^hich cloesiiot exist, now the Senator------ Mr. BACON. The Senator is mistaken. Mr. TELLER. What is to be done? Mr. BACON. The Senator is mistaken; I have not been com plaining' of anything. Mr. TELLER. I think the Senator has. Mr. BACON. On the contrary----Mr. TELLER. I will omit that. What is to "be done? Are we to go on and fight, or are we to quit? Mr. BACON. The Senator stands here and asks quasi ions which aro plainly stated in the resolution. If the Senator will read the resolution------ Mr. TELLER. I have read the resolution very carefully. Mr. BACON. The resolution expresses it, that as the United States has overthrown the government in those islands--tbe mili tary and civil authority--it is the duty of the United States Grovernment to restore peace and order------ Mr. TELLER. Mr. President------ Mr. BACON. Will the Senator pardon me? 
Mr. TELLER. Go on. Mr. BACON. The Government is to maintain peace and order until there has been a government erected there to which that duty can be properly and safely delegated; and then so soon as peace and order are restored, the Government in that case, as in Cuba, will endeavor to provide the means and methods by which, a proper government can be established in those islands Then, when that has been done to the satisfaction of the Government, it will leave the control of that government to the people there. Mr. TELLER. Then that amounts, does it not, if the Senator will allow me to aak him a question, to leaving the matter in the hands of the Executive, just where it is to-day? 
4037 
 
 Mr, BACON. I think not. In the first place, tlie important thins. Mr. President, in this resolution is tho announcement of the nxed determination oil this Government as to what it is going to do so far as the i'utiire independence of that people is concerned, 
J\lr. SPOONER. If the Senator wilJ allow me to ask him. How can we announce what the intention of sonic future ConKrest! will "be? 
Mr. BERRY. I should like to ask the Senator from Colorado why ho made this promise to the Cubans";1 
Mr. BACON. That is what I was going to ask him. Mr. BERRY. You want to know why it should ho made to the Fillpinos. We want to make it to the Filipiiios for the samo 
reason. Mr. TELLER. I am not ashing- why it should be made to tho 
Filipinos or raising any question about that. The Senator mis understands entire!;^ the whole promises. 
Mr. BERRY. "Will the Senator from Georgia permit me? Mr. BACON. I yield. Mr. BERRY. A vote on the resolution, as I understand it, is to show to the world and in the Philippine country that we wore honest in our declaration in regard, to Cuba, that we did not go into tho "war for conquest, and that wo will treat these people in the same way that we pledged the iaith and honor o this nation to treat the Onbans. Mr. .BACON. That is right. Mr. BGRHY. Is that correct? Mr. BACON. Yes; that is correct. Mr. SPOONER. Will tho Senator from Arkansas permit the Senator from (Georgia to answer my question? Mr. BERRY. Provided tho Senator from Colorado will ayrce to it; yep. Mr. TELLER. That is what I want the Senator to answer. Mr. BACON. 1 have been on the witness stand, a good long time, and I will endeavor to accommodate myself to tho"wishes of Sen- 
Mr! SPOONER. No man is better able to take care oC himself in debate than the Senator from G-eorgui. He knows that these interruptions are a tribute to him and are not intended to embar rass him at all. 
Mr. BACON". Oh, I did not so regard it. Mr. TELLER. I am not finding fault. 
Mr. SPOONER,. The question I put to tho Sens tor 1 would like to have him answer. 
Mr. BACON. I will do so with pleasure, if I can. Mi-. SPOONER. That is upon what theory he proposes that a declaration s])all be made "by this Congress wliich can in any way bind a subsequent Congress? Mr. BACON. The Senator from Arkansas has answered the question for me, and I repeat that it is exactly in the same way that we made the pledge-with reference toC\Yba, i\vherf it is- within the power of this ITifty-sixth Congress to disregard that pledge of tho Fifty-fifth Congress and go and take Cuba. But I would not do it. Mr, EL-KJjSTS. But we own the Philippine Islands, and wo do not own CiVba. That changes the conditions entirely. We own the Philippines bv treaty. Mr. TELLER. What I have been trying to get at is tliat the 
 
 47 
 
Senator i>omt-leorn,-la crHieisecl the l>ill introduced by the Senator 
 
from Y^iseonsiu and----- 
 
Mr. BACON. Ko: I bey tb_s Senator's nnrdon. 1 caid "t might 
 
vote i'or it. I did not knov/ ------ 
 
Mr. TELLER. I wanted to call the Senator's attention to vhe 
 
fact that we will not conicr any extra power upon tbe Present 
 
o' tlie United States nut;! pence is eslabrisiierl over there by it ay act of OUI-K, ;.md he lias, as the Senator s;iys----- 
 
Mr. BACON. This resolution does not confer any power on tlie 
 
President. 
 
Mr. TEU-iEil. The Senator himseK Er-iO. it is a czar's povvev. a 
 
military povrer, find that 13 She most fibsolnte povrerin the IT oriel. 
 
There iy absolutely no restriction r.pou the Pre^idsnt except those 
 
great lniiiiaiii!"ari;in. ideas that unist pervaile evei-y ruler. 
 
Mr. BACON. "Will tlie Senator pardon mo a moment? 
 
Mr. TELLEB. That is all. 
 
Mr. BACON. Pardon me; 1 will wait. 
 
Mr. TELIjEI-t. He is the legislivtive department; he is the 
 
judiciary department; ho is the esecntiyc department oil that 
 
country. I-Ie is given absolute control of it. 
 
Now, all---- 
 
Mr. 
 
President, if the Senator 
 
does 
 
not 
 
want 
 
to 
 
reply 
 
at 
 
Mr. BACON. Yes, I do; I beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. TEIjLKB. I want to say a word or two on what he put to rue when he gets through. 
Mr. BACON. I have been tlirotish. for half an hour, Mr. Pres ident. 
Mr. TELLER. What I wish to say is that there is no distinc tion "between tho proposition made by the Senator from Cieorgia [Mr. BACON I -tluLttho President shall administer and the propo sition the Senator from Wisconsin [ Mr. SL'OOXERJ made that we shall say ho may administer, for he must administer in either case. 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, in the presentation of this sub ject I have been subjected to so many interruptions by Senators-- interruptions to which I have not objected* but which, on the contrary, 1 have cheerfully welcomed--that I have omitted to read at the proper places several extracts, and T will insert them at this point. 
In an elaborate address made by Professor Schurman, the chairman of the Philippine Commission, since bis return from the Philippine Islands, among other propositions he lays down the following: 
 
:ed to om1 infatuated passion for trails-Atlantic dominion? Tliis It is'tl'mt 4037 
 
 48 
so:r:o snowy desert or Infections morass on the other side of the ^lobe; tills imlucod us to resign all the advantages of onr insular situation, to embroil ourselves in the intrigues and figrlit tlie battles of half the Continent, to form coalitions which were instantly broken; to qlve subsidies which were never filmed; tliis save Iw-th to the fratricidal war against American liberty with rJI its disgraceful defeats, and all its barren victories, ami all the massacres of the Indian Imtc'hefc, find all tlie bloody contracts of the Hessian slangliterliouse: this it was which, in the war against the French Jiepublic. Induced iis to send, thousands and tens of thousands of our bravest troops to die in "West Indian hospitals, while the armies of our enemies were pouring over the Klilne and tlie Alps. 
Wlum a colonial acquisition lias been In prospect we have thought no ex- 
S enditi"!re extravagant, no interference perilous. Gold has been to us as ust, ;ind blood a'-i water. Shall we never learn wisdom? Shall We never tease to prosecute a pursuit wilder than the wildest dreams of alchemy, with all the credulty and all the profusion of Sir Epicure Mammon? 
Those who maintain that settlements so remote conduce to the military or maritime power of nations, ily in the face of History. 
This testimony could be largely added to. The opinion of this eminent historian ancl statesman, thus forcibly expressed, is suf ficient at least to put the burden on the other side. 
I will, however, add that Lord Herschel, the eminent British, statesman who was twice lord chancellor, who died in Washing ton a year ago, in a personal conversation with myself a short time "before his death expressed substantially the same views as those above quoted from Lord JVIacaulay, 
 
 THE PUERTO RICAN TARIFF, S P E ECH 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON, 
OF GEORGIA. 
Thursday,, March. 22, 1900. 
^si5 JTM G19OO. 
 
  SPEECH 
HOIST. AUGUSTUS O. BACON. 
 
Mr BACON said: 
 
Mr. PRESIDENT: I haci not expected to take the lead in this mat 
 
ter at all. I addressed the Chair only because the question was about to "be put. 1 supposed, of course, the members of the con ference coin mitteo upon the minority side would proceed with the discussion, and I only now g-o on at the request of the Senator from Missouri j Mr. COCKRTCLL] . who was a member of the con ference committee. 
 
Mr. President, this report when read wonlcl indicate that there had "been mutual concessions; that the Semite had surrendered, some features and that the House had surrendered some features, and that there was a compromise agreement. An analysis oi: the report wiJl show that the Senate has practically yielded everything' to the House, and that the House has vielded nothing. 
 
The bill came from the House and went to the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee on Appropriations reported back the bill with certain amendments which they recommended to the Senate, and the bill as passed by the Senate is exactly the bill which was reported back to the Senate by the Committee on Ap propriations, composed, the laajoritr of it, of Republicans. 
 
Now, what were the changes? I desire to say that the object I have in calling attention to this matter is not for the pitrpose of simply stickling as to the right of the Senate to maintain, its posi tion; it is not for the purpose of making any captious objection; but it is for the purpose of showing that beneath what may appear to be a very harmless difference, the purpose in maintaining the 
 
House bill practically in its entirety is 0110 of a very radical char acter, one which will be not slight in the extent to which it will, reach. 
 
Now, what -was the difference between the "bill as it passed the House and the bill as it passed the Senate? As tiie bill came .from the House it contained a provision for the appropriation of all the 
 
revenue which had been received upon importations from Puerto Rico up to January 1, 1900. and, in addition thereto, all other reve nue which had up to the present been received from the ssime source, and all revenue which in the future should be received from the same source. 
That-was really the most radical feature upon which the Senate disagreed with the House and to correct which it amended the House bill. But I will say that there was still a furtheitobjection 
 
42.14 
 
3 
 
 that tho Senate committee took to the House bill, and that was that the appropriation as expressed in the House hill was too in definite; it simply put it in the power of the President to dispose of this large smu oi! money practically in liis discretion for the "benefit of the people of Puerto Kico. J am not pretending now to qiioto the exact language, though I probably had better do so. I find it quoted in the iiucoRi). 
Mr. OOOKRELL. Here is the bill itself. Mr. "BACON. "Yes; 1 have already spoken of one amendment. The other amendment, as made by the (Senate under the recom mendation of the Appropriations Committee, was as to the phrase ology witli reference to the beneficiaries of this bill. Tlie lan guage found, in the "bUi us it passed tli House "was, "to bo ased for the government and benefit of Puerto Rico until otherv 
of.' Congress in making this appropriation to be more specific. Therefore the Senate struck out that phraseology and introduced a clause in lieu of the words "and benefit of .Puerto Rico until otherwise provided by law.' 7 1 will read :it in the connection in which it -was, Speaking' of the appropriation, the House bill said: 
Shall \>o placed at the uispopal of tlie President, to be used for the govern ment; tind benefit of Puerto EiV.o until otherwise provided by Ifiw. 
That was the phrascologv whicrh came from the House. The Senate struck that out and used this language: 
Now, the House conferees apriear to recede from their disagreemo/nt to the Bouate amendment. b\it they do it with an ansemlment- which, restores practically the provision so far as the unbri dled latitude and discretion are concerned, \vith the exact powers to the President which were in the Hou^e bill. 
While it is expressed in the report that the House recedes from its disagreement to that amendment, it in fact, in receding from the disagreement, puts an amendment upon the amendment which it disagrees to, -which practically restores it to tlie meaning which it had "when it came from tho House--not to the full extent, but in largo part. 
The amendment, however, which is of vital character is the one agreed upon in the conference report which proposes to re store to the bill the provision which the Senate, under the recom mendation of the Committee on Appropriations, struck out of the bill. That is the Senate amendment which limited the appropr.ation to such rovemies as had been received up to January 1, lilOO. The House conferees, in disagreeing to the amondmeiit of tho Sen ate in striking this out. and tlie Senate conferees, in receding from t-he amendment, restore the provision by which not only the reve nues up to .Januarv "1, 1.900, are appropriated for this purpose, hut by which all revenues since then received and hereafter to be received from the same source are to he appropriated, a:.)d indefi nitely, without"the expression of any amount or any limitation of time, all revenues hereafter received from that source are thus 
 
 give at least a limit. It is common to appropriate sucli an amount or so much thereof as may "be necessary-1mt as to indefinitely appropriating all the money which, may be received from a cer tain-oarce without n limitation either ns to amount or .'is to time, even if there is a precedent for it. which .1 doubt, it is certainly an improper wav to legislate. 
But, Mr. President, it is not that criticism which induces me to oppose,the adoption of the conference report. It is one still more grave. What is the purpose of the House in insisting- not only that the appropriation shal"! cover tho revenues received from importations from Puerto Rico up to .January 1, but that they shall cover all subsequent revenues? I do not think I can do injus 
tice when I say that the purpose is to provide for the contingency that the bill now pending in the Senate looking to the regulation of tariff relations between Puerto Rico and other territories within, the jurisdiction of the United States may fail, and that it' it does 
fail this revenue may be continued under the rates oS the Dingley tariff on all products corning from Puerto Rico. 
I say that that is the legitimate conclusion of the purpose. What other purpose can they have? Is it for the purpose of en larging- an amount deemed otherwise to lie insufficient? Is it because it is thought or contended that the amount specified in the bill, which, is the revenue received up to January 1, 1000, \vill he insufficient for the needs of the people of Puerto Hico, and that, therefore, this additional amount shall be put upon it? 
If so, Mr. President, there is no question about the fact that the amount of $2.000,000 and. upward which is specified in the bill is more than sufficient for any present needs, more than sufficient for any needs which can possibly be developed prior to such time as itmay be determined whether or not we will have the general legisla tion with reference to Puerto Rico, which will settle the tariff question. 
Now, Mr. President, it is instructive to see what has been the history of this legislation. I had occasion to remark a few days . ago that up to a very short period in the past there -was no mani festation of this great solicitude that there should be money ap propriated for this purpose. There was no realization of tho fact that there was such suffering in Puerto Rico that there must be this immediate and large appropriation for this relief. 
At the time when this Congress assembled everything which had been indicated by the Administration and by the dominant party as the policy which it intended to pursue with reference to Puerto Rico was in harmony with what would generally be recog nized as a proper course to be pursued toward, this new acquisi tion. It- was a policy which, indicated that our institutions were to be extended to that island. It was a policy which indicated that they were to have no burdens except such as we bore,, and that we would not exact from them, either directly or indirectly, any tribute. 
We were told by the President of the United States in his mes sage that they hail been cut off from other marl-rets: that by their cession to this coxintry the ports of Spain were closed to them; 
that there was no place in the world to which they could go for a market but to the United States, and tbat it was our plain duty to put them upon the same platform that all other parts of the United States were put upon- that there should be absolute free trade 
between Puerto Rico and all other parts of the United States. 
4234 
 
 6 
iii pursuance of that, in the House of Representatives a bill was introduced by the chairman of the proper committee, in which there "was no suggestion of any purpose to establish tariff rela tions between Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States-- a bill which provided for absolute free trade. In the Senate a like bill was introduced by the chairman of the committee charged with Puerto Ricaii affairs. 
If the utterance of the Republican press is to tie credited--I am not speaking now about what Democrats have said or what the Democratic press has said--but if the Republican press is to be credited, it "was not until certain protected industries and inter ests came to this Capitol and represented that free trade with Puerto Rico would be detrimental to those interests that the Ad ministration and the dominant party, both in the other House and in this. awoVe to the necessity of establishing1 a tariff wall between Puerto Rico and the United States. They soon claimed that the purpose in imposing a tariff on imports from Puerto Rico was to raise a revenue for Puerto Rico, but everybody knows that this proposition to impose this tariff was in response to the de mands of those protected interests. 
In obedience to these peremptory demands, a new bill was intro duced in the House, in which a tariff was proposed to be levied upon the products of Puerto Rico coining to the United States and also a tariff on products of the United States going to Puerto Rico. That bill progressed through its various stages, and after a most heated debate passed the House of Representatives and came to the Senate. Before it did so the bill which had previously been introduced in the Senate and which recognized that there should be free trade between Puerto Rico and the balance of trie terri tory of the United States was practically withdrawn, and in its place one was substituted which also proposed to recognise and to erect a tariff wall between Puerto Rico and the United States. 
It was well known how those who were in the minority stood upon that issue. We were, as we are still, all opposed to tlie tariff wall between Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States. But the outcry which arose in this country was not limited to those \vlio "belong to the Democratic party. All over this country, re gardless of party, there went up the greatest and most spontaneous outcry that has ever come from a people upon a question of simple justice or injustice to a small, helpless, dependent territory which had fallen under our care and into our keeping. 
Mr. President, I am relating this not for the purpose of the criticism which what 1 am saying necessarily conveys, but for the 
Eurposo of tracing the reason why the bill upon which the coii^rence report now nnder consideration has been submitted was introduced in the other House, why it was passed, and \vhy the particular feature in it which I am now eombatiner was pnt into that bill. 
The outcry that weiit up was one sufficient to startle our friends who are responsible for legislation in this Congress, and the ques tion Vv-as how should they shelter themselves from the storrn of in dignation which rose up all over this country, and which reached not only the House of Representatives and this Chamber, but also the White House, not in an echo but in a great uproar. 
How should tiiey shelter themselves from such a tornado of popular indignation? There had been a physical storm, a hurri cane, in Puerto Rico six months ago. It hacl created great devas- 
4334 
 
 had wrought, from whatever source the fund might, come. They were deaf to tho cries of distress: they were blind to the naked ness and want of the Puerto .tiicans. 
There was not a word uttered in this Chamber; there was not a suggestion in the other House; there -was not a suggestion from the Administration that there should "bo this appropriation to re lieve this distress; there was not a thought of any appropriation to relieve this distress until after the passage in the .House of the Puerto Rican tariff "bill, until after the furious storm which it created arose, and when in a frenzied panic the Republicans cried out to each other. What shall we do to protect ourselves from its fury? In their dismay the answer was that as we have done this thing, as we have imposed upon the Puerto Rieans an uujiist tariff, we will repair it; we will endeavor to appease the wrath of the public by returning- to them the money which we have im properly taken from them. 
Mr. President, what other motive could there have been? Aside from thei'act that the sudden manifestation of this benevolent pur pose has been without premonition, why was that the particular amount named in this bill: why was it that this two million and odd thousand dollars, the exact amount which, had been received in duties from Puerto Rican imports, was adjudged to bo the par ticular amount necessary to relieve the suffering in Puerto Rico? 
Could it have been by any chance that the exact amount needed was the amount which had been received from those duties? 
Of course that is not so: and there is but ono suggestion in re ply, and that is that the party that had stirred up the indignation of the people by proposing to exact tariff duties from the Puerto Ricans proposed to present a peace offering to appease the indig nation of the people--the amount which had been illegally and. unjustly wrung from the Puerto Ricans--a peace offering1 to your own consciences, a peace offering- to the Republican Senators and. Representatives who rebel against this unjust tariff. It is a con science fund to restore what has been illegally taken, and as the purpose is to continue the plunder, the atonement must continue, and the conscience fund must also continue to be paid. But. as I shall show, this conscience fund, is not returned to the individuals who have been illegally and unjustly plundered by the illegal col lection of this tariff. It was a practical confession that the tariff duties ought not to have boen collected: and while they obeyed, the command of the protected interests in their purpose to con tinue to collect the tariJI:, while they intended to continue the sin, they wotvld endeavor to make atonement by returning what they illegaJ]y exacted. Why should provision be made to return everydollar collected by tariff laws from Puerto Rico except upon the recognition that every dollar thus collected has been unjustly and illegally collected, and therefore every dollar must be returned. 
This unjust imposition of tariff did not simply stir up trouble in the country at large, but it stirred up trouble in this Chamber. If "we are correctly informed, and if the utterances in the public press :ire to be credited, we have had among our brethren in the majority the institution of a committee, the like of which I never heard before in a political body, a peace committee--a peace com- 
 
 mittee to make peace among our friends upon this auesticm. upon 
 
which not only they are divided, but upon which the counlry at 
 
large, including the Republican party, is also divided. 
 
Mr. President, what is the purpose of the insistence on the part 
 
of the House of Representatives oi' the continuance in this bill of 
 
the provision that not only the money which hus been received, 
 
frona imports from Puerto Rico up to January 1. TOGO. shall be 
 
devoted to this benevolent charity, but- that indefinitely in the 
 
future not only that which has been received up to the present 
 
time, but that -which shall be received in the future shall "be de 
 
voted to a like purpose? 
 
'Under existing law- as the Senator from 'Washing-ton | Mr. 
 
TUKJVER] suggests to me, the revenues which arc now "being col 
 
lected, and which will continue to be collected on Puerto Rican 
 
products, if there is no legislation on the subject of Puerto Rico, 
 
arc 100 per cent of the Ding-ley law, and this rate "will continue, in 
 
the absence of legislation, to be collected upon all products of 
 
Puerto Rico coining to the United States. 
 
What, 1 say, is the purpose of the insistence of the House of 
 
Representatives that this shall be done? Mr. President, of course 
 
we can not prophesy with certainty "what is to occur; but -what is 
 
said by Senators generally finds a correct expression in the out 
 
givings of the press; and we are told--I hope it may not be so-- 
 
but wo are told that it is a common utterance now that the passage 
 
of this bill will relieve the necessity of the passage of any revenue 
 
law with reference to Puerto Rico. As a consequence, instead of 
 
15 per cent of the D_ingley tariff rate, if the present status is to 
 
remain and if there is to he no tariff legislation, the effect is to be 
 
that, so far from having free trade with Puerto Rico, we are to 
 
continue to have the tariff duties levied by the Dingley law col 
 
lected npon all products of Puerto Rico coming into the United 
 
States. 
 
Mr. President, there has been read here the decision in 9 How 
 
ard, in the case of Fleming vs. Page, which I have here, but can 
 
not refer to just at this moment, and it is not necessary that I 
 
should, in which there are some expressions under "which it is 
 
claimed that the United Stales has the right to levy and to con 
 
tinue to collect the duties of the Dingley law upon all products of 
 
Puerto Rico coming into the United States -until there has been a 
 
collection district organized for Puerto Rico. 
 
Whether that is right or wrong--and 1 think it is certainly wrong, 
 
"" " ' 
 
'" 
 
'" ' ow--that was a case which 
 
fcion of tariff between Tam- 
 
1 States; and the other ex 
 
pression in it had no reference to any particular issue made in the 
 
case as to the right to collect tariff duties between any part of 
 
the territory which had been acquired, by the United States. But 
 
aside from the question whether it is right or -wrong, those now 
 
in power took that as the rule, and from the time of the acqui 
 
sition of Puerto Rico up to this good day we have not only been 
 
collecting from those poor people all the rate of tariff prescribed in 
 
the Dingley law, but we have been making them pay, if I under 
 
stand it correctly, the rate of tariff on goods going from the 
 
United States to Puerto Rico--a regular whipsaw arrangement. 
 
Mr. President, it is important that Senators should bear this 
 
matter in mind; that they should meet the responsibility, and that 
 
responsibility should be clearly kept in view and recognisedj that 
 
4254: 
 
 to adopt this conference report recognizes tho continuance of a tariff wall between Puerto Rico and the United States: recognizes and contemplates not only a tariff of 15 per cent, but a tariff of 100 per cent of the Dingley law. 
Senators -who do not Relieve that there should be a tariff' between Puerto Kico and tho United States must not close their eyes to the fact that if the conference report he adopted, and if no legislation thereafter is enacted "by this Congress relative to the question of tariff between .Puerto Kico and the United Stares, find this Con gress adjourns without any such legislation--L say Senators who reco^ni^e- find believe that there should be no tariff wall between Puerto Rico and the United States must not close their eyes to the fact that they go away from, here leaving in existence the tariff wall of the liiiigley law, not only under the sanction of tho con 
struction, which is put by the supporters of this tariff upon Flem ing r.s. Page, but under the sanction of its implied recognition in the terms of this "bill. 
What is past, Mr. President, we can not undo. If there has been sin illegal tariff collected from those people, the least we can do is to restore to them the money, although, as I shall endeavor to show, if I do not trespass too long upon the time of the Senate, our effort to restore it is to a large extent futile because it is iriipo^sible to restore the money to those who hare really paid it, Wot only under the construction of that case as contended for by the tariff supporters, "but tinder the express terms of this bill, not only disposing; of that which has been collected, but recognizing and contemplating' and thus affirming and approving- the continu ance of the Diiigley law. this tariff, will be continued between Pnerto Kico and the remainder of the United States. And that, 1 submit, Mr. President, is the direct purpose of those who have insisted on restoring this feature of the House bill which was stricken out by tho Senate. 
Mr. President, what other purpose can the House of Represent atives have in insisting upon it? Is it because of their eagerness to relieve this great distress? Is it because of the haste to which we were so eloquently urged in tin's Chamber, and which, with equal eloquence, was urged in the other House--the haste that \ve should make to relieve this storm-swept, this devastated, this stiffering island? 
If so, Mr. President, why was it when the House bill went back to the House with the Senate amendment, and -when it was per fectly practicable for the other House in twenty minutes or less time to have passed that bill and made it a law--why -was it that it was a matter of stich great impoi-taiice that this amendment should be kept in, that, in spite of all the adjurement that we had had that \ye should not be slow to relieve this distress, in order to keep this simple provision here there has been caused a delay which, with the time consumed bv the conference committee and with: the utmost expedition this Seriate can give it, and without there being any purpose or effort of delay, there must be at least the lapse of a week in loss of time? 
Mr. President, there was a great purpose in it; and I insist upon it that the purpose was that if mayhap the dominant party in this Chamber can not agree npoii legislation with reference to a tariif between Puerto Rico and the balance of the United States, and if, perhaps, it should so fail out that wo should adjourn with out any such legislation, these interests which had come here, 
4254 
 
  11 
the tariff is, so insignificant compared to the wliole amount that it does not make any difference in the cost of sugar in this country; and yet if the Puerto Rican could "bring- his sugar hero without pay-ing any duty, he would sell it at as high a price as the Herman, sells his sugar when he brings it here, and without any deduction on account of the tariff. But as his sugar is to be sold liera, and as the tariff duty on his sugar does not appreciably raise the cost of sugar in this country, therefore our people pay 110 more for sngrar on account of the Puerto Ricari tariff. 
Somebody has got to pay it, and consequently there is no pos sible escape from the proposition that it is taken out of the pockets of those poor dovils over there whom we have taken to our breasts to protect, to love, and to advance. What is true of sugar is true of tobacco and true of all other products of Puerto .Rico upon which we levy a tariff. There Is no product of Puerto Rico which comes into this country the tariff upon which raises the hundredth 
part of a mill the cost of that article in this country. The tariff must be paid, and as our people pay no advance, those who pro duce it and sell it in the island must necessarily receive that much less for their goods. 
So I say, Mr. President, as I undertook to say in the beginning., that, while we are proposing to return this money to Puerto E.ICO, we are not returning it to the people from whom it has come; it is impossible to do so. It has not only come out of the man who produced the sugar, but it has affected the wages of every man bv whose labor the sugar was produced, a little here and a little there, all over that island. These $^,000,000 have been collected from the scanty store and the scanty wages, of those poor people heretofore so downcast, whom we were so suddenly to lift up into a life of civilization and into the blessings of our advanced insti tutions. Therefore, the benevolent device by which the Repub lican party in control of the Government undertakes by this bill to return the money unjustly collected from the people of Puerto Rico is, so far as that object is concerned, an unmitigated fraud. It is not returned to those who have paid it. To continue this system is to continue this unmitigated, inhumane, and indefeiisiblefraud, plundering a helpless people under a pretense of making a restitution which is not made ami which can not be possibly made. 
Mr. President, a few days ugo I made some remarks to the Senate upon this subject, and I certainly did not expect this morning to make any extended speech. I then sent to the Secretary's desk and had read an ad dress by the merchants and manufacturers and agri culturists of Puerto JRico, in which they said they did not need charity. !t was an address made to the Congress of the United States and -which is on its way here now, but has not yet been re ceived, stating that they did not need charity. 
They said they did not, as had been contended in the other House and has been contended here, need revenues from a tariff upon their goods to bo collected by the United States and then seat to them as a charity, and they pointed out the different ways in which on that island, under the laws of the United States, there could be collected ample, and more than enough, to pay all the expenses of that government and leave them the great boon winch they desired, of free intercourse and free trade with the great American people, with whose destiny their lot had been so re- 
 
 have for- 
 
 Mr. BACON. Mr. President, it seems to me that this presenta tion of that condition of affairs in the island of Puerto Rico is an appoa.1 to which the Congress of tlie LTiiii ed States should not turn a (leaf ear. 1 Jut to wliicli it shon.d make a most immediate re sponse. The incorporation of Puerto Rico into our political sys tem oui^ht not to he a difficult thiim- to do. They are practically if not technically a paut of this continent. 
Their people, except an element of colored people, such as we liave in tills country, are Caueas'aiis. They are a people capable oi* being assimilated with onrs. Tliev are a peoplo capable, alter a- reasonable tuttiiage, of being fully invested with civil govern ment so far as we have ever granted it to a Territory; and it does seem to me that the pi-easing duty of the hour on the part of Con gress, not of the month or of the week, but of the day, is to jnake a declaration which shall put an end to a condition of affairs such as is portrayed iri that address of tills unhappy people. 
The duties which are now being collected are collected under the authority of the President of the United States as the comraaiider of the Army--the duties beina; col footed from Puerto Rico here. 
Mr. TILJjMAN. And in Puerto Rico, too. Mr, BACON. And in Puerto Rico: certainly those which, are being collected there. Mr. SPOONER. The Senator -will not claim that those which 
Air.' BACOlsf. I will not say that, but I will say, and I challenge the Senator to dispute it------ 
Air. FORAKER. I remind the Senator, if he will allow me---- Mr. BACON. Let me finish the sentence and I will yield with 
ned. it is under the military order of the President as Commander in Chief. 
Mr. SPOGNEH. Mr. President------ The PRESIDING OFFICE!!. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Wisconsin'.-1 
 
 14 
Mr. SPOONBB. The Senator from Georgia challenged me. I accept the challenge, and agree with the Senator. 
Mr. BACON. I like that sort of a challenge and that sort of agreement. There is no fight in it. 
Mr. FOBAKEB. I rose merely to remind the Senator from Georgia that the President informed TIS in his message recom mending the appropriation of the 82,000.000 that ho had reduced the tariff and had put some articles on the free list t^oing into Puerto Kico, but that he had no authority to change the tariff upon articles coming- from Puerto Kico into the United States. 
Mr. BACON. ThMt is true. The President can entirely relieve them. He can not only relieve them in part, but entirely; and it ought to be done immediately, Tbey ought to "be relieved from tariff duties upon articles going1 into Puerto Kico. and this Con gress ought this day to relieve them of duties upon articles com ing from Puerto Rico to the balance of the United States, and we ought not to linger here day after day and week after week until questions of differences may besettlod' between those among whom there should be no diJl:'cretice upon tho great question of this peo ple who have been deprived of all other markets: find, outside of the constitutional question and constitutional obligations, having1 the highest claim upon us that we should give them free access to our own markets. 
Sir, .President. I think if the dominant party in Congress were to agree upon that, there would bo no difficulty in passing a bill, not after a short time, but immediately. We think, or J myself think--1 am not authorized, to apeak for anybody else--that the government to which Puerto Rico is entitled is a Territorial gov ernment, a free Territorial government: that it should be put upon tlie same "basis as Oklahoma or Alaska or !N~ew Mexico or Arizona: that it should have every right and every privilege granted to any sitizen of any one of those Territories, and that above all, in order that it may be lifted up put of its condition of absolute depression and impen diner destruction, it should enjoy the unlimited right of free trade with the other parts oi' the United States. 
Mr. President, 1 know that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FOKAKER) has been as anxious as any of us that there should be a con clusion to the legislation on that subject with which he is charged. I recognize the difficulties with which lie is confronted. I want to say to him and. to those with wliom he is acting- that -whenever they are ready to present a bill of that kind which, shall give to Puerto Rico a Territorial government such as Oklahoma enjoys to-rlay, with all the rights under that Territorial g-overnment, including free trade with this country, we will vote with him upon that bill without one word of discussion and without one minute's delay. 
4254 
o 
 
 CONTRACT FOR ARMOR PLATB FOR BATTLE SHIPS. 
REMARKS 
HON. A. O. BACON, 
OF GEORGIA, 
SENATE OF THE UXITED STATES, 
IV1AY 1 1 . 1QOO. 
A. S I-^f 11ST O "i." O iM 
igoo. 
 
  Contract f,, r Armor Plate for Battle Ships. 
K li M A 15 TV S 
01- 
II O X. A . O. B A (.' O X, 
 
staiid to he favored by the Senator^: 
 
is'looking'tof the" iranvJdLteproc'eediiiron"the HmYofarmoring- 
 
ships as rapidly us the-, can lie ijuilt. am.at. the same time makius 
 
provision for the future which v.-ill avoid the impositions which 
 
we have oeen compelled to submit to in the past:. 
 
I have tie doebf f.liet if i's. as stilted bv the Senator from ilassa- 
 
clmsot!s ami us concurred in l>y the Seiinio-- from aouth Carolina, 
 
tile desire o; lile .'-inencau people Shut we should proceed rto-idily 
 
totliu construction o,' a uayv very nrncn ierK.-T than that which 
 
we have her: tofore contemplated. The t.-ndency o? The ' 
 
makes that fl-l'solnte-y necessary for om- se!!-j.roteccion. 
 
The y-ry liroadest of farces, ill niy Gj:i]i.e!i. oi' reeent date 
 
The I-Tai.';ue c;v.'ifert-nce, Aceordine; ::o its announcefl. ;-airoo ; 
 
intention was that m, a result of its tt-orh ail future r 
 
pntes wore to be settled. l,v peace-ill coiu'ereii 
 
! etweeii the nations. But "immediately upon t 
 
that conference, holding- out the promise of a settlement or e 
 
dispute by mediation, we have aiiuiler disregard and re.joel a 
 
the efforts at mediation !>y one of \b 
 
' '' 
 
in that conference, and the direct f 
 
t.vo small repitijlics with which it : 
 
...__ ...... . ,....-... . .. ...... . -i by statistics as readby the S, iiafor fror 
 
Massachusetts this morning-, all tho balance of the world seem to 
 
l;e .;reiii;)!j- to arm tliemselves to ravii.se Ihe coasts and to de 
 
spoil and subject to tbe:r dominion the la-ds of other peoples; and 
 
 So that in contending that the Government; of the United States should proceed to the erection of an armor plant there is no dis position and no intention to interfere with the proper construction, of a proper navy with all possible speed, Therefore, as I under stand, the proposition is that so far as any present necessities are concerned, if the Secretary of t-he Navy can not do better, he shall accede to the exorbitant demands of these factories and shall pro cure the armor necessary for the armoring of the only three ves sels which, are now in any immediate or near need of sueli armor, 
Mr, President, every time that this armor question comes up, and every time it has come up for the past five years, we have to travel over exactly the same ground tliat we are traveling t<> day. A reference to the CONCJRKSSIOXAT. RECORD will show that this debate is in its main features a repetition of the debate \vhich we have had here for five consecutive years. The proposi tion has been this, and it is the same to-day, that these armor plants do not deal fairly by the United States Government; that they are exorbitant in the prices which they charge, and that they have been detected in the past in endeavoring to put off upon us defective armor. From that it has been argued that the proper course to pursue is to build an armor plant by the United States Government. On the other hand, the answer during each of these five years has been the same as it is to-day. 
These facts are admitted every time, and yet each time the reply is, [1 AVe need armor now; let ns pay the* price which they demand and settle the question hereafter as to whether we shall build an armor plant; " and each time these armor factories have forced the payment of these exorbitant prices, and so soon as that has been accomplished the question of the building of an armor plant subsides, and it is heard no more until the nest time comes for the procurement of armor, and then the same argument and the same action by Congress are again repeated. 
These aro the two propositions. On the one side it is contended that the G-overnment is fleeced, and it is conceded and not denied by anybody that the Government is fleeced; and on the other side the answer is, " We need this armor: let us pay their price and settle the question of an armor plant hereafter." 
Mr. President, tliis is the fifth or si-\th time that th;U exact ground lias been ^one o^er in the Senate, aiitl I say, so far as I am able to judge, the time lias como when ',vo should settle "both ques tions, and not simply one of the questions. 
Mr. President, upon what do I base this statement that it is con ceded that the Government is fleeced by these armor plants? I re;ul from a debate which occurred in the Senate on "Wednesday last. 1 read from page ,7733 of "Wednesday's CONGRESS r ox A .L KEOOHD. .The Senator i'rom Nevada j'Mr. STUWART] arfied the chair man of the Committee on Naval Affairs, the Senator from Maine [Mr. HAT.R], this question: 
 
 .., ... 
 
... __ { 
 
The Senator from Maine, the chairman of this committee, tlian whom fhere is no one ------ 
Mr. HALE. Does the Senator want me to make it- stronger than thai? 
Mr. BACON. I hope the Senator will let me read the colloquy through before interrupting. it' it will suit his purpose as well. 
Mr. HAL]-:. Ve.ry well: "go on. Air. BACON. The Senator from Maine, than whom, I say, there is no one better qualified to judge, "because he has been through an extensive investigation of this matter, not only said, in answer to the inquiry, that he believed these corporations had taken advan Lage of the necessity of the Government, "but lie emphasized it in the same answer twice by saying: 
There is no doubt, aljont it. I' Sir. S--CKWART. Then I would t 
Mr. President, if the Senator will pardon me ,1 neiit, in the same colloquy this occurred: 
 
under-stood tlieir power and made tlieir coinblm kniie to us. 
That is the language of the Senator from Maine. Now I will yield to the Senator. Ma-. HALE. Mr. President, would the Senator from Georgia have liked me to have put it stronger than that'? Mr. BACON. I do not think the Senator could have put it stronger than that. Mr. HALE. What is the Senator complaining of, then? Mr. BACON". I was not complaining of anything. ilr. HALE. Did 1 not put it strong enough? Mr. BACON. I am not complaining. The Senator did not po?sifoly hear what led up to my introduction of this matter. Mr. HALE. 1 was thinking that the Senator was reading that I had stated a proposition which nobody in the Senate has been found to contradict. Mr. BACON. I am very glad to have the Senator repeat it. Mr, HALE. The armor manufacturers, the moment they got onto their feet, proceeded to put The knife into the Government. Mr. TILL MAN. And the Senator wants, then, to keep the knii'e in and turn it arormd. Mr. HALE. I "hope the Senator will wait a moment. The basis of the committee's action was to prevent the fleecing of the Gov ernment. IVlr. BACON, I hope the Senator will not divert me from what I was about to say. The Senator did not hear the connection in which I read this colloquy. Mr. HALE. Oh, yes: I have been listening to every word the Senator said. Mr. BACON. Very well. The Senator in that case asked a question which I can not understand, and that was, the Senator 
 
 asked if I thought he had not stated it strong enough. I was stating-what the Senator had said as proof of the assertion 1 made, which was that these factories had fleeced tlie Government, and I gave him as anthoritv. 
Mr. HALE. Now. f say that is the very basis of the committee's action. Wo propose to hold those people who have "been atousmg the G-overnment in the past to ;-i reasonable price, and if they do not accept that reasonable price, we \\-iit build an armor plant. 
Mr. TILL .MAN. Then what becomes of your increase of the Navy? 
MT. IIALE. \Ve will -et an increase of the Navy out of it. rilr. SHGoNEfi. Will the Senator al.o\v me to ask him a ques tion? Mr. BACON. "1 am perfectly willing1 for_the Senator to a*k mo any qtiastion which is in tho IITIP of what I am sayi'i. g: "but I do think, unless tho question do;-s relate to that, I ought to'be allowed ' to proceed, 1 will not ob.iect to any ; meat km upon the line of.' what I am now submitting1 to tlie be Dale. Mr. SPOON.ril-1. I was simply go .n^ to -Asic ihe ScTiatoT iirom Maine if he proposes to lon.velhis legislative threat in order to "keep the knife from the Government evorv yeJir? Mr. HALE. .1 do not think there will be imy necessity for it hercalter. 1 think the committee a ameiidmeut will be a solution of the whole badness, and thai it wi.l rass from consideration. I think the merit, and a'Jl the merit, th if there is in tlie committee 
Mr/BAOON. 'iEr. President, fwa.s prdcoodine: to say when in terrupted by the Senator from Maine, that ir was a, conceded j act that these factories linve ti> eced the Government, i say that that comes in the stron. est lavquagv for \vhit-h the d:i-tionary ati'ords words from the Senator from" MM inc. the fhairmr'a of the com mittee, and there is no Senator on this floor who risfs up to take issue with him or to dony it. '.onscqufcnt.y I sav that it sttmds here an admitted fact, a conceded fact, an und nifi!>,e iact. that these factories have not only once, but time and ;:y\in. fleeced the G-overnment, and when they ascertained their power mrong-h tliis comi'i-na.tioii. they proceeded, in the graphic aiig'tuiye of the Sen ator from Maine, ' to put the knife into us." 
Mr. PENROSE. Mr. Preside nt---- "Mr. BACON. If t-.-ie Senator will pardon me for just a mo ment, I will then vieixl to him. Not only that, bat the Senator from Massachusetts this inorning suited anotlipr faci. wh;cli is a concede;'! fact and an undeni able fact, that these armor companies have been putting the knife into its; that they have been t.iking this advantage of the G-overnment,. and they have at the same time furnished defective a;:d in ferior armor toths Government \vhich -\voulcl nave been a debisioii and a snare to any ship upon \vhicli it \vi\a p\it, and would have subjected it to destruction in case it was struck by an'y ino;"lem Drojectile. Now 1" will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania j'Mr, PENROSE]. Mr. CHANDLER. I wish the Senator would first allow me a 
Mr.' PENROSE. Certainly. Mr. CHANDLKft. I wish the Senator from Georgia would do justice by the Bethlehem Com puny,1 for 1 know lie would, not do 
 
 injustice intentionallv to anyone. "The only Selective armor iivrnished the Government h;is been the Carnegie armor. 
Mr. BACON. Very weil. Mr: OIIANDLTCK. There is nothing in the history of the Beth lehem Company on which to make srii-li a charge; but the charge ag-aiii&t the'Carnegie Company is 'based upon an investigation, and. was a jnst one. There is, however, nothing that jnstjlies such an accusation against the Bethlehem Company. Mr. BACOLN. L am glad the Senator makes the statement. I did not know the fact. i" will tLen limit the charge to one com pany. 1 wul not do any injustice, of course. Mr. BiiNUOoJE. The Senator from il-torgia, [Mr. BACON] has seen fit to make a great ni;uiT reck^s charg's:-,-; and accusations, and has declared that no Senator is ready to meet the challenge and deny th<; truth of the charges. I simply wish to interject in the proceedings at this time that 3 shall be prepared to go on in a few moments!:o deny many ot the reckless and groundless charges which, the Senator has seen lit to make against hoiK.rable men and 'ar'-'-e ;?nd honorably conducted business establishments. Mr. GKALLLKG-EH. 'Mr. President----ijr. BACOX. The Senator from "New Hampshire will pardon me mitil I reply to the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. PiiNROSEj. I have not stated anythii'g of my own knowledge. Ihave made the statement that these plants huve fleeced the G-orermnezit, and as my anthority for it I had not only given the name of the Sen ator 1'rom "Maii:e ] Mr. HAT_E |, the chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs. Lmt I had read the language vrbich he used in this Senate t\vo days ago. in which he made tlie statement. It is upon his authority I make the charge, and he now repeats The state ment. Kiid tfays if there is any stronger lanprtiage lie can use he will use it-^r. IIALK. There are a great many statements that the Sena tor makes to which I do not agree in detail and whifh I presnnie the Senator from Pennsylvania will answer. JNline was only a. general statement lhat these concerns, as soon as they got control, combined and took advantage of the Q-overnme7it: btifc in the particular statetneiits about armor and about putting had armor on the Government and all that I do not agree with the Senator. Mr. BACON". I i?ave as my authority for chat the Senator from Massachusetts. I do net linow anything about either statement. I gave the Senator from Maine as the authority for OIIP statement and the Senator from Massachusetts as the authority for the 
Mr.' PENROK13. I think the S-nator from Oeorgia is abso lutely correct wi-eii lie stut.- that n.jne of tlio etntvm^iiLs is of his 
personal knowledge. Mr. BACOK. That is true. I have no personal knowledge of 
the mutter, and I Have given my authority in a&h instartce; and if the Senator has any nritic-isii! to make it will not "bo np,)ii me, but upon the Senators who upon this floor have made the state ments which I have quoted. 
I wish to repeat that all I say on those two branches as to (he fact that these plants have taken undue advantage of the Govern ment and that they have, or one of them has, imposed bad itruior Tvpou the Q-iyveniiiierit, is said upon the statements and. the au thority ot: the Senator from Maine in the one instance and. the 
 
 Senator from Massachusetts in the other, and iny knowledge is limited to such statements obtained from them arid others to the same effect. 
Mr. LODG-E. I said that one of the companies------ Mr. BACON. Very well. lUr. LODG-E. Referring- to tlie Carnegie Company, had sold this Government defective armor. That is absolutely true as a matter of public knowledge. Mr. BACON. Yes. Mr. LODG-K. It was discovered by G-overnment inspectors. The Secretary of the Navy. Mr. Herbert at that time, held that they ought to pay a very heavy fine. 1 have always thought they oua;ht to have been punished in other ways. Mr. Cleveland compromised the matter with them, reduced the fine. They paid a less sum than demanded by the Socretarv of the Navy---I forgfit what--and that was the end of the matter. Mr. BACON". I quite agree with the Senator from Massachu setts that it was a mistake to show them any leniency in the mniter if the facts showed that the defects were known to them or that they coukl have ascertained them with reasonable care. Mr. TELLER. Will tho Senator yield to me for just, a moment? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. TELLlLl.i. I will say to the Senator that if he will ex amine the evidence he will rind that the blowholes in tlie plates had been earefullv stopped up, and it could only hare been done with the knowledge of the manufacture! s. Mr. TILLMAN. Will the Senator permit me? Mr. TELLER. They purposely put upon us defective armor, practically worthless armor, which we could not hare afforded to put upon a ship if given to us. Mr. TILLMAN. And the witnesses, and the only witnesses, be fore the committee who testified to this were the stiperiiitendents and the foremen of the Carnegie works. Mr. BACON. If there has been any injustice done to these very honorable men, of whom the Senator from Pennsylvania sppaks. that injustice is done by the Senators -who rise liere and give the testimony upon which I base 1113- remarks, and not upon my own statements, beeanse, as the Senator from Pennsylvania says. I- do not know. Mr. TELLER. It is not upon our statements. Mr. BACON. I unnddeerrssttiiind the Senator to give the report. Mr. TELLER. A;.s the Senator from South Carolina says, it 
that correction. T say that this is a business proposition. Mr. STEW ART. Will the Senator allow me? I wish to call 
his attention.------ Mr. BACON. Well, now----- Mr. STEWART. In this connection. Mr. BACON. Very well: go ahead. Mr. STEWART. Captain O'Neil says, in the concluding por 
tion of the paper------ Mr. BACON. If it does not relate to this point, I hope the Sen 
ator will excuse me. 
 
 ny ol! the other Senators, here we have the testimony of Admiral O'Neil right to the contrary. 
"What do you say to that? Mr. BACON. It may be true that they are doing so. It doos 
not controvert the statement made by the Senator from Massachu setts and the report referred to "by the riouator from South (Carolina that they absolutely put off. upon the Government defective armor and that the blowholes had been stopped up HO thai the Govern ment might not detect the fact. 
Mr. STCWABT. That did not affect Admiral OTSTeil's opinion 
of them at fill. Mr. BACON. He states that he believes they are doing their 
best. This occurred some years ago. Mr. TIL-LMAN. The same men are running thernaohine shop. Mr. BACON. The same men. That is a mere matter of opin 
ion. In the one case it is a matter of opinion that they art; Comg their best. In the other, it is a matter of direct testimony as to what they did do. .In the one case it is the opinion of a man that they are now doing- their best. In Ihe other case, it is the testi mony of their own employees thai- they put off defective armor upon the Government and then tried to conceal iroiu the Govern 
ment knowledg-e of the fact. Mr. TILLMAN. Yet the Senator from Pennsylvania says they 
are honorable men. Mr. BACON. Why, Mr. President, of coarse-- 
So are they all. all honorable men. 
I take no issue with the Senator from Pennsylvania upon that subject. But I do take issue with the Senator from Pennsylvania when he says that I make reckless diaries. 1 have in ade no charge except where I have given my authorities, tlie authorities present 
in the Chamber. Mr. President, L sav this is a Vmsiness proposition. We are deal 
ing with a very high trust. We tiro dealing with the grave inter ests of the people of tlie United States. We are dealing with interests that amount not to millions of dollars, hut to tens of millions of dollars. We are dealing with interests which are to lie sacrificed in the future as they have in the past if wo do not take proper precautions to guard against it. 
Now, I ask as a plain business proposition any Senator here if he had a private enterprise in which a certain man was the only one he could look to to furnish him with u certain product neces sary for his enterprise, and if he had the conceded fact presented to him. that that 'man had dealt unfairly with him; that he had taken ndvantage of him: that he had extorted from him; that he had put upon him defective product, ana the Senator engaged in that enterprise had tlie opportunity and the ability himself to erect a factory where he could make this product and not be dependent upon the man who he knew had extorted from Imu. who he Jkrrew had put upon him a defective product, would he take advantage of his opportunity in the management of his own affairs as a wise 
 
 and. pradeiu man and himself provide i'or the making of that prod uct, ov won 3d 3ri<- continue to allow himself to be within the power of the niun who he knew had defrauded him ami who he knew, judging by the past, vvou'd ialte advantage of him in the future? 
I probably used, too strong- a word, when f said  defrauded." While there may "be daierence of opinion upon tin-it, I will say that I used that -word only in thy sense of describiir: the transac tion which had been stated by the Senator from. MaVnc, thai-, they have trt.l-.eii muKio -.-ulvimtage of tho <.:;ov eminent ami had put the knife ituoit--nothing more, nolrMiii.',1 1 >gs: not that ("hey have com mitted any crime known 10 the law, but that they irive taken un due advantage ot; the Oovornmoiit in that particular. 
The Senator from Maine hi giving- "his ob;action to the provision for the construction of an armor plant said that he did not favor D^tornalism; that he "belonged to a diir.Vrei.it school: and that statement coming from the Senator i'< om /.laine is v^ry well cal culated to detor Senator.- \vho are themselves opposed to paternal ism from giving- thoir support to this proposition. uut there; can "be 110 paternalism in the erection of an firmer plane for the pur 
pose of supplying- armor for the nsos of the Government. Tbat is not paternalism. 
Mr. SCOTT. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment to ask a question^ 
Mi1 . 13AGON. It! the Senator will direct it riglr'-, to this point. Mr. SCOTT. I want to ask tho Senator whether he lias ever had any experience in manufacturing? 
ilr. BACON. I will del or that until a little later. That is not the point I am on. 
Mi-. SCOTT. I thought the Senator was discussing the possi bility or the probability of building an i.rmor plant. Does not tho Senator know tin-it the experimental stage of any maimt'actnring industry in this country will perhaps cost the Government greater loss in the first six or eight years than could pcssibJy be lost in getting defective armor? 
.Mr. BACON", I was discussing tb. question of paternalism. If tlie Senator from West Virginia will direct me a question on pa ternalism 1 -will answer it. "but I do not think I am lacking in courtesy in ins. sting that unless the question is on that point J sliall proceed -%sTith. my argument. 
Mr. HA"L"E. Paternalism is for the Government to go ahead and do everything. 
Mr. BACON. 1C tho Senator will pardon me, f should like to make my statement first, and then I shall l)o glad to submit to any question the Senator desires to propound. 
-Zr. tlALK. I have made my statement. 
Mr. U VCON". When I was interrupted by the HeiYator from. West Virginia, I was proceeding to say that paternalism coutd not be said to be found in the (government making armor for its own u-e. If the Government undertakes to ran an enterprise of any kind for tb.e benefit of its citizens, that is paternalism. The Post Oftk-e Department, if you please, is one form of paternalism. If in a city the city owns the waterworks which are to be used for the benefit of the people, that is paternalism. But for the Gov ernment to make its own gnna is not paiei-nalisni. "because it is not the father acting for the children. That is-where the term " paterntilisiui" comes from. It is not the father supplying1 the needs of the children. It is the parent doing his own work. The parent doing his own "work is not paternalism. 
4-13 r 
 
 11 
The making of guns, as 1' said, by the Government for its own use is not paternalism, if the Government saw fit to build its own ships, it would not be paternalism. if it sees proper to jnn Ue armor for its own ships, it is nor pajcrimHsm. If it buiit K.'iips for tlie people and used these ships for the private commerce of the people, that would bo paternalism, or if it provided any of the equipment needed for ships in private commerce, that wouiJ be paternalism. But what tne < Government does- for itself, to sunply its own needs, can not under any definition of paternalism be said 1u be paternalism. 
Now, it the Senato" i'rom Maine desires 013 that point" to as\- irr-> a question, i will yiekl. i asked him to let me complete my state ment 'before he asked his question. 
Mr. HALE. I do not know that It would boot very much to the Senator or to me------ 
Sir. BAC'OX. That is a mere side issue anyhow. Mr. RALE. Yes. Idonot know thut it would boot very uirch 
to the Senator or to me to discuss paternalism as it is generally understood. Some of us believe that the loc.s the Government lias to do with any of these business enterprises the better: that it is better that ships should be "built by private establishments in com petition rather than by the Government. "We believe that rai roads and telegraphs------- 
Mr. BACON. Oh, yes: that would be paternalism. I quite agree with the Senator. 
Mr. IIA.LE. "Wo believe that railroads and telegraphs should be private. 
Mr. BACON. I quite agree with the Senator. Mr. HALE. \Ve believe that in matters connected wit! the Government's wants--its great needs, ships and armor and every thing of that kind--it is better that private enterprise shall Vje invoked to do it rather than the Government. The less patronage the Government has, the better: the less workmen it has, the bet ter: tlia less clerks it has. the better: tlieleaa paraphernalia it has, the better; the less of everything that goes to swell and expand it, the better for the people. That is anti-paternalism Mr..BACON. As a general proposition, I am inclined to agree with the Se'intor, except so i'ar as he may class as paternalism the work the Government does for itself. That is not paternalism. So far as railroads and telegraphs and all such enterprises aro concerned, i am thoroughly in accord with the Senator, and T am not proposing to take issue with him on the general proposition as to the advantage of the (government having its work done iiy private contract where it can lie done safely, advantageously, and without too much sacrilice. Hut when it is shown thf'it it can not be done: when it is shown that the Government is absolutelv m th power of the iijanm jictnrer: when it is .howu that that, man ufacturer has 110 competition, and that there cr.n be no competi tion, and that ho. a.s the Senator from Maine says, takes advantage of that fact to put the- knife into the Government, then I say the t me has c-ome foi1 the Oovcrnment to sav, ' We wij.i not submit to it." 
There are one or two suggestions which I still wisb to make, and then J shall not trespass jurther upon tho Senate. Of cour~ 
I I'ecogui'/.e that this debate has properly proceeded mainlj- among the members of the c tinmittee, and I do not profess to have any detailed knowledge in reference to the subject. The earnestness of my conviction is possibly due to the fact that I was at oxie lime 
 
 a member of the Naval Affairs Committee, and had very great pride and pleasure in being- a member of it, and took great inter est in the business of the committee, and at that time, while I was a member of the committee, it was charged by the Senate with the duty of making a. most thorough, and exhaxistive exami nation of this very question. We sat day after day and week after week and heard witnesses on both sides, from the highest to tlie lowest, not only on the side of the Government, but the men engaged in this matter, Mr. Carnegie himself and the repre sentatives of the Bethleliem Works, and others. During that time I became most firmly convinced of the fact that the Govern ment was being charged a most exorbitant price for its armor, and I have never seen occasion to change that opinion. 
Mr. President, there is another fact, i do not know -whether it has been brought out in this debate or not. for of course I have not been able to be in the Chamber all of the time. 1 know it was frequently referred to in the former debates in the Senate. As evidence that tiie charge made by the Senator from Maine is not unfounded, and that it is true that these works have taken advantage of the Government, and that they have put the knife in the Government, 1 do not think I am in error when I state the fact that it was conceded in that investigation that the prices! -which the Government had paid lior armor up to that time had repaid to the owners of these plants the amounts they had in vested in their construction. If 1 am in error about that I want to be corrected. I do not think I am. It :s iny distinct recollec tion that that was a conceded fact. 
Mr. PENROSE. I can correct the Senator, if lie desires to be corrected. 
Mr. iJACON. Certainly: if I am wrong, I \vant to "be cor rected. 
Mr. PENROSE. I have a memorandum here to the effect that it has been stated in the newspapers, and, 1 understand, admitted by the company, that the total profits of the Carnegie Steel Com pany for the year lb9H were in the neighborhood of 8^1,000,000. 
ng i total amount of 800,000. No matter what per cent of profit may be contained in this amount of gross receipts, it will be inconsid erable alongside of the tota_l profits to the company for that yea,v. If we assume that the profit on the armor niaiiniiictiirecl in that year was even 25 per cent of the receipts, this profit would amount to 8300,000 a year, or less than one eighty-fourth of tlie whole amount of profit for that year received by the company. The 
value of plant and working capital engaged in the manufacture of armor is about 8 i, 000,000, and therefore a profit of 25 per cent on 
the gross receipts would be oniy o per cent on the capital invest ed. I should like, also, to call the Senator's attention to the fact that 
Admiral O'Neil, 1 believe, or Secretary Herbert has stated that 00 per cent was not an excessive profit in this business, aiid 1 be lieve the Senator fi-om New Hampshire has also stated, according to my recollection, that 30 per cent is not an excessive profit. 
Mr. BACON. The statement which. J made and of which I in vited correction did not relate to any particular year, but my dis tinct recollection is that that was a conceded point in the course of the investigation made bv the Naval Affairs Committee four years ago, that the owners of these plants had in the profits wJivch 
4=437 
 
 13 
they had received upon the work theretofore done been repaid the amount which they had invested in the construction of these 
S'ants. If 1 am m error as to that, of course the Senator from. aine, the Senator from New Hampshire, the Senator from South Carolina, who -were all members of the committee at that time, can correct me. Whether it was ever so stated in so many words I do not know, 
My recollection is distinct that that was considered the wellascertained fact, that the profits upon the business of making armor for the United States Government had repaid the owners of these properties the amount of money which they had expended in'the construction of the plants. 
Mr. CHANDLER. Will the Senator yield to me for a moment? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. CHANDLER. I read from Secretary Herbert's report: 
wha 
.steel for tlie Government 
Mr. BACON. It has been four years ago or five years since I heard that; I have forgotten which--four years certainly--but the fact lingered in my mind, and I knew I could not be mistaken about it. We have not only repaid that, biit have paid 22 per cent profit. 
Mr. TILLMAN. There have been twice as many tons of armor made since that time. 
Mr. CHANDLER,. Will the Senator from Georgia permit me to give the exact reference? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. CHANDLElt. It is pagre 34. House Docmnent No. 151, Fifty-fourth Congress, second session, being Secretary Herbert's report. Mr. BACON. In. view of these facts, what is tho businesisprop osition? Mr. "PENROSB. Will the Senator permit me to make a state ment? Mr. BACON. Certainly. ill-. PENROSE. I wish to call tho Senator's attention to the fact that in the whole history of the armor-plate business in. Pennsylvania tho two companies togotber, the Carnegie Compa-riv ami the Bethlehem ('omp.'my, have received between them, Mpproxjmatoiy, :::,1'J. 000,000 in gross receipt;;, find, ass inning that their uhmt represents SIO.OOO.OUO. it is difficult to uiiOc-srstfind or to see ho\v he would make out that they have been paid in profits tho -vtiiiuj of their plant*. Mr. BACON, Of course I p.ui not prepared r.ow to go into that question. ! simply recall that uiat was oiifa issue before tho com mits te when s. hiui the uonor to be a member of it, niift tliat \fu& the conclusion arrived at, Air. CHA^vDLKIi. At that time the Bethlehem Company had received lirom the U-overnmc-nt 8 '.5,000,000, but it WLIS not all i'or armor. That included the inannfacturo of guns i'or the Govern ment, t-jccretary Herbert made the calculation at- that time tiiat the profits on tile armor or upon the Government work--I a,ro not 
 
 14 
 
d to the c 
 
tho full value of "tsa 'armor plan 
 
per cent besides, 
 
Mr. 
 
It can ho 
 
mat Hie a, ntal profits of 
 
companies : 
 
investmenit, and if the_beuator from Up 
 
the Senator wonld insert-: iuhis Senator wrm! s lo have it merted 
 
mo our. that I thought this plant mi^lit. to ha.-e ,,01t only ai n ordiiinry profit, but nil exf.raordinarv profit. I have said upon this floor that as they were dependent very much uv ou ; be Govern ment of the United Stales la the sole customer in the mannfactnreofar^orjjafe.theyo, ' 
 
1 have said further that f th 
 
Cut what fuis'boen ihe trouble? The book of to,,timonv which the senator from Xow Hampshire bad in hb, hand will shove the fact that Ihe most strenuous effort was made bv that committee to ascertain what was tho profit that these manufacturers w,.re ma'miK. and that Ihe most, strencious effort was mado to ascer tiain what was tho co.-f ,o them of the armeir in order thhree \ve mi^ht ascertain what was a properc allowance to thheemm, in th.e way of pro,it. Thev mort pertinaciousillyyaaund percmplotily and ;imuferal,ly refused ;olet the Ciovcrnniem of the United States Wijaf it cost them to make -,jh'ie nr ...or. T'.rhueerreefore wTVeG are lnieee -- arily ill the Jarh as lo V'nal 'H a. b.ir jiriee or an unfair priee '^o 'ar as that (j\^=st:oii couie be decalee. by the ten.imoay ol: these moil 
 
'i tne Senator per ait me..- 
 
at some time 
 
in the iuvestin.arion ordered by the J-'o-sa eoneermnec fills imnier 
 
there was information that armor plat., could ho marie for ?T, a 
 
ton: and if that ho true and we reckon :f>nr, a ton as the sum that 
 
it cost to make it, and ta'-e the -oan average thai, has been paid 
 
government to these coneer-.e,. j can sec h 
 
elants 
 
>r even ii they on.lv received S .H.O 
 
in eorroboraiienef wh.it cbe^eii; 
 
hieh vi-a= printed at 111 
 
2os^;sr js;f,: ; a reLu'liit of an a.r 
 
- of if. Mr, I-lALiE. Ifc is a aratemeiri 1'roni tJie J_,oiidon Iron and Coal 
 
 ti.TM of tlif, S, nator t 'lie Senator from ila 
ticable for ttie G- ... ...... 3hr>->-* or ID innke arrrjoror toiiiake.iruris or a.rrytbirisi' o]se ;s 
,- and (is ,a:ood as can be uecnred by procuring them from 
 
.ar o-r.-aa-r 
. - are the sii-jaeiEior, t!:( tlitGfo-- 
 of ,ae o'/rited 8fatO'. cau not ->r..(ba.f armor or earns , ,r K elf-e v/hicli ean be prodaeed rinds" tbc supervision or iis tr;dne ' and educated Ar?ay aad n.ivb oboei's vdileb shall be as i^ood aad ns ehea,' aB that v\diic;b (vor be -olten eo.ov.dic.re. Tj'on Vv-i-r: ]> o bbe V>asis<; ;ni yaoe i eiao'ettioi; i.; ; . iuaiiitaine !: 'We b,ive._!Trt:u.b_y_-mo]iL; onr^jsvid Knci^?^ siieu wLo pr,. iii>,y 
 
?dae;bc5 ;l 33en: iboy are the me;; vdm ^r-e son-bi i-fici: b\ tb< :.e 
 
aiaiieiaH -ooa a-i , hey beoomc retired, -iilm--e areno\r i:; e;a:b oi;e 
 
or ^-be-^e rjat;;;; \et,:ver ivivae otiicers of the tjrr'ied i^tare^ in bi^b 
 
iioi-iticin. -iosiTb.e. s of t:-v,rt. a position vrh-ro eii.oieucy if. a i-oani- 
 
sife. I f kinl; i. i-ito be aa'blv de,ded iK-.t "'t e.tu possibly be trar 
 
iliKt tbeseaava: onieers, i r ab (l r;rei! -,-irl. tile dirr.v by tile tJcvoi 11- 
 
t '>':'idle ~r'mte- H' -SI:ates, rvonld not ;,-. -fcji.!-. tlseir ib-tv as tad.a- 
 
V(riu.irrbcec-dl (!fit.a:,--cl,;,;a-rs.l-v.T-a,,vr,co,,U,a..i;.s.i.r.tf,.b;.ei,,a's,dt*t-odadtoyeita. n be oerfbr-aed Dy tlioise irho are 
 
:'.!: ,1'J-esidea). i do nor desire t.o. fr.rtljer tr.- 
 
nfiou Ibe Ijbne 
 
off theSei.ate. Ilbl:ud i oxi.ocitaliou . ,{ 
 
ti.r es [ nave done. 
 
t i eomfc>: tb;u . c 1 -:.',-; icaViv t-hr rivic has 
 
- 
 
,.;b'!e>a'1-;;lriil.eo-ni^oovnra. jpmnireiats!eolft 
 
: i.e Lbd: S'l iv die r',,,i,>i> 
 
^la-ej:; .dior.Id. a'-' a main nu.: .!:. re it ca;: either. 
 
r?^s"aicye;.tHoi,v\Uetbeyv'-R-'ialelndotiiiaetreybbe.^.<fBd,!-em. a''-"-yIfr"eeyovnrrdeo. 
 
mal:e t]:Ts m.H rnuke 
 
rrmor it at e 
 
c 
 
 Receipts and Expenditures in Cuba. 
SPEECH 
II OS". AUGUSTUS O. B A O O N", 
OF GEORGIA, 
IN THE SENATE os? THE UNITED Wednesday, May 16, 1000. 
The Senate having under consideration the following resolui by himself 011 the lltli Instant: 
"Resolved by the Senate, Tliat the Committee on Relation! 
ug the 30th day of Apr is to receipts, as follo^ 
 
to wiiicli said thereof"-- 
 
property 
 
h;is 
 
"been 
 
put, 
 
and 
 
the 
 
dispositi 
 
Mr. BACON said: Mr. PRESIDENT: The resolutions which, have just been read have "been drafted by me with a view to giving the opportunity i'or tlie most thorough investigation of the moneys -which have "been col- 
 
and instrumentalities of the United States (J-ovcrnment. As a basis of the remarks which I shall make upon this stibiect 
I submit the proposition that there could be no more imperative duty resting upon any government than that which rests ujjon the Government of the United States to devote every dollar raised throngh its agencies in Cuba to the sole benefit of the people of Cuba. 
It would "be a sufficient demonstration of the correctness of tliis proposition to state the fact that not a single dollar of tiie reve nues raised in Cuba through tho agencies of the United States be longs to the G-oveminent of the United States or to tlie people of the Uiiited States, but that every dollar of it belongs to the peo ple of Cuba. 
 
 But, Sir. President. I fake occasion to say in addition that the duty so "undeniably- arising from this imcl en iatalo fact is intensi fied "by the further fact that we are self-constituted agents in the collection and disbursement of the revenues of Cuba. 
All of these revenues liavo been raised through taxes collected from the people of Cuba, and the fact that wo have constituted ourselves the agents to collect those taxes from them imposes upon us the most solemn and binding_ obligation not only tliat all of it shall be disbursed for the benefit oi: the people of Cuba, but that it shall be all of it disbursed prudently and. economically, so that there may bo no prodigality and 110 waste. 
We can be extravagant or even wasteful with the money of the United States ill we choose to violate our obligations as public servatvts: and if we <io so. we are accountable to those -who sent us here. We might perhaps claim n.ii excuse for extravagant expend iture of Cuban money if we had been invited by the Cuban people to accept this agency to collect and disburse their revenues, because it invited to "do the work we might claim the right to judge- of how liberal or even extravagant we would be in its exe cution. 13ut hovrever this might be, it is not so when, without the invitation and, so far as has been disclosed, against the wish of the people of Cuba, we constitute ourselves the agents to do this work. 
There are other considerations which lay upon us an obligation for the honest and economical expenditure of these moneys, an obligatkm for the observance of which we are accountable in the high court of honor. All the world stands a witness that no peo ple ever undertook a. cause involving national peril and sacrifice with a more chivalric declaration of the purity of their motives and of tho disinterested purpose which they had in view than 
 
ey 
 
, 
 
l"or loyalty to the high purpose of that declaration we are bound, 
 
Mr. President, in the court of honor; in the proportion that 
 
wo make good that declaration will we, as a nation, "be in that 
 
court adjudged honorable, and in the degree that wo violate that 
 
declaration and turn from it to show a selfish. purpose or to pur 
 
sue selfish ends will it bo there adjudged against us that we have 
 
been untruo to the high standard which, we then so proudly 
 
erected. 
 
Again, air, if \ve, as Senators and Representatives, aro wasteful 
 
or extravagant with the money of the United States, we can be 
 
held to account and be condemned "by those who clothed us with 
 
power. Those whom wo represent and wlio would be thus 
 
wronged have their opportunity for redress an their judgment 
 
upon our infidelity. .But if we, as self-constituted agents, collect 
 
these taxes from the people of Cuba and then either squander it 
 
or permit it to be squandered by our official representatives, there 
 
is no tribunal in which, they can call us to account. "We are 
 
strong, they are weak. They are absolutely within our power, 
 
They can only appeal to us for .justice in the high court of na 
 
tional honor. lu all other courts they are dumb and without re- 
 
We can. if wo choose, in the exercise of arrogant power, with impunity tlespoil them tnrough misappropriation, or we may ac complish an e?{iial result through riotous and extravagant expendi tures; "but there rests upon us the highest obligation of national honor to permit neither the one nor tiie other to be dono. 
That the revenues of Cuba shall be honestly and economically 
4464 
 
 administered to the best ad vantage of the Cuban people, and that the American Congress shall know and. see to it that it is so adminis tered, is another "plain duty" in the list of those which will be recognized and insisted npon by the American people. We have of late heard much said about a "plain duty." The former may be known as "plain duty " No. 1, and this we are now considering1 may be catalogued as "plain duty" "No, 2. 
How, Mr. President, it is to insure the performance of this sec ond "plain duty "that I think these resolutions should bg adopted, requiring tlie most thorough and searching examination to be made 
by a committee of this Senate to ascertain what taxes have been collected from the people of Cuba and how the money has been expended. 
In what way, sir, does there arise tlio necessity for this investi gation? 
To this there are several replies. In tlie first place, I would say that the circumstances of our self-constituted agency and the marked peculiarity of the conditions in Cuba -would, require this investigation, oven if there were no charges of misappropriation, and no 'widespread belief that there lias been extravagant and wasteful expenditure. 
What, sir, are these peculiar conditions? In our own Govern ment we hare at every stage safeguards ap;a,iiist the illegal collec tion of taxes and the misappropriation and wastefulness in the expenditure oC the money thus collected. These safeguards do not exist in oiir collection and disbursement of tlio Cuban revenues. Here in the United States no revenues are collected except under the authority of an act of Congress, which must have the concur rent approval oi' the House of .Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, or two-thirds of each House without the approval of the President'. In Cuba the taxes are assessed and collected by an executive order, the stroke of the pen of one man, either here or in Cuba. Here what officers shall be employed, what salaries they shall be paid, and wliat quarters and other allowances they shall have at the public expense are fixed by law. There they are again determined by the unrestrained order of one m;.in with, accountability practically to no one. 
Here all public xvorks, before they can be entered upon, must be authorized by law. There again one man, arbitrarily and without limitation upon Ms authority, orders them, whether they be great or small. Here the money for such works can only be appropri ated by act of Congress. There the millions upon millions of dollars are spent again upon the order of one man, wifcli no one to question him or say him nay. Here a thousand, eyes are upon every man charged with the disbursement of tho public money. Such an one here stands within, the gaze and under the watchful ness ol: thousands of people speaking the same language, familiar with our laws, jealous of fidelity to law by public officers, and quick to avail themselves of a universal press to expose the dis 
honest and unfaithful. There those making expenditures of the public money are in the midst of a people ignorant of our laws and of our language, accustomed, under long the profligacy of Spanish rule, to dishonesty and extravagance among public officials, and unobservant to watch, for and expose official wastefulness, extrav agance, or misappropriation of the public funds. 
Here all public works are constructed and all material is pur chased after advertisement, as required by law. There the question whether or not there shall be advertisement and competition again depends on the uncontrolled will of one man, and my iufor- 
 
 4 
 
mation is that in the expand!tnro of the millions of dollars which have thus been made of the Cuban revenues there has in almost alloi.' the cases "been no advertisement; and thus it is, Mr. President, that not only in these features, but in numberless others which could "bo easily enumerated, there Is under cmr control and admin- 
 
lie 
 
,,,,- _ _,_, .._.....,,_-- __. ..____.,.__..., 
 
.._ ____.._, ..,,_--_ .,__ Je- 
 
signcd to guard against oppressive taxation and to restrain and 
 
prevent oilicial waste or extravagance or misappropriation. It is, under our aclmmisfcration find enforced control in Cuba, the one- 
 
man power determining what moneys shall be collected and how 
 
they shall be spent. Having thus set up or permitted this absolute, irresponsible, unchecked authority, we are under bonds to see to 
 
it that the Cuban revenues have been legitimately expended. 
 
With this high trust by us thus voluiitarilv assumed, \ve have permitted the control and the conduct of the affairs of that island to be under a, svatem oi: absolutism, a system of absolutism in its administration"practically without' accountability. Having- per mitted this system, having sat down for two years and permitted 
 
it to go on, unmindful of the undeniable obligation resting upon, 
 
us that all shall bo right in that administration; that money shall liave been properly collected, and that it shall have been honestly and prudently and economically expended--with this duty resting 
 
upon us, and with tbia system of absolutism having been permitted by us, there ia now ap. imperative obligation upon "us to examine 
 
and see whether affairs have been rightly conducted there, and 
 
whether the money which has como in hand has been properly collected, and whether it has been properly expended. 
 
So that if we simply stood face to face with the fact that we 
 
have for two years periaittorl this system of absolutism, this un checked levying- of taxes, this uncontrolled expenditure of money, 
 
if there "were no information of misappropriation the obligation 
 
would be upon us to make a most minute and searching' investi gation to see whether or not our agents had properly, prudentlv, 
 
ancihonestly discharged the high trusts which we have self- imposed. 
 
But. Mr. President, we are not left to a consideration of that kind, as sufficient as that would be. Wo have ascertained the fact that 
 
there has been in the island of Cuba the most exorbitant and the 
 
most extravagant expenditure of the money of the Cuban people. Under a resolution of instruction of the Senate the Secretary of 
 
"War has sent to the Senate------ 
 
Mr, PLATT of Connecticut, Whatisthedociimentfrom which the Senator is now quoting? 
 
Mr. BACON. I am going to read from Senate Document 177 of this session. 
 
Mr. FOliAKER. Will the Senator please give me the date? 
 
Mr. BACON, yes. This is the response of the Secretary of 
 
"War, dated February 15, 1900, to a resolution of January 17,1900, in which there is a tabulated statement of tho amounts which 
 
have been received and the amounts which have been espendedin 
 
Cuba; a statement winch, itself prof esses to be a partial statement. J shall have occasion to all tide to that hereafter. The Secretary 
 
of War, in transmitting this, says that it is partial, that in order 
 
to comply fully with the instructions of the resolution H will be necessary to got a great deal more information and that he is pro ceeding to got it, 
 
_Mr. FORAKER. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt 
 
him., has not the Secretary of War, aince that communication 
 
 was sent to t?ie Senate, supplemented it with, the additional state ment which he said would, "be necessary in order to give us the complete information? 
Mr. BACON. It it has been sent, I have not been advised of it. - Mr. FORAKER. I have not seen it, but it is my impression that ho did send a supplementary report------ 
Mr. BACON". I think not. Mr. FOKAKEH. Transmitting the result of the reports ob tained from Cuba, where the itemized, accounts were kopt. Mr. BACON. I think the Senatorwill find that while that liad been anticipated, that anticipation has not been realized. In this report there is a table of receipts and expenditures in the year 1899 in the island of Cuba------ Mr. FORAKER. From what page does the Senator read? Me. BACON. On page 107: in which it is shown that- from the various sources of revenue there had been collected by the officers of the United States Government, civil and military, the sum of $16,3-16,015.17, and that in tlie same year, 1899, from January 1 to December 31, the expenditures in Cuba had been 8^035,805.32. I say again, Mr. President, that if we had no information of the improper expenditure of any moriey in Cuba, if we hnd no rumor that there had been any monev inmroperlv expended in Cuba, if we simply had the naked fact that in the year 1899 the officers, civil and militarv, of the United States Government had collected over glG,(100,000 in Cuba, and that they liad expended over L4,000,000--I say that simple fact would "be so startling in its nature ,as to demand oil the part of! Congress an investigation to ascer tain whether or not that money had been properly, prudently, hoiiostly. and economically disbursed. The table of receipts and expenditures in the year 1899 is as follows: 
Total . Balance on 
 
 6 
leasfc. and in determining whether or not, -without reference to details, there is a prima facie case of extravagant expenditure suf ficient to lay upon. Congress tlie obligation to investigate the q\Testion -whether or not there lias "been such extravagant expenditure, we naturally look to the standards of expenditure in this country in the various States of this Union. I have hero some of the de tails of expenditure which I have procured from the comptrollers o various States; not all, of course, but enough to illustrate the 
point which I am now presenting". Mark you, that in the year 1899--one vear--tliere was over 
SIC,000,000 collected in Cuba and over $14,000,000 expended. Now, let (is see what is the case with reference to the States of the Union of equal and greater size than Culm and of larger affairs than Cuba. I "begin with my State, with over 3,000.000 in habitants, with wealth largely superior in amount to that of Cuba,, with a perfectly organized system of government in all Its ramifications, and the fact is that in the year 1S09 the entire total expenditure of the State of Georgia on all accounts was 03,900,000; and of that -^l,375,000 was spent for education and 8650,000 was spent for pensions foi' Confederate soldiers, leaving for the entire current expenses of the State, including' the payment of interest on its public debt, the amount of $872,000 as the expense, com pared with, over 14,000,000 in Cuba. 
To make that statement entirely correct, I will call attention to the fact that one item which I have deducted from the expense of running the State of Georgia, to wit, the item of education, is one which has some part in the expenditure in Cuba, but what is ex actly the amount spent for "education" wo can not tell from the fact that it is mixed with the expenditure for '' justice," and stated in one it em as an expenditure for ''justice and public instruction," The entire item for "justice and public instruction." is 789,897,39; go that, if you credit the entire amount to "education" in Cuba and allow none of it as having been expended for "justice," there would still be over thirteen and a half million dollars expended in Cuba for the government of Cuba as against 873.000 in Geor gia for the government of Georgia. It is to be noted that what is meant by the term ' ' public instruction " in Cuba is left in doubt in view of recent developments. 
Mr. ALrblSOIN. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him a moment? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. AL"LISON. Do not the municipal expenditures o the island of Ouba constitute a part of this distribution of money? Mr. BACON. They do. Mr. ALLISON. Has the Senator included that item? Mr. BACON. I have not. The Senator is correct in that criti cism. That item should be included. Air. ALLISON. But the Senator lias not included it? Mr. BACON. I have not. I will acknowledge the correctness of the criticism of the Senator, It had escaped me, but I will in clude it now. Mr. ALLTSON. Very well. Mr. BACON". Tlie Senator is correct, and I am obliged to him for calling my attention to it, but in the multitude of items here that had escaped my attention. After crediting that, however, it is in round numbers 313,000,000 for Cuba, as against 372.000 lor the State of CJ-eorgia. And if there were further deducted the items of expenditure for postal service and census, there would still remain more than 11,000,000 of expenditure. Audit must 
 
 not be overlooked that there are many subjects of State expendi ture which have not called for expenditures in Cuba and which have no place in the statement ot Cuban expenditures. 
Mr. President, I do not propose to stop there by a good deal. Mr. NELSON. May I ask the Senator a question? Mr. BACON. I am going to ask Senators, somewhat in imita tion of ray very distinguished i'riends on the other side of the Chamber, to allow me to proceed with this argument, and I will say that I do not make the request with any indisposition to an swer questions; but before I get through, if the Senate will per mit me to retain the floor, I shall, "with the greatest pleasure, submit to any question that any Senator has to ask; but 1 can not present, especially when it comes lo a matter of figures, anything like a contimiity of argument if I have to enter into a colloquy as to each one of the items as I go along. Mr. NELSO3ST. I wished simply to make one suggestion to the Senator from Georgia that woxiid tend to make his figures more accurate and correct. Mr. BACON. I think t-lie Senator can correct me when I get through, or before I got through, if he will wait until 1 have pre sented the main body of what 1 have to say. Now, I take the State of Missouri, a State several timos as largo in all particulars as Ctilia. The entire expenditure of the State of Missouri for a year, including the public debt and everything elsB except the expenditures for educational purposes, is $1,707,637; and, after crediting what the Senator from. Iowa J Mr. ATJ..TSONJ suggests and the items which I have also suggested as proper for deduction, we have for the great State of Missouri an expenditure of 81,707,037 against 11,000,000 or 12,000,000 for the Government of Cub ft. Massachusetts, with a total expenditure of over SO.OOO^OOOj ex 
nd 
_____ __ ___.,,___ __.. aga _. . _ . Indiana, with a total expenditure of 5,589,000, spends over 
$2,30 1.000 for education and over $300,000 for educational institu tions, leaving less than 83,000,000 as the expenditure of Indiana against over 815,000,000 for Cuba. 
Mr. President, I have the figures for a number of States here, which I will simply insert without detailed comment. They are 
Ia-ns-dfj-o!'!l--lo--w--s-:-- -.in 
Of this, i'o: 
Ordinary support of State, including public 
Mississippi, total expenditures ___.,___..__._.._.,,-,,.,,--_----- i>90, M5. <16 0this,for education-.........---. -----...-- -- --- -- -----__W5ll, 4^38 
Ordinary support of State,including public debt"..---------__749,280.94 
4104 
 
 jctieut. tot.il oxpeiiflitttri 
Ordinary support of State, including public debt _-._,,,_,,_ _ SOQ^fUjB Texas, total expenditures.. ....,......................,...........,' ~2>7ii, OaiToiJ 
From \vhicli is to be cieduotefl expenditure for pu"blio debt. Kcntuc-lrv, total c-Tinciiditurehs.,-..--.--.--.--. ..-.. ^,..,.^......... 4.411. OR2. 07 Of this, foi- education. ,..,..,...^..... ....^....,........... ,.....-. 1,C7J.',,()B3. ftS 
Orcliii. 
pporfc of State, including public debt ._--_..,., 2, SHl, 85:i. 1-i 
O-i-diiifu-y support of St.-tte, luclu tiling rm1>m; debt -,......,, 1,422,1'jy, JS Sir. NELSON". Mr. President, do I understand the Senator front G-eorsia is open lo inquiry or Hug-g-estion now at this stag'e oi' his remarks? Mr. BACON". If there is anything which the Senator can not postpone until I have presented my remarks, I will yield: but I will gJve tlie Senator Uie figures in bis own Staro if lie wants Uicin, as I have them here, and ho can look at them and sec whether tlifiy arc correct or not. ilr. SPOONBR-. Will the Senator allow me tonrfthini a simple oticstioii? I\rr. BACON. Yes. Mr. SPOON EH. Does the Senator include in his figures irmincipal expenditures? Mr. RACOZM. I hare expressly clodnctcd them from tlic amount oS; expenditures iii Cuba, at the suggestion of the Senator from lo~wa. Air. SPf )ONER. Doee tlie Senator mean that he has ascertained the municipal expenditures of the Stiite of Georgia in order to decVact tlioin? Mr. B AOO>T. I Tiiean to say tho mmiic-ipal expenditures are not included in any statement as to the States. I mean to say, how ever ---- Mr. SPOONER. The Senator said lie had deducted them. Has he afcertained^thein? Mr. BACO1ST. If the Senator will pardon me. I have deducted them from the total expenditures in Cuba; in other words, the amount expended for municipal government is stated, and I have deducted that from the Cuban expenses, so in the comparison made they are not included in the State expenses, neither are they included in the Cuban expenses. Sir- SPOOK EK. But in the Cuban expenses they are included. Mr. BACON. No; in the calculation 1 deduce from the total oJ: Cuban expenses the amount stated as that expended 011 munici palities. In other words, therearo 814,000,000 of expenses in Cuba alto^vther, and there are y \,2i'V, H)ii. 05 for municipalities. In stat ing what amount lias been expended in Cuba, I am deducting the 
 
 9 
amount expended for municipalities in order to make t)ie com parison. Does tlie Senator Tiiiderstand? 
Mr, SPOONER. 1 did not understand at first the Senator's Statement. 
Mr, BACON. That is certainly fair. Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. I will ask the Senator from Georgia to yield to me for a moment, if it is not disagreeable to hint. Mr, BACON. It is not disagreeable to me, but I should like to present this case, and then I will yield to the Senator with, a great deal of pleasure. It is very evident that if I go on, and Senators take up each proposition I am to argue, a-a I proceed, I can not make anything1 like a continuous presentation of my argument or make an"intcllijfent presentation of the matter. Mr. SPOONER. i beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I beg the Senator's pardon also, "but the Senator is so far wrong in his figures------ Mr. BACON, The Senator will have ample opportunity to show wherein I am wrong' if he can do so, and 1 hope Senators \vill not think rnc discourteous in the matter. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Not at all. Mr. BACON. I do not ordinarily object to interruptions, but I do wisH to present this matter with, soino degree of continuity, and I shall certainly not endeavor to shirk giving Senators an opportunity to make any incjuiries they wish me to answer. Mr. President, the suggestions of Senators a to ray "being wron=>; in my figures, in. view of what has been said by them, doubtless have reference to certain items of expenditure whio.li are not in cluded in the statements of State expenditures, although there are such expenses borne by the people in the State. For instance, municipal expenses and county expenses do not appear in a state ment of State expenditures. But this criticism will not avail, because if we deducted 50 per cent from the Cuban expenditures 
put out oi: the calculation in making the comparison between the amounts expended in Cuba and the amounts expended in either of the States. 
And even if thus reduced to 8~,000,000 the Cuban expenditure would be several times relatively as great as the expenditure of any State in the Union. But while this deduction of 30 per cent is thus suggested for the sake of the argument, no one can for a moment believe that that percentage, or anything approximating it, should be allowed in the estimate. This can. never be accu rately ascertained except by a thorough investigation. The as certained fact stands that for tho government of Cuba, with a population of little over a million, there has been expended in tho year 1899 over 14,000,000. 
Mr. President, to repeat, I say that these large expenditures, so largely disproportioned \tnder the most favorable comparison to the"expenditures in any State of this Union, even if there were no rumors of any impropriety, or of any extravagance, or of any cor ruption, won id call trumpet-tongucd upon the Congress, under the circumstances and under the obligation which rests upon us, to make a thorough and searching examination to see whether or not this large amount of money has been properly expended. 
But, Mr. President, we are not left to that suggestion. We have liad all soi-is of rumors and tlio most starring statements from people who have boon in Cuba; we have had. all sorts oi: 
 
 10 
allegations in the press; and finally we have had admitted mis appropriations of the money which has been collected from the people of Cuba. 
In the first- place, out of a purely accidental colloquy, which took place in the Senate between the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FOKAKKH] arid myself, and tinder the suggestion of tlie Senator from New Hampshire ("Mr. CIIANPLEKJ--he has declined to allow it to be called '' a challenge "--I introduced a resolution a month, ago calling upon the Secretary of War to be informed as to several things with reference to expenditures in Cuba, calling upon him to say, first, whether or not any money lias "been paid to any mili tary officer of the United. States out of' that fund over and'above the amounts which were allowed by law to them as salaries. The Secretary of War replied, and stated the fact that there had been such expenditures. No\v, without reading at length. I simply read the i:n closure which the Secretary of War sent to the Senate. 
Mr. FORAKER. What is the document? Mr. BACON. I am reading from tho reply of tho Secretary of War to that particular inquiry. It is found in Document No. 316. Tlie Secretary of War in transmitting his report includes this letter from the assistant adjutant-general at Habana, elated Jaiitiary 29, 1900, and addressed to the Adjutant-General of the A.riny at Washington. It is as follows: Si. 
Tho 
WaaKinytu-n^D, C. 
And in a footnote it is shown that in the case of the military governor of Cuba it should be March 1, instead of January l,and in the case of the military governor of Habana it should be April 19, instead of January 1. 
Mr. President, tho Secretary of War in transmitting that says that these amounts were allowed as to the first throe named offi cers by Secretary Alg-er on the 1st day of March, 1899. i will read the order of tlie Secretary of War: 
WAR DB.r-AuTM.KXT, ^Vnshhiglon, March 1, 1SOO. Whereas the commanding generals of the division of Cuba and the Depart- 
military duties, civil 1'rmctions in ooimection with' the a dm in is t ration of the 
tor a'f 'the islaiid of Cute, 
 
 11 
B. A. ALGER, Secretary of 'Wo.r. The nest one, as reported "by the present Secretary of "War, "was issued "by the Assistant Secretary of War April 19, 1S9U, and. is as f ollows: 
, /Sewelary of War. Then-there is another one, giving- to tho treasurer ol' CubiiSi.SOO per annum, also signed "by Assistant Secretary Meiklsjolin, elated May 9, 1S09. jVIr. President, at the time those orders were issued tins was the law. Section 12(51) of the Revised Statutes, which is in tlio chap ter irpoii the svtlrject of the comp on Ration, of Army officers, alter stating in detail what each officer shall receive as his compensa tion, says: 
Then thereinafter immediately following1 are the allowances and conlirmtatioiis for officers of different rank, stating how many horses thoy shall keep and what quarters they shall be allowed, etc. 
So, Mr. President, these orders were directly in connlct with the law, unless they wore paid for something-else besides mi-iitary services--unless they had some other office. It is impossible that they conld. have. N ever mind what functions they were discharg ing, they conld hold no civil office. They certainly could hold 110 civil office in this country and under this Government, because section 12&3 expressly provides: 
Can it be said that while an officer of the Army under that sec tion could not hold a civil office in the "United States, lie could hold a civil office elsewhere? Manifestly not. It is an utter im possibility that an Army officer of the United States should hold any office except under the authority of the G-overnmeiit of the United States, and every public function which he discharges under the authority of the Government while he is a military offi cer, is necessarily a function which, he discharges by virtue of the fact that he holds that military ofiico. 
I am not going to discuss the question as to whether or not these officers ought to have had any more money, whether it was proper that they should have more money, further than to say that it is a known fact that some of tho officers who were put in these posi tions had their ranks raised when they were sent to Cuba, in order that they might have largely increased compensation. One <of them -was promoted from lieutenant-colonel to major-general--a major-general with a salary of 7,500, from lieutenant-colonel at 3,000. The question is not whether these officers shotild have 1: ad 
 
 12 
increased compensation. However that may "be. this is a Govern ment of law, and no officer of the Gfoveriiment has a right to violate the law, I do riot care how high an officer lio may be. The liigher the officer the greater the obligation upon Mm to observe law, and the greater the transgression when he violates law. 
Mr, President, we owe allegiance in this country to nothing- tn.it law. We Jo not: swoar allegiance to any crowned head. Wo do not oven swear allegiance to the Government, bnt we swear alle giance--every officer, high or low. Federal and State--to law, and it is put Into the fundamental ]aw that whoever takes the com mission of the Government in any capacity, high or low, shall swoar allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, tho highest of law--the prototype, the beginning, and tho conclusion of all law in this country. 
Mr. President, when the Secretary of War granted these orders those two statutes stood upon the statute book. There had been a precedent in a somewhat similar case, a precedent with which it seems the War Department was familiar, because the legisla tion which constitutes that precedent is cited by the Secretary of War in his report. It seems that during the Mexican war some of the military officers of the United .States Government were called upon to discharge cor tain duties in the collection of customs at certain ports of Mexico: and thereupon, in order to meet a sim ilar state ofc' affairs, Congress was called upon and passed an act to permit trie officers of the United States Government to receive certain additional compensation; and the law which was passed is cited in this document, No. 316, sent to us by the present Secre tary of War, who, it is proper to state, was not the Secretary of "War at the time these varioYis orders were issued. [Section '2 of an act to provides for the settlement of tho accounts of public 
iso'iii Mexico. (Approved Mtircli 3, ltr9. Stsit. L-, 
e<l to r sideut 
vici 
Mr. President, reading that statute altog-ether the discretion al lowed to the President of the United States was_ to assimilate the amount which should be allowed to an officer, including his pay, to the amount which was allowed to an officer in the United States performing similar service here in the collection of revenue. Two things must he called to the attention of the Senate in connection with this legislation. In the first place, when it was deemed proper that military officers should receive other compensation, Congress was appealed to to grant the authority, _and no executive officer undertook himself: to exercise that authority. 
In the second place, and more particularly at that time, there was :;o law upon the statute book which prohibited an Army officer from receiving additional pay or additional compensation, other than that provided by law for him as such Army officer. 
When those amounts were allowed by the Secretary of War to 
 
 13 
these four military officers in Cuba, there was upon tlie statute book a positive prohibition that lie should not do it, and in addi tion to that. Congress was in session the day when ho issued the first order. 
Mr, HALE. Does the Senator refer to any special act that ap plies to Army officers;1 . Mr. BACON1 . JYes. 
Mr, HALE. Beyond the general provision and the unvaried custom, so far as I know, that no officer of the G-overnnieiit, no official, shall ever receive any pay aside from his regular salary. Does the Senator refer to a special statute? , Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; I do. 
Mr. ALDRICH. He has read it. Mr. HATjE. I was not present. Mr. BACON. I refer to a special statute in cases of Army officers. Mr. HALE. Referring1 to Army officers specifically? Mr. BACON. Specifically. Mr. HALE. Aside from the general statute which has always been applied to all officers of tlie G-overnment, upon whatever duty they may "bo concerned, that tliey shall never receive any pay, aside from expenses, beyond their regular salary? : Mr. BACON. I referred to and have read to tho Senate the sec tion of the Revised Statutes which expressly prohibits an Army officer from receiving any pay on any account whatsoever except that which is allowed to him in the very chapter where that sec tion is found. Mr. SPOONEB. Mr. President------ The PRESIDING- OFFICER (Mr. WELLINGTON in the chair). Does the Senator from Georgia vield to tlie Senator from Wis consin? Mr. BACON. "With pleasure. Mr. S-POONEU. Ii' the Senator will allow me, I wish to say my interruption is caused by Ms proposition that the act of Congress to which he refers is evidence that the expenditure could not be made by the Executive and could only be made by Congress. Mr. BACON. I did not------ Mr. SPOONER. I mean the Mexican case. Mr. BACON. I went on to say there was no law against it. Mr. SPOONEB. That was another branch of the Senator's ob servation. I wish to call his attention------ Mr. BACON. I hope tlie Senator will take occasion to do that a littJe later. Mr. SPOONER. I wish to call the attention of the Senator to the fact, if he will permit me. that the money that "was appropri ated by Congress for that purpose was money of the United States, which manifestly could not be appropriated by the Executive. Contributions collected in Mexico were just as much, the property of the Government of the United States as cannon captared in Mexico or mules captured in Mexico. Mr. BACON". I am not going to discuss that refinement. Mi-. SPOONEB. It is not a refinement. Mr. BACON. "WeB, the proposition then. lam not going to stop to discuss that. I say that at that time, when Army officers were collecting revenue in an enemy's country during a time of war, in wliieli tlie President did have the power, in that extreme case the Execiitive declined to takathe power and. ashed Congress to pass upon the question as to what they should have, And as the Senator from Kansas [Mr. HARRIS] suggests to me, does the 
 
 14 
 
Senator from Wisconsin--I will not put it interrogatively, "because that would be an invitation to him to interrupt me, and I wish to proceed without interrtiption, if possible; but I will put it in that way ii: he will answer ic later--does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that we can dispose of money in Cuba that does not "belong to tis with a freer hand tlian money collected in time of "war which, as the Senator from Wisconsin says, did belong to ns? 
Mr. SPOON I5R. Docs the Senator want an answer? Mr. BACON. Not now. I will take the Senator's answer later. Mr. SPOON1LR. I will endeavor to give it. Mr. BACON. Knowing- the Senator's ability, I doubt not bn that he will make a very ingenious answer. But here is the propo sition of the Senator: The money collected at the port of Tampico, or whichever Mexican port it was, during the timp of war was, as the Senator says, monov oi' the United States. If so, the- disposi tion of it made "by tlie people of tho "United States, or hy the Pres ident of the United. States as their representative, must necessarily stand ripoii n very different footing- from the disposition of money collected in Cuba, not one dollar of winch belongs to the people of the United. States or to tho Government- oi: the United States. -Before I get through I shall have further to say upon the question as to the power of the President in the case oi: the Mexican war, when he, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, was exercising the \var power, and in the present 
 
power of war. 1 will not stop lor that novr, but I will a little further on. 
Mr. President, I said the law was obligatory upon civil officers of; t!ie Government as well as upon the lowest citizen, and that the infraction of law by an officer of the Government was grave in proportion to the magnitude of tho office which he held; that because a- man is holding a high ofiicG is no reason \vhy lie shall be allowed to disregard law. 
I wili read something' which was said recently in the Senate upon tbat subject, f. read an extract from a speech delivered in the Senate "by the junior Senator from Wisconsin. [Mr, Q'OARLES] a i'e~\y days ago on another subject, in relation to the matter of the disregard and in fraction of law by high officials. Said th junior Senator from Wisconsin in the- Senate on tho 23d of April of this year, when discussing another question: 
 
Constitutions ,ire made to be obeyed "by sovenaors as well as by other men. 
 
clue' 
 
The 
 
lain 
 
Those aro the word;5 of a distinguished Republican Senator, and applying the principle so strongly stated, I say that upon the day when the Secretary of "War issued the order allowing this extrava gant extra pay to Army officers in Cuba--to a part of them, not to all of them; a. favored. J"ew--there stood upon the statute hook the command tbat he should not do so; and if there was a. necessity and a propriety that there should be this increased pay, Congress 
 
 of law. IvZr. President, how is it that at was recognised a,s proper in tlie 
case of four officers to grant the enormous increase of pay and not in the ease of others? How was it that General Wilson, com manding an independent department, and a gentleman, as every body here knows, well (jtialifkKl to occupy a position of dignity ~ " "1 to dispense its honors and its requirements, was not given an 
to such. Additional salary and allowances; but if one -was entitled, then til] of them were entitled to such, additional compensation. 
What is there in the office of commanding officer in Cuba that requires that he should exercise functions of greater dignity than an officer commanding an army in the field? Whore is the law wliicli authorises the? payment of. an additional salary and al lowances to this officer, which added to his regular pay gave him a compensation greater than that paid to any other officer, civil or military, in the Unite dStates, the President of the United States alone excepted? 'What obligation was there upon this Government to put him in a position of vice-regal state and splendor? What obligation was tliero upon this Q-overrmient that everyone who claimed to have any personal importance in Cuba should "be tlie guest of this officer? 
is there any other officer, civil or military, of the United States, either at homo or in the service of the Qov eminent at foreign courts, -who could, be, "by Executive order, allowed additional com pensation because the salary given him by law 'is not sufficient to enable him to maintain his state and keep up the dignity of his office in the personal entertainment of those who might expect such attentions? 
A month ago, wlien we had this subject under consideration, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PL ATT J ridiculed the idea that we would inquire into how much furniture and now many serv ants Jtn officer had furnislied him at the public expense. lam sure the Senator will noi} also ridicule tlie fact as disclosed tiiat one of the officials In Cuba has been using the Cuban funds with which to buy his personal apparel. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. To do what? Mr. BACON. To bny personal apparel. I will say something about that a little later. I am dwellingupon this branch of it too long. I am simply illustrating the necessity that we shall make a thorough investigation of receipts and expenditures, and I illus trate the necessity by the fact that there have been these illegal expenditures, and"the reason to believe that there have been innu merable misappropriations of which we have not yet even heard the suggestion. But, Mr. President, at the same time that i bat resolution was passed by tlie Senate calling- for certain in formation from the Sec retary oi; War. antl to which he responded, there was another resolution. It has been publicly stated in Washington, it is ru mored everywhere, it is published, in thepress.it is charged on the streets, that in Cuba there has been the'most extravagant ex- 
4484 
 
 16' 
 
pencil ture of the Cuban funds for the purpose of providing1 officers with the most extravagant and In.xuri.otis quarters, providing them with servants, providing them with carriages, providing1 them with horses, and providing the servants liveries, and all out; of the Cuban money, amounting- to hundreds of thousands of dol lars. That second resolution called for a report relative to those charges. 
A month agx> that resolution of inquiry was seat to the Secre tary of War, and there has been no response to it. I am not criti cising' him for lack of response. I presume that he is, in pursuance of his duty, endeavoring to get the information. I only allude' to 
 
at . .__ __.n.parcd to the millions of dollars charged to have "been 
misappropriated on other accounts. When these are charged -- the misappropriation of a trust fund, which we arc botmcl in. the highest honor to see a proper appropriation oir -- it is our clutv by a most thorough and searching1 investigation to ascertain whether the charges are true or whether the money has "been properly expended. 
.But, Mr. President, wo are not confined to charges or rumors. 
 
for 
 
. 
 
tlie admitted fact--one to bring the blush of shame to the cheek 
 
of every American -- that civil officers in Cuba, trusted by this Gov 
 
ernment in tlio discharge of bigli public duties, have embezzled 
 
large amounts of the money which belonged to the people of Cuba 
 
Piid \vhich have been collected from them, by tho agencies of tlio 
 
United States. 
 
Mr. President, nobody knows how much those amounts are 
 
which have thus been disgracefully embezzled. It \yas first said 
 
that there was about thirty-odd thousand dollars which had been 
 
stolen; then it was said, 75,000. and now it is given Out that it 
 
may be '100,000. It was first given out tlia,t it was one man who 
 
v/as guilty; it has since beoii announced Hint there are several; 
 
and it is now further stated that there iy a ramification of the 
 
thieving conspiracy which will include a great many men, all of 
 
Hi em the officers and agents of the United States, men who had 
 
not only been intrusted with the collection and. disbursement of 
 
Ciibaii money, but who had. been selected and sent there to illus 
 
trate to Cubans the purity and honesty of our public service. 
 
Mr. President, nothing more strongly illustrates one point which 
 
I suggested in the early part of my remarks as to the character of 
 
the power which we have intrusted to the officials in Cuba than 
 
the powers tiiat \vere given to ono man placed in charge oi: the 
 
postal department, under whom there has been this very disgrace 
 
ful and mortifying theft of the funds of the people of. Cuba. I will 
 
read a statement, which by examination I have found to be cor 
 
rect, showing the powers that the director of posts was, by mili 
 
tary order, given in Cuba. 
 
I-Iere in the United States we have all the checks and balances of 
 
lav/. Here we have tlie expedients, all tliat can be possibly devised 
 
from experience and the most careful .judgment, to protect the 
 
public against the misappropriation of money, with no power 
 
given to one man but what there u:- somebody else to check him. 
 
And. yet when we took possession of tho postal department of 
 
Cuba, having, as we did, the fnil knowledge of tlie perfect system 
 
we thought necessary at home, when we put Mr. Eathbone in 
 
 17 
control or permitted it to "be done, here were the powers winch were given to him------ - Mr. FORAKER.. From what is the Senator about to read? 
Mr. BACON. I will state to the Senator that I am about to read an'extract from the Washington Post; but 1 \viil state farther that I have here, which is at the Senator's command, if ho desires it, the order issued from Army headquarters, division of Cuba, which specifies the powers of those who are hi control of the postal department in. Cuba. 
Mr. FOBAKEB. What is the number of the order? Mr. BACON. Here it is. I sny that so far as I have been able to judge in the examination., this is a succinct statement of the powers which are authorised in that order. I hand tho Senator the oriifinj.il. This is the statement as published in the form of a narrative in the Washington Post, giving in. the course of it a. statement of these powers conferred on. tlie director of posts. It says: _.-_'. K.Ttbbono ai'j'ivecl in HabanJi in I>cce tipn, witli_lrib wii'e ami stepson. He hai t 
L^inai-Itt^I 1^!^^ 
Unban postal code had b3on prepared fnidl promulgated. It invested the director-yencral with imtliority supreme. 
Now, this is the part which !". say i s borne out by the order which the Senator from Ohio Holds iu his liant'l: 
His power was complete. He could appoint iiufl remove postmasters, fix 
The narrative then, proceeds as follows: 
 
 18 
iths apro. The 
ef, to by tho iiiTflitoi-. n,pm-ovp<:l by the militni-v iiuthoi-itics, aurl paid. The ainoimt involved -was 33,1)1)0, and it is said tins goods wore pnrcha.sod in Philadelphia. 
Of course, we all know that tliia Mr, Kecly is tlie man who lias 30 shocked this country, ami, as 1 say, brought a blush of shame to the face of every man regardless of party. His special promi nence is due to the fact that lie is the first of the embezzlers -whose theft was discovered------ 
Mr. HALE. Mr. President------ The PRESIDING OFFICKR. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Maine? Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. HALE. Will the Senator read a^ain that what I may call the charter of; power that was ^iveii to Major Rathboiie? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; it says: Mr. HALE. Not that, but------ Mr. BACON. I am. corning rig-lit to it; I am reading' it in its connection. Mr. HALTS. All right. Mr. BACON (reading) -- the dircctor-g-oiieral--  ^^ ^ plepaTO anc loml~l 3 
 
 19 
trusted t 
Mr. HALE. What I wanted to say here is that this is a re markable manifestation of what follows when seeking to teach alien people self-government. That is a charter of power that is as great as was ever given to a Roman pro-consul. There is noth ing like it in this Government. There is nothing like it in the United ISlrates. It is .-in absolute, mirestrained, unlimited power. And all of us ought to have known before tbis_fcime that there will never happen an instance where such unbridled1 authority is given to a single man that there will not be abuses nnder it. It is a..d.e,p_a.r.tt.u.-_e'f_'ro_m..o._ur whole sy., ste. m of ,,governing^ ^pesople. Iif! you go on in this way, Mr. President, and that is the fashion of teach ing the people of Cuba self-government, when, you commit it to one man you will never be rid of Cu-ba. 
Now, I know Major Rathbone. I have known him for years. All my impressions about him are favorable. I know him to be ail efficient man. I have always believed him to be an honest man. But 110 man can take siicli a limitless authority among- such a peo ple as the Cubans without finding that it is abused by his subordi nates, abused by the men tinder him, and in the end he will suffer,, It is incident to the situation, Mr. President. 
Mr, FORAKER, I am not going to interrupt the Senator at all, but I ask that the document to which the Senator has referred ma_y he printed, as a Senate document. It is General Order No. 13 o. It is a very important document, I think, rather formidable in its provisions; but I should like to have it printed. 
Mr. BACON. I would bo very glad, Mr. President.  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Ohio? 
Mr. SPOONER. It is to be printed as a Senate document-? Mr. FORAK ER. Yes; as a Senate document. It is here printed in both the English and Spanish languages. Let it be printed only in English. Mr. ALLISON. What is the document? Mr, FORAKER. It is an order issued by the commanding officer in. the division of Cuba appointing- the director of posts and defining his powers and legislating at very great length as to what shall constitute crimes and offenses and what the punish ment shall be. Some sixty or seventy crimes are defined and punishment provided for the commission oL' those offenses. I think it Js better to have the document printed than to have what is in the newspapers. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection, the re quest of the Senator from Ohio will bo granted. Mr. BACON. I am not only willing that the doonment shall be printed, but T should be delighted if the Senator wordtl ask that it be inserted in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. It is the most remarkable exhibition of absolute power that can be found, anywhere in the histoz-y of this Government. 5Ii\ President, in the former part of my remarks I was speaking of amounts. When I was speaking of the amount which has been expended in Cuba. I read the report of the Secretary of War show ing that in the year 1800 there had been collected over g!G,000,000 " that there had been speennt over $U,0"00..00.0. I then omitted an additional statement. I now recur to that branch to say that 
 
 20 
I have seen somewhere another statement of the collections and expenditures in this year. I ought to be able to speak of It move specifically, but jnst now I can not. However, I saw in some official statement, or some semiofficial one, tliat \\p to the 80til day of April of this your the total amount------ 
Mr. PL,ATT of Connecticut. It is in Secretary Roofs reply. 
Mr. BACON. Tbe Senator from Connecticut kindly tells me it is in Secretary Boot's reply. The statement is that'up to the SOtli of April the amount collected has been over 50,000.000, ineluding last year, 1899, and 1900 up to the 80th. of April. This statement was that the amount collected in Cuba from the people of Cuba lifis been over 820,000,000, and the amount expended dur ing that time has "been over $19,000,000. 
Mr. PLAT:!1 of Connecticut. About twenty-two million. Mr. BACON. I know it was stated that nineteen million had been expended. Mr. SPOOLER. If the Senator will allow me, I will give the figures ironi tlie Secretary's report. JNir. BACON. I am very much obliged to the Senator. Mr. SPGONER. Tho amount collected is stated to have been 521,020.573.70, and the expenditures 819,260,512.21. Mr. BACON. It had escapee! my memory where it was exactly. I am obliged to both Senators for giving me tlio accurate infor mation. Now, JVIr. President, to return from the diversion, it is going- to be contended here, I imagine from certain intimations I have had from Senators of the dominant party, that this investigation ought not to be undertaken by Congress, but that it ong'ht to be left to the EsecYitive Departments. I shall have something more to say about that subject; bat I wish to say in passing here that with the statement just made, which I have no doubt is true, as to the large number of men charged with the duty of investigat ing in Cuba and seeing that the postal department \vas properly managed tliere, and with their utter failure to comply with their duty, in the presence of this immense embezzlement of funds, the proper authority to investigate is not the same body of men amougwhom these frauds have been committed, and among others of them who, while themselves innocent, and who, while they have no connection with the frauds, will, by reason of their most un fortunate association officially with, those w>io are guilty, have of necessity to bo incliided in the scope of the investigation. Another reason demanding Congressional investigation is this: An expert accountant o;m, in tho examination of books, trap the thief who lias embezzled the money with which he has been in trusted. But only through the searching examination of witnesses and the personal examination of the locality and of the public works which Lave been constructed can there be detected the plun der of millions of dollars through, jobs given to favorites and through dishonest contracts and dishonest work under contracts. If there have been such jobs and dishonest contracts and dishon est -work "under contracts as are charged, they have escaped the knowledge of tlie departments in Cuba, under which the work has been done. This investigation, in order to be effective and of value, must necessarily be most thorough, and exhaustive. We havo "brought this necessity upon ourselves by permitting this absolute government, a practical dictatorship, to be sat up under our authority. I have another statement here as to the amount of stamps un accounted for, and as to which, there may be a defalcation of 
 
 21 
iited to $11,:>70, but 
I wish to read further about this ?>!r. N"eely in connection with his service there, because, Mr. President, all this illustrates what is the direct result of the system of government which we have permitted to exist in Cuba for two years, and it illustrates, if we are to discharge the obligation which we have of seeing to it that all the money raised in Cnba goes to the people of Cn.b;i. the neces sity that some other department of the Grovermneiit shall under take the investigation and that it shall not be left to the adminis trative department. 
I am reading still from the narrative in the Washington Post, and of course, in reading it, I necessarily assume the position of giving it credence and raying that I believe it to be true. I am bringing- to the attention of the Fenate facts from repntable sources which call for investigation to see whether or not they are 
Mr. President, before I got through I want to have something to .say about the matter of the contracts under which there has been tliis vast expenditure of the money collected by taxes from the people of Cuba. Here is one thing- to be investigated, charged by a reputable witness---the contract with Mr. N"eely for the mak ing of brick and for the paving of miles of streets in Habaua. 
Tliis contract, signed. Is now in existence. 
Mr. President, how could the contract be signed, how could it be made, except that those who I understand Senators will insist here should be intrusted with this investigation were cognizant of it and parties to it? 
-}y expected to manufacture brick at 4 a thousand: lie was to get 10 a about "it!" "The" 
4461 
 
 rmncnt lias seized most of Xcely>, property lioldiiigs and will (Ior.-:tooi3 give up tl:c iHO/JOO ctisli hail -two 31U.GOO gold c:oj-t.iaciitc-s --wJiioli Tie IK]mits are liis oivii. ti-nnsievred from Muneie to jSTeiv York. H"ere 5s a roKuni.6, as it were, of the history of this very unfortu nate and disgraceful occurrence: 
 
stated tli. 
 
nd to 
 
Post- 
 
iwereu: 
 
;^ 
 
cd, ail- 
 
'A yrcat m Fiiiy stories lio.ve T-jcen publisfietl in rtifrard to that matter thafc 
 
I\!T. President, there is no man who has any regard for the 
 
  24 
There are rumors, Mt'. President, as to people being interested in contracts down Uiero who ought not to have had any part in those contracts. They may not be true; I trust they are not true. But the question is, Shall we investigate those charges, whicli are everywhere, or shall wo shut the door to investigation? 
Mr. President, it is alleged that there is a railroad built down there out of this money. The proper thing to do is not simply to receive -A statement of facts that a -million dollars have "been used in the construction of a railroad. I am using that amount simply for illustration, not knowing what was tlio, cost, although it- is rumored that the cost was enormous. It is a very simple matter for those accountable to say this railroad was built, and. here are the men to whom we paid the money, arid liero are the vouchers. 
Wo want to know why a railroad was "built out of this money; we want to know who built it, and if it was "built "by contract, who were the contractors; if it was built by clay .labor, who superintended it; what officers were paid to take charge of this matter; Iiow much were they paid, and where are the expense accounts and the property foil5s? And also is it true, as charged, that hun dreds of thousands of dollars have been spent in the renovation of buildings, to be occupied by our officers, and not only in their renovation, but in their decoration arid luxurious furnishings? If so, at whose expense was it done; for what purpose; for whose benefit; under v,That necessity; who did it; how much did it cost, and what was the proper cost? If done by contract, who were the contractors? If material, was bought, from whom and for how muck? There is a statement also of an expensive wharf built down there, and there are charges of jobbery in it. There arc. charges that the wharf was not needed and has never been used, but that it was undertaken and built to give fat jobs to favored parties. Are we going to shut the door to investigation and not see whether they arc true or not? If true, that ought to bo known; it' mitroe, still more, that ought to "be Imowii. There are doubt less many officers, civil and military, in Cuba who have had no agency or connection with any wrongdoing. An investigation is necessary to absolve them as well as to identify those who have failed in their duty. 
Mr. President. I understand from intimations which have been made to me by Senators that those who are charged in the Senate with attention to such matters as relate to Cuba,"a_t least the domi nant portion of that committee, do not desire this investigation. I am. told--I learn in private conversation, and I suppose there is no impropriety in my mentioning it by way of anticipation---that the purpose is to make a reference to this matter to a committee, ^.pr to the committee, with a view to its modification or possibly to its rejection. I understand from statements made to me by Sen ators that they are rather startled at the magnitude of the work. Some Senators have said to me that it would take all the balance of the year to make this investigation. Well, Mr. President, that is no argument against the propriety of the investigation; that is no argument against the imperative duly of making the investi gation. 
If there ever was an obligation, resting upon a government to make an investigation, and upon the legislative department of the government to make an investigation, it rests upon this Cxovernjnerifc and upon the legislative department of this (J-overnrncnt. 
If Senators of the dominant party 011 that committee do not wish to undergo the labor of that investigation, there are other Senators who are willing to undertake it. If they are not willing 
4-lGi 
 
 to undertake the work, I pledge tlio Senate that there are Senators here who, if intrusted with it, will undertake it and prosecute it faithfully, laboriously, untiringly, until all the truth lias been brought to light. Let Senators, if they will, put us to tliQ test. 
An investigation, according to the law of parliamentary pro cedure, ought to be put in the hands of those who are in favor o the investigation. That is a fundamental rule, but of course party interests and party requirements vary generally and almost universally result in the violation of that parliamentary rule. I do not speak of it as a violation of duty: I mean simply what I say, that it is a violation of the rule of jthe law of parliamentary pro cedure; and public duty, although 1 am unable to conceive it, may be in some cases in accordance with that violation. 
I do not discuss further that part of the question, but. to give it the strongest emphasis, I repeat, Mr, President, if Senators who are upon that committee are unwilling to undergo this labor, they ought not to shut off the inquiry on that account, because there are Senators who are willing to undergo it, Senators who, regard less oE personal inconvenience and at the sacrifice of their per sonal ease und pleasure, will make an exhaustive investigation, so that at its conclusion there will be nothing hidden, nothing covered up. 
A.re Senators afraid that tlio investigation will result in any thing else than tlio ascertainment of the truth? It must be held with open doors, or at least it certainly ought to be; the witnesses must be on oath, all parties at interest will have opportunity to be heard, and I ask Senators, if they are themselves unwilling to undergo this labor, to let Senators in this Chamber, "who are will ing to do it, undertake it. 
Mr. President, I \vant to call attention to orte fact before mass ing away from the contention that the conditions demand Con gressional investigation. "When the question was before the 
debate on the 21st day of April of this year, made this statement: iiig, and tliere found that they had received yesterday," or possibly this 
Mr. President, that statement was mn.de in the Senate by the Sen ator from Montana 011 the 21st day of April, and this is the 16th day of May, and the books which he fclieii .said were in the 'War Department, and which were to give the information which was then being sought, have never yet been sent to the Senate; or, if they have been, I have no information to that eli'ect. 
If there has been, any response to that, I have not had informa tion as to the fact. 
As I said, Mr. President, there is another phase of this question which I think is of a more serious character than any I have vet suggested: and that is that in my opinion--and I speak of it in the ihost moderate language--it is a matter of extreme doubt whether there is any warrant of law to-day for the presence of otir Army and our officers in Cuba, and whether there is any warrant of law 
 
 26 
 
why we should continue to collect any money from the people of Cuba \>y taxation. 
By what authority are we in Cuba? We are certainly not there unless thpre is authority of law enacted by tlio Congress of the United States. Unless there is authority of law we have no right in Cuba, and the question of that rig-lit "must be measured by the law as it lias "been pronounced by Congress. There is no doubt that our original occupation of Cuba was by the authority pi' act of: Congress. 13ut the question is, Has our remaining there in the exercise of absolute governmental control until the present.hour been in pursuance of any act of Congress? 
By what authority arc we there? Arc wo there in the exercise of any war power? Certainly not. There can bo no exercise of war power when there is no war and where- we arc not occupying' conquered territory. Are we there in possession of conquered territory? Certainly not. Cuba has never been recognized or claimed by us as c oil quo reel territory. We are there. Mr. Presi dent, under the terms of the avowal by Congress of "its purpose in invading Cuba, and under tlie result of negotiations with Spain as expressed in tho protocol and iti the treaty of pen en, in exact furtherance ami pursuance of the announcement oH the purposes of that invasion. 
There is but one expression, Mr. President, evor uttered "by Con gress which designates the purpose 1'or which we invaded Cuba, which, designates the function which we intended to perform when we got there, and -which designates what shall "bo our tenure and when it shall be terminated, and that is the declaration of war. There has never been a, line or a letter in the way of legislation "by Congress with refereac3 to our presence in Cuba, with refer ence to our powers there, and with reference to what our tenure shall be, and when it shall be endcj d, except the declaration of war,, 
Wo expressly disavowed that we went to war for the purpose of exercising any power over Cuba- as a conquered country: we ex pressly disavowed any intention to acquire it. On tlie contrary, we pled ged ourselves to the world that wlien \ve liad released that island from the power of Spain we would do but one other thing, and that one other thing was that we would pacify the island. We did not say we were going there to develop ifc; we did not say we were goiny there to educate it. "We said we were going there for tlie sole purpose of liberating it- and of pacifying it. Here is the expression winch is found in the declaration of war against Spain for the liberation of Cuba: 
pefxweTirihtci.iaisitae.ttishoooilvteUhrcneiii'g^teondtt'y. S,-At.-anjdtuerasisssdhoiecrtrtiseobnity,sodArisocctoleanrim tmrohsliaaotnyioeyni-dwsiashipdeonsisittlhiaoanntdioserxaccinecpotem tnfptoilioi-snhthetdoe 
 
Mr. President, there is no ambiguity in that language; there is 
 
no reservation in it. It is plain, and it is complete and final in its 
 
expression. 
 
"What further happened? After the success of the American 
 
arms and preliminary to a treaty of peace there was a protocol 
 
entered into, in which the basis of the terms of peace were stated, 
 
and in which certain things were agreed upon as final in advance 
 
of the formal treaty of peace. 
 
Keeping" in view the fact that we stood" pledged not to acquire 
 
Cuba- not to hold it as a conquest, it will be remarked tlie protocol was drawn up, wliile there was a provision 
 
that that 
 
when Spain 
 
would cede certain specified territory to the United States, wl'ien 
 
it came to provide for the island of Cuba the provision was one 
 
 27 
 
directly in accord with the provision in the declaration of war; for while it provided that Spain would cede the island of Porto Rico 
 
liiiquish all claim of sov _ 
 
. 
 
^ 
 
tliat the purpose was kept in view and the pledge respected by 
 
those on our part who were entering into this preliminary con 
 
tract; that our mission so far as Cuba was concerned was limited 
 
to secimng her freedom and to the pacification of the island. 
 
When the treaty of peace was formally- made in Paris exactly the 
 
same recognition was still had; that while the island of Porto Rico 
 
was ceded' to the U211 tad States, the agreement with reference to 
 
Cuba was that Spain should simply relinquish " all claim of sov 
 
ereignty over and title to Cuba."' 
 
So, Mr. President, there can bo no possible question of the fact 
 
that our presence in Cuba to-day in i-i presence to bo .justified 
 
solely by the question whether or not what we are doing is in the 
 
line of pacification, of the island and essential to the pacification, 
 
oi' the island. 
 
I submit. Mr. President, as a correct proposition, this: "What 
 
ever we have clone since the close of that war which WHS neces 
 
sary to the pacification of the island -was in accordance with law, 
 
and whatever we have done which was not necessary and proper 
 
for the pacification of the island was not in accordance wifcu Jaw. 
 
~VVe are bound by law in that regard, as we are bound by law in 
 
any other regard. Wo arc bound by law which nobody can en 
 
force against us, but we are bound by law which must be adjudged 
 
in the highest court of honor--the court of national honor. 
 
What was meant by the pacification of Cuba? Two things were 
 
meant. In the first place, it was understood that the pacification 
 
of Cnba necessarily involved the compulsory cessation of hostili 
 
ties between Spain and tho Cubans, ;ind we made war a.^Kmst 
 
Spain for the purpose of enforcing that, and dirl enforce it. Then, 
 
it would be necessarily involved in the proposition thai; hostilities 
 
between the factions in Coba must be made to cease; and that also 
 
has been done. 
 
I think it can be stated as a fact that in nearly two years--lack 
 
ing less than two months of two years--there lias not been a, hos- 
 
>veri] er th and immediately al'ter tho pacification of the island, so far as the contention of Cuban factions might require it--our immediate duty was to proceed to the erection of a government among the Cubans, who should take authority and control over their own affairs, because the language of the declaration of war is not lim ited to a statement that wo did not intend a conquest of the island.. It goes further. It does not simply say that it is not our inten tion to exercise sovereignty. If the final conquest "were the, only thing- intended to be disclaimed, the word " sovereignty" ivonlil have been the end of it. Tho words "jurisdiction or control" would not in that case have been inserted. Tho declaration ex pressly pledged us that we would not at all exercise " sovereignty." and that we would only exercise " jui-isdiotioii and control '' for the purpose therein expressed. 
It i: 
 
 28 
Mr. President, I submit thn.t the correct construction of that declaration can mean but one thing; that after the United States Government had stopper! the war between Spain and the Cubans, had secured peace between the factions in Cuba, the only thing which Yv'OuM remain to "be clone under that 1'esolution was, While we kept the peace until Cuban authority could be set up, to give theCubans the earliest opportunity to set up a government of their own. and then immediately leave them to the control of the island. Beyond that the declaration did not authorize anyone to go. 
When hostilities ceased, when peace was restored, the law as declared by Congress gave to the United States authorities in Cuba no right oi1 jurisdiction or control except to keep the peace until the Cubans could themselves be put in control. It is not a question as to what we might think best for the interests either oi: the Cubans or o ourselves. There would bo differences among ourselves as to that. Some would say we ought- to keep Cuba and others would say it is not to our interest to do so. However that may bo, that is not the question. The question is. What is re quired by the law as Congress has declared it and as it now exists? Under this law, I repeat, our only authority was to keep the peace tin til control could be transferred to the Cubans. Under this law, whatever government was organized there while we thus kept the peace should have been a Cuban government, by Cuban offi cers, anil of the Cuban people. 
Instead of that, we have, without authority of law, organized an American government m Cuba as complete in its control as if we were in the military occupancy of an enemy's territory which we had conquered and which we intended to permanently retain. 
By what right did we proceed to introduce into Cuba our postal system? Whatever postal system was erected in Cuba ought to have been a postal system for Cuba, instead o that, there was introduced and organized a postal system with American officials -- a system really a branch of our system, except that all the safe guards ot the American system were discarded, unlimited power given to one mail, and all tlie funds off the department left at the 
gcstlng to the Cubans and giving to them, tlii'oi_igli proper in structions, the advantage of an organization with their own peo ple and thoir own resources, of a postal system such as ours. As the result of such action there would have been a postal system in Cuba constructed with the view of its continued operation by the Cntoa/ns when we left them to the i'lill control of their own affairs, and we would have escaped our present deep humiliation. 
By what right, Mr. President, under what law, do -we exercise any governmental function in Cuba, except such governmental function as is necessary to keep the peace and enable the Cubans 
assisting them in organizing their own government? Sir, we have no other right, unless, in the exercise of pure arbitrary power, we violate the pledge we made when, in the solemn hour, we broke the psnce of the world and stripped ourselves for the battle with the avowed purpose of the disinterested liberation of oppressed Cuba. 
By what right has the office of governor-general of Cuba "been crea'ted? By "what authority have we aped the title that Spain 
4404 
 
 29 
authorizes anyone to confer 011 the chief military officer in Cuba the title of governor-general or any other title or authority of a civil character? 
Of course what I am saying about this does not in any way ap ply to the Philippines or to Porto Rico, because the conditions are altogether different. We are exercising -war power to-day in the Philippines, and would "be if there were no hostilities, because that is a conquered territory to which we have never given civil gov ernment. We have until recently properly exercised in Porto Rico war power. The 'President "exercises properly -war power "boih in tho Philippines and up to a recent date in Porto liico, "be cause each of thimi represents conquered territory which we bad not authorized any civil government for; but Cuba is not a con quered territorv. We do not hold Cuba as a prize, a spoil oil war. We can not hold her as such. Tlie President of the (Jnitsd States is not in Cuba to-day with, the Army in the exercise of -war power. Wo have no war with Cuba. We have never had war with Cuba. We have had war with Spain. We have made peace with Spain, and we have pledged ourselves that we would not hold Cuba as conquered territory. By what right, under what law, by what reasoning, can it bo claimed that the President o the United. States is exercising1 power in Cuba as war power? 
My view of that is this: I think that so soon as the treaty of 
Seaee -was made between Spain and the United States, it was"the uty of Congress to say what it desired should further'bo done in that island, so far as it would exercise any agency in connection with the matter. It was the duty oJ: Congress'to say in what way there should be any proceedings taken for the purpose of the creation and the setting up of EL government- there. It wag sis: months after the cessation of hostilities before the Spaniards gave lap tho island. There was plenty of time in that interval to deter mine in what way wo should proceed, and the pledge that wo made was that we would not interfere with the liberty of tliat people; that we would not exercise control over them. 
The avowed purpose here was this: It was said here in debate that it would not be proper, in view of the condition of affairs tfcero, for the United States Government to withdraw and permit one faction to fly at the throat of another faction, and it was upon that reason that the argument was based that we should not rec ognize the Cuban Republic. But while for this reason we did not recognize tho Cuban Hepublic. -we did, in that resolution, de clare the Cuban people to bo ''free and independent." And when the war closed and when there were no warring- factions, then was the time for us, in accordance with, the pledges we had made, to proceed to put the Cubans in possession of their own govern ment. 
of civilization as the inhabitants of the States of Central An Do we hold it to be our duty to go to Santo Domingo and to Haiti-- which are infinitely below Cuba in. po'nt of development and in telligence and in character of population--and to civilize those 
4-104 
 
 30 
people? Do "we propose to remain in Cuba until we have raised the inhabitants to a pitch of civilization such as wo will approve? If not, wlion do we propose to carry out the pledge we made? 
In my opinion, this session of Congress should not be adjourned until by act or joint resoliition there is definitely fixed the early date when we will withdraw from Cuba and leave the control of the island to the Cubans. 
iiply f^ay that \ve would not take Cuba as conquered territory, but wo said solemnly that we. would recognize them as a free and independent people. I have here the eloquent speech made by the senior Senator from Ohio [~lUr. FORA.KER], which electrified this Chamber when lio pleaded for the right of the people of Cuba, in view of their sacrifices and the struggle they were making for liberty, to be recognised as a free and/iiidependent people. We have said solemnly that they area Tree and independent people. Of course wo can repudiate our sayings, but yhall we be true to themV And if we are to bo true to them, i.s it consistent with our pledges that we shall con tinue to exercise over them exactly the government that wo would exorcise over a conquered people? 
I ask .Senators who I know are going to bo heard upon this question to point out tho difference between tho authority which we exercise in Cuba to-day, and have exercised there for nearly two years, and the authority which we would have exercised if we had accepted Cuba as a -part o' tho conquest of the war with Spain. Is it the purpose to bring this matter to a conclusion, or is it the purpose to continue Cuba indefinitely under our control, making fair professions oi: our generous intentions, which wo 
nicipal elections that are to he held, but I hold in my hand a paper which really indicates that there is not any purpose to bring it to a speedy conclusion; that, on the contrary, it is intended that we shall continue to hold Cuba. I have heard Senators say, not in debate, that we did not mean it when we srdd tluit we would not retain Cuba, "but no official of this Government would, say that officially, and no Senator on this floor, I think, would say it; and yet if we continue to act in this way, if we continue to hold the island, it is the same as if we openly avowed our purpose to broak our pledge. ,,1 am told by a press dispatch, tho contents of which I suppose was secured directly from the War .Department, that in the fram ing of tho tariff and in the recent orders with reference to the tariff contemplation is had of what shall be the law there a year from now. AVe have held control of this island for nearly two years after the practical pacification of it. We have held control over it for nearly eighteen tiionths after tlie evacuation of it bv the Spaniards, and how the legislation, if I may use that term in applying it to exectitive orders of United States officials, because that" is tlie only kind of legislation the Cubans now have, with reference to this island contemplates its continuance for at least a year or more. This press dispatch gives the substance of what is represented as a publication which has just been issued by the War Department, so that if it is not correct the document itself will show that it is not. 
I nspealtingabpi.it Mr. Robert P. Porter, who went to Cuba for the purpose of making a tariff, mid who was paid fjSoOO a month for 
 
 31 
Ilia services, I will remark in passing, and who in five months and a half or tax months and a halt of service was not only paid at tho rate of 500 a month as a salary, "but who drew in addition thereto an expense account of about 8oOO a month during all of that time, nearly 820 a day, not including Sundays--of Mr. Porter, who went therefor the purpose of drafting-a tariff, this is said: 
That is the report of Mr. Porter, recommending another year, 
In Tie w of tlio necessity /or the const met ion and i-e<".onstru(;tioii of. rail roads in Cuba, mid upon tho insurance -iven by the, varioiis co-mparmis that 
rlw;td Grr'te t?ioy wiTfat (Sir-ti begin to import l'arp:<; <'i"ia--n title** iipe< :iiiiVroVi- 
That subsequent part of the dispatch fs stated not simply as the recommendation of Mr. Porter, but as the rates which have been inserted in the tariff which has been prescribed by the War 'Departraent, showing the evident contemplation that our rnfe shall continue in force in Cuba for at least another year. '! will simply remark by way of parenthesis that this same I\Ir. Porter, who thus revised the Cuban' tariff and who thus so recently put all material for tlie construction and equipment oi! railroads in Cuba practi cally on the free list, is now credibly reported to be an officer or agent of the Van Horn Syndicate, which has hneii recently incor porated in New Jersey with a capital oi." 8^,000,000 to buy, con struct, own, and operate railroad^ in Cuba. 
But to return to the point, Mr. President, there is no law or justification for this continued control of Cuba; but if it is to bo continued, there is a still higher and stronger obligation upon us to see to it that those extravagant expenditures shall cease, to see to it that there shall "be 110 misappropriation or embezzlement oi; the money of the Cubans, and to see to it that every dollar of it shall go to the benefit of the people of Cuba, with an administra tion which shall be most economical and prudent. It does seem to me that if we contemplate the fact, as we are pledged to con template, that the island of Cuba is to be released from our con trol, this'money which is collected in such large amounts should be kept for the benefit of Cuba when it comes to be organized into a government of its own people. 
If these large amounts of money--over 20,000,000--had been economically disbursed, and only snch had been used as were nec essary for the pacification of the island, as we pledged ourselves to do!! there would have been when we came to sc!, up this ne\v government a good little fund in the treasury with which, to start them off. As it is with the free hand, with an absomto power, with no accountability practically to anybody, wiih an expenditure which seems to have been graduated only bv the amount of money that could, be collected, a large part of {his money has been stolen by our officials, and if rnporls are true, a much' larger part of it has been misappropriated and squandered; 
 
 garitly wasted the revenues of these poor people, tliat we have had. officers there without accountability, spending many times as much as is spent by the governments of States very much larger-- is it any excuse to say that we are not plun tiering tliem to the extent the Spaniards did in the dark days oil their tyrannical rule? Is it any excuse to us that as forty or fifty million dollars a year were wrung" out of the Cubans by the Spaniards, therefore if \TQ do not -wring over fifteen or twenty million dollars it is not so bad? And yet, sir, I have more than onco hoard made tliat exact reply. 
It is charged that vast sums 01 money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, have been expended in tho renovation and decoration of palaces to be occupied in regal state by our officers. Is it any excuse to say that when we evacuate the island the Cubans -will have these palaces and set the benefit of their money which has 
 
>rpo . 
 
__, . 
 
,, , ____,, .,, 
 
setup their little republic, will need tlieir money for otlier purposes 
 
than tloeovating palaces. Ami the same tiling is true of other pub 
 
lic works. It is for them to say upon which of them they will 
 
wish to have expended these millions of dollars, all of which be 
 
longs to thorn and not a dollar oil which, belongs to us. 
 
Mr. President, there is no middle course for us to pursue in this 
 
matter. We can not delude ourselves and v,~e can not deceive 
 
others. We cannot dissemble; we can not equivocate. As we 
 
deal -with Cuba, either with loyalty to onr promise or In disre 
 
gard Oi its obligation, so on tho one hand, will we merit and re 
 
ceive osuHocl honor, or on tho other Lazid tliore will be to us the 
 
humiliation of the violated national faith. 
 
Mr. President, there never was a time when a government ever 
 
had such an opportunity not only to set itself upon a high plane, 
 
but to maintain itself upon a liigh plane, one of disinterested 
 
purity of motive, one which would challenge the admiration of 
 
tho world, one which would go down in history as tlie tin equaled 
 
example of sacrifice, disinterested and pure, such as the Govern 
 
ment of tho United States had, and as the Gfovermnenfc of the 
 
United States may still improve, if wo address ova/selves solely to 
 
the question of the dutv which we should peri'orra, in the prompt 
 
and loyal redemption of our pledge that the Cubans shall be afrce 
 
and independent people, 
 
4-tOi 
o 
 
 SPEEDS 
EON. AT GUST US 0. BACON, 
OF OCEORGJIA, 
 
Mr. BACON 
 
ilrr. iS>-: ::-i,., rv:: A* within a iew da.ys past I addressed tii.c Sen- 
 
somewhat at !e i!K th upon tlujso rosoluaons. wtmt 1 now shall 
 
suy -.vill not be in the na'ure ot on elabo-ati'disctidtfir-ii of tlio nnb- 
 
^ecL involves. :;nl; UsteaA tlicrcoi a poine\vhal (-m^ory riisci^ion 
 
ol some oi: tl,,o i'Muts -A-hioli li;ivu bscm rsvl'i-d by Eho tpu.'rb :::::ade 
 
cm yesLcr.lpy 1,.- tb tl dsiiator from Connecticut flVIr Pi.ATY | . 
 
That u.sti: ; K vil-w! 3..i..it.-,r. in a ve-.y onrncit ami a;jio 
 
' 
 
t to tli^ fce::aLu 
 
 joiiltl not be adopted and why there should nob Lie an investiga011 by a committee of Uio Senate, it is true that the Senator said lat for certain reasons the resolutions should be adopted and the .vcstigatlon should proceed. The Senator alleged that lie had 'ached this conclusion not berfvo.se there -was anything- in the sit:ition or in the facts or in tlie probable facts-which, in his opinion, arranted and req.ui.red an investigation, but because, as stated f the Senator-- 
The -inprliave made H nec-tisstiry tliat tills investigation should go on. 
That is the distinct ground upon which the Senator bases his consent that there should be an adoption of those resolutions am! that the investigation should be had. 
The Senator in the coarse of his argument addressed himself to what may be considered as two considerations urged by him \vby these resolutions are not of themselves proper and justified, in the first place, the Senator takes up the conceded fact that there has been an embezzlement of the Gii/baii funds and argues that, so far as that particular embezzlement is concerned, or rather the embezzle merit in that particular department, there is no need of a legislative investigation, for the reason that there is now jiendins a departmental investigation, which, is all-sufficient in itselt-'. and. as suggested by the Senator, an investigation on the part of the Senate would not only be unnecessary, but would interfere willi the proper conduct of that investigation by the Department. I read the language oi' the Senator: 
1 ill ink. Mr. Pr tion u-hicli is"  
tli.- on tig or justice. 
in another part of his speech the Senator, after presenting the reasons why the embezzlement in Cuba in the postal deparbnciit does noi make necessary a Congressional investigation, and t hat icnhalragcetrit wo- ul-d- he i"mp'ro=per to make it. referring* to the ma- tte'rs 
! liave soon notlimtf of fnct wLueli I think venders LL Con-regional mve.-,tisatlon necasa,r\- : uorliiu- of tusmltl^d fsict. noLlii.i- of pfoveis i'^-H. wliicL. requires anv invr^Li^itioii, nnl,.> ;=>- ii be tlie dondeatiou to wbic.h'l have filrcady alluded. 
Thus it is. then. Mr. Pr -sidcnt. that the Senator bases hi? ap proval of tlie adoption of rbis resolution a:;d oi' the proposed investigation solely upon the ground of the statement from him, which ! first read-- 
sry that this ivkvusiigation sliould fi'O'."]. 
The spee:4i of the Senator ilion leaves tho issue still joined between us. as fo "whether or not tho charges which have been made, and the probnbilit : es of their irnth. are such as to make the investigation a proper investigation, one which is called for and thereby made a duty on the p:-vrt of the riennte. 
7>Tr. President, referring- for a moment to the frame-work of ihese resolutions, it will be noted that, as was developed in the tlis -nssion on yesterday, an amendment It fid been offered by me to tho resolution previously offered, providing authority to tbe commit tee to send for poi-sons and papers, to swear \vitnesses and employ 
 
 3 
 stenographers, to hold its sittings in the United States and iti Cuba, etc. The Senator from Connecticut l h erenii j JOB indicated that the  resolution, HO far as it went, was agreeable to Mm, but desired to add power on the part of the commit too to employ an expert accountant, the propriety of which. I recognized, and so I agreed to it. As his amendment, with that exception, was substantially the same as the one which I had previously offered, I agreed that that should "be attached as the amendment to the original rosolu'tion. 
My allusion to that is to call attention to the fact that the investi gation which is proposed will be one in which, however important may be expert accountant, there are other brandies of the investi gation much inoro important than that which depends upon what can be discovered by an expert accountant. As I had occasion the other day to say. an expert accountant can trap the plain thief, the man who taps the till, the man who takes money, and who seeks to conceal the theft by making no entries or by making fraudulent entries; bub the man who steals money in that way is not the man who is the great plunderer of public funds. . A man who steals money in that way steals his thousands; but the man who secures that which he is not entitled to out of the public Treasury through jobbery, through dishonest contracts, through fraudulent devices of all kinds, -which niay appear to bo all right upon the books, and vet in fact all wrong as to the dispo sition of the money--that is the man who does not simply defraud the Government of Thousands but of millions of do I Jars; and the great purpose of this proposed, investigation is not simply to ascer tain the comparatively paltry amounts which have thus been stolen in money, and which may be found by an export accountant, but to ascertain whether or not in this expenditure of over 814,000.000 there has been an honest and economical disposition of the money, or even in case the books do balance, and. it is shown that the money "was actually paid as represented, by the books, whether it was honestly and economically expended, or whether any part of it was misappropriated and dishonestly applied to grossly swollen and fraudulent salary rolls, or to property not for public uses, or to the payment of fraudulently overvalued prop erty bills, or la anv joo'hery or ot.her illegal devices. 
in illustration of that, Mr. President, I ask the attention of the Senate to the question involved in the post-office embezzlement to see whether or not the investigation whii;h. is being pursued by the Post-Office Department, as honest and as earnest, as I concede it to be and as I believe it to be. wil disclose the I'acts which we desire to have disclosed and made public by this investigation. 
What are the thingy which the Post-Office Department is inves tigating with reference to this post-office embezzlement? It is charged that this man Neely and his confederates, so far a.s dis closures now iiidic.-a.t3, or up to Yesterday indicated, embezzled some S :!;"),000; and that was the amount stated by the Senator from Connecticut yesterday. 
]\Ir. PLATT of Connecticut. For this current year. Mr. BACON. Yes; for this current year. There may be others for the time preceding January 1, 19uO. and there is every reason to believe there are. Those may also be discovered by the expert 
nta.nt and I hope will be. and ! do 
 
 an expert acconiitan t shall be put into the resolutions. I am sim ply using1 the provision for the expert accountant as the thing which has suggested to me this comparison, and to show the vast reach necessary in this investigation, very far beyond that which can be accomplished through the aid of any accountant. 
It was also stated in the afternoon papers yesterday and in this mornivjjr's papers that the intimation which we had some time ago that there might be instead of $45,(X)u some 3-10u,000 of embezzle ment through the dishonest sale of stamps may possibly be and probably is true; but conceding that all these facts will be estab lished by the investigation by the Post-Office Department, we come to other accounts where it is necessary that there should be an investigation by a body sitting as a tribunal to examine witnesses and to have persons and papers brought before it and to search to the bottom not only tho question as to whether money lias be.-ii taken out of tho till, not only whether the money has been stolen by the illegal sale of stamps, bnt whether money \vhiuh appoai-rf by entries upon the books and for wiiica Uiey may have vouchers lias been legally and legitimately and honestly and economically expended, 
AYhatjire thoee items? I will state that r hold in my hand Doc ument >)o. 177, part ~, which is a supplement to the original Doc ument. No. 1.7V, It ib a communication from the Secretary of War responding to instructions of iuquiry i'ror.i tho Senate. ;uid in this supplemental report them is for thy latter halt of the year i. UU what purport to be some eighteen or twenty different Kenavato accounts of expenditures inVnhii. giving the matter somewhat more in del ail tnan was found in tho or-ginal repoit, but still in a very general way. This uostal accomit is one of the accuunra contained IT; this report; that is. for the entire yonr It-'O;,1 . iLost oi: the accounts in the report are .for six inontlis. From January 1 to December 81, 1SVJ9, for the department of: posts, tho expendiirires ivere .{:SL3.'1GU.^3. an..! it ig shown by or.i>.-ii- reports that the entire reeeinVs fro?a that depart n.e'it in Cuba r>,r that time n mounted to y;?. (J.l-.):;. 
As to the iteins OL e.-.-.psnditLtre, v.'hich 1 submit a?r items rhat call for a tnorough and searching inve^tic-fition on the i.aL't of a coJ' ! mittee c'tjit'-t- of !.liis_ hlonse or Ibe oi.::oL- ILra^e--I am very frniik T;O say that I ^von^'l very much h?;ve ureferrefl ii' !"lii.- ir^-estigation had i.cvn -Lindi;r!:;iJcun by tbo tyche-- TIOLisc.bin: c,* it ban not bouit. \ve rtiiovilti vrf>'jeed \vii'i it  <_YH -- tho very irr^r ice-zii up- ;n tbi:-, accnnjii is ;<n ii GJ:I \VLiicn appem';] not only m thin acriuivu. t. bru in, almost every o' rber' auronnt iu 1'irig rcpoi'i; v^iLii ^vom.;,"l;1oj. Tunhit. zer,ex-- 
 
 . in those four classes ive have enumerated the 
 
y employees oil a psst-olhee department who execute a.nd 
 
carry on the postal service--clerks in post-oRices, postmasters, 
 
railway postal clerks, and letter carriers. Those ate the men 
 
who operate the detail machinery of the postal department ont- 
 
sideoi that tised in the transportation of the malls.-and for tho 
 
year all those officers'" t'lii 
 
ery of the department Tec 
 
dv ;-nil5.'].|2!'init iTa^luSvn'to 
 
that and. in addition to t" 
 
who tints operate tie ordinary 
 
machinery of the ; 
 
department, under Hie single liaad of 
 
'Salaries, department of ppoossttss.."' ii,s eeul.os;. 
 
r\ove. I say tnat tne Truest o?'dm ,ry renuiremeiit on the part of 
 
Con t;resslsthat there shall . .... investigation to knovr vrhoar.. 
 
the people who, mi. lev the head of department of po,-ts. have re- 
 
ceivsd .<->l'.i.ir-:. when iheydo net include in any way olerrs in 
 
post-oftices. p.!sttnas;ers m Cdaa. railxvsv postal ei ftis in tinea. 
 
or let er cert lets mCnha. or the transportation of mails either b.v 
 
con tract a-.- clherwise, 1 state this now simply by \vay ol 1'ln^- 
 
fraiioa. heeanse there are man;-other items m this aceonnt re- 
 
enirineinyes:i(.;afion. 3t mav he that a.n inve it<eatlon Nviil show 
 
it to be all i-stbe bnt it is certainly dcvO'VLn.r Miion us te a-eer:am 
 
that it is a.ll right.. 
 
_' not her -hir-K. K 
 
to i-.ite. 'fere 
 
witJi the I; est-Omce JJti;ar 
 
ea. .i-h-re 
 
are aeeonnts \\dileh ha..e . 
 
in <he i j o 
 
Ijepartmma. and -ihile 1 hey had no knowledge of any er.i ,st;zle- 
 
mont. 1hey did have knoye.ed^e ol those most extraordinary and 
 
slar:lin s expenditures, and no investigfition has been made or 
 
ordered or uttsmpted by the post-OH'CO llleparl nient. 
 
e.Ir. I; resieem . tin.re are otlte- most exfrao.rdiiiaiy items, i o.an 
 
not stoj) to do flnsm-di ih-m all, hec-i.ttse there are a ^r-al many 
 
tliines here. and. I can only touch on a few of them hastily. I,et 
 
meeall arl.nit'on to one perdiem. A-'ter all these-ahiries here is 
 
"per difnin -:d Ted a. ee. " \\"ho authoiazed per dieie to he pa: 1. and 
 
te whom was if paid and of ydiat amomi'? 'i'hat is eer.ainly a 
 
matt.n: lor in . esrnration. 
 
'"or whom 
 
; a.ne voLeonr 
 
bly'"' 
 
, n that item .1 ivasimdnded ,:,,, 
 
mails, ntti the! is not irne, heeaitse other 
 
shell- test it eas 
 
- - - 
 
... ........ _.__. .. . . ]sav-o inn.i! w;i^oi^. ^t ,;IN;> : Vro !JM\ o '-l-.r -route 
 
and wt? iifivw inni'i 
 
- , o! ,;.,; : . olc. ^ 
 
hariK^s and edn^^ 
 
a r-jjiy f"i:~i ar- n 
 
1o tne cuvi-v-ijiir oi' fl 
 
is a matter of iuvesti 
 
and uropcr i !!, t->Liu;ari on ari to vr 
 
liud liarjiops. \v}io l 
 
 carriages and equipment, out of the rmWic fling's of Cuba as a part of the postal service in thnt island, and under what head there has been placed the expenditure, if any, for the horses tliat drew these carriages. 
I wish to call attention to another matter before going on with some brief allusions to these^ various accounts. The original 
 
expenditures in Giiba tabulated' in brief. Under the head of. re ceipts there are four sources of revenue enumera ted -- iirst, from customs; second, from postal service: third, from internal revenue, and fourth, from miscellaneous sources. These two documents, the original and the supplement, are made tip, I presume, from exactly the same papers; they certainly ought to bo; aiitlyet t he-re is a discrepancy of ;>JO.OOO between the original report and the sup plemental report as to the amounts of money which have been' received in Oulia during the year 1899-- the very direct, identical sources of revenue being enumerated in the one instance as in the other. 
Now, let me give the statement. I shall include this table on. page lOT in the appendix to my remarks. The total I'rom these four different sources is l.(j,y-1(j.0lo. In the supplemental report 
 
put at Sifi.yi<i,r>00. 1- do not read that for the purpose of atiovcni" that 830.000 has been stolen, but I do read it for the ptirpo.se of showing- that there has been such looseness, such ail absolute in difference to ail the requirements in the keening of aecouiUsas are provided hi our own Government. as calls for the most search ing investigation on the part of_ Congress. 
I will state another thing. "Under the head of expenditures tho same items of expenditure to the number or five are stated in the original report as are stated in the supplement, arid yot I, believe without exception there is no sing-le item in the original in which 
 
is stated in the supplemental report. The items are 
 
ple 
 
. 
 
investigation to understand why it is that there is this looseness. 
 
How is it that there is an utter absence of specific, accurate keep 
 
ing of public accounts there which shou id be required everywhere, 
 
and -which is required in this country? 
 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Mr. President ------ 
 
The PRESIDING OFFICER (31r. KiS-V^ in the chair). Does 
 
the Senator from Georgia, vield to the Senator from Indiana? 
 
Mr. BACON. Certainly". 
 
Mr. FAIRBANKS, lam not sure that I correctly heard the 
 
Senator's criticism of the schedules furnished "by the "War Depart 
 
ment. but I wish to call his attention to a statement made in the 
 
report of General Brooke on page -f 1 S. being his annual report for 
 
the year ending June SO, 1899. He says, after expenditure, under 
 
the head of statement of revenue and disbursements to and includ 
 
ing June 30, 18'J9, the following: 
 
The expenditures sliown above include all paymento to date. August 19, as payments arc yet 1'icmg mn/lc on account of the lisw-fU y*w criuincj; JmieSO, 1S90. 
 
 one that mia;ht be modified in the manner indicated by Greneral Brooke. 
3!r. BACON". I do not, know, I have two accounts sent here frorn tlio War Department not very far apart in point of; time, so close together that one is sent by the Depii.rtnj.eitt as a supplement to the other, and the second in response to exactly the same reso- 
 statement of the same item in the one and in the other. I repeat that : the revenues received, from four sources named 
in. the original repoi-t, and in the revenues named in the supple mental report as received from the same sources, and both for the year 18DD, there is ti difference of js^O.OtM. In order that 1 may not bo misunderstood I will give Senators the pages. 1 refer to tiio items enumerated on page 107 of the original report and on page ~2 of the supplemental report. I am simply calling the atten tion of the Senate to a few of the very many items staled in these reports which rail for investigation and for legislative investi gation. 
Eel'ore going on. I want to call the attention of the Senate to one-other matter, and that is the peculiar way in \v1nsili reports are made of these expenditures. Very frequently two subjectsmatter are included in the same account where there can be no legitimate relationship between the two. Why the one should be mixed, with the other I am at a loss to understand. For instance we have the accounts of " Rural guard and administration/' What does ' administration " mean? What is ' rural guard?" I say it is impossible from the inspection of the accounts rendered under the head of  Rural guard and administration'' to know for what this money was spent, and that it is necessary not only that books should be examined, but that witnesses should be examined in order that we may ascertain for what this large amount of money, $oOii,.L6i, of winch, mark it, the item of salaries is $-11 r,yi#, outside of the pay roll for labor, which is $27'.5TO, 
There are itenis for property, all sorts of items, without any possible indication of what they are or for -what purpose the 'money was spent, much, less any possibility of ascertaining whether even if the sn.b.;ect-matter was correct the prices were correct. Nothing "but an investigation can disclose that fact. 
Then, again, we have ".-justice and public instruction'' put in one account. Why are justice and public instruction in one ac count and mixed up and sen* here together? 
!Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Because that is one of the depart ments. 
>Ir. BACON". That may be. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. That department includes both. -Mr. BACON. But they are not cognate subjects. One re'ates to the- administration of the courts; the other relates to the schools, I presume--colleges. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. It Is just like the Department over which the Secretary of the Interior presides, which has lands and pensions and patents and a variety of things in its jurisdiction. Mr. BACON. The Department of the Interior in making its report to the Government does not put the accounts of those vari ous things together; it separates them. That is what- my criticism is; not that there is a department which had charge of the^-:e two subjects-matter, but that in making- the return of money expended. 
 
 8 
 
it does not separate public instruction from the department of 
 
justice. 
 
"Agriculture and public works." Here, again, the same thing 
 
is found. I call attention in this connection to the fact that not 
 
only do we have public works in connection with agriculture, bnt 
 
we have another item of pti"blic works in connection -with ports 
 
and harbors, and 3*011 -will find in other account s scattered through 
 
these items where large amounts are charged, as'iiin. ^o public 
 
works. Indeed, it seems that where there was a 11111. to be tucked 
 
away in some manner not convenient to be pur raid or the regular 
 
head, it is put under sQine extraordinary expenditure, or miscella 
 
neous expenditure, or under the head of public worKs. 
 
Then we have tlio department of ''state and government," 
 
"-public works, ports, and harbors.' 7 "charities and hospitals." 
 
Then another, "aid to destitute." It would seem that " aid to des 
 
titute" would properly come under "charities anil hospitals," but 
 
there is a separate department, and in e;ich department the most 
 
enormous salary 'ist. I will venture to say. without possibility of 
 
successful contradiction, that ever was known in proportion to 
 
the public expenditure. 
 
Under the simple bead of sanitation we have the enormous 
 
amount of !?:3 t u^,a83. According to the ar-ument of Uiedislin- 
 
guishert Senator on yesterday- because sami ation was important 
 
.thi 
 
.pi 
 
., had -> 
 
od i 
 
al i ulrs 
 
the question ns to whether or not the money which ha 
 
periled for the purpose had been honestlv expended should not be 
 
considered. Grant" all that he says about sani fatiou; it does not 
 
relieve us of the proposition that where such an amount as $:_!,0.~>2,- 
 
2b2 has been expended under the simple head of sanitation there 
 
ought to be an investigation of it to asc'eriam if 'it has been too- 
 
t in 
 
enormous expenditure ot S"-i.O..3,:>;r2. but 
 
the last six months of 1890. with an exp 
 
,... 
 
The account for the first six months of 1S:.)9 is not given. This 
 
half year's account, among other tiring?,, includes for salaries, 
 
8109,.>L>U: for pay rolls, labor, 8yti0.799; repairs. y')o,7oO; material. 
 
$B39,0'S.j; property. 81-(3/)87, etc. 
 
The same thing is t.rue of " barracks and quarrers. A\ ,'2(^0,039,': 
 
wbicl: 
 
the most remarkable fact, wliich of itsotf would re';n : i\i ;>n invostigation. and that is that un-.ier this call for information the \Yar Departing;?t has in this supplemental report sent us the report ns to the last hall' of the year 1S9S). and lias given as a reason why it does not, send p, report "Vis to tbe Hrst half of the year 1H09 thai; "the reports have not been received from Cuba. With 87,000,000 and over spent, eighteen months ago, nearly, seventeen months since that expenditure began in Cuba, the expenditure of these millions of dollars for the first six months of the ye ;r 1^99 has never been returned in the %vay of accounts to the Government. Do these facts indicate that the legislative department can .leave this matter to the investigation, of. the i.X',pa\-tment.b? Do they indicate that we can leave ic to the military authorities in Cuba? The accounts of 
4475 
 
 the first srx months of expenditures have not been returned to the G-overiunejjj-. and -vvben called upon by the Senate for the informatioii the reply is that the accounts have not been received. 
jSfow. Mr. President, I wish to call attention to another matter. I do not go through these matters in detail, because I intend to put these tabtes in as an appendix to my remarks, but I wish to call attention to several items. After all these enormous expenses under every conceivable head, witli a corps of officers receiving salaries n&der every subdivision of business which could be imagined, we have an omnium gathernm under the head of - ; ex traordinary expenses ordered bv the military governor'" with a total of the enormous sum of S 1-48.0711.9^. on pau'e \->> of this sup plementary report, a term which, by the way. could be properly appliea to' each of thsse accounts: find in ir we have such items as the following: 
Eventual exv<-'^. ^'U.^iii.'iV? Then. after havm.^ ]iad over a million and a quarter oi: dollars put down under the he;id of  mimi;-ipnli ties," we have the ac count of "extraordinary expe^-'-s." i n the supplemental report; under the head of  mimicij jaliue--' deiicit. " lliy item of s'?N;j.(>ro.Sfi: and so it goes cle:\v chron^ii w;tl\ these vaii'-uv=< a.cconnts. And. thtin, in a"; Id if ion to the a-,-c-oiint of - extraordinary expenses," there is a ' misee'daneons " account, with the remarkable items JHVolTJiic-eiO^.'ili. .Vs I said. I shall ynit the tables in as an appendix, and therefore I shall not stop now to enumerate them specially, ay it would be im possible to do ?o. But I do want to call attention to one thing. This is not. rumor, this is not newspaper cha?-^;?: but it is the report oi' The \Tar De partment. In Oub;i. for the year lyu 1.). it is stated in the supple3Ji(.j nt;i- l reriort thai" the expenses for civil salaries amotint to 
thi in the vear Is99. -\ve have the enovmous ; This, L repeat, is t)je Lirsest irroporliou of peuditure thai can be found in any gover taiiily on this hemisphere, 
Mr. President, it mny assist to a realization of the exorbitance of this expenditure tor salaries i'or one year to make s--.me com parisons. Tn the remarks I submitted on this subject in the Sen ate last week I included a statement of thrf annual expenses of certain States, excluding-expenditaveri for oducatiuna.jid including all ordinary expenses, including payment of public debt. This 
- 
 
 10 Cuban salary list is greater than such expenses in each of these States, besides those of many others--in some of them several times trreater--greater than the entire annual expense of each of tlie.^e States including the public debt: Missouri. Massachusetts, Indi ana, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky. Tennessee, Con necticut, Texas, Michigan, New Jersey, and Alabama. Mr, President, upon the subject of these expenses, I -will venture to read something- from a newspaper which possibly may not be objected to by the Senator from Connecticut on the ground that it is one which, has any purpose to make campaign material, or one which for any purpose would engage in mud slinging. I read from the New York Tribune of the 2d instant, and, as tho Senator yesterday was dissatisfied with the newspapers from which I read, .1 have thought I would to-day select some the orthodoxy of which, from his standpoint, might, not. be criticised.  I presume tho Tribune is one which he will admit to be in the orthodox column- This is -what the New York Tribune, in giving a nar ration of this matter, relates with reference to the matter of sal aries and expenditures by these people in Cuba: 
WASHINGTON-, 3Jay$l, 1000. Tlie Assistant Secretary of War. Mi-. MeikleJohn, to-day made public; a long tlio, Siiiiato. by tile, Seoi-etary oS War last wepk. He said that the report coiitin-es," etc. How ll specifically and in detail^ these "itemized .statements" and "rtsa,! estate, 538,510;" alf of which appear anioiif? other items iin'd'er'the FiU'thei- on in the statement of the Assistant Secretary these roru.arkaWe 
nt allotted, tints making tbe total possible expeiiditu Now, Mr. President, that is wlmt the Secretary of "War says must be tho expenditure, that it can not exceed that amount, and yet the report which is sent in here shows a balance of only yi.OOO.000 intlae hfincls of the treasurer. An expenditure of .^16,000.000 is reported TO the Senate. A balance of a little over $:>,000,000 is reported and an expenditure of: over $14,000,000 alleged, which, of course, would make that a correct balance; and with the Secretary of War MmseJf publishing-the fact that under the figures there coiiltl "be 110 snm except about!?12,OOO.OOl.J. it must necessarily showthat the balance reported of 83.000,000 is incorrect. Mr. PL-ATT of Connecticut- Will the Senator permit rue? Mr. BACON. Certainly; with pleasure. Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. I do not know that it is worth while to attempt to go into this question of figures: but if the Sen ator has made an examination of them, he will see that the first account to which he refers under the head of: " Receipts and ex penditures'" is an account of receipts and expenditures for allow ance by allotment to the different departments and that the second account is all the audited account, so that there may t;e. as with ns, and probably is, money covered into the treasury which is not used from the money appropriated. 
4475 
 
 11 
_ may be as staled bv the Senator, but they are not so reported by the Secretary of "War. The table in this report- is headed, this way : 
It does not say allotments, or as allotted. It says those are the amounts received ami disbursed. ' Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. If the Senator lias seen ------ 
Mr. BACON. I do not dispute the fact that the explanation may be a correct one. I am simply stating that the report does not make it that way. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. If the Senator has seen the statemerit made by the Assistant Secretary of War, he will see that the explanation -was given. 
Mr. BACON". .1 am very frank to say 1 did not see it, but 1 am simply taking what is reported here in the Tribune. 1 do not know how it escaped me. bnt 1 have not seen the statement in full; bnt the reports as sent to the Senate do not make the ex planation which .the Senator now suggests . 
1 umlerstfmd the suggestion of the Senator to be that certain moneys having been allotted to various officers, which they have expended, but the accounts of which ha. vine; not yet been audited by the Auditor, it may be true that there is in tho haizds oi: the Treasurer, as stated in this report, only ;-;2. 3(50.209. and there may be about $'3,000,000 out -which has been expended in the past year, lyyij, of which there lins been yet no audited return. I understand that to be the proposition of the Senator. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Either that, or that there is still money remaining unexpended in the hands of the different de partments to -which it has been assigned. 
Mr. BACON". If there could be any stronger illustration of the necessity of an investigation it- will be found in the fact that for eighteen months, beginning1 eighteen months ago. there has [seen an expend! tare ending rive months ; go of which there has been no return tor the first six months, the last of which expired eleven months ayo. 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. Will the Senator permit an interruptions The PRESIDING^ OFFK 'ER, .Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from Indiana? Mr. BACON. Certainly. :VSL-. FAIRBANKS. Has the Senator examined the annual re port of Ueneral Brooke? Mr. BACON. I has-e been taking the reports which, have been sent to the Senate in response to the inquiry as to "what li;ive bi-en the amounts received and expended. Mr. FAIRBANKS. I will read him the report just before me, showing' quite a larg-e number of expenditures., submitted under the proper headings. ill*. BACON. Docs the Senator mean to say that GLo-iieral Brooke's accounts do not agree with the accounts 'which the au ditor has sent to the War Department and which the War De partment has sent to us? Mr. FAIRBAXKS. 1 said nothing- whatever, except when the Senator said that no reports had been furnished. 1 asked him if he had examined the statements in OeJierul Broolfe'a annual report, purporting- to be o certain expenditures. 
 
 Mr. BACON. Mr. President. I am Koing by the Secretary of War has sent to the Senate. Wo direct ns a. statement ot all the moneys which had 1 ?IirU'a S iJrV;uto 8 andlai,een has ^rofeiSTtiP 
 
hat th.6 to aend 
 
1 permit Mm to cfe.'it!" ^ le Pai'e" ant ----.---- -- ------ 
 
ro\v. ilr. :E resident, il theao reports tiius serif in by the rocei vin ^ 
 
ooni.< ,,iLt-.iv oc ioi CLII investigation, and a very searching one? It may be. and .1 trust it will lie found to be so, that the two can be reconciled; that it can he shown how 0110 is correct and the other is incorrect, and that they may be reconciled with an. honest dis bursement, l.'nt, Mr. President. I am spcaldiiz of our dutv to investigate it- lo find out what is Hie truth. 
The beiiator said yesterday that the comparison snggested hv me as to the expenditures in Cuba and the expenditures of several Slat-sin the T'nior, was most startling as presented by me. and then the Senator went on to endear or to shnw th.it. it was not a Tr'iPnno, v,-hieh f dosir" loornnpicte! eaTh!rartiSe''r,i anodiei- piuoe sa.ys: 
 
me unnmsiieu o(is3nc.-,s oe ie;Npo7-ai in.- uti'.i a,yi;;e in i him to do so. . I would like very much to do so. At the same 
 
^Sj^nrnXk^^^D^^geV^ 
 
i hia, possibly it will l>c an economy of time on the 
 
a to to potmit Hie to conclude rather than to let h1 im 
 
I': 
 
fr. iwiiiK that 
 
' 
 
TT of Connectic:nut., -la.sk temporarily livid as 
 
 13 
 
The PRESIDING- OFFICER, Tsthereonjection to the request of the Senator from Connecticut? The Chair hoars none. The Senator from Georgia will nroceed. 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, .[ am very much obliged to the Senate for its courtesy, and especially to the Senator i'rom Con necticut. 
ITow, I will pauso in reading this ai-ticle from the New York Tribune to call tlie attention of the Senator from Connecticut to the answer that the New York Tribune gives to the suggestion nmde by him as to these unexpended "balances. I will read the last sentence over, as I Was interrupted, and. possibly the Senator did not catch the purport of it: 
Another question to which sui answer will bo necessary is why the jiucli- 
 
JuruiajfiVyy. ' 
 
^ 
 
s 
 
' 
 
The suggestion is made here that there is a discrepancy of over 
 
83_,0(;0,0'K) between the report as sent to us by the Secretary of 
 
^V ar as to the amount of expem'iit ares am i- as to the balance which 
 
ia consequence of that error should be in the hands of the treas 
 
urer, and the Senator from Comieetic-nt suggests that these bal 
 
ances are outside in the hands of these disbursing officers. The 
 
New York Trilmne. not a mud-slinging' paper, not a paper seek 
 
ing U.i jiiake capital for the campaign adverse: to the partv of the 
 
Senator, asks the question, Why was it, if that is true, that the auditor couid not in January state what were the ba.laiwjes in 
 
tlie Viands of the disbursing officers sis months before then? I 
 
think the New "Yoi-k Tribune very properly sug-gests I hat CongreF-si \vill rerjiiire an. tms\vor to that iiiq_\iiry. The New York 
 
Tribrme goes on to say: 
 
'Which they must nece^sarilv liavt- done. it was somebody's dr;ty to see tiiat those i-egulatioiis were complied with. 
Upon, the subject of expenditures in tho r-imie article there is the following statement: 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
. 
 
- 
 
ID- (.-LajiJoyinc-iii, -,-u tl^e ^.ible-liodled, tii^i-eljy rnakiu^ tljcin -^oH'-aLT;iportiu- 
 
Drovi7pie;;t.s. '*:-(-e,sii 2-y .'Uid* per njiuaii-jit "in iWnr (-luirfuitep. saici \vli1 i5.i \Vill 
Tlmt is the extract ('3:0111 the Ktat-.Hmuit of the Assistant Secre tary of Vvr ar, aiid now tlie New York Tribune ra;il-:c,s t>ds comment npontHat: 
Tlio t'x- plj;iaii;i.:vtts o-n-ti-lls :u:-i-(mi!it d- m-iiis- tUe -ix- -vioiilhs yndoa Deee'iOjer 
 
 14 
Now, Mr. President, by the fact tliat the Senator from Con necticut, "who on yesterday so sireimously objected or rather criticised the reading of articles from the Washington Post, does not interpose any criticism upon the loyalty of "the Now York Tribrme to the interests of the Republican party, and does not make any suggestion that any tiling vrhich appears in the columns of tho New York Tribune may be set down either to a desire to manufacture campaign material against the Republican party, or lie set down to the score of mud slinging, I am encouraged to read some more from the Now York Tribune. I think the Sena tor will find that "when he says that this purpose to find out what has been clone in Cuba, this design by a proper and searching and exhaustive examination and investigation, to ascertain whether or not the money of Cuba has been honestly and economically spent, he is mistaken in attributing- it to those who desire to make cam paign material against the Republican part}-, and he "will find that the American people regardless of party intend that this matter shall be sifted to the very bottom, and chat there shall be ascertained not simply -whether correct books have been kept, but that there shall bo ascertained whether there has been, economical and prudent and honest disbursement ol this fnnd which we have raised in Cuba., not one dollar of which. I repeat, belongs to the people of the United States, and every dollar of which belongs to the people of Cuba, 
The Senator is going to find that it will not l;e limited as he sought to Jirnit it on yesterday, and lean have no higher illustration of the fact than the position which is taken by the New "i ork Tribune in bringing to the light so far as it can what is the truth with reference to this matter. Speaking- of tho recognition of accountability for those expenditures in Cuba, the i-J"ew York Tribune of the 22A, in its story, as the newspaper phrase goes, with reference to this matter, said: 
Tliis is 
Tt had spoken both of Cuba and the Philippines, using the word 'former" in referring to Cuba -- 
 
 iii otherwise. Hut it lias made a, calculation relative to the ac count under the head of " Finauue." and here it is published in the Xew York Tribune, under the head of: '-finance,'' giving the pro portion which salaries hear to all other expenditures in this par ticular account, and the expenditures were very large, the total e.xp(?miitnrra in'this account being; S'311,392. The portion of that amount representing salaries was S1S7.572.54. Tnus it is seen that more than 8S per cent of the entire amount disbursed under the head of ; - Finance" was paid in salaries. Of "Justice and public instruction " the salaries were more than 8 ;-i per cent of the amount expended. Of "Ag-ric-nltnre and public works" the salaries were more than 4~> per cent, Undor the head of "State and govern ment "the salaries \vere rnore than 74 per cent, and under the head of "Posts " the salaries were more than iW per cent. 
Wiry. Mr. President, the whole possible employment of these men thus legitimately engaged could not have reached thi^ ex orbitant amount of cxpeiidi tiire. 
Then, putting in another table, which I will not read, because it is contained in this second supplementary report, as to the disb-ivrs-meiit.s for six months ending December 81,18'Jy. the Tribune 
account goes on to sav; 
 
 str---- ----=.-=--=-----.-.- ^ 
ancmcans entrely indcpeiidtitf tlie oiasinGuba,'ifthe>artiaaiid incomplete reports sent to Congress mean no thing else, they do mean and emphasize that. 
Mr. President, I think that that might be considered a sufficient answer to the charge of the Senator that I have been engaged in mnd slinging', for while the Senator does not mention my name, there is nobody else who has spoken on this subject, and the Senator announced in the beginning of his speech that he did not intend to oppose the resolutions, but that something that I said required an answer at his hands. 
I do not intend, to dwell upon the serious charg-e against me-- certainly including me--by the Senator from Connecticut, which I have twice read to the Senate, as the reason why this investiga tion should proceed, but every word that I have said is in print, and I challenge that Senator or any oilier Senator to put his finger upon a single word in that speech, which is disrespectful to any body, mucli less a -wor 1 winch can "be properly classed under the head of "mud slinging.'' 
1 -understand the Senator classifies as extravagant and as innu endo and as unfounded charges and as nm>; slinging- the various matters which, have been brought to i.be attention o tlio Senvito and of the country with reference to tliese alleged improper dis bursements in the island of Cuba, i do not think that in any way that can be regarded as a leg-irimale criticism. .It is the duty of Senators to bring to the attention of; the S.enate any tiling which, in the opinion of sticli Senators, mav require an investigation; and so far from being the object of critiiisLi. the official who dues it should be commended. 
It seems that it in not, only in this Chamber that there is obioetion to the suggestion thai: there has been improper o-.-p^nOiture and dishonest mi.sapnropriation: it seems it i^ not only in this Chamber that there is condom nation of the making pnbjlo oi' any such charge. This mail Xeely. who so far appears to bo the prin cipal, but not the oiilv OiTunder. st-eius t-'j have been brought into his trouble by some one who copimitlod what somo people con sider fin impropriety in " peaching.'" in uisclot'iDg ilie fact 01 Neely's dishonesty. Me had a young man whinn Jitj s'.ems to hfive befriended, bvtho name of Rii'ji. ancl h.o turned tigi-dnst. him in tho way of evidence, and tlmt fact has brouuiii: dov/n upon him con demnation by Neely's frirnuls. I read, :-.-.i; Prusidc-' nt, at the risk 
 
 venture to assert that no"true Indiana Phyllis would now so imiVli as look at him, It was a dastard thing he did. ^seely had been his Ruidf-s. philosopher, a_n.,,d,:,.f,,ri-e,Tn. d,-.,.,, X--ee: _ly.~ h--a--dJ :p--u-ti, phoimsitiionn thtoe sewea-ywhoifchowpualyenthcee. caTt a<k-e" n'-w' a' i-mlv 
Mr. President, if the party who sent that dispatch to Indian apolis had been familiar with the parliamentary language which is sometimes used in the United States Senate, instead of all that elaboration in the dispatch, he would have simply said tiiat Kich had been guilty of " mud-slinging." 
In regard to this Habana railroad--and I shall not detain the Senate very much longer--at the time my former remarks were addressed to the Senate I had no information of a definite character as to what that road had cost. I did use the words quoted in the speech of the Senator from Connecticut yesterday by way of illustration, but was careful to say that I did not know the cost, but had heard that it was enormous. Since then the statement is made that the road lias cost $343,611. I take it from a press dispatch, tout I understand that it also is found in the statement of the Assistant Secretary of War. As to whether or not that was a proper expenditure, of course is a matter npon which evidence must be heard: as to whether it was a proper con struction as well as whether it was a proper expenditure must also "be ascertained. I know nothing about it. I "believe, however, from my limited knowledge of railroad construction, that it must have been a most exorbitant expenditure for something which appears to me, from all I can learn, was very little needed. 
There is another fact connected with that railroad to "which I want to call the attention of the Senate so as to show how we are keeping up with expenditures in Cuba. I venture to say--and if I am in error I ask members of the committee to correct me--I venture to sav that up to six weeks ago there was not a member of that committee of our relations with Cuba who knew the fact that this three hundred and forty-odd thousand dollars had been expended in. Cuba for tho construction of this road, or that the road liad been constructed, I will venture to say that wiien the subcommittee of the Committee on Cuban ^Relations went to Cuba and went to IIaJ;ana they wore not; informed of the fact--much less called upon to inspect the road--that thov were not informed of the fact that such, a road had been built; ami .1 venture the assar t-ion that, when the members of that subcommittee returned to Washizt gton not one ut them brought with him the knowledge of 
4175--3 
 
 , em to satisfy Hie that that was the 
monger. No disclaimer on their part is required: nobody expects it, and nobody wants it. 
But. Mr. President, the merits of the question whether or not there should be an investigation upon legitimate lines are not to "be disparaged by such a discussion as the Senator evidently im- 
Elies, necessarily implies, tliat one of the injustices of the pressed, i-vestigation was that which involved the names of these gentleinen. an utterly baseless and unwarranted insinuation. Sir. there is no issue in this discussion as to these distinguished gentlemen, 
e which the Senator from Connecticut has made 
 
Mr. President, when I addressed the Senate last week I called 
 
attention to the fact that one Kohert P. Porter had been sent to 
 
Cuba on a mission connected with the revision of the tariff for 
 
Cuba; that during five and a half months this Mr. Robert P. Por- 
 
'" ' '* 
 
salary of ftoOt) a month, but that he bad 
 
 19 
and, of course, an expenditure in that line had no particular ground for objection. It is a question of amount solely which I am speaking of, and I am simply alluding' to the fact that this can not he investigated although, it was expended in Cuba, because it was expended out of a different fnml, 
.But the matter to which I call the attention of the Senate in regard to Mr, Porter's mission, to Cuba, is this: There lias recently been organised i?i New Jersey a syndicate--this is not stated by me from ever having- seen the charter, but is reported to me upon evidence which f understand to be entirely credible--a chartered syndicate known as the Van Horn syndicate, with a capital of 88,000,000. to construct and operate railroads iii Cuba as well as in some other island, I understand, possibly in Porto Rico, and it is also stated as a fact--one which I do not personally know, but which I also believe--that tins Mr. Porter is now one of the officers or employees of that company, and that he has gone to Europe with officers of that company upon business of the company. 
I repeat I can not ma lie that as a charge, because I do not know it to be true, but I do make it as a charge of what is generally re puted and understood to be true. L now repeat "what the New York Tribune says on that subject, premising that the particular point is this, in order that Senators may apply the statement here as it goes along, that the original tariff upon railroad equipment in Cuba, railroad iron and all other matters entering into the construction and operation of railroads, was 10 per cent ad valo rem; that Mr. Porter in revising that tariff reduced it to 10 per cent, and that immediately subse iiient thereto was his connec tion with this company. Now, here is what the Tribune says about it. Whether true or not. personallv I do not know. It "is certainly, however, matter brought to the "attention of the Senate in such a -way as to entitle it to respect and to re-iuire investiga tion: 
Tlie keen and jofilotis, scrutiny-- 
That is from the New York Tribune of to-day-- 
The terxm and jealous scrutiny, wliicli. is. b.-iiiif bv ought to bear.these days 
cl wealthy raih 
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me? Mr. "BACON. Certainly. Mr. CHANDI/EK- I suppose the Senator intends to put in all the article, whether he intends to read it or not? Mr. BACON. All the article. Mr. CHANDLER. All this article from which he is now read- 
 
 Mr. CHANDLER. No; I was going- to ask the Senator a ques- 
IVl'r. BACON. Well, just wait until I get through with that ,rtiole. please? 
Mr. CHANDLER. I will wait until the Senator reads the whole 
 
ed i tariff duties, whatever t great syndicate. Of cou thcTtotal d-iUy"1 one sl,UOO,CH \TOI-ta^o'f^-ailroatVniii'cerial^ machinery! and supthe rate were 40 per cent. 
 
jarma,ry 1," 1809. 
 
iff and the date of its pi-omulg-ai 
 
,ud aftor Mr. Porter is supposed to 
 
 of duty. Now I will heal' the question of the Senator from New Hamp shire. - Mr. CHANDLER. I wished to ask the Senator if he had any information that Mr. Porter was connected with this railroad be yond what is stated in that article. Mr. BACON. I have no information except that the fact has been stated to me personally t>y those who profess to have infor mation. Personally I do not know it. I could not go upon the stand and prove it. Mr, CHANDLER.. The Senator must have noticed that -fliero is hardly any direct charge here that Mr, Porter is connected with it. It says: 
promoters of tlie enterprise -- That he was interested. I do not know but that he is: but in justice to Mr. Porter it 
should appear that there is not one particle of evidence that ho is, except that he went to London on the same steamship with some of the promoters of this enterprise: and if a man becomes a partner with everybody he takes an ocean voyage with, we are all of us liable to be in ticklish partnerships. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator who makes trans-Atlantic voyagea every year may be in that trouble, bat I am not. I will state this in reply to the Senator. If Mr. Porter were on trial on the evi dence furnished in this article, and by the evidence which has been given to me outside of it in the way simply of a general statement. I would be obliged to acquit him, because specific proof -would be required to convict him: but if I am considering the question as to whether or not a charge is to be investigated,, the evidence need not necessarily go to the extent of that which is requisite for conviction, but is only required to be sufficient to 
I agree with him in that particular. I should b_e willing to make an investigation upon the statements contained in the article, and I propose to vote for an investigation; but 1 wanted attention called to the fact that the statements of the Tribune as to MrPorter's supposed connection with this company are almost all innuendo. 
Mr. BACON. I will ask the Senator, as this is to be printed, if the statement will not speak for itself as to whether it does go beyond the decree which the Senator specifies, and whether it is necessary to call attention to it. 
Mr. CHANDLER. Yes: I think attention should be called to it. Mr. BACON. 1 have no objection- to attention being called to it. Mr. CHANDLER,. I think attention will be called to the ab sence of evidence by reason of this col.oqny, Mr. BACON. I take occasion to sav I hope it may be proved to be untrue, because if true it does not simply affect Mr. Porter. it affects the Senator from New Hampshire and it affects myself, 
 
 and it affects every other man who cares for tlie honor and vyurity *- the public set-vice of the United States, and I do most sincerely eare for it, I -wish most fervently that everything which has been e-hargrecl with reference to peculation and embezzlement in Cuba, as to misappropriation, a to -wastefulness, as to extravagance, could all tie shown to be untrue. 
The Senator from Connecticut statfed as "broadly as can be stated, in his speech vesterday, that the purpose of this investigation is to manufacture campaign material. Did the Senator from Connec ticut weigh iiis words when he said that? What right had the Senator to charge a Senator upon this floor with insincerity in asking for this investigation? 
When lie said that, did he recollect the fact that if these charges were true they brought disgrace not only upon those who arc con cerned but more or less upon, every citizen of the United States; that it was a dishonor to the Government and to all of its people? "Would the Senator say that a brother Senator, standing in liis yiai:ein the Senate, knowing that tliese charg-es, if true, would bring disgrace upon the Government, woM bz-ing* dishonor upon the public service, would lie a humiliation and a shame to every citizen of the United States--would he say that; a Senator would bring an accusation-whien ^ true "WCmlcT. have such direful results and such direful influences, when he did not believe them to be true, and when his only purpose was to manufacture campaign >iiaterial? Mr, President, I acquit the Senator of meaning wliat Siis words imported- I know him too well to believe that he would liave such.a conclusion drawn from -what he said. 
In this connection 1 wish to ask another question. If it "be true .fhat- the purpose of endeavoring- to ascertain the fact whether .there have "been dishonesty and improvidence and wastefulness .ind extravagance and fraud in the expenditures of the Cuban revenue is to manufacture campaign capital, whAcli is tt\ more, jredi table, to endeavor to uncover fraud, to exposo embezzlement for tlie purpose of campaign material, or to attempt to cover up fraud, to cojiceal the guilty, in order that th-ore may not "be cam paign material? I deny for myself that the purpose is to manu facture campaign material, and denying that for myself I accord. to the Senator that his purpose is not to prevent the discovery of fraud in order that there inuy not be campaign material. But I submit that if it is a question of the manufacture or the defeat of the manufacture of campaign material, one who stands on the side of the uncovering of fraud, the conviction of the dishonest, the disclosure oi' emhe- zlement, is more to be commended, even though his motive be such as he describes, than the one who will attempt the concealment of all this if only to prevent exposures which, if made, will furnish campaign material to his political opponents. 
Sir. President, the Senator from Connecticut, in answer yester day to the qtiestiou nropouncled by myself, and in answer directly to me as to when we were going to get oiat of Cuba, replied--I am sorry I have not the exact language "before me to read, but Senators here will recollect 'it and the JSjscOUD is 0:1 everyone's dealt--that that day would "be delayed by those who are interfer ing with 1 lie work of the military corn man dei- in his efforts to ac complish what is necessary in order that we may evacuate Cuba and withdraw our forces and leave the government in control of its own people. The Senator,in the same connection, saiditought 
4475 
 
 to bring the blush, of shame to the cheek of every man who is en gaged in that work. What coiild the Senator mean? Is it inter fering with the wor-fc of the military commander in Cuba to ask that there shall be an honest disbursing of the funds raised by the revenues of Cuba? Is it interfering' with tlie work to ask that there shall "be a thorough, investigation to see whether or not this has been done? What else is being done? In what manner? The Senator could not. in his reply, have had reference to any thing else but the present proceedings, because nothing else was "before us. There had been no mention or suggestion, that any body was making any interference in any way, and the only pos sible interference to which the Senator could have had reference -was such interference as was to be found in this investigation, and this investigation is solely addressed to the question whether or not money has been legally collected in Cuba and whether it has been honestly disbursed. 
My cheeks, figuratively at least, do burn with shame as an America TI citizen with the knowledge of the fact that this trust has been so grossly abused. If I know myself I would scorn myself if I could rejoice in the proof of the fact of this dishonesty because, forsooth, it might benefit the political party to which 1 belong. I would .scorn mvself if 1 would not rather ttiat the opposite party should forever succeed than that there should be this humiliation, this disgrace, not only upon the Republican party but the Demo cratic and Populist parties, and upon every citizen of the United States. But mj" cheeks do not burn with shame, and the cheek of no citizen should burn -with shame, who, if he has knowledge of the fact that those of his own household are unworthy, that they have betrayed a trust, will, at the expense even of having to ac knowledge and share the general disgrace, seek to make disclosure o the fact and to bring the culprits to justice. 
Mr. '.President, the distinguished and learned Senator from Con necticut said yesterday that he saw nothing in the facts outside of (-his particular defalcation which required investigation as tc the receipts find disbursements in Cuba. The Senator is to be charged, if this resolution passes, is adopted by the Senate, with the duty, as chairman of the committee, of making the investiga tion. Yesterday the Senator from Wisconsin j Mr. SPOOXKR], in the course of a colloquy with some one, said that when a man went out making a search, what he expected to see he generally found. This is true. Applying the converse of it, how can the Benator from Connecticut expect to find, as the result of his in vestigation, this corruption, and this fraud when he has announced to the Senate, during the course of a most elaborate and earnest &nd. able speech, after several days of investigation, that he does not believe there is any thing there to find? The Senator's pride of opinion, after what he said yesterday, will lie greatly shocked if the results of this investigation constrain Mm to report hereafter to the Senate that the administration of public affairs in Cuba had in some features at least been characterized by jobbery and embezzlement. 
Mr. President, do we not face a great duty? "We have started out upon a road altogether different from that which, we have heretofore traveled. Conceding it to be proper that we should pursue that journey, conceding it to "be proper that we should cut loose from the past, that we shoiild enter upon a career where we shall govern distant colonies--and certainly no one can ask that 
4i75 
 
 for the arguiaent I should concede more tlian that--if that is con ceded to be true, in the presence of this first attempt and in the presence of the -undented fact of this peculation, this embez zlement, this thievery: in the presence of the strong probabilities of the truth of the charges which are everywhere, on the streets, in the halls of Congress, in the newspapers, that there has been extravagant, wasteful, dishonest expenditure of this money, not one dollar of which belongs to us; in the face of this disclosure mpon the first experiment, do we not stand in the face of a great and most solemn duty? In view of what we intend to do in the future, conceding for the argument this departure to he correct, do we not stand in the face of a most solemn duty to probe this matter to the bottom; not to go into it saying" we do not believe it is there, but to go into it with the determination that at all haz ards, not simply shall there "be labor, but that there shall be with an open mi net and with a determination to get the truth, an in vestigation which shall probe this matter to the bottom, bring everything into the light of day, vindicate the innocent, and ex pose the guilty? 
Mr. President, there is a great horde of money seekers who are looking to those new openings as a means by which they can fill tlieir pockets. Doubtless there are those who look to honest enter prises in Cuba: no one will question that. But -outside of them there is the army of camp followers and job seekers. They do not simply look to small amounts; it is to large amounts. What a 4ay it would have been for the Ancient Pistol, -who. when a creditor pressed Mm to pay a debt oil 8 shillings, bade him be patient and wait until he returned from the wars in France; for said he-- 
I shall sutler bo Unto the camp, and profits will accrue. 
But to think of S shillings--8 shillings in contrast with the mil lions! 
Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut gave a clean bill of character yesterday to the distinguished gentlemen, I -will say, who have been caught in tliis peculation, this, thievery. That reminds me to recur to one matter I had forgo; ten, and I am glad of the opportunity to do so. 
The Senator was, accusing me--probably that is strong lan guage, but certainly by implication was puttmg' upon me the charge that lor the purpose of campaign advantage, party ad vantage, campaign purposes, I was willing that these charges should be brought aga.nst tlie civil officers of the Government; that I was discrediting the President of the United States: that I was casting imputations upon the heads of Departments. That charge was absolutelv unfounded. I never named the Presi dent of the United States" I did not allude to him. I did not say a word whicli by innuendo or in any other -way could be con- 
never expect to. I may criticise the President for differences upon principle; I ought to do so where I differ from him; but I have never spoken a disrespectful word of him ill the Senate. I never expect to, and I am sure I never will. Nor did I say a word which reflected upon any member of his Cabinet. I differed from the Secretary of War. not the present Secretary, but the Secretary who issiierl the order making what 1 contend are illegal allow ances to officers of the Army. It is right and proper that I should 
do so. 
4475 
 
 When I came to the Postmaster-General I expressly exonerated him, and 1 asked the Senator from Connecticut yesterday to read it in connection with the sentence which, lie himself had volun. tarily read out of; the speech I made a few days ago. He declined to do so. Now I will read it. I will read the preceding- sentence, which the Senator die! read, and then I -will read the one which I asked him to read and which he declined to read. In discussing the question as to the propriety oi: this investigation I said this: 
3Tr. President, if it wero only the posx-Office Department wl>ich was in- 
Where is there excuse or justification for the charge made by the Senator that I ha.fl in any manner reflected upon the President of the "United Htates, or that I had imputed anything wrong to any officer oi: his Cabinet? In tins connection --and the thing that reminded me of that was this--the Senator from Connecticut yes terday gave a clean bill of character to Rathbone, Reeves, Keely, and Thompson, and he said that they were men who prior to this dis closure had stood uiiimpeaehed, had stood high for integrity and purity of character, and that if the President of the United States, in the presence of a great necessity to select the best man, had been guided solely by the question or merit and solely "by the rec ord of pure conduct when formerly in office, he would have found no better man than Rathbone. And he calls on Senators to wit ness that fact. Then he takes up Neely. and he gives him a sim ilar eulogy; a.nd he calls on the Senator from Indiana to bear tes timony to the correctness of the estimate in which he held him. 
The Senator from Connecticut, in the warmth of his praise and eulogy for these men, made them very angels of purity and in tegrity. 
Air. President, what does that prove? Grant what the Senator says to be true. It proves the correctness of the statement made by me in my remarks on a former occasion, that it is due to the system, that it is due to the colonial policy, that it is due to the maintenance of satrapies and proconsulates and viceroyalties, and that so long as we continue them we will have to submit to just such humiliation in the frauds and embezzlements which will be brought to li^ht. The great Cardinal said that by the sin of ambition the angels fell, but in this modern day it is a more sordid sin which is dragging them down. 
And, Mr. President, if the policy of colonial government is to become a fixed feature of this Government there will be the fall not simply of four angels but of legions of tliein. 
4475 
 
 Mr. President, I repeat, clo \ve not srand 171 the presence of a 
 
great duty, a duty higher than partisanship 0 Do we not stand in 
 
the presence of a duty where we should unite ITJ r:s performance 
 
regardless of party? I think that duty is twofold. That duty in 
 
the first place is to goto the very "bottom, not simply through ex 
 
pert accountants, but through the examination of evci'y ivituess 
 
who can be found or will produce himself. to ascertain everything 
 
that has been done In Cuba, in order that we may know to what 
 
ejxreiit wrong has been'done, ami in order that when we have as 
 
certained it we may make restitution, I am not in 1'avor of the 
 
adoption at this time of the amendment offered by the Senator 
 
from Colorado [Mr. TET^UM j. While I agree with him entirely 
 
in the purpose which, he lias in view. I am in favor not of making 
 
an appropriation of a part. Let us wait and see whether in the 
 
place of 200.000 there are millions of dollars of tlie Cuban funds 
 
which have been misappropriated, and if there has been such mis 
 
appropriation let us make restitution. 
 
Then our further duty, one in the performance of which we can 
 
not too soon get together, is to recognize the fact that we are in 
 
possession of Cuba under a pledge that we are there for a specific 
 
purpose, and that we will not go on drifting for this specific obli 
 
gation to take care of itself and result as it may; but thai in t!ie 
 
furtherance of a high resolve to do our duty we will get together 
 
and determine what shall be done to bring this matter to a speedy 
 
conclusion, "We have solemnly pledged ourselves, and, as the 
 
Senator from Wisconsin said, we intend to keep the pledge, al 
 
though there are powerful influences urging its violation: but if 
 
we dp intend to keep it, we bring discredit upon the loyalty of 
 
our intentions by delaying its performance. Xow is the time. 
 
It is said we have to adjourn. The decree is said to have gone 
 
forth. Mr. President, there (ire some things I should extremely 
 
dislike to see done before we adjourn, but of all things I should 
 
like to sec this nation redeem its pledge before we ndjouni. and 
 
"by an act of Congress fix the day when we will withdraw from 
 
that island and leave those people, as we pledged they should be 
 
left, in the possession of their own free and independent govern 
 
ment. 
 
4475 
 
o 
 
 RKSOLUTION OF SYMPATHY FOR THB SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLICS. 
REMARKS 
HON. A. O. BACON, 
SEXATK OF TUB "UNITED STATES, 
 
 E K 31 A B K S - 
H O X . A . O . 13 A C 0 Is' . 
 
I 
 
-\lr. ]-*i\i - I'u.s : Oil ve*o-i-.ln-- ! iniye Liotioe ro.o.r ;tt rllis 7,cur- :i )iil;l nak (li,- c_ ou.r_t'-s.y, of_ tu. t_ fi.-m..t.e in oi-u-i- onH .1 niiiihl: siil)it a iJ'mv- ; -so-nnif::n^-k:. o-ni die -- eei^s.o^i-onn.3o., onlViyo't-1 '' -; -Tr \lUUco, ^S,o. y,to^> l\-oio -ilio,rini,dlo |(3A.Iir. TZr^i, oi.oi-r,ii)|. ^\,'i,';i]lI'l. r]h-se A, t;.-'fmiO.'--.-o.o^;:; ca:r t?; lio -'o-ooo. it -n\il r-o\v ii;-o,'f:ca to i!o ,-n, AJr. I'rimi,'i,:it. ,t i ii.r.-^.'i'jlr- n.v MO 1,; 
l f.iil to syiiu.r.tlii:.. -\vu'kllio 3.-.,. ,-.- in T 
.. ^Ti-^-^'V' i'or /U'e u-idi til.j ni..:,-1 -)---. (v'v.i f-.-- i-o or ;' -i :]:y \, .-.rh L It <- 'i!' tn-o O/1 ,1 -,,:.i :u.. p:-,hv;:i i; !..." '"v nu'.. < In ii-'irt, i,,-c,jv.o '.'ii^';^;;--oo -;) ,i u---^j! * l.rp;--:   or K. -!>;,,; , ,. no': ,:;;'' uof ,-u^ o(' UK- r comnry. : utiv l>ou;". nu,L rjiv ioMl''ty 
it i,i til.; ^,1> ,,f t-Kt:-:T-riv,; ,-.v r!i'J-,-v t,i.i'i..n;i,f ,/i-i/u on-^icrs -vlj-- iiu\'e u-o- ;r "fr-^'U -:;ii.-f^ li. ?,,;-, o.r,<l -,,-':,., ^.: ^tv^^-^'i;:'^ ^01- Ijj't- 
ask C,,e atreutiaa at a,<- fifu.-no !o-Ja.r. I can Meiuvtra-.x ,i,a.T sympatbixe \yitli those eu.ga.a,-,! in at the, same time not ha p.-apare,! to say Hint -, i-eolntiou o!fere.l in-tile aonntor i'rom roiorm 
 
 be violative of international obligations that I have ventured to take a small portion of the time of the Senate. 
These resolutions, Mr. President, in my opinion, are conserva tive, are proper, and are not violative of international obligations. In the course of a limited practice at the bar, whenever I have desired to establish a legal proposition "before a eourt, I have al ways found when I could" produce an authoritative precedent from a court entitled to respect that that was better and more . controlling than an arg'nment which I myself could oifer to the court. Proceeding- upon that line, in support of the proposition that these resolutions are proper resolutions and that they are not violative of international obligations, I desire to ask the attention of the Senate--especially as \ve may in all probability be called upon to vote upon these resolutions, if not to-day, at a very early time--I would ask the attention of the Senate to what has been 
heretofore been wont to regard not only with respect, but as au thoritative, as precedents which wo could safely follow. I could, of course. _Vlr. President, use a very large part oF the time of the Senate in the production of such precedents, but I shall only ask the attention of the Senate to a fevr. 
"In 18^5 war WHS flagrant between G-reece and Turkey. Greece was in undoubted rebellion against Turkey. There was no (ques tion as to the technical soveroicmry of Turkey: it was a case of revolution, in which (Trence was attempting to throw off the rule of Turkey.' At that time, on the I'Jtli day "of January, ld!, Sir. Webster, then a member of the House of Representatives, pre sented a memorial in the Howse. and I read relative thereto from the Annals of Congress of the Eighteenth Congress, first session, volume 1, page "108::>: 
jMmildoi'.'~fi. rn. (.laluwelV yamac! x! RiiialUvooJ. aiid Aml'rcw^Way. jr.."a 
 
to the following effect: 
 
W licne ver thfe PresidoiU shall dotnii ii oxp^hViit to make sue]? appointment. 
Mr. Webster's address is set out in full between pages 10S(> and 10U7 of that volume of the Annals of Congress. I shall not take the time to read that speech, although it is very instructive and very applicable to the very tjuestioii which we have before us. but will content myself with reading the concluding paragraph of it. Of course the entire speech cai3 he very readily read by any Sena tor who desires to refer to the volume. In the conclusion of that speech .Mr. Webster used the following' language: 
Jtfr. CJiafj-iaan. tliort- are -some tLinys %\-UicJi. to be; w^ll <lcme. must btpromptly clouo. Tf wo eyuii determine to do tiio thing that is HOW im.)]io-<;d 
 
dr. 
 
itho 
 
. nd f-o 
 
 .?I;se tshe' 
1 merely^wanted him" to'imish" anil ~tel)~the fc .VCON.' I 'do' not think they took any. It wad in case as in this: There wore in that Coucjress men who occupied the samo position relative to stnu;qiing peoples lishtins for their liberties and their homes that the honorable Senator from iiassaolmsetts to-day occupies toward people engaged in the name tre- 
1 
;! 
Itii; 
 
 Before proceeding, however, to call attention to the occasion upon which Mr. Webster reaffirmed what he had said in !Si4, i call attention to what Sir. Snmner said, another Senator from Massachusetts. In December. ISol, Mr. Sunnier, then a Senator from Massachusetts, in the Senate of the United States, upon the consideration of a special order, "being the resolution of Mr, Seward of welcome to Kossuth. used this language: 
Mr. President, It may be said and will possibly be said that those were expressions of Senators simply in honor of a. man who had been engaged in a struggle which was over and passed. However, as L Khali show to the Senate, Qovenior Kossuth's visit to America was not a mere formality, but, as 1. shall read from a speech deliv ered by him. to winch another speech by Mr. Webster was made in response, 'lie was here for the purpose of enlisting the sym pathies or the American poople and of the American (.-J-overmuent. not simply in. a contest which was past, but one which was then impending. 
I have here a little pamphlet which I obtained i'rom the Con gressional Library giving an account of the dinner given by mem bers or: Congress to Kossuth at the Kational Hotel in this city on the 7th of January. 18.V2. There could scarcely have been an as semblage of officials and dignitaries of this Government wliich coi.\ld have more strongly asserted and emphasised the desiro of; this G-overnment not only to do honor to Kossuth but to give ex pression to its svmpathy for the cause in whicli he had been en gaged and for th"e further prosecution of the cause whicli lie con templated. 
Now. before reading anything with reference to that, in order that 1 may have it in. tne proper connection, I read an extract front the speech made by Kossuth at that banquet, to which speech the speech of Mr. Webster, to whicli I shall hereafter allude and read, -was directly and immediate] 1*-responsive. Kossnth. in the course of his speech, to which Mr. Webster immediately responded, useci this language: 
"tLe~mii>t'iiilmy?-rrrtif ;!<:- of oppi-esised freedom on 
So, while it is true as suggested by the inquiry of the Senator from jSTevada [Mr. STKWA.RT"| yesterday, that this banquet was after the Hungarian war. it "was preceding an anticipated con tinuance of that war. and in the presence of the avowed contem plation by the honored guest of tiie evening that sucli wonkl be tlie future course; and the speech made by Mi1 . Webster on that 
 
 occasion, In immediate contemplation of the impending1 struggle, was concluded by the toast offered by him to  Hungarian inde pendence. '' rip the question to which I recur as to the propriety of" the resolution of the Senator from Colorado, whether in its adoption there is any violation of any international obligation, was directly involved and recognixed in the utterances of vhese great men upon that occasion. 1 have spoken of i he character of the gathering. This paper, containing tlie speeches of Mr. Web ster and others 117.7011 that occasion, was published in. tlie Olobe office. I have no doubt it appeared in the G-lobo newspaper, although it is not so stated here. Speaking- of the banquet, this lang-uiig-e is used: 
 
' 
 
^' 
 
ty a 
 
[Applause.] 
 
ra! feeling oE this vast' community." 
 
That was spoken by tlie Secretary of State for the then President of the United States. There were present- upon that occasion iiotoii.lv the Cabinet, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, and members of the Senate and members of the House, but justices of the Supreme Court and high officers of the Army a?id Navy, representing those particular branches. So at that banquet there may be said to have been represented all of the de partments of Government. After several speeches from parties representing these different departments, from a judge of the Supreme Court, and. generals in tlie Army, and representatives of the Navy. Governor J-fossuth spoke, arid immediately thereafter the Secretary of State, ilr. Webster, made his speech, 
JMr, Webster was not only a great constitutional lawyer; lie was skilled in parliamentary p'ractice and retirements and learned in international ]^^v. Aside froni having been r'or a gen eration, and more than a generation, in the House and Senate, he had been the Secretary of State in two Administrations: and re- 
 
  tionsantl" tie 
 
 r 
 
ISYT.VAKIA. 
 
Wallacliifms- 
 
saiwlotlifers"-" Grand total . 
 
h li,500,WJO inliahiti 
 
J, 00.1.670 J-. 905. 700 1,^1,500 S, 317,340 
250,000 372,WOO 
 
  of a 
 
that yoke." [Oi-eat appl.aiise.] ' In iiiy tipfriion Austria would be n, be',ter~;uid 
 
a, "stroiieer Government to-moi'ro\v if she i-tuiflned tile limits ot lusr poiver to 
 
lier lieroditfu-v siml fiermfin tlomiiiioiis ----  
 
Mr. SK\\AHU. True: triKi. 
 
Mr. W)'iiisT|.;ii .c:ontmuiueK Espociallv if -.he HJI\V in lTnnq-:irv a. .-iti-onu', 
 
- 
 
tloii. bocauso 1 thiii-t Tlie L-O^L of kee]im<i- 
 
Hli 
 
paid 1 
 
 3?" 
proposed to be given in the resolution of tlie Senator from Colo rado are not improper and not viola tive of international obliga tions, :md. in the next place. these words were spoken by Daniel Webster at a. time when lie \vas Secretary of State of the [United State*. 
Tlie Senate will remember that in the course of this speech Mr. Webster spoke with. ;\ great deal of satisfaction of the letter which lie had written among- his native Ke\v Hampshire hills, and he not only spoke of it with satisfaction "bnt said tliat as long as life should last and as loiii*1 us lie could see the light of the^mooii ami of the sun those would be his sentiments, and that he could never depart from them until he ceased to become a part of liimselt'. I have been tlie less reluctant in reading this speech in the Senate in print except in this little pamphlet from which I have read it. 
1 will read a part of the let t or that he referred to as having been composed by him in the quiet of the Mew Hampshire hills, near the graves Of his ancestors, where nothing saluted his senses, bis mind, or his sentiments ' but freedom, full and entire." It was a letter written by him as Secretary of State, addressed to the Austrian charge d'affaires, in response to a letter which this Aus trian official had addressed to him. The objects of the letter ad dressed by ilr. Hnlsemaim to the Secretary of State are indicated in the following extract from Mr. Webster's letter in reply: 
f his 
Tlie Lui'jiTst or ilisrt'sWotiYil roivai-c] that }joivei-.' 
In tlae course of this letter. Mr. Webster used the following language: 
 
 13 Further in his speecli ilr. Douglas said: 
 
 OFFICEB, 1 '*Tlie 1rosoliitions mil be read. 
 
 The Secretary read as follows: 
 
In tlio Senate. July 10. 1801. Resolution introduced by Mr. Stunner. 
Mr Snmncr. from the Committee ou Foreign Relations,. i-oporTod a joint Ycw.il at ion <S. R. tW> 'iU.v'.lu.fin^ sy-mtM-'-Uiy v.-iUi Uie suffering people of Crete. 
Mr. Si; \ns-mi. I usk f or the- notion of the Semite upon tbe joint re-oliilioii at this time. 
The PiiiJsm-E>,-T pro tejn-pore. Is there auv ob.it^tion to tbe consideration of the rosotnrioti? Tlio Cliair hears none. 
The i oil-it resolution was, bv Ymammou.8 consent, read three times, and passed." Tt is as foIJows: 
"Jiesof-rci?, i-fc That the people of The "L'mted Stutes. feeliiisr a strong sym pathy with the, people of Crete, constituting a -part of the l-troek iVimily. to 
 
ferhigs"of'th.ts iiiteriKstinff penpli-;" am! 'tlioy miiie in the hope that tiiis decla 
 
- 
 
' 
 
their duty' to makt;, wiil lie favorably consido-ecl by 
 
roverimient of Turkey in determining: it policy toward 
 
 k liul b t' it fnrUi'-r rcmtlre.a, Th;it it wlialTbe the dnlyof the: 
 
1 States to coiiuiinnkititcrliirtrciSDlLition Lot lie Mo 
 
Mr. l^AVJS. "1 move to rol'er the repolntioii to tlic Committee 
on Foreii>-ij Helations. Mr. TETjLiEll. On that motion .! ask for the yeas and nays. Mr. STK WART. L<et us have tiie yeas and nays. Tlio PRESIDENT pro ieiu];ore. Tlie Senaun- froiii Miimesota 
moves that the resolruions s-alnnitted l)y the Sciititor from C'oloraclo bo referred to the tJorniuittoe OH FoveigTi rlelations. and. on thfit motion tbe Senator i'roiu Colorado as'ks I'or 1 he yoas and nays. 
The vefis and iiuvs v\Teve ordered: a,iid the Secretary proeoedet'l to 
call the roJl. 
J\Ir. UC'TLER ( when his jiame -\v;i< i_-alled). J hn.ve a standing1 pL-iirwH.li tUeju-moL- Senator i'roiu Mar\-lana [Mr. Yv'Ei.i.TNCTGxy. Iiuisinitoh an he -\vouldvote ag'ainsu this motion and in i'avor of the ressoiution if present, I wiJl vote. I vr^te "nay," 
Mr. DA'VIS (\vhen his name was called). 1 amptured wJth the Senator f]'om To xa.-3 | Mr. CriiJ/ruxj. 
Sir. AL.L1SON (when Mr. jMojtV.;.^-'s ii.-nne -\vas called). The 
Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoiiiiA^J ancl my colleague [Mr. G-EAB] are paired. 
Mr. TURIJSY' (when liis name -\vat< callefl). I hfive a general pair with the Senator from Wisconsin. [Mr. Si'OoxiiKJ. 11' he -were present, I should vote " iiay. : " 
Mr. TUK^BK (when his name was called). 1 have a pair with the senior Senator from Wyoming \ Mr. AYAKRI^N]. If he were present,  should vote "nay."' 
Mr. VEST (when his name was cal'fed). I am paired with the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. KET^OK]. I \vo\ild vote " nay "' if 
he were present. 
The roll call was concluded. Mr. TUKL15V. I have authority to transfer my pair with the Senator from Wisconsin | Mr. SPOONKR] to the Senator from Mis sissippi | Mr, Su-LiLiv AJT ], aiid I will therefore vote. 1 vote "nay." Mr. TtTRNER. I transfer my pair with, the senior Senator from 
 
 withdraw my vote. ore. The Chair announces a pair Arkansas I :,s. SKKR-. 1. [ vrapvose were present. lie would vote -nay." 
 
 REORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY BY INCREASING TO 100,000 MEN. 
DISCUSSION 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0, BACON, 
GEORGIA, 
OTHER SKNATORS, SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1901. 
 
  DISCUSSION 
HOIST. AUGUSTUS O. BACON 
 
OTHER SENATORS. 
 
Mr. PROCTOR. The bill passed l>y the Senate last winter only added to the artillery. The amendment adopted "by tlie House adds to the artillery the equivalent of 5 regiments. The addi tion is made, in the form of a corps. The Senate changed that form and made it, correctly, 5 regiments; that is, made it 12 regi ments instead of 7. The addition made by the House to the cav alry -was 5 regiments, from 10 to 15, and to the infantry 5 regiments, from 35 to 30. 
The bill provides, in round numbers, that the minimum of the Regular Army shall be about 58,000, and the maximum about 98,000. That is substantially correct. 
Mr. TELLER.. How will*that maximum, be determined? Mr, PROOTOR. That maximum will oe determined by the President, without any addition of officers. It merely provides for the addition of enlisted men when an emergencv requires it. The organization will be 58,000, and the President may, by in creasing the number of men in each company, increase the total in this proportion to 98.000. Mr. TELLER. "What number did the bill as it passed the Sen ate last year, in round numbers, add to the Army? Mr. PROCTOR. As it passed the Senate last year the bill added the equivalent of 5 regiments, about 5,000 men, to the artillery. 
Mr. ALDRTCH. The bill as it passed the Senate did not pro 
vide for a general reorganization of the Army. Mr. PROCTOR. Iff was not a general reorganization. Mr. TELLER. I discover that from reading the bill. The bill 
as it passed the Senate is a very different bill from the "bill that comes from the House and as it now comes from the committee. 
Mr. BAOON. I should like to ask the Senator from Vermont if the number of men proposed to be added to the artiJJery is still considered by the Senate committee as a sufficient number i'oi- that branch of the service? 
Mr. PROCTOR. It is. That is the recommendation of the De partment. It is substantially what was added last winter, when the matter of the artillery was very fully considered, and what the House has sribstantially incorporated in this substitute, if I may call it so. There has been no substantial difference in the action the Senate took last winter, the action that the House took recently, and the action of the Senate committee in reference to the number of the artillery. The Senate committee has changed the form from corps to regimental. 
 
4U43 
 
3 
 
 It then goes on with, some details. The President can bring the Army up to about 08,000 or practically 100,000 men. I can show the Senator some figures if he cares to have them. 
Sir. BACON. I clonot'desireto unduly interrupt the Senator, but I understood, that he began to read in response to an inquiry which I had made. I presume I was mistaken, and that the Senator is proceeding to read the report at large. 
1C 13 
 
 Mr, HAWLiTSY. No; I thought the Senator asked how large the increase -would be. 
Mr. BACON. No; the question I asked was this--I understood the reply to the inquiry which the Senator just now suggested as haying been made by me: The point to which I directed the in quiry \vhich I took the liberty of making of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROCTOR] was as to the circumstances under which the emergency -would be considered to have arisen which would atithorize the President to raise the Army from 58,000. or about tliat number, to ninety-eight or one hundred thousand, an" 
miiio; and at that point the Senator from Connecticut made his interjection, which led to the colloquy -which has taken place. 
Mr. President, this is probably not the time to discuss that mat ter, and I certainly should not have raised the question, "but, as the Senator from Vermont had undertaken to make a statement as to that provision of the bill, 1 thought it was proper that the statement should bo made complete."so that when the Senator stated, that the power to increase the Army was to provide against an emergency I thoti&'ht it was very proper that right In that connection there should be a statement as to liowthe existence of that emergency should be determined and who should determine it, and the Senator from Vermont very promptly replied, -without any qualification or the suggestion of any collateral consideration, that it was in the power of the President of the United States. 
While I do not desire to continue the discussion on this line, T think, In order that this matter may be presented in proper con nection and consequence, that the Senator from Connecticut now on the floor [Mr. HAWKEY] or the Senator form Vermont [Mr, PROCTOR], either of whom I presume can answer the question, should inform the Senate, when Congress meets every year and is in session more than hali: the time, why it Is that the bill should take such a radical departure, and put within the absolute power of the President of the United States the right to determine whether the Army shall be 58,000 or whether it shall be 100,000, Congress is not only in regular session a large part of: the time, but it is so easily within the power of the President of the United States to call it in session, if an emergency should require it. Why. then, is it that the power to determine what shall bo the Army of tho United States should, be taken away from Cong-ress and vested in the exclusive power--tho absolute, unbridled power--of the Execu tive? "What is the reason for it? I am askmg-the Senators, will they tell us what is the reason for it? 
third of the Army goes ont every year, so that there will be no 1 difficulty in adjusting1 the number of men from year to year. 
Mr. BACON. I wish to ask the Senator from Iowa if'his argu ment would not go to the extent oi: relieving Congrr&s of: the necessity at any time of prescribing the iimiiber of soldiers that ought to be in the Army, upon the ground that if the discretion 
 
 Army, 
 
 general legislation on it becomes the law and remains the law un til it is repealed "by subsequent legislation, on an appropriation bill or otherwise. 
Mr. AIjLISON. I understand, of course, as the Senator does, that an appropriation "bill when it becomes a law is a statute. I did not need to "be informed upon that subject. 
Mr. TILLMAN. I was not trying to inform the Senator of anythrng. I was merely answering his contention. 
Mr. ALLISON. What I mean to say is, that in each appropri ation "bill after the year 1875, as suggested by the Senator from. Montana, we appropriated for 25,000 men. We did not make it a permanent statute, 'it was only for that year, and the next year we could have made it 7,000, or any other immber under 30,000. 
Mr. B AGO ST. Whose discretion was exercised tliere--the dis cretion of the President or the discretion of Congress? 
Mr. I1AWLE Y. The discretion of Congress." Mr. ALLISON". Undoubtedly tlio discretion of Congress. Mr. BACON. Certainlv. Mr. ALLISON. Suppose in that appropri at ion bill we had made no limit of 2"..000 men; the President, then, under the general stat ute, could have enlisted up to ;JO,000. Mr. BACON. Yea. Mr. ALLISON. Therefore in the appropriation bill we limited the number------ 
Mr. BACON. Exactly. Mr. ALLISON. As we have been doing all the time. Mr. BACON. But in this instance tlie discretion to be exer cised is exclusively that of the Executive. Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President------ The PKESIDJNO- OFFICER. Does tlio Senator from Connecti cut yield to the Senator from Rhode Island? Mr. HAWLEY. Certainly. Mr, ALDRICH. 1 do not at all understand the proposition of the committee as the Senator from Georgia understands it. Mr. BACON. 1 hope I am wrong. Mr. ALDIiiCH. It scenis to me the Senator must be wrong. We have now an Army of 100.000 men. Mr. BACON. Will the Senator pardon me, that he may under stand me correctly? 1 want to set myself right. I wish to state that if I am wrong my error is based upon the information fur nished by the Senator from Vermont. I was only acting upon what ho stated. Mr. ALDS1CH. I will state my understanding of it. We have now in round numbers an Army of 100.000 men engaged in tho Philippines and elsewhere. This bill proposes to fix a maximum limit or number for our Army of a hundred thousand. Congress fixes it, not the President or anybody else; but in view of the fact that we all hope that a, less number oi* men may be necessary, owing to the change in conditions in the Philippines and elsewhere in the near future, and that tho Army therefore must be reduced and should be reduced from, time to time, the President is given the opportunity, as Commander in Chief of the Army, to reduce it to 58,000 men whenever the conditions oi' the service are such tJmt it can be reduced. Either the President or Congress can do it. It is not a question of increasing the Army. It is a question of reducing- it whenever it can bo done 122 the interest of the public service. 
 
 Mr. BATE. Mr. President------  ThoPRKSIDtNG OFFICES. Does the Senator from Connecti cut vickl to the Senator from Tennessee? 
Mi-. HAWTjET. Certainly. Mr. DATE. I do not understand that there is any authority In this bill to Uio President to reduce the Army at nil, except as he may call for men. He can not reduce it "below EjS.OOO, Isi.r. ALDRICH. He can reduce the number of enlisted men at any time when ho thinks the public service will permit it. Mr. BATE, _Not below 58.000. Mr. ALDIilC-H. K"o; we fix a minim-urn. Mr. BATK. Yon fix the legal inirrfnram, and tno President-has no rii^lit to reduce ifc below the 58,000. Mi\ ALJIUUOil. Not below 38 : 000 until further action by Coii^re^a. Mr. B/'TE. Yes. sir. Mr. BACON. Do 1 niTcleTfttaiid the Senator from Rhode Island to imply thai; the President, having- reduced it, -would not have the authority, in his discretion, thereafter to -increase it'^ I under stand the Senator to say he would hare. Th^t is the point. JMr. PHOCTOK. 1 should liko to call the attention of the Sen ator to the wording of: the provision. It is not a continuingauthority to the President. I road from the bottom, of page 37': 
tVbii'sVr' tlio Army'iit their inaxiinnui ylreiiqll 1bo isrcst'iit oxi^ciicios of tlie service, or until s :;roii'ter direct. 
I\!r. BACON. If the Senntorwill ^ardon me, the Senator from Vermont ami the Senator from Rhode Inland do not aa;ree. 
Mr. ATjDBlCII. We do. Sir. PI-iOCTOE. Perfect! v. Mr. "P-ACON. I (\sked the Senator froiB. Rhode T si arid wli&i-lier, in liis opinion, sifter the President had reduced the Army to o^.OOO, if an emergency arose which he thouglit justified it, he could thsroa^icr inere;iSG Jt asjain. Mr. 1IA\VLK17". Ho woula be obliged to. Mr. BACON. The Senator from Khoao Island Raicl he could, and the Senator from Connecticut noy\* bov,"5 his head in recog nition of that as a correct statement. On the contrary, the Sena tor from "Vermont says that lie would not have the po\ver; tlmt it is not a continuing' ono, but that the power -was exhausted "\vhen he once reduced it. Mr. ALDBJXJH, "Will the Senator allow me to asl; him a <iueK- 
M Mr. BACON. Yes, sir, Mr. ALDKIOH. When wo had an Army of 30,000 men author 
ized by livw, and the Army actually vv*as reduced by civcamatar-ces to '2.j,OU03 and an emergency arose on theVvesteru plains or some where else, does the Senator mean that the President coukl not have enlisted enough additional men within the limit authorized by law? 
Mr. BACON. That was not a matter pnt -within the discretion of the President. The number was fixed at SO,000, and the only limitation was that pointed out by the Senator from Iowa, where Congress failed to make an appropriation for a greater number than that stated. 
MivHPOONER. Was not that a, maximum limit? 
4.C43 
 
 Mr. BACON. 
States should "be vested with the power which the Constitution, intended Congress should exercise, to determine what shall bo the size of! the Array of the United States. There is 120 part of the Constitution of the United States in which the power of the Ex ecutive is more carefully g-uardocl than in that part with reference to the exorcise of any discretion by him or any undue power by him with respect to an army. Even Congress itself is prohibited from putting the Executive in possession, of funds which will en able him to keep an army for a longer period than two years. It was because of the desire that the framers of the Constitution had that the one who wielded Executive power should not have milimited power that all these provisions were nut into the Consti tution of the United States; arscl if that document is still entitled, to any respect from VLS, it seems to me its spirit requires that the question what shall be the size of the Army "should be determined by Congress and not by the Executive. 
the question of the Senator from Vermont. I simply wanted to have the information in connection with what lie had previously sti-ited. I wish to say this in reply to what the .Senatorfrom 1'Iontana has stated. I think the Senator from Iowa also had some thing to say on the same subject. 
There is 110 jKirallel between thn law which was passed in view of the Spanish-American war and the present proposed law. That was ti Inw passe;! for the emergency of n. war then iipon ITS. to be in force only during that war, with the intention that it should immediately cease to be the law upon the termination of that war. But this does not -nropose to l;e an.'emergency bill. It proposes to be a bill which Hlmll constitute the Kegular Army of the United States. 
If what the Senator from Vermont said, or what I understood him to say, is the proper construction oL' the bill, the feature which so much excites my opposition would not present to me the enor mity which to my mind it does present. Of course I say that with all due respect to those who entertain a different opinion. If it were true, as stated by the Senator from Vermont, or as I understood him to state, that while the maximum is fixed at a, hundred thousand, it is not a continuing power vested, in the Pres ident, and that the onlv -oower conferred tipon him is a power to reduce, then [ should have nothing- to say about that feature. 33ut I asked the question whether or 210!-, after havirj ;- reduced it, he could at any time, so long as this law stayed upon the statute book, increase the Army from 58,000 to a hundred thousand, and the Senator from Rhode Island said he could, and the Senator from Connecticut, the chairman of the committee, s;iys he could. 
1 understand the Senator from Montana to say he could. So that, so far from it being-, as in the case of the bill providing- for the emergency of tho Spanish-American war, a bill limited to a certain specific occasion and for a specific purpose, to end when 
 
 10 
that occasion ceased to demand it, it is now proposed to put upon the statute book a law "which shall "be there for all time, until there shall bo a Congress which shall have the power and the in clination to repeal it or to mortify it. Therefore, if the Senator from Khode Island and the Senator from Connecticut are correct, for all time it becomes a fixed policy of the Government, the fixed law of the Grovernmeiit, that it shall be within, the power of the President to determine whether the Army shall be 5.8,000 or whether it shall be a hundred thousand, and there is 110 limit to his discretion and no check rmon his discretion. 
Mr. LI1STDSAX- Will the Senator from Georgia permit me? What; difference is there in principle between Congress abdicating to the President the right to reduce the Army to a minimum and the power to increase it to a maximum? 1 understand the Benator to say that he would not object if the President were author ized to reduce it; that what he does object to is that Congress authorizes him to increase it. I should" lito liim to explain the difference in principle between the President exercising the Con gressional function of reducing the Army and his exercising' the Congressional function of increasing it. 
Mr. BACON. II1 the Senator understood me to say I would have no objection to a feature of that kind in the hilJ, or even if I said it, I did not properly express myself. What I mean is that the fact of reduction, would not be a matter to which 1 should ob ject. I think, as suggested by the Senator from Kentucky, that it is the province of Congress to determine not only as to an in crease. b\it us to & decrease-, b\it the tp_ieslioii of increase is a very much more serious one than the question of decrease. I am op posed to an increase of the standing army beyond what maybe absolutelv necessary, because I am. opposed, to a large standing; army. I think it threatens the institutions of this coxihtry- B '*t an increase is a -very much more serious matter in its effect, whether or not there is a difference in tlte principle. 
But there is this to bo said about it, in the practical feature of it, that if it "were, as suggested by the Senator from "Vermont, a power which is not a continuing power, while the principle might "bo violated, the great danger and the great evil to which we are opposed would be minimized, because, so far from the evil being increased, it would lie one which -would bo diminished, and after having once been diminished it could not be again "brought to con front us. But if the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from Connecticut and. the Senator from Montana are correct, two of whom are members of the Committee on Military Affairs, then it is a most serious matter, not that there shall be for one time or for one vear, but for all times, the power in the Executive to de termine" whether the Army shall be 58,000 or whether it shall be 100,000--1o "be determined in his discretion, without any check 
Mr. BACON. If the Senator from Connecticut will consent I will. 1 am on the floor by his courtesy. 
The P RES ID I.NG- OFFIGEK. Does the Senator from Connecti cut yield to the Senator from "Wisconsin? 
Mr. HAWTjEY. I do not think 1 have any rights here. Mr. BACO1\. t yield to the Senator. Mr. TILJjMAK (to Mr. BACON). You have the floor. 
 
 11 
jMr. BACON, I will not again trespass upon the Senator from Connecticut. 
Mr. AT-iDSIOH. May I ask the Senator a question? Does tho Senator from (Georgia seriously contend, supposing the Array was fixed at 30,000 tinder Ihe old la,w, and tliat "by reason of; sonic mis fortune in "battle or otherwise it was decimated to one-half tliat number, arid an emei-geiicy arose where it was neces.sa.rv to use tho full strength of the Array, that the President of the United States would hare to consult Congress? 
Mr. BACON. By no means. Mr. ALDIIICH. That is the same case. Mr. BACO^T. No, it is not. Mr. ALDRICH. That is the same case that he is HOW dis cussing-. jUr. CARTER. With the permission of the Senator from Con necticut, I wish to stats that tho suggestion of the Senator from G-eorgia, that this proposed legislation embodies a departure in. princ-iple from the legislation which is now the statute law of the country on this snbject. is open to question. The Senator sug gests that the legislation to "which this is not parallel provided for the raising of an army of volnnteers to fight the Spanish war, an emergency in the country's history having arisen. ^Now, at the time the existing statute was passed tho Spanish war bad ceased. Mr. BACON. I bog the Senator's pardon, I alluded to the act ol' 1898. Mr." CARTES, I will get to that. I think 1 understand the 
Mr". BACON. I was not alluding to the law that wo passed after the expiration of the Spanish \vnr. I was ill nstro,tin  by tho act which we passed atttiiorizing' tho President to call out troops to meet that necessity. 
Mr. CARTER. Then tlic Senator from Georgia must concede that the present proposed legislation docs not in principle or spirit diJfCL- from the existing law upon the question of the Army. 
Mr. BACON. The Senator from Georgia does not concede that. On tho contrary, he distinctly disputes it. 
Mr. CARTER. Then, upon what basis is thr; question? Mr. BACON. Because in the one case it was limited to Jnly 1, 1P01. Mr. CARTER. And in the other case it was limited to such time as Congress might otherwise direct. Mr. BACON. Of "course, but limited to 1901. anyhow. Mr. CARTER. Congress in one case fixed a definite limit. In the other case Congress reserves the right at any time to fix any limit it may see lit", and until such limit shall have been fixed by Congress the law itself fixes n maximvnn and a minimum for the Army of the United States. In 1898. after the treaty o peace had been signed at Paris, con ditions were not dissimilar from conditions confronting us now. In order to meet the conditions then existing' it was proposed that the Regular Army should consist of H5.000 men, or thereabouts, and that in addition to the G<~>,000 men oL* the Regular Army we should have 35,000 volunteers. The President was not required to call_put a single volunteer; he was not required to keep the Army at 65.00;). but if, in his opinion, the ;J."5,000 volunteers were neces sary to supplement tho Regular Army, iti that event the right was given to the President to call out the Uii.OOO volnnteers or any iium- 
 
 her of volunteers loss than 35,000 tliat in hia judgment might be necessary. 
Mr. BACON. Does the Senator from Montana recognise no dif ference between the authority of the President to call out volun teers and the authority of the President to determine, until the law shall be otherwise changed, no limit being fixed, what shall be the size ot the Regular Army? 
Mr. CA-tlTJ-iS. But a limit is fixed, Mr. President, at 100,000 men. 
Mr. BACON. Suppose we nx it at a million and state that the President shall haveit from 58,000 to 1,000,000, ho would have all the discretion lie wanted. 
Mr. H-&.WL"EY. Will the Senator permit me to take the floor for ;t moment? I think 1 can help him out a little. Oil page 40, beginning in Hue 22, the bill says: 
The total miuilior of enlisted men In said native organism.turns sli.-ill not with SLu-li mitive force, shallnot oxcetKl at smy onu tiuifi -U!0,0t!->."" 
There is your limitation, N"ow 1 should like to read another citation: 
Now, the President of the United States is not left there to be a usurper. Abraham ( Anco.n -SVKS a great usurper when the Sen ator from Georgia he may have been there himself tired upon Fort Sumter. 
Mr. BACON. What is that the Senator said? I want to get it exactly. 
Mr. HAWLEY. It was only jocvuarlv spoken. Mr, BACON. I know, but I want to hear the Senator. Mr- HAWLJSY. When they fired upon Fort Suniter Mr. BACON. When I didV Mr. HAWLEY. Possibly the Senator mi-ht have been there. That is all I said, Mr, BACON. No: in that exact place I was not Mr, HAWLEY. Well, no matter. Abraham Lincoln did not -wait the short time that it -would take, comparatively, to get a quorum of Congress together. He immediately issued a procla mation calling for 75,000 men. Thank G-od, I was the first man in my State to covmt myself in, and ho got them all without any trouble, and could have continued getting them up to this time, statute OT no statute, -while the flag was in danger. Mr. BATE. I beg leave to state" Mr. SPOONEB, There was a statute. Mr. HAWLEY. Of course there were statutes already. Mr. BATE. They were volunteers, not regulars, and they were not put in the Army permanently. Mr. BACON. Mr. President, i hope that in the discussion of this bill we may limit ourselves., as far as possible, to conditions in which we are not in antagonism and -where we may all bo consid ered as representing a common interest. I have no desire to reply to the suggestion of the Senator from Connecticut as to the conditions of forty years a#o, or to Ray any thing concerning them. I think the time has come, possibly, when the statute of limitations, if it would not bar anything else, would 
 
 cussion o this bill we may be recognized as all of us representing a common interest and all of us designing' to accomplish a common end. 
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. Mr. President, may I ask a ques tion? Where in tliiw bill is the President given any power to re duce the number of enlisted men: I have been looking for it, and I do not find any power given to Uie President to reduce the number, 
Mr. BACON. Do I understand the Senator to ask me the ques tion? 
Mr, PL ATT of Connecticut. Yes. Mr. BACOX. Mr. President, .1 am in ;u.i unfortunate position. I have been myself.' trying to get light from the Senators on the other side of: the Chamber, and in endeavoring to give me Uiat light they contradict each other, and I do not know who is right 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut, There is no specific power here given to the President to reduce, is there? 
Mr. AL13HICH. There is a maximum limit. Mr. BACON. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. HAWLKV] says there is; the Senator iroui ."Rhode Island ("Mr. "ArjUitrori J says There is; the Senator from Vermont | JMr. PROCJTOH] says there is; the Senator from Montana [Mr. CARTER \ says there is. Tho only difference is tliis: Senator;? on the other si<.le"of the Chamber differ among themselves as to what will be tlie status whan it is once 
will have thereafter the power ac'ain to increase. The Senators differ on that point. 
_Mr. BACON. Mr. President, "omethin^saicl by the Senator from Isew Jersey ("Mr. SB\V;T_,T,) sngge'-U to me fche propriety of adding a -word to prevent what might lie otherwise miscoiiGlrcLed in. what I Jiave already said. 
The Senat"i' speaks of the necessity of m;niitaining the flag in tho Philippines, and of doing- onr full c'intv tiiere, Vv'lmtcver that in ay be, and of the consequent necessity oif a large army there. I ;uu utterly opposed to the present bill, not because it gives Ihe requi site number ol! men to maintain the authority of the Tinted States -in the Philippine Islands and elsewhere, but because that which is recognized arid stated to be simply an emergency is taken ad vantage pi: to ingraft upon the statute boo'>s of this country a Ia\v wldvjih will create a permanent sinnclitig army, which shall not be required after ihe emergency is passed, but "which is only required during the continuance of the emergency. 
Now, Mi'. President, Senators here will probably remember that when this question was before tho Senate two years ago I voted and spoke Tor the bill which is now upon the statute book, which provided a temporary force siuiiciezit to meet the emer- 
ency wliicli was then upon us. I am ready to do so now. Mr, 'resident. I am ready now to vote Tor a bill which shall be lim ited as to time and which -will meet the necessities of the present, and in ao doing I do not in any manner waive the objections which I have expressed to tho policy which lias led to this war. 
I took the position two years ago that whether that policy was one o which I approved or not. having- been adopted by the Gov- 
 
 14 
proper reenforcements, whether they were sent there under a po Icy which we approved or not. I say that now. 
Mr. President, under no possible circumstances, from, a variety of points of view, could I be induced to withhold the requisite number oi' men to maintain the authority of the United States in the Philippines. Aside from the duty which I hold (of course I know some Senators differ from me on the subject) or from the duty -which I recognize as imposed, -upon every Senator to main tain the authority of thcGovernment in its enterprise when it has been legally determined upon- whether lie approves of that enter prise or not, there are some matters which, come closer home to me than that. Of the soldiers who are in the Philippine Islands my State has its full proportion, if not a greater proportion. In. the Army which was raised for the Spanish-American war the State of Georgia furnished more men in proportion to its popula tion than any other State of the United States, and of the whole State the town in which I live furnished a greater proportion, ac cording' to population, than any other community in that State. The Twenty-ninth Regiment, now in the Philippine Islands, was raised almost exclusively in my State. Among its officers and in its ranks arc men who are my personal friends. They are the sons of my neighbors. Mr. President, in that army in the Philip pines there are to-day men of my own blood and those of my own household. 
Nothing is further from me, Mr. President, than to suggest that we should fail to put in the Philippine Islands whatever men may be necessary to maintain the policy that the Gi-overiiment has en tered, upon, whether that policy be right or wrong. I would change that policy if I could, and change it promptly; but &s I can not change it--as the Government is there committed to it-- as our soldiers are there, we must maintain the Army. 
But that is not to bo made the excuse for a permanent army, and that is my objection to this bill. I recognize that the present discussion is to some extent premature and that the time for gen eral debate has not come: but I want some Senator during this debate to answer the question which has been propounded here to-day, that If the necessity for this great Array is a necessity growing out of the present emergency, why is it that the bill pro poses not to provide an army for an emergency, but to provide an army for all time of this inagnitu.de? 
Mr. President, there are several ways in which it seems to nie \ve could proceed, and by which we conld accomplish the desired end and at the same time avoid the great evil of a great standing army in this Republic. We do not need any great standing army in this Republic, for the only necessity for any great armament to-day grows out of the anomalous condition of affairs which now exists. 
We can meet the qttestioii by providing, as we did two years ago, for a temporary force, and we will do no violence to our in stitutions. "We will mafee no threat against the peaceful struc ture that our forefathers erected and under which they hoped we would live in peace and security, the guardians of our own safety, ourselves our own rulers, and not ruled t>y anyone or menaced by any army. 
Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention to-day that one of our great metropolitan dailies has made a suggestion which 
4643 
 
 15 
 
it seems to me lias great pith in it and the idea might be practi cally elaborated. It might be perfected in such a "way as to meet the emergency and at the same time put away from us -what to me is a horrible specter, not only of an army of 100,000 men, but of an army of several hundred thousand men. 
Mr. President, that is not a mere fancy, I have not seen the article myself, but I saw in a newspaper an article quoting the New York Tribune (whether it quoted it correctly or not 1 do not 
know) in the month of November, in which it stated, that the number of 100,000 was in all probability not that which this Gov ernment would be called upon to maintain as an army, but that 
with the new career upon which we had entered it might be, and probably would be, several hundred thousand. Bid anyone ever see it in the New York paper? I do not say it was there. I expressly disclaim having seen it. lean only say that I saw in another paper an editorial which charged that it had said it. 
But, Mr. President, it does not depend upon the New York paper.. It does not depend upon the fact that it suggested it. It stands to reason th at if we are to enter upon this policy and to pur sue it there is no reason why we should fie limited to 100,000; and I say to me that is a horrible specter in this free Republic, which, was never designed to bo maintained by force and which was never intended to rest under the threat of the menace of a great standing army. It is to me a horrible specter that there should be gradually imposed upon us. never to be released from it, a great standing army by which we would sooner or later be dominated. 
I repeat, that I have been struck by a suggestion which I under stand (I have not seen this, either; I have been told it to-day) has been made in one of our metropolitan papers, and that is that if the emergency in the Philippine Islands calls for a great army, let us raiso an army for the Philippine Islands. Let the standing army of the United States remain at the number that our domestie requirements will make necessary, and let the Military Con 
 
will } 
 
Islands. Then while we might have the increased expense, whicli 
 
is very imicli to be deprecated, wo would be freed, from that which 
 
is very much more to be deprecated, the incubus and the menace 
 
of a great standing1 army which, when once put upon us. vre will 
 
never be relieved from. 
 
But, Mr. President. I did not rise for the purpose of going- into 
 
this discussion. I have been led further into it than 1 ought pos- 
 
siblv to have gene. I rose simply for the rnirpcse of answering 
 
the "suggestion of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SEWELL, |. 
 
So far as I know, while I have had no consultation with Sen 
 
ators on this side of the Chamber, I believe I speak what is the 
 
general sentiment, that whatever is necessary to be done for the 
 
emergency we are ready to do, but we arc not to be forced to do 
 
that which we disapprove: we are not to be forced to the support 
 
of a bill which, shall impose upon this country for all time a great 
 
standing army, by the alleged necessities of the present, under an 
 
emergency, and under any suggestion as to a failure to support 
 
the nag, and to support the authority of the United States in the 
 
Philippine Islands. For one, and I believe I echo the sentiments 
 
of others, we are ready to do what is necessary for the emergency, 
 
but we are not ready that that emergency shall be used as an ex 
 
cuse for fastening upon this country a standing army which will 
 
not be needed when the emergency has passed. 
 
4G43 
 
o 
 
 r-r o x . A u G u s T IT s o . BACON, 
O F G E O E a IA , 
IN THIS S-ENATM OF THE UJSITKD STATES, 
Ja-iL-nary It, 14, and 15, 1001. 
the efficiency o tho milimry OBt.fthlishineni, 
JUr. HACOISr said: M.T. "Piu^Ti'KXT: I quite agree with the Senator from Connecti cut [Mr. Pr.ATT] that the words " clijrirj^1 the present exigencies " ou-hfc nut to Y;e in this bUK 3n other words. 'I donot think that the question aw to whether the Army should bo n. large or LI sma^l army slioiilfl bo in tlie determination OL tha Preeiicltrjil:, nor do I tii Ink ti:ut (ilie question of the increase of the Army or thede<.'2*ease of tlie Ai-iiiy shonlil by in tlio discretion of the President. I think that if. the chity of Congress. 3 tliinl: it is propoi- that \ve .shonld do uov7 as v.'o did tvvo ye:;rs ago, ourselves judge OL the probable durat ; on of the emergency. Two yer.rs ago \vo were confronted by the rcfinircntent for a Jarge army in the Philippine Inlands. Congress provided thafc army, tind COII;;TC.SS properly .riidg-ed for itsoif as to the: duration of tli a emergency, and riiise;! tin. army for twoye<irs. j fe may have "Lec'ii a iiiist.'ike as to tho time, unt it is the duty of for.grer-is to provide the Army, and it ia the dnfcy c-f C'ougi-e^a to exercise its "bost ^vsdijnifiit in deter rammo; for -\vha,t length. o time this incvev\set.l Arm> si i all continue to exist. Mr. President. 1 thi'ilt vre have fallen upon an evil day when a Senator can riye in his place in this GuKinher and ssiy thnt 3is thinks objections to giving to the President of the United States the power to raise armies at his pleasure are nncalled for. I think that v.T as the language oE the SenaJ or. I think we have fallen iiT)on an evil day whe-ii the kSenator not only s.ivs thitt hhnseLL', but when he TO tied s tlio opinion oi: the dominant party of tho country, becjuise I think if tJiere is anything that .snonld be choi'- 
~u 
' ana wnen ir sh when, it shiill bo decreased. 
Mr. Preeddent, if what the Senator from. Connecticut says is true, why do we have all tho restrictions that ;iro found m the Constitution of. the "Cnitod States as to the exercise of power, either by the President ov by the Congress? Is it to be assumed that when the Constitution makers were engaged in framing the Constitution thoy had more reason to distrust tho fidelity and patriotism of the men to whom the -new Government w;u; to be committed than wo have to distrust those men to-day; or, on the contrary, was it true that they recognized, the fact that la-ws should be made not as related to those who should be intrusted 
 
 with power being altogether good men, but should "be made so that even if a bad man got into power he, could riot abii/e it? 
31 r. .President, if" it \vere possible to have a man who should be all-wit-e as a ruler, if it- should be possible to have a. man who would be absolutely honest, absolutely capable, absolutely faith ful, trjo best of all governments would bo an autocracy, because tliat man would do tb.o best, he \vould. do no wrong, and no ma chinery- of government "which could be provided would possibly be an improvement "upon what ho could do. But as in on are frail, as they are imperfect, as they arc not nil-wise, as sometimes bad men set into power. it is found necessary that restrictions shall be thrown around tho power of those who may be placed in. posi tion. 
Mr. President, when, tho frainers oC the Constitution got to gether they had but recently rid themselves of one-man power, and throughout the Const if. lit ion there is evidence of the fact that the controlling;, dominant wish -was that there siionlu be no exer cise of one-mini power in this country, li: you will look through the Constitution you will find t!>at almost all powers oil govern ment aro intrusfed not to the Sxeeutive, but to Congress, and among all the powers "which the history of our race in its struggles showed the greatest necessity pi' controlling -were tho powers to raise armies,rlie powers of making1 war. Wliore does tho Senator find. anywhere :iii the framework oL' the Constitution anything which looks to the exercise of power by the Executive of tho Govermifcrat to raise armies and to determine what shall be the si so of the fuvnics? 
l\Ir. President, wo are engaged in the details of this bill. OC cowro'."1 , all desire, i it sj'h.ulL pass, tlmt it shall by inside ai? perfect as possible, but \ve do not "lose sight or the fact tb.at hovrovor per fect in its details, this bill, in its r>nzsa^e, will ninrl* an epoch in the history of the United States. Senators may sco-'l; at it, but it is none tho less truo that the p;issa.e,'e of a bill by which there shall be authorised a stR,idling army oi: .100,000 men, and by which tho President ct tho United States shall, in his own. judgment, and wiiho.-. t control, be allowed to dererirdne v-.-ithin a range of 50,COO 
men \v]i-.iS sh;jll be the siae of that Arn\y. i,y a march to empire. SFr. President, it is a great revolution that is proposed. I did 
not expect to go into a digci/ission of this matter, but the Senator 
from Connect:enfc, in what he said, makes it neeet-sary. It is a great revolution \vhicli will be eifected when this bill is put upon the statute books. If there is one thing above all others y/bich. has distinguished the peculiar spirit oi' this GoTer-rimeiit.it has been that'which has rested the military power of this G-overamcnt upon the volunteer system, and which has discountenanced any thing like a largo standing army. 
I do not wish anything 1 say to be considered as vmfavorablc to our standing army as we have had it, because we have had no largo standing army. It has been a small Army. It has been one which lias been regarded with .favor and with pride by the Ameri 
can people. It has never been, large enough to be a burden. It has never been large enough to threaten us with militarism. _It has simply been an Army which nas been regarded the type for the emulation of our volunteer troops, an Army "which should be a nucleus around which should rally that great host of volunteers whenever the necessity called for tlie defense of the country. But the evident purpose of this bill is to eliminate for all time the vol unteer system from the military organization of this country and 
to establish in lieu oi1 it a great regular army. 
 
 Mr. President, tlie Senator from Vermont [Mr. FBOCTOK] , I think it was, on the first (lay oC this discussion spoke ot' the volunteer system, which we had been accustomed to rely upon in the past, and which we had endeavored to make of use in" the AmericanSpanisli war, and lie H].joK'c oi: it as a mistake which, wo woald never repeat. In other words, that for the future we should rely upon rogcilai' troops and not upon volunteer troops. The Senator 
to-day, of an. elastic system of Regular Army. by which I suppose is meant tliau when a- military force .is needed, it will not be neces sary to call upon the volunteers, but that the I?egular Army can be so expanded as to meet the necessities oi: the case. 
J repeat, Mr. President, that "whenever the system in this country 
 
and in the place of tlrs reserve army of volunteers we are to iuive 
 
tlie framework of a -Regular Army which, is to be expanded as 
 
necessity mav require. While the^e voluntary organizations--the 
 
National G uard, us Iliey are called--aro still to keep up their organ 
 
isation, they are to have 110 more to do with, the actual service in 
 
war tUau the 'little "boys who parade the streets in paper caps and 
 
with wooden g-iuis. 
 
But withoLii; s;oiu^into that. J'lr. President", we are g-oinq-bnekto 
 
the distinct question raised bore to-dn.y, whethcrorjiot.it is the 
 
propc 
 
ided 
 
^ should be assembled and should authorise" vhe rnipin^ of 
 
troops, or v,-holher. on the coii'.rarv, the ss'si:em shall be adouted 
 
bv which the T'resklent of the Uniteo. Stales shall at his discretion 
 
and in his will determine within a range oi: fifty-odd thousand 
 
man what filial"! bo the size of the American Arniv. 
 
Mr, HARRIS. And the necessity for it. 
 
Mr. BACON. And the necessity for it, as is Sim-bested by the 
 
Senator from Kansas. 
 
The Senator from Connecticut says it is a mere master of politics, 
 
Is it a mere matter of politics to insist that according to tho spirit 
 
and theory of our Government it is a (ya'jstioii vvliicii ou^lit to be 
 
determined bv Congress and on-ho 1201 to be i&ft io any man? 
 
Mr. President', the Senator asked whetlic-r or not we dial rust the 
 
President. I do iioi^ put it upon that ground at all. When tha 
 
Constitution of the United States was framed it was known who 
 
was going to be the first President. It was known that Wash 
 
ington -was going to be the president--the idel of the people, the 
 
Father of the Conn try. as lie was even then called; and" yet all 
 
-these restrictions were thrown around him. Would the Senator 
 
s;iy that that was distrusting Washing-ton. or would he say that 
 
the i'ramers of tile Constitution were endeavoring to embed in our 
 
system of government and in our organic .!aw those principles 
 
which were found necessary for the preservation of the liberties 
 
of the people and of the free institutions which they had won at 
 
tio great a sacrifice:' 
 
Mr. President, the issue is not to be evaded--shall it be in the 
 
future the province of the President of the United States to raise 
 
armies \vltSout the command and authority of Congress, or shall 
 
4670 
 
 it be in the future, as it has been in the past, whenever there has been a necessity of this kind, the province of Congress to determine it? We are not on the eve of aiiy political contest, that any tiuestion of tlii a kind, should be raised us a matter of politics. If the Senator thinks it is a mere matter of politics to object to a great standing army, he is mistaken. 
If he thinks it is a mere matter of politics to desire that the spirit of our Government shall be maintained in this law to the extent that tlie Executive, I care not who lie may be or liow pure lie may "be. shall not have the power to determine as to \vlien an army shall lie raised and what shall be the size of it, he is mis taken. There is such a thing as honesty in the expression of ' one's opinion of a principle, outside of a mere political exigency. There is snch a- thing as adherence to that principle by one hon estly, and not simplv as a matter of political advantage. 
1 wish to say to the- Senator that for myself I would rather see the party to \vhicli I belong condemned, to universal and nevcrentiini; banishment from political power than to seo ingrafted upori the statutes of the country the principle that the President of the United States shall be allowed to determine when the Army shall be raised and what shall be the size of it. And it is no sufficient answer to say that he must in reason always havo some power in the enlistment of men when the number drops below lhat wliieh is authorized. It is no sufficient answer to say that that establishes the principle. While it might be a small us titter and no infraction oi'_priiiciple in the case of a thousand. men, it is LI largo matter and. an infraction of principle when, it coic-ps to .">(_>, 0(K> men, because the number of 1,000 men may necehHarily l;o fluctuating to sonic extent. 
It is impossible to havo it otherwise. It is in the necessities of the ease that there should be those fluctuations around and about flio poi Lit- of maximum. But when it comes to 50,000 men tliere is no tmcli necessity, and consequently the principle which docs not a ttach in tlio one case does attach in the other. If it be true that tlie (iueslion of numbers cuts 110 figure; if it be true that it makes no cllt'iiereii'-o, so far as Uio principle is concerned, whether the fiuctualiou 'if:, ;jOO mon or SO. 000 men. then we could very easily rid our selves o:; all trouble by making- the maximum 1 ,000,000' men and by caying that the .President may, in liis judgment and in his dis cretion. enlist just such a number, short of that maximum, as he shall sse jit. 
January Ij, 1001. 
Mr. President. I do not desire to repeat what I have already f-'fiicl. I presume the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. UAV/JV.L;YJ was in the Chamber on Friday last, when I addressed the Senate Lvsiori tins snbr.ect-. but I will add one word. The history of the decadence of legislative power, the history of the increase of exccutive power, is generally the history found in usurpations by the executive, and is rarely found in the history of tlie voluntary surrender by a legislative body of the power which it possesses. 
I assart, JVir. President-- and if I am in error I think it is a mat ter of sufficient importance to challenge the attention, of Senators and to evoke from them suggestions which may show the incor rectness of my position--- I assert that not only the letter of the Constitution, but the spirit of the Constitution and the intention of the Constitution is that the question of tlie size of the Army shall be determined by the Congress of the United States, and not 
 
 by the Executive. 3 say from -the foundation of tho Government to the present time that has been the spirit of our law, the genius of onr institutions, arid it would bo the most radical departure from the 7>ractk:e and the principles of n hundred years if we should turn the matter over lo the Executive and say it sin:!! bo within 
Stsvt'.-s. at any time to add 50,000 men. to the immber of the Army of the'United States. 
Mr. HAV/LEY. Will tlie Sen.itor just take a few off that num ber of 50,000--say, 40.000? 
Mr. BACON. 1 will if it will bo any c:ratification io the Sen ator; but I do not see how that suggest.oil riseo to t!>c dignity of this occasion. I rJo not seo how* a sri.p'gs.stion so frlvolyns HS i'hat comports with tlie gravity of the issue wo are met with to-day. It is 110 light quest ion, Mr. President: bntl will say to tue Senator it is a question that is not going to lie decided by tlie passage of this bill. I presume there is a determination on the purl1, of. the majority to pass tins bill. They have tho power to do it in this House and in the other i-Iouse; and 1 presume from what has been said and done that it is the intention to wurroiiu'er this power which the Constitution puts in Congress, and to confer it upon the Executive. 
There is a greater question in it than the mere qn^-tion of the relative power of the legislative ami of the executive depart ments of the Government. It is a question which relates to the preservation of that which has been won by anr race in hundreds of 5~ears of conflict and of sacrifice, and if Senators think that the passage of this bill is going to work this, revolution in the institu tions of this country and that no mc-iae is to Lc heard from it they a^e mistaken 
Mr. President, the people have not yet waked up to and do not realise the enormity of this proposition, but they will do it: and I da not believe that ilis American people, wbeiievor they co_mo to realize and to appreciate tl:e fact thnt the proposition is to put it in the power of the Executive to say \vhcthWor not 50,OOJ men shall be added to the size of the Aimy, will ever indorse it or that they will ever sustain such legislation. 
Mr. President, I do not think that the contention of the learned Senator can possibly be marntamed. thutllis present scheme of the bill is in ht-irinonv either with ilie institiiiions of onr Goviii-nmetit or with the practice of the Government. The Senator has read, in support of his contention, varioiis xtfiiines which h:-jve been enacted by Conyress. rJ?he first one is the acr of 17t)',). %vliicb, as be very correctly admitted, was an act pas.-ed in view of tlie urgent approliensipn of war with France, 
Mr. President, the conditions at that time must be taken into consideration in judging as to what was the view of Congress in the onactnieTit of such, a law. There were then no railroads and no telegraphs, and it took weeks even to communicate with the different parts of the country, as limited as it then was. It would necessarily take a long time for Congress to be assembled. Another thing- is to be considered, and that Is that the first intimation we had of war might be when the enemy appeared on our coast, liecause we had no submarine telegraph then to inform us of what occurred in Europe. Therefore it was recognized that there was a necessity that the President should be in a position to act promptly to meet an emergency when it would be impossible for him promptly to summon Congress to itseli direct him what to do. 
4070 
 
 There is nothing, Mr. President, in the act of 1799 which, in the remotest degree contemplates the conferring: upon tlie President of the United States of a continuing power to increase and de crease the Army of: the TJniired States, according as lie might judge there should be such increase or such decrease. There is not a, lino or a letter of it that can "bo construed in support of such a proposition. It simply authorizes him to proceed in case of an in vasion, and, \viiile the general terms were used, it simply meant if France should make war with America you are authorized to go ahead in the most- energetic way within the limits expressed here to raise ;m army to mcot it. 
It was an absolute necessity that such should he the ease for" the safety of the country.' One of the sections provides that if this emergency should arise and Congress should not be in session the President should proceed to commission tho officers of it with out -waiting for the advice and consent of the Senate, showing the intention -which -was in the mind of CoriCL'ress at the time. 
In the H Hm o way, Mr. President, was the act of 18ir>. I ought to remark, before passing from that, that not only was the act of !":>;> not intended as a, coiitinuhig power. There was not a- word in it which indicated that it wns the purpose to make a permanent system undor which the President o the United States would be authorised to increase or to decrease the Army at his will, but so soon as the emergency pa~gcd even that law was repealed. 
Mi-. President, it is not in contemplation here that the repeal, of this law shall take place after the passing- of any emergency. There is not a Senator on the rloor v."ho favors the biil who would say that he understands the purpose of the bill to be limited to tho present exigency. On the contrary, they propose to provide LUI elasticity b}" which the President, not Congress. may in the future adapt the size of the Army to what he may consider' to be tho nerds ot: the country. This is not- designed as a temporary law: it is designed as a permanent law. The act of 179;i was designed as a temporary law to meet an emergency, and as soon as the emergency parsed it was promptly repealed. 
How, Mr. President. as"to thc^ act of 181.">, that gave no power to the President to increase or decrease an army. It simply gave the power to the President to raise an army of "L0.000 men", that, and that only. There is no suggestion of any power to the Presi dent of the United States, as there was not in the other, that he should in his discretion increase or decrease tho Array within a large range. 
Mr. BACON. Now, Mr. President, the contemplation of this proposed law is that it shall be a permanent law, and there is net a Seniuor on the other side of the Chamber who \vill rise in his place and say that he contemplates this as a temporary law. 
Sir. 7LTAWLEY". I say so. The Senator knows this enactment cannot last; that the lifting of the finger of Congress will suoiige it out. 
Mr. BACON. Oh, undoubtedly. Mr. HAWLTSY. The Senator knows that perfectly well. There is no permanent Jaw. There iw not even a permnnent Constitu tion, for the Constitution contains the elements of its own destruc tion. Mr. BACON. Unfortunately, under the influence of certain political powers, there is a very great danger that there is to be no permanent Constitution. It is tlie great trouble and the great 
 
 evil and the great menace and the great danger to the people of this country that certain parties have made up their minds that it shall not be permanent. 
Mr. HAWLKY. Name them. Mr. BACON. Well, the Senator hardly means that. Mr. HAWL.EY. Nnnie one. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators must address tho Chair------ 
Mr- BACON. I decline, if that will satisfy the Senator. The PRESIDING- OFFICER. And must not interrupt the Senator who has tho floor without his consent. Mr. BACON. The danger is uot that, they will meet on the steps of the Capitol and declare that the Constitution is abrogated, "because tlie people would not sustain them and it would not be permitted, but- the danger is that little by little the foundations are to bo removed until after a while it wiH topple and f.'il3. It has gotten so now, Mr. President;, that when one in this Cham ber endeavors to maintain a proposition by measuring it to the recitiirements of the Constitution,-what lie says is disregarded and often lavished at by some people in private if a tit in public. But I come back to tlio proposition, because 1 have boon letl away from it several times, as to whether this-is an abdication oi! tlie powers of Congress. I repeat what I said this morning, that while it- is bad enough, for history to repeat itself "by the aggres sions by which, without tlie consent -of the legislative body, its powers are ta1-;en away from it, it is a thousand times worse when thai: body itself abdicates those powers. Now, is this an abdication? This is intended ns a, permanent law--Senators have avowed it here--so that it may adjust itself to the needs of the future. It is intended that permanent power shall be in the hands of the Preside-:t to increase or to decrease the Army of the United States. If that is a power which, under the Constitution, properly belongs to tho leg isla Live body, and \ve dolegate it to the President arid say we will not hereafter pass laws which shall sav when the Army shall be increased or decreased, but the President of the United States slitili be clothed with the power, then, I repeat, we have abdicated onr proper powers, and our powers in one of the most important features incident to and belonging to a free government. Mr. President, I know it is perfectly common now for Senators and others to -put aside the suggestion that there may be airy dan ger to our institutions in any thing, that there may be any danger in tlie surrender of any of the restrictions which our fathers thought it necessary to throw around those who were invested with power, but it is with governments and insL-Jtutions as it is with peo ple. No man thinks he is going- to die. Kaeh man thinks that the time for his death is going to'bo postponed in his case to the utmost limit. And yet we hear oi! men dying- around ns every day. The history of the world is in the decay of institutions and ill the death of governments. I repeat, it is r.ot done in a day, but everything which weakens the foundations of the structure has tens tho time when it will come. .For one. Air. President. I appreciate the dignity ami the powers of the legislative department of this Government. It was the de sign of the framers oC the Constitution that these great powers of government should be exercised by tlie legislative body, and in tho enumeration of powers almost every power of government is conferred upon the Congress of the United States, mean ing thereby the lawmaking power. For one, I do not intend by any act of 
4670 
 
 of this bill and under the practical 
of money to defray. So, M' r. President, it is not simply a question of increasing the 
 
 Army; it is not simply a question of the legislative branch of' this tjovermnent abdicating its power to determine what shall "be tho size of the Army: it is not simply a question o putting it into the power of the President of the United States to increase the Army 50.000 men whenever lie sees proper to do so, but it is a question of putting it into the power of the Executive to increase the ex penditures from thirty to fifty million dollars in the course of one year, and compelling Congress to ;vpprqpriate without any sugges tion from Congress in the way of the initiation of. that expendi ture. 
Ivtr. BACON. Mr. President, the three amendments which I have offered relate to the sections or clauses of thq bill nnder which the President is authorized in his discretion to increase the Army from some fifty-odd thousand men to about 100,000 men, and it is to the general proposition that i have addressed my re marks and upon which I desiro to acid a few wards. I have no disposition, Mr. President, to unduly detain the Senate, and cer tainly I will not do so. I would not add to what I have already said were it rtoh that some things have been said in tho debate which possibly require that- I should do so, and in so doing what I ahull Bay will be necessarily sonie-syhat irregular in point of arrange- 
Before proceeding' to tlie discussion oi' tho main question, w 
reasons vrny I thought that even the miiiimum ntunbei'~of men named in the bill was more than -were required for the neeJs of an ordinary time. 
I understand, of course, Mr, President, that tlie provision for a miiiiirmm is intended to apply to n normal condition of peace, arid that the maximum is intended for an abnormal time. It is \vith that mick>rsta-ndiijg that I repeat what 1 said yesterday in response to the suggestion of the Senator from. "Wisconsin as to what my attitude was with reference tothis matter, that I think that is too great for the normal condition. 
The President of the United States in his message says that the fortifications, the coastwise defenses, will require about 13,000 men. I repeat, as tlie Senator from Wisconsin may not have heard me--I noticed lie was cng'.g'e<l at the time--that my esti mate of the number of men required for the minimum, is the esti mate which I understand to be required for a normal time of peace, and therefore it is upon that basis that i" make the estimate which. I now state. 
If 18,000 men or thereabouts are all that are required for tho coastwise defenses, with a total o 5^,000 as the minimum, it would leave some 40.000 men for tlie other needs of the country in times of normal conditions of peace. Of course, I have no reference to the Philippines or to Cuba. 1 have reference to the part of tlio country winch we havo alwaj-g been accustomed to call tho United States. I say, Mr. President, that there is no possible re quirement that I can understand for that number of men outside of the coast defenses, "We do not need as large a standing army for the interior defenses as we formerly did, because the dangers from Indians havo very largely decreased and almost entirely dis- 
4510 
 
 10 
appeared. Of course, it requires some troops, but few in com parison with what were required in the former time. 
But, Mr. President, it is not upon my own estimate alone that I stated to the Senate 011 yesterday that I regarded tlie minim-urn as too great, but I was gtiiclecl by the action of this "body in the last session, and by the statements of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROCTOR] ma.de at this session relative thereto. In the last session, having- no reference to the Philippine Islands or Cuba and having- reference to our own domestic requirements, this body passed a bill for an increase of the Army, which was deemed necessary for those domestic purposes, 
Mr. WABREN. Mr. President------ Tlie PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from G corgi a yield to the Kenaior from Wyoming? Mr. BACON. With pleasure. " Mr. WABHEN. I should like to ask the Senator from Georgia where lie g-ets the information upon which he makes the state ment that the "bill which was reported from the committee and passed was thought to be stilncicnt at the time? Mr. BACON. I will do so with pleasure, and I was proceeding to do so. The bill which we now have before us, arid which is gouii'ht to be displaced by the substitute which was sent to -us iroin the House, and as amended by the Military Committee of the Senate--tho original bill---is the one 1 speak about. It is on the Senator's desk now. That bill, haying in view the require ments for onr own domestic affairs, added to tlie Army wj.nch -would exist afc the expiration of. the present term of service, July i, of the mon who were enlisted two years ag-o, 5,000 men as the number v,-hich would be required. Tlie number to which the 5,000 was added was about 29,000. and tho 5,000 added makes a-1,000. So that here was the action " '' 
concerned, and without reference to Cuba or the Philippine Is lands, the 3,000 inen were those which were required to be added to tlie re,-?ri\ar military establishment of 29,000 men in order that we mijfhh not only inoe-t the other requirements "inside of this domeKUc tfrr T,tory--il; 1 may \ise that phraso--but a"so to acid the needed number for the coastwise defenses. 
Mr. PUOCTOR. Air. President----- Mr. BACON. If the Senator from Vermont will just pardon 
,ry S sidered tl:at ihe'H.OOO men which were provided for in the piJl was the nnmLor rctjiiireLl to bs added oil ace.oviiit of tlie additional force called for by oar cosst defences, and the Senator from Verii]oilt responded in the affirmative. Now, it is upon thoae bases 
Nov.-, I \vi51 vielcl to the Senator from "Vermont with pleasure. Mr. PKOCJTOI4. Mr. Presic'ieiit. I do not recall the discussion 
o last V7iiitci', b\it in the most elaborate statement I have m;ide here on this l"i!l I tried to make it very plain that the minimum of 5.1,000 would be iioeded at all times, in. times of pence. I stated the needs of Alaska, which had never existed until within a few 
 
  12 
 
. I will not nay Hint. The E 
 
JUr. M(EY. 1 say It. 
 
Ur. BACON. I would not so unite to tlmt extreme; but still it 
 
is not necessary that in order to mttin'ain posts wo should have a 
 
^ ar.my. Kot simply a company, Inu a platoon of 
 
'' 
 
recto 
 
awihte sustion which In.s 
 
f reiiucutly been made on this floor, and which has been made else 
 
where, that the question of the increase of o,ir population is ono 
 
which -shou- ld co'ntrol -the size of our standing army. I do not 
 
onb'ed the army has pon what hypothesis 
' must necessarily bo up 
 
ld haye an array to control onr peoman here in this country ishimself 
of' the people of this country, but to .uipie lac.'T 01 mcrca.seu popmauon. mere is ni nus tuo or basis for a increase of tlie _Army. favor of: a proppr standing army, and I have priclo to say 
 
 13 
crease of the Army. It is a very serious znntfcfir tliiit we siionld have a large standing army in time of peace, but the most objectaoijabne feature hi the Mil proposing-to authorise this great Regular Army is that which 1 have- already partially discussed, and which I have denominated as the abdication or the power of Congress to raise armies, anrl tlio iiiTcstuient of that power in tho President of.' the United States. 
If the power ic- raise armies js a power devolved upon Congress and intended to be exercised by Congress, it is an abdication if Congress in a practical way devolves that duty UT>OU the Presi dent oi: the United States. 
Now let 11 bi son what the Constitution says about that. Upon \yJiiom does it devolve the power to raise armies? The power is iotindin the twelfth snlxli vision of the enumerated powers of Con gress. In section 8 of the fii-st- article of tho Constitution is found the magnificent array of.' powers, and in this great array almost all 
and the ad,j\mieLi.tioii of contests between citizens, are devolved upon Congress--powers; whicli under other systems wore vested in an-absolute Idng or monarch are ennmeralecl and devolved upon tha Congress rei.resenting- the States and the people, tho i-ainera of the Constitution deeming that that was tho course So bo pursneO.. in order that our system might bo pevpetnal tmci tha.t the liberties of the people should i;cver be jeopardized by an inidne exercise oi! i;av,-cr by one man who mig-bt be chosen to hii?'h 
In liiiio of necessii-y, may raise Lirmies and provide i'or thcii- sup port, or does it mean that Congress slia'i I raise armies ana proviils for their support? Of course, "nobody will say anything but the latter: tlmt it is a. command on Conors:-a--noi; si r-i ply it permission, but a command on Congress to raise armies. 
Mr. President, does this bill when it "bircoir.e^ a law carry out that couimfj.mj, or <loea it abdic/sto tlio tlntv iniposecl by thr;t commancl'? 'What is the power proposed in the bill? Tho'power propused in the bill is that the President of the United States shall have the power, in his discretion, at any tune to raise an army of 50,000 men by increasing the Army by that mfmy men. There is a clilTerence "between empowering1 tlio Pre.~idc2it to eiiliat n, fev/ re cruits, and. the other pov.'er to decide when he shall add ;;0,OQO men to ibo Army, when he shall discharge them and when lie shall again add that number to the Army. Are 50.000 men ail army, or are they a few recruits to till vacancies? If they constitute an army, then when such, an army is raised it should, under the command of the Constitution, be raised "by the direct authority and the exclnsive authority of Congrass^ 
Are 50.COO men an army? Why, Mr, President, H is nearly as many men as Napoleon had when he fought the battle of Water loo. It is nearly as mtmy men as fought under General Lee in 
dr.70 
 
 14 
the terrific -world-re 110wned battles of the Wilderness--"witUm a fraction of tho number of men he had in those great battles. It is A greater army than has fought under any one banner in the average threat battles of the world. The enlistment o? that mvtnber of" HJon in the discretion of the President is not to be analo gized to the exercise by the President of the power to fill up the depleted ranks, to recruit men to replace those "who have died or who have deserted or \vb_o have been discharged. It is a power to raise a great army, not only one?, but as o! ten as the President may choose. It is a power that the Constitution o; the United States not only does not give t,o the President, but it is a power which the Constitution of the United States, although it uses the' laiisuap'S of aulliority. intends as the laiignag-o of command--that it sh;>Ji be done by Congress. 
Senators say if we fix a limit we can trust the President within the limit, and Senators seel: to make a personal application of it in the inquiry. Can \ve not trust the President;1 ' I decline to measure lliis question by any such personal coiisideration. There never has been a President to wliom I wo.:Id be willing to intrust such powsr: and there is no man living to whom hereafter I would be willing io intrnst it. 
Mr. SPOOIvTlilK'. The Senator does not mean to impute any such observation as that to me? 
JUr. BACON. I am speal;i;;- generally. Mr. SPOOLER. No. not gem-rally. Sir. 13ACOK". I say that in general. Of course. J do not mean to put those words in the mouth of the Senator iYom Wisconsin. Mr. SPOONER. I said yesterday, what- I repeat, that discre tional y power Iiacl for many yc-tirs beon given to the XJi esideiit as to 13ie raising of an arniv; tl\at it had. never been abided, aiid pvobably nover w:ll be abnsrd; and, if it were, the matter is entirely and at all times within, the control and corrective of Congress. Sir. BACON. I did not have spvc-ial referoiice to tlio Senator, 
. ?,b.-. SFOONER. I always g-ive attention to the Senator. Mr. BACOLS". 1. did not have any special a!lns:oii to the Sena tor, but what I stated has been said by a. number oi' Senators. Mr. SPOONEB. Will tho Senator allow me to ask him a ques tion? JSIr. BAOO'N". Certainly. Mr. SPOOJS"ER,. V/ould the Senator regard as unconstitutional an ac-t of Congress authoriuii^ the President to raise not exceed ing 12 regiments of infantry? Mr. BACON. No. sir; I "do not think any of those bills in the past have b;>en unconstitutional. Mr. SPOOLER. Why not? Mr. BACOJN . Because no single one of tuem invested the Pres ident with tho power whicli it is sought to clothe him, \vith in 
specified purpose or for a specified time, but a power which puts it in Ijis discretion at all times in the future, so long as this act stays upon the statute books, to say whether the Army sball bo 50,000 men or whether it shall be UOO.OOO irion. There is a vast differ ence between that and any 0110 of the statutes which, were posset1,, and which were spoltc-.ii of here yesterday, read by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. FoRAKiin], and repeated by the Senator from. ISTc-w Jersey j_Mr. SK'vVBLLj this morning. 
soro 
 
 15 
' Mr. FORAKEB. If the Senator will allow me, I should like him to specify liow this provision differs in point: of principle from tlie statute, for instance, that 1 cited yesterday, passed in 1846, giving- the President power to increase the Army in the way there in provided. 
Mr. BACON. The statute of 1846, as stated on yesterday, was passed in view of the imminent prospect and anticipation of the Mexican war. which broke out that very year. 
Mr. SPOOK BR. Was that within the "constitutional power of Congress? 
Mr. FORAKER. And that was without any limiti'ticm. Mr. BACON". V/liich one of the two Senators shall I answer? Mr. SPOONEE. Both of us. Mr. BACON. All right. There is not a, single statute, from the act of 1799 down to the act o 1840, or any other, winch con templates the placing upon the statute hooks of a regular per petual law which shall relieve Congress of the da fry of suyiug whether the Army shtill be yO.OOJ) men--I use that figure simply for illustration--or 1.00.000 men; in other words, which does not simpls" contemplate authority to the President to raise an army up to a specified figure for a certa-in purpose;, "but which intended that without any action by Congress thereafter the power should 
had come, and, if it had conic, to determine to what extent the Army should, "by his sole command, be increased to meet it. 
There is 310 stieh statute upon the books, and it can not be found. Every law to which the Senators have alluded is a law which had reference to a specific emergency, which was in immediate con templation, and there was no anticipation but that with the; dis appearance of that emergency that law would practically be at ail end. - ' But now. Mr. President. I am goinr; a little further ------ 
Mr. SPOOLER. I want to understand the Senator, if he will pei-rn.it me. 
Mr. BACON. Certainly, always. Mr. 8POONE1R. Is it the Senator's proposition that Congress must absolutely fix the size of the Army ami leave no discretion whatever, under the Constitution, to tho President in that regard? Mr. BACON. I say this, Mr. President, that if Congress hs in -view a certain emergency, where it can not be foretold what will be necessary, under the practical necessity oP the situation 
ence to ;i permanent organization, giving' authority to the Presi dent, within his discretion, and without action by Congress, to nutke Jit a large army or a small army, within a range of uCi.OOO men, i say most undoubtedly it is a violation of: this section of the Constitution. 
Mr. SPOONEIi. There is nothing said in the Constitution, as I recollect, about ' permanent : ' in relation to the Army; and there is nothing said about it " "being in contemplation." 
Mr. BACON. That is true: but the practical operation ------ Mr. SPOONER. And there is nothing about "a lixed Regular Army," nor is there anything said in the Constitution about " an exigency." 
 
 16 
Mr. BACON. I will ask the Senator tins qiiestion, and perhaps in that way reply to his question. 
Mr. SPO'O'NElil. The question that I want to ask the Senator is tills; Is it his contention that under the Constitution Congress must absolutely irs cacli case fix tho Jiruit? 
Mr. BACON. Within the range------ Mr. SPOONER. That is not within any range. Mr. FQRAK.ER. Let the Senator state the range. Let us lia-ve a definition or tli3 range. Mr. SPOONER. That is what I am coming to. Mr. BACON. I wish, tlie two Senators would agree between themselves as to Which one of them shall conduct this crossexamination. Mr. SPOONER. I am not cross-examining the Senator. Mr. BACON. Of course i made the suggestion in alt good: 
Mr. SPOONER. I want to g-t at tho Senator's position, if I can, I shouLd like to know whether it is ths Senator's contention, that; under the Constitution Congress must fix absolutely the size of the Army, leaving no discretion whatever to the President, 
Mr. BACON. I endeavored to answer that ,-mst now. It is the duty of Congress to ra:,se the armies required for the defense of the "country. It is the duty of Congress to definitely fix the ntinv bor so far as it is prae'doable to do so. In practical operation it may be necessary to meet an emergency within reasonable limits for a specified purpose, to direct the President what to do in rais ing the rerjtiired ai'my. So far as it is practicable for Congress to deiiiiitely fix ths number of tlie army, that is ro;miad. and if it is not practicable, then tkero must necessarily be some latitude-- for instance, in the presence; of an urge ill' danger. Take the act of 171)5. I say that is constitutional. 
Mr. SPOONER. Then the Senator------ ?,i"r. BA.CON". "When the Senator asks me a question, he cer tainly will permit me to reply. Mr, SPOONER. Certainly. Mr. BACON. It: the Ssn;itor will take the act of 1795, lie will find that in aTitJeiration of war with France------ Mr. FOI1AKER. Seventeen hundred and ninety-nine. Mr. BACON. I should, have said 1I99. TJie act of 1795 was the one in reference to the militia. Ttiat act was parsed in anticipation ot war with France, iiTider conditions where it was an impossibility for Congress to anticipate when the war wonld be precipitated or what would be the force that would be brought against us; because, as I said yesterday, the first intimation of actual war. in the absence of the opportu nity for knowledge that we now have by cable, might have been the appearance on our shores of a hos-tiJe fleet with transports full of soldiers. The population of the country at that time was scat tered, without means of prompt communication, involving weeks of time to obtain information or to assemble Congress, and there fore it was necessary, in order that the conditions which might unexpectedly be presented should be met, for Congress to do what it did do. to give to the President of the United States the power to call out the militia as well as to rncreaso the Army for the emer gency and to set no limitation as to the militia. I say that was a constitulional act. The practical necessities of the case required that Congress should provide in that way for the defense of the country against imminent danger. But. JMr. President, I repeat that when Congress puts upon the statute books an y.ot which is not for a particular emergency 
4070 
 
 17 
where tlio necessities of the case must necessarilv control, "but which for all time leaves it within the discretion of the President to make by his order the Regular Army in time of peace either 50,000 or 100,000. as he may choose, that is a violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution. 
Mr. SPOONEK. Then the Senator's position, as I understand it, is this: That under the Constitution Congress may lawfully commit to the President the discretionary power as to the size of the Army to meet an. imminent or apprehended exigency, but can not constitutionally commit to the President any discretionary power as to the size of the Army between limits to meet possible and unforeseen exigencies. 
Mr. BACON". I say that where the conditions are such that that in titter can be determined by Congress it is the duty of Con gress to determine it. and it is the intention of the Constitution that Congress should determine it. In a case of emergency it may "be tin impossibility for Congress to determine it, and Congress mnst then provide for the necessary defense in the only way that 
dent to determine the size of the Army within a range of 50,000 men, you abdicate the duty of: Congress in so doing. 
If the contention of Senators here is defensible. Congress can not only say that the President can raise the Army by a stroke of his pen 1'rom. 50.000 to 100.000 or to any intermediate number, but it may say wo do not think that the necessities of the Government will ever exceed a million men, and we will fix a minimum of 50,000 and give the President the power at any time that he sees proper when, in his opinion, the public interests require it, to raise an army of a million men or of half a million, as he may choose. Does not the Senator recognize that under such a law tVie President would be invested with the power to raise armies? Would not that lie an abdication of its powers by Congress? Would the Senator say that was a constitutional law? 
Mr. SPOONER. 1 should say it was constitutional. Mr. BACON. And trust to him at any time to rechic3 it to the minimum of 50.000. and at his will and as often as he chose raise it to half a million- or twice that number? Mr. SPOONEli. I should say it was a constitutional law, but that it was a very stupid law. Mr. BACON. The Senator would think that was a constitu tional law? Mr. SPOONEB. Yes; I do not think the question of constitu tional power depends 011 the size of the Army any more than I think a constitutional army depends upon an exigency, seen or unforeseen. Mr. BACON. Certainly, and for that reason J. gave the Senator the extreme illustration of a million men. Mr. SPOONKR. As I said to the Senator yesterday, under ex isting law, within ten days after we adjourn, the President could call into the service for nine months 5,000,000 men. Mr. BACON. Exactly, and I will 'come to that before I get through, if I am permitted. Mr. SPOONE.R. And we would have to pay them for that nine months' service. Mr. BACON. Yes; Imt they would be volunteers, not regulars. Mr. SPOONER. "What is the difference? Mr. BACON. I am coining to that, if the Senator will permit me'to take it up in due coarse. I want to illustrate this thing j 
4670-3 
 
 18 
I am speaking on tlie question whether this "bill abdicates the power of Compress. 
Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will permit me--and I shall not interrupt him again--it is as much the function of Congress to regulate the reduction of the Army as to regulate its increase. 
Mi\ BACON. I think so. Mr. SPOONER. .Does the Senator think it would he incompe tent for Congress, under the Constitution, we having decided that there should bo for the present an Army of 100,000 men. to give the President, when the exigency shall have passed, the power to reduce it? Mr. BACOX. I think that probably could be constitutionally done. Mr. SPOOLER. And properly be done? Mr. BACON". Yes: but to put upon the statute book a law which shall say that the President shall, at his will, without ref erence to any special time or any special necessity, use the power conferred on Mm to increase the Army or to decrease it in peace or in war, without responsibility to anyone or question by any one--that. I say, is an utter violation of the spirit and letter of the Constitution. Mr. President, I want to illustrate this question as to whether or not this is an abdication of power, whether it is an abdica tion, of power i'or Congress to ns an extreme limit for the size of the Army, the maximum, and then to say that the President can at anytime, in peace or in war, indefinitely in the future, either raise the Army to the maximum or reduce it to the uiiiiimnm, and repeat that ptocess as often a she may see fit--whether that is within his constitutional power. In the same sentence in the Constitution coupled with the power to raise armies is the 
and support armies,'' which means tl and shall support them. Tin.e succeeding- part of the same s 
in his discretion, to have the size of the Army 100.00Q men or an army of 50,00;), and to alterimle it between the two figures as often as lie might se^ tit, in addition ingraft thereon an appropriation of .S500.000.000. 
Suppose 'that, having provided in the act that the President should control the size oi! th.o Army at his will. Congress should further provide that the President could, in his discretion, within the limit of 8500,000,000, use as much of that as was, in his opinion, 
posed would ever be called for, and, without any specification as to how it shoukl be expended, say that the President should each year for all time spend as much of that as he saw fit? That is directly analogous. The very same authority which confers upon Congress the power and invests it with the duty to appropriate money for the support of the Array also lays upon the Congress the duty to raise armies. 
46TO 
 
 19 
If Congress can delegate to the President the power to raise an army of 50.000 men by the stroke of his pen. it can delegate to him the power to raise liaJf a million men, and it eotild, if the Con stitution did not limit the time of appropriation, also, without an abdication of its power, appropriate the vast snna of 8300,000,000 for the annual support of the Army, and provide that within that limit each year the President could, without further authority from Congress, use such amount as he saw fie to support the Army. The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army, but it never intended that he should have the right to raise armies or control the purse which is necessary to support it. 
Possibly Senators may refer me to the f;ict that three years ago we did put 50,000,000 at the service of the President for the public defense. It was an act of very doubtful constitutionality, and I do not know what better reply I can mtilie to the Senators who are constantly .suggesting the question as to -whether or not we can trust the President than to recall the fact that, doubtful as was the question, without a dissenting vote, witho_ut a word spoken' on the floor of this Senate by any Senator, but in absolute silence and with absolute unanimitv, this money was put in his control for Ms disbursement in his discretion. But that does not establish the fact of its constitutionality, and I do not think there can be anything which can more strongly bring to the realization of Senators the unconstitutionality of this measure than to recite the fact that the very same sentence that makes it the duty of Congress to raise armies makes it also the duty of Congress to appropriate money for the support of the Army. If we gan ab dicate the one, vre can abdicate the other. If the delegation of power in the one case is an abdication, the delegation of the power in the other case would also he an abdication. 
The Senator from Wisconsin has referred to the act of 179", which put at the disposal of the President the militia of the United States. My reply to that is that the two things are entirely dif ferent; that there is no possible analogy between them; tha_t while a large regular army is at war with the genius of our institu tions, subversive of those institutions and menacing to them, the volunteer system which bases onr military power upon our citi zen soldiery is the very basis, and the strongest basis, for the maintenance of the free institutions of this country. This is a fundamental principle in the Constitution, in which is found the language-- 
A vreli-rcKiiliLtea militia being necessary to ie security of a, iree State. 
Mr. President, I can not too strongly impress upon Senators the fact that this proposition to create a great standiag army and to forever wipe out the volunteer system is the feature which marks more clearly than anything else the great revolution upon which this proposed law will start us. 
That the policy of those who advocate the creation of this regu 
lar army of 100.000 men is to destroy the volunteer system and to no longer use in future wars the volunteer organizations known generally as the National G-uard is not to be doubted. The National Guard, composed of the most patriotic and spirited young men of the nation, are hereafter to be composed o(.' those who will be only tin soldiers. When the serious business of war comes they -will not be recognized. 
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. PROCTOR! , a former Secretary of War and a leading member of the Military Committee of the Senate, during this debate, in speaking of past and future wars, said: 
 
 2O 
In every war which we have heretofore had crar volunteer or ganizations have had associated with them the names of the States from which they came, so that every soldier had as a stimulant to duty and, Mr. President, if need "be. to sacrifice, not only na tional pride, but the potent recollection that lie had in Iris keep ing the honor and good name of his State. In every war we have had the volunteers have carried into battle the names o their States, "but under the policy o this law the names ot the or- 
fanlzatioiis known as the National Guard are BO longer to be nowu in the history of the wars which sooner or later will surely 
come. The first step in this direction was taken -under the act of 1899,  
and while there aipe to-day 30,000 volunteers in the Philippines.no 
regiment bears the name of any State or volunteer organisation. The only thing which distinguishes them from the regulars is that the act under wliicb. they are enlisted calls them volunteers. 
And thus step by step we go on toward the abandonment of the volunteer system and the substitution of the great Regular Army in its stead. \Ylievi the volunteer system is abandoned there will have been discarded the strongest defense of our free institutions. When a, great standing army has been forever fastened upon the country there will be constructed the weapon the most powerful for the destruction of those institutions. 
Is there anyone who could see the creation of a regular army of ;JOO.OOO men in the United States without alarm for the safety of our institutions? Well. sir. an army of "OO.OOL* three years hence is not as impossible as an army of 100,000 appeared to be three years ago. And yet it seems now that the army of 100,000 men has come to stay with us, with the probability that it will be increased rather than decreased i\\ tlie near i'nture. 
Mr. President, those who favor this Regular Army of 100,000 men are not acting candidly and frankly with the American people. Out of what arises the need for an army oi: this magnitude? Whatever may be the personal wish of any Senator, is there a sin gle Senator here who is willing to rise in his place and say to the Senate and to the country that he favors the creation and perma nent maintenance of an army of 100.000 men independently of the needs growing out of the war in tlie Philippine Islands? I am sure there is no Senator who is willing to now make such avowal. 
Let it be conceded, then, for tlie purposes of this argument, that the war in. the Philippines makes it necessary at this time that we should have an arms' of 100,000 men. 
The vital, the overshadowing, question that immediately and necessarily arises is, Does the present necessity for 100,000 men require that there should be the permanent organization of an army of that magnitude? If the Philippines are to be permanently retained, and if their retention will require for all time that the United States shall keep up a regular army of 100,000 men, then the advocates of this bill should say go frankly. They should say, We advocate a regular army of 100,000 men because, to hold the Philippine Islands it is necessary that, not for a time, but that permanently and for all time, \ve should have a regular ai'my of 100,000 men. With this frank avowal the people of the United States could look the situation squarely in the face and determine whether they wished to dominate a colony in Asia at the annual cost of an army of 100.000 men, a cost to be estimated not only in sacrifice of life, but of over 8100,000,000 every year that passes. On the other hancl, if the need of this great army for the Philip pines is temporary, the advocates of this bill should say so, and the lawmaking,power should fix the limit of time within wliicb 
4670 
 
 21 
the Army shall be reduced to the siz,c required not by the tempo rary needs but by the permanent needs of the country. 
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Lorxa-Vj estimates that within a few years 20,000 men will bo sufficient to meet the re quirements in the Philippines. "Why, then, should a permanent army be created of 100,000 men when 75.000 of them are estimated for the needs oi' the Philippines, needs which in two or three years are to be reduced to 20.000 men? 
Mr. BACON. Mr. President, that -was rather a long- interrup tion, in which the Senator has failed to carry out the promise be made that ho intended to ask me a question. He said he desired to predicate his question upon some remarks which he has made. I-Ie made the remarks, but I "have not heard the question. I un derstand what the Senator meant to implv. however. 
Mr. FORAKKR. I beg the Senator's pardon. I do not think I said I rose to ask him a question. 
'Mr. BACON. That is all rie-ht. Mr. FORAKEB. I stated that before he turned away from what he was discussing--namely, this legislation--to speak about the last election, I wanted to call his attention to a statute which evidently lie had overlooked, and that' I wanted the privilege of predicating some remarks upon it as to what I understood to bo his position, so as to show the application of what I proposed to read. Mr. BACON". To which I made no objection and no interruption. Mr. FOR.AKEB. No; the Senator very courteously, as he al ways doss, yielded that I might do so. 1 did not understand that he understood that I was going to ask him a question. Mr. BACON". The question as to whether or not the former statutes conferred the same power that is now sought to he con ferred in the sense in -which, I am discussing it, as a continuing power, outside of whether or not the increase for a particular emergency -was constitutional, but a continuing power which should put away from the Congress the performance o its own obligation--I say still there is no statute that I have seen, not even that which, is now cited by the Senator from Ohio, which goes to that extent. 1 -want to add, as that reminds me of it, that it is not simply the putting away of a power which may be resumed, but it Is the 
5Hitting away o a power which nay not ba resumed. Senators 
lave said that it was altogether in the power of Congress to con trol the question of the exercise by the President of the power of 
.-jority of those opposci Senate is constituted they could not practically enforce their wishes because this Senate, by reason of its present 'membership and the length of service, is known to be such that within the next fotir years it can not be changed so as to overturn the party which is now controlling-it. Therefore, when you pass this bill, you put upon the statute books a law which can not be changed unless all three of the branches of the legislative department, to wit, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and. the President in the exercise of the veto power, shall be also changed. 
Mr. President, the act of 1850, to which the Senator from Ohio has alluded, and which he has cited, while it does go further than 
 
 22 the other acts which, have heretofore V.een cited, was evidently animated by the same purpose and due to tho recognition of the same necessities. 
It was a.t a time when our great West was unpeopled, when ac cess to it was by very limited and slow methods of transportation, when, there were no telegraph wires there, and when an army might he necessary for quick action in the midst-, as there then were, of great; vast numbers of hostile .Indians, without the op portunity for Congress to be promptly called together: ami tho act 
of the Army, at present serving-, or which may hereafter serve, at the several military posts on the western frontier"--not all the troops of the United States Army by all means--"and at remote and distant stations." 
The act limits the power especially arid specifically to them, it being designed for an emergency which might arise Yuulev cir cumstances whore it would lie impossible for Congress to be as sembled in time to pro-vide against it. They were evidently influ enced by the same reasons that influenced, them in the acts of 171->9 and ISl.j and 1840. 
I should not be frank if I did not say that the act of ISQfi did go further. It does go further, but evon the phraseology of it indi cates that the Congress still had in view the necessities on tho western frontier, where the population was still scarce and where the methods of communication were still slow, and where emer gencies wore naturally to be expected. ;ind of a. sudden character, which would make it impossible that Congress could be assembled in time to provide against them. But this bill does not rest upon any such basis. 
This bill proposes that which shall be the permanent organisa tion of the Aruiv of the United States, and is designed to meet an altogether different condition of affairs. It is designed to es1a!> lish, as tho permanent policy of the Government, the exercise by the Executive of a power to put into the field riO,OOQ men by an in crease of the Begular Army to that extent whenever he shall deem it proper to do so, and. to dismiss them whenever he shall see proper, and to again enlist them, and. to repeat the operation as often as ho may see fit. 
I repeat, Mr. President, there is no line or letter upon the stat ute book which is a parallel to such an investment of power in tho Executive. I can say H would be tmcanoiid in me to con tend that the act of ISGfi did not o further than the othbr acts. It did: but even if it had gone to the full extent of this proposed law. that would not clvringe the legal question as to what is the power of Congress in the raising1 of armies, whether that is a power laid upon it by the Coustiiutioii which it is under obliga tion to discharge, of whether it can delegate it practically, not as to a few straggling recruits, but as to a groat army of 50,000 men, to the Executive. 
If an act is unconstitutional it can not as a. precedent make con stitutional a subsequent act of the same character. If it could do so, Congress could by successive unconstitutional enactments in time entirely legislate a\vay the entire Constitution. So that the ques tion remains, Is this proposed act constitutional? 
Now, Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia ["Mr. SCOTT] asked mo  question which I promised to answer, and thtvt was as to whether or not the American people had not in the last election passed upon, this question of an army of 1.00,000 men. 1 do not think that tBey did. I do not think. Mr. President, that tlie 
 
 23 
American people passed upon the question of the creation of a Regular Annv of LOO, 000 men, nor do I think they passer! upon tho question whether or not this country should be converted from a free Republic into an imperialistic government, holding colonies outside of the Constitution of the United States: because, Mr. President, the dominant party which succeeded in that eltetioii studiously avoided those issnes and studiously endeavored to make the American people believe that they were not involved in the contest. 
They took advantage of what proved, to be serious mistakes of a political character committed by those with whom they bad to contend, and they made the most of them in the must sldlli'ul manner. They won the election Tipoii those issues and iiot upon the ones to which I have alluded. They won the election upon the financial issue. Does anybody doubt that? They won the election upon the financial isnue, an. issue that really was not hi the campaign, because conditions had changed utterly, and there remained no longer anything practical in tbatissTic. In that issue what was true in 1896 was no longer true in 1000. And yet they placed their line of battle upon tho same line that they had occu pied four years before. They were very skiRitil in doing it. They took aclvaniap-e of the mistake of their political opponents. They won the fight, as the Senator from Ohio J Mr. MANNA] knows, on the financial question and a fnll dinner pail, and they did not win it------ 
Mr. HAI\NA. Will the Senator allow me an interruption----AJr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. MANNA. As ho appeals to ITK-;. I suppose lie meant me? 
Mr. BACON. Yes; of course. Mr. HANNA. Ho spoke as to the line of battle adopted by tho Republican party in tho last election. Mr. BACON. LpaidllieSenatoracouipiimoutin tliatconnection. Mr. HAN1S A. Livery issue that was made by the Kansas City convention was met and disposed of, beginning with the Philip pine question, and they themselves had ignored and put aside the lini.uK.-ial question until the people demanded that the whole ques tion should he considered. Mr. BAOON. 1 do not Imow whether the Senator was properly quoted or not at the time when he mode that nicteoriu and bril liant; oratorical tour through tho "\Yest. Tho newspapers quoted him repeatedly as saying that there, was no issue of imperialism in the campaign. I suppose they misrepresented him. Mr. HANN.A. J. did not hear the question asked, and the ques tion oMiiTperiallsiii WHS not urged. Mr. JJACO.N . 1 beg the Senator's pardon: I did not hear him. Mr. TTANNA. The question of imperialism was not the ques tion. The quest ion wad whether the policy of the Administration up to that time should be supported by the American people. That was the question, and it was pretty woll supported on that Bide. Mr. BACOJN, I recur, even on that statement of the distin 
guished and eloquent Senator, to tho statement 1. made that the issue of imperialism was not passed on by the American people, because thn Senator himself, from tho rear platform of a train of cars 011 which he was transported a1 ! over tho conn try, repeatedly, if the newspapers properly represented him, stated that there was no snob issue of Imperialism. 
Mr. HANNA. I bog to correct the Senator, if he will allow me. If I said anything tipoii that subject directly, it was that tnere was no such thing and could not be any such thing as imperial ism------ 
4670 
 
 24 
Mr. BACCVN". Of course, the Senator did say that. Mr. HANNA. Jn the United States------ Mr. BACON". And could not br>, therefore. Mr. President------ Mr. HANJSTA. And that the cry proposed by the party on the other side was simply a fake. That is what I said. Mr. BACON, 1 am glad the Senator substantiates what I say. I say, Mr. President, that in tho campaign there was no judgment pronounced by the American people upon the issue of imperialism, because the Senator from Ohio, the very astute and able leader of his party, and who certainly achieved a most signal victory, not 
 
could not be any such issue, how oould the American people pass 
 
on it? Therefore 1 contend that they did not pass on it. 
 
Now, as to this issue of imperialism, I simply brought that in 
 
in connection with my reply to the iiiqtiiry of the Senator from 
 
"West "Virginia j Mr. SCOTTJ. In the same way, Mr. President, 
 
there was no issue made as to the Army of 100,000 men, I am 
 
speaking about a Regular Army. On the contrary, tho constant 
 
outgivings of the; leaders of the'Republican party during- the cam 
 
paign was that there was 110 intention to have an act passed for a 
 
Regular Army of 100,000 men, but that it was simply to bs tem 
 
porary in its nature: therefore it was not passed on", Mr. Presi 
 
dent. This bill does create an Army of 100.000 men of a perma 
 
nent nature--not of a temporary nature, to "be only temporary in 
 
the discretion of the President, bub to be permanent in his dis 
 
cretion. 
 
Now. Mr. President^ suppose it had been the naked issue. Sup 
 
pose there had been no other Issue in the campaign but the issue 
 
whether or not this bill shoi'ild be the law. Suppose there was 
 
nothing else, that every other issue had been left out and not in 
 
tho minds of the people and not in the mouths of tho speakers, 
 
and it had been a square fight before the American people whether 
 
or no" the Regular Army should be increased to the amount of 
 
100,000 men or whether it should bo maintained at a figure, say. of 
 
35.000. as is provided by tho bill we passed here last session, which 
 
way would tho American people have determined it? I have not a, doubt as to what they would have done. It is not 
 
according to the spirit of the American people, it is not according to the wihh.es of the great masses of the people, that we should have a great standing army. I wish we could have had an issue squarely on the question of imperialism and tho question of a stand ing army of 100,000 men. If we had had, with all of the astute 
 
ness and with all of the ability of the distinguished Senator from Ohio and the very learned and able coadjutors whom he had in that contest, I think the result \voulii have been different. 
 
How many of the laboring men who were influenced by the argument of the full dinner pail favor the creation of a vast regu lar army which will be a menace to them? How many men were there in the last election who are opposed to this imperialistic 
 
policy who lost sight of everything except the ghost of a financial 
 
issue which had been inopportunely summoned from the recesses of the past? 
 
The Republican party were afraid to trust the American people 
 
on the issue of imperialism and its inevitable inseparable com 
 
panion, a vast standing regular army. 
 
Tho burdens and the sacrifices which imperialism and militar 
 
ism will impose and continue to press upon the people will make 
 
them the live issues of the future. 
 
4070 
 
o 
 
 CALLS BY THE SENATE ON EXECUTIVE DEPART MENTS FOR INFORMATION CONTAINED IN RECORDS AND FILES. 
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS OF HEADS Of DEPARTMENTS. 
SPEECH 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON, 
O JR O J-C O K OI J- 
IVloiiclevy, Fe"foiu.ar>y -4, 1QO1. 
_t3111 >I GTT OIM. I 9O I. 
 
  Calls by the Senate on Executive Departments for Informa tion Contained in. Records and Files. 
Power.-* and .Limitations of Heads of Departments. 
S P K E C It 
OF 
H OX. A II G IT S T TJ S O . P> A G O N , 
OF G ISO R, 01 A, 
Tx TH/E SENATK OF 11112 V^TTKI? STATES, 
j\lonrl<n.j, February .'/, 1M)3. 
 
_. _.. ... .Tesshaw Jiiiv m-ant of pmve;-. jurisdiction, or Control mvler tli3 Constitution js subject U-, the /"ill or IijapctJEii^or. tho Hrusile tor it* TIKB 
 
Mr. BAOOX said: 
Mr. PjiKriii>ENT: If I do not overestimate, the s-ravifcv of ("his 
Question, it is one which is certainly entitled to the most careful 
consideration ot the Senate; and if the view which I entertain as 
to the Law and as to the necessity for this action is not erroneous, 
this ronoltition is entit'cd to the's-appoi't of every Senator, regard 
less of party consideration.--. Tlio resolution is purposely made 
impersoiifil iie<jtiase f in my opinion, the importance of it is such 
that tho expression "by the Senate should not in any manner "be 
prejudiced or warped by any consideration oJ: a, personal character. 
The necessity for the introduction of the resolution, or perhaps I might more prt>;;orly say the importance oir its introi'KicTion/is found in the I'act that there has' recently been the most direct challenge and denial of vhe right o!: the Senate to call for and to have any information which may be found upon the records find files oi: the Deuartineirts of the C-J-overmiient. except so far as that right rnsiy be recognized and permitted by the Departments them selves. 
In the face of tliat challenge, a tjic.it acquiescence, even if there were no direct admission by (he Senate, -vvonlci be a precedent which would l.e a step, jit least, in tho direction of the final and ultimate denial oh this rig-lit and prerogative of the Senate. 
In December last there was a resolution adopted by the Senate in these words: 
Resolved bif ffte Senate, Tliat tZie Secretary of War bo, an<3 he is hereby, directed to transmit to fclio Senate the report of Abraham TJ. Lawshe, f^lvinsr in detail tlie rosult o liis investigations, made under the direction o the 
 
Oil the 3d day of January the President of tho United States transmitted to the Senate tne 1'ollowing message: 
 
To the Senate of [he United States: 
 
In reply to a, resolution of the Senate of December 19, 1000, directing the Secretary of War "to transmit to the Senate the report of Abraham L,. 
 
4710 
 
3 
 
 WILLIAM McKIXLEY-. 
 
The letter of the Secretary of War, which accompanied tlie mes sage of the President, is as follows: 
 
WAU DEPJ.UTMEJVT, OFFICE OP TJIT: S^CKF.TARY.. 
 
To t/tv n-csMent; 
 
Washington, December .;s, 1VOO. 
 
I lia.ro roooivd from the Secretary of the Senate a copy of n resolution adopted l>y the Sonute an tint 19th. of December, as follows: 
cctert to otailtha 
 
meiit," iiito'lliis receipt's "and" oxi^ndi'tfrLi-es oTCubaii fumls." " 
That is a copy of the resolution. The Secretary of War con tinues: 
 
llde: 
 
itlif 
 
f Cuba. The pi 
 
r tilt 
 
abliii 
 
EL1HU ROOT, 
Seci-etan/ of TIr. 
In this letter of the Secretary of War and in the message of the President of the United States there is a clear enunciation of tlie proposition that the question of whether or not information to be found upon the records and files of a Department shall bo com municated to the Senate is a question for the determination of' the Department and of the Executive. That of itself, Mr. President, would be a sufficient reason why the question should he consid ered by the Senate, and why, if it has the prerogative, in its judg ment-- not the jutlgmont of others--to have information to he found upon tlie records and files of the Departments, that there should be by ths Senate a determination and an enunciation of its iudgment to tliat effect. 
But that is not all. Of course, the action of officials should ordi narily not be judged by newspaper publications, but at the same time when those publications are mado in a way to convey to the Senate the authorized and justifiable impression that they speak the truth in representing- the enunciations of officials, then, in the absence of denial, we are authorised to consider them as having 
 
, 
 
n 
 
formation from those who were iii a position to know of the cor 
 
ectness of the statement that this statement was given out as a 
 
emiofficial itttorance and that it speaks the truth: 
 
[Washington Star, Friday, January 4, 1901.] 
 
The 
 
 dill not, regard tlie cfivections o the Bonnte as maml^tory. It w.s tilso de cided, thut Congressitself, mm.-li less one branch of Congress, coulel not compel auswei-s from the liend of ,-i Department, if tliat official vgEirded ;i reply as incompatible with public interests. 
Mr. BACON. In addition to that, Mr. President------ Mr. SPOONEll. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a ques tion? The PRESIDING- OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Henator from Wisconsin-1 Mr. BACON. Yes: certainly. Mr. SPOONER. Oh. no: 1 will not interrupt the Senator. Mr. BACON. " Certainly/' I said. The Senator did not mis understand me. I hope. Mr. HPOONER. I thong-lit for the moment that tho Senator was not feeling well. Mr. BACON. I always yield to the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. SPOONER. I only want to ask the Senator whether he regards the communication from the President as constituting achallenge of the right of the Senate to information, or whether he includes these newspaper documents with the communication, from the President? Mr. BACON. I take them both together. I say that in tlie absence------ 
Mr. SPOONEirt. Does the Senator contend that the communi cation from the President constitutes in any fair sense a challenge of the right of the Senate? 
Mr. BACON. I do, most emphatically; it is not simply a chal lenge, it is an unequivocal denial of the right of the Senate: and in the absence of newspaper publications I would sav that the communication of the Executive, with the inclosure of" the com munication to him of a letter of the Secretary of War. would constitute such a challenge and such a denial of this right as require an answer from the Senats. And I submit, Mr. President, 
4710 
 
 J1 Wit Will ellW tei-J-lJ. Ill Bill fjeiM 
Iiappy to sec present to-clav. 1 can not doubt that when I show that the contention which I 
present is one baaed Tipcm argTrments -which have been presented in this Chamber by these distinguished members of the Bepub- 
 
 once was a member of the Cabinet, and a very distinguished mem-'ber, and never -was there a resolution introduced ' requesting- " a Cabinet officer to furnish information to the Senate "but that that Senator, sitting yonder, in front of -where the Senator from Cali fornia [Mr. PKKKINS] now sits, would rise in his place and move that the word ' re:.) nested " "be stricken out and that the word *' instructed "' or L ' directed " be inserted in lieu thereof. I repeat that from, the foundation of the Qovernment not only to the date of this resolution, but to this date, the uniform practice has "been to direct a Secretary or chief of a Department to furnish to the Senate the information desired. Only to-day the Senator from ]STe\v Hampshire [Mr. CUANDI^R] . himself once a conspicuous and honored Secretary of the Navy and member of the Cabinet, intro 
 
, 
 
ng t 
 
who is a successor to himself.', the Secretary of the Navy. 
 
On the very day that this message came 'in from the President of the United States the senior Senator from Massachusetts [Air. HOAR], a veteran in this Chamber, a distinguished lawyer, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a resolution directing the Secretary of one of the Departments to furnish cer tain information, and 'it was agreed to by the Senate. From that clay to this there lias scarcely one passed in winch there has not been a direction hv the Senate to sonic head of a Department to furnish certain information. 
 
Mr. President, what does this mean? Does it mean that the Senate is simply using words as a matter of grandeur? Docs it mean that it has the power to direct, or does it mean that it is assHimrjg that whicli Senators clo not recognize as a power of the Senate? Does the Senate recognize that it has the power to direct, and therefore uses the word " directed." or is the Senate plaving a sham game and is it us. rig the word '' directed ' : here daily,"and has it been so using- it for over a hniidred years, when it floes not recognise that it has a right to direct? 
The use of the word "directed " is not because the Senate desires 
 
to be dictatorial, it is not "because the Senate wishes to continue, day after day and year after year for a century, to announce the fact that it claims to be a very high body, but because the B-.-nato 
 
intends to use the word "which shall convey the idea, as it does convey it. that it is not within the discretion of the Department whether or not the information shall be furnished, but that it is the duty of the Department to furnish it when required by the 
 
Senate. If the Senate used the word "requested," it -would nat urally and properly bo concluded that it was a matter within the discretion o'f the Department to be complied with or not, as it might see fit. When the Senate uses the word " directed," it is intended that it shall be understood that it is a command from one authorized to command to one who must comply. If it does not mean that, th n the Seriate is not candid, it IK not honest, it is playing a sham game. 
 
This has not only been a uniform practice of the Senate, but it has several times been a matter brought up for the determination of the Senate, and fifteen years ago there was a very notable de bate in this Chamber in which that question was put in issue, and in that debate-- I desire to say that I do not think J. can possibly be mistaken in the statement -- the unanimous voice of the Sen ate, not the voice of the majority, but the unanimous voice o!! the Senate -was that the proposition contained in this resolution was true, and that it correctly expressed the prerogative and power of 
 
4710 
 
 tlie Senate. That debate grow out of an instruction on the part oT the Senate to tlie Attorney-General to send to the Senate certam papers relative to a ease in -which the President had removed. a district attorney -in the Stato of Alabama. 
The then President of the United Stat- s transmit red to tlie? Sen ate, as lias the present; President of the United States in the present case, a message, in which lie stated that the information couMnot "be furnished to the Senate for the reasons set forth in the letter of the Attorney-General. _ Upon that issue thus made that debate was had in the Senate, it was a debate which lasted for several weeks. It was a, debat? which was participated in "by some of the most distinguished men of the last half of the last century, and we have here not only the debate. but we have the report o the majority of tlie Judiciary Committee of the Senate and the report 
of the minority of the Judiciary Commiteo of the Senate, and I repeat that tlie reports and the debates on that occasion show that the proposition contained in this resolution, was the unanimous voice of the Senate. 
I will say before more particularly alluding to that debate that the question involved there, and the particular point 0:1 the line of debate a"bont which the battle raged, was not whether tlie Senate had a right to the information to be found, on the records and fdes of the Department relating- to any question within tlio .jurisdiction of the Senate, but whether or not tlie particular in formation desired related to a subject within the jurisdiction of the Senate. It -was not only admitted in those reports and in That debate, but it was directly asserted in them, that where the in formation related to a subject-matter within the -jurisdiction of the Senate the Department must furnish it without question. Tlie proposition contained in this resolution now pending: is di rectly on the line of tlie principle then tinanimoTisly re-cognized as correct; it is simply the assertion of the prerogative of the Senate to the right to information to be found in any record or file of a Department relating to any subject within the jurisdiction of the Senate, and as to that proposition both the majority and minority in that debate agreed. There was no division between them. As to the additional proposition, whether or not the particular in formation then sought for related to a subject within the juris 
diction oi: the Senate, there was division "between tha majority and the minority. 
I will say before proceeding further that this resolution is framed in th.3 words of a part of the report of the minority upon that occasion, which then denied that the particular subject-mat ter upon which information was called for related to a matter within, the jurisdiction of the Senate, and while the minority as serted as a correct proposition the very language found in this resolution, the majority not only admitted, asserted, and avowed that that language expressed the law, but they went further in their contention and. claimed that every particle of the informa tion to bo found upon the records and files of a Department is sub ject -ir> the inspection of Congress upon its call, without question from anybody. That majority contended that even whore it was asserted that a matter concerning which information was reqnired was outside of the jurisdiction of Congress the question whether or not that-jurisdiction did belong to Congress was one within the determination of each House of Congress, and that the Executive Department had no right to question its decision. 
Mr. President, I am not going to discuss the latter part of the 
4710 
 
 proposition, "because it is not necessary. AH I want to do, so far as the question of precedent g'oes. is to sliow ; which I tliink I -\yill do most overwhelmingly. tliat the Senate at that time was unaninions in support ot the proposition contained in tins resolution, and there was no division among1 tliein: that ivhi:o it was asserted by the minority, it was reaffirmed by the majority and tliat they went still further ------ 
Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. Will tlie Senator from Georgia permit me? 
Mr. UACON. Certalulr. Mr. PL ATT of Connecticut. Is tlie language of tbe resolution to the effect- that the Senate liiis the right to any paper on the files of a Department taken from the !:iri^'n;ige of the minority report? Mr. BACON. It- is. I will again read the resolution: 
 Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. The question lacked was whether that was the precise language of the minority report to which he refers? 
Mr. BACON. I will read tlio minority report in response to the inquiry of the Senator from Connecticut. I liave in myhaiuls a volume which I have obtained from the dooiiment room, be longing to Mr. Amxi Smith, being a collection of the two reports and of the speeches made upon that occasion, and on page 4 of tlie minority report--which. I will state in passing', was slgaed by the minority members of the Judiciary Committee oi' the Senate ay it was then constituted, to wit. James L. Pugh, llichard. Coke, GEORGE G-. VEST. Howell'E. Jackson------ 
Mr. FAIRBANKS. What is the date of that report? Mr. BACON. This whole thing occurred in the early parfc of the year 1H8<3, and the Senator will find it all in the CONOIITT.SSIGNAL REC-OKD of: that date--January, February, and March. 1SSG. I read from the minority report: The minority admit, once for allIt' the Senator from Connecticut has before him the resolution, he can compare it and see that I have used exactlv the words. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. I remember it. Mr. BACON. The minority say: 
Tho minority admit, once for all. that any nnil every ymbJiY; document. 
to the call 01- institution of ciMiei- House for nso in the exercise of its coiisU- 
Now, the only change made in the phraseology there is adapt ing it to tlie Senate, because it is a Senate resolution. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut, How is any issue raised in this particular case? 
Mr. BACOK. If the Senator will permit m.e to go on, I think I Will show him. 
Mr. PLATT oK Connecticut. I wish to call the Senator's at tention, if lie is willing, otherwise not---- 
Mr. BACON. Of course I am not going to improperly object. I should like for tho Senator to permit rue to develop iiiy argti- 
47'iO 
 
 10 
merit before responding to his interruption, but I am not going1 to oVrect if he ijrei'ers that I answer now. 
Mr, PLATT of Connecticut. I think the very question in this case is whether the particular paper referred to is one over which the Senate has any -jurisdiction or arrant of power. 
Mr. BACON. I will come to that, also, if the Senator will per mit me, and I am very glad to have the attention of tho Senator from Connecticut, "because, while this is a general abstract ques tion of right and power, tho immediate application of it is to a subject relating' to Cuba, and the Senator from Connecticut is the chairman in this body of tho Committee on Relations with Cu.ua. I shall with pleasure, before concluding, endeavor to address my self to the very pertinent suggestion of the Senator from Con necticut. 
Of course, if it he true that this refusal by tho War Department is not a denial oi: the right of the Senate to information upon a subject of which it has jtirisdictiou. aiul is intended to "be limited to a denial on the ground that the Senate lias not jurisdiction, it is a very minor q\iestlon. "iVuV, if, as I think I will show, it is an issue raided us to the right of the Seriate in Its own discretion to 
which can be raised more important for proper dete; the Senate. 
.Mr. President-, boforo I read, what the minority said upoi I desire lo read what the majority snid. I ;tm very murh interested in tlio preservation of the prerogatives and pow the Senate than I am in the answer to this particular resolution catling ffi- information from the Secretary of AVar. It is seldom that (hero has been a report made to the Senate or to any consti tuted body in the United States bearing the signatures of more ("Ustinq-uished men than tlse report of the majority in this case. Let me read their names. I will not have to tell who they are when I read their names, because not only this rormtrv knows of them, but the world knows of them. Tlio Republican Senators, who signed the majority re-port which, at least in p;irt, 1 am going to IT-n>I to tlie Senile arc "fteor^e 1<\ Edmunds, chairman of tho Judiciary Committee at that time, John J. Iiigalla. K. ,T. K. MMil:an. GKO!.;<-;^ K UOAK, James F. Wilson, and William AT. Bvurts. Wluit do thov say apou the -:s\iestion as To the ris^ht--the absolute right, not tlie permi^ive r : ght--of the Senate riot to re(juesf, bus to command, a Department to send bore any informa tion which mav be found upon its records or i'.s files if it relates to a matter within the jurisdiction of the Senate'.- I read from page -i of ihe report which -was made in the Senate, and I will sta'-te that it is Repo= t IS a. 1--55. mcide to the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress: 
Tlio imiioi-tfinfc cuiestlon, thoii, is -- 
So say those distinguished raeu. not only of national but o world-wide reputation us great c institutional lawyers, and. I will remark that one of them hud been th;1 Ht?CTetary of a Department, ii distiiigaishe;! member of the Cabinet, ana therefore spoke from the standpoint not only of a Senator, tmfc of a cliief oi' 'a Depart ment and a Cabinet officer in more than one Administration-- 
The ini];oi-fcant question, then, is whether ifc i within the- constitutional 
 
   13 
 
ISTovA Mr. President, not only have we tlie reports of these com mit tees, Irai; we have one of tlio most extended and earnest and elaborate and jearned constitutional tiouat&s on the isavic which, was t)ir?s rnisei:'!, wnich is to "bo irotmd in the records of Congress. 
("At this point Mr, J3,\<JO'N' was interrupted by the expiration of ihe morning horn*, when- on request ol! Mi', TKLT.ISU, auci by -unani 
mous consent, the unfinished business was informally laid a^ide.J Mr, BACON. I see "before me a distinguished Senator who 
participated, in that deb^to, Yhc SsuvvtoT from. Wisconsin ]_Mr. Brooxui-i], In the time that I have had the great pleasure to serve with, the Senator from Wisconsin in this Chamber I have learned very higlily to regard lua ability. 1 thini; it may be safely said that wlieii he espotis&s a cause there is no more able cham pion of that cnr.ao, to be found iu the Senate, aviel when he attacks a, nifirtstm?, that measure iieeds the support of all its friends, I will say in all earnestness and sincerity that whezi 1 find m.VRffi opposed on a. question of l;-t%v---I will not say question or po]Hies-- but when J. fi.ru Uuy;--,eU! opiposed on a question oi: ]a\v to the Jearued and honorable Senator from Wisconsin 1 very inn oh di:5tr nw t my o\vii conelnsioiis, ami that when I find myself in accordance -with him I have int'j'fftsed conn donee in the correctness ot my position. 
Jtn this parfcicnlar caso, jMr. President, I sxm ostreiu^ly encoua'aged and fortiJiecl in my conndeiiCG in the correctness ol: my posi tion froin the fact that'l can utter no word, I can frame no fir^uJBeiit, I can pni-gesfc no reason whicli \\-ill be as conclusive" in support of jny contention to-dny as that which is found in the .speech which the Senator from Wisconsin delivered in. this body on this very question iit'teou years ago. While it is not the first spr>ec:u which^ was niurle in that debaio, it, in my orrinion. inovo 
dnces'thc cowcl-tisions therefrom than any other speech which was made in that debate--certainly upon tlie side Vv^hich \VFL~; then oc cupied by tlio Senator from Wisconsin. With th uermi.s-ion of ths Setiato "( propose to read some--1 would l>o glad ii! ifc ivoulrl not be ail tnicl-ue tresptiss upon the time of the iSeiiato tf> i:eai\ ali- -oS 
 
lSTo\y, I wiali to call ati'entioji to tinolhei1 malter. Of courses \ve, 
 
are all pfjlitic^i pnrtlsji.us in a greatBJ: nr lews 'IsgvoQ. r.nd \vliat one 
 
pays, evni in the fionate. IK to i.:e measured somewhat "by the rec- 
 
olii'f'lion of thai fact. But in thi-i instance the Sonator from Wis 
 
consin. strinpedhi-jnfieK of pt\i't\sav.ship. and-\vliile he avo\yecL that 
 
he, \vr,s a partisan, dec-lai'ed that in this iiistfince his n'ntlH-meijt '\>-ay 
 
not clouilei:! by any such consideration, and that ho approached 
 
the 
 
.id the 
 
iiif^ for ihs -prerogatives of: the Senate, reKai'dia-s an to Whetaer ic 
 
should -be to the "interest or against the interest of the parry o 
 
teiuve of his speech. TM.i. Vbonia dinliks very rnaeh, :ur. V-'resideEt, to read in th'> Iieaving- of the Senator n siJcecii wfiicll vroitld bo in aulagomsm to iiis preseiit pasirior;, but i am not; doubt i'oi- a mo- 
 
 1 
 
,,,,,, _'iiatc and ^onl"i nut have to present them as the utterances of others, bocjuis:.1 they would do honor to any member of the Senate and 1 o .-my Ia\vyer. 
Ko\v ; Mr. .President, t'lie way in which the Senator from ~Wiscoupln approached tiio discussion of this question, tlio very open ing1 sentence In the speech of the Senator from Wisconsin was this: 
Mr. 
 
irtliy, tiud slK.nlcl not l)tTht 
 
s in the 
 
i-above tlie 
 
No-vv, Mr. president, my disting'uislied friend approaching the subject with that lol'ty determination to consider it and to dis cuss it i'rco from, party bias said this a"bcmt the ntiestion of the rig-lit of the Senate to demand and to receive from the chief officer of an Executive Department any information which, it might deem important relating- to a subject within the jurisdiction of the Senate. I read, beginning- at the bottom of page 2487 of the volume, from the same speech as follows: 
 
pic, 1-j.leot, 
 
 15 
Rtntc-H, rc<'os'Tifzni4- the; iA':fc tlmtthn panel's ;i;'c i;j 'ills custody, Hot dwiyinjr f or fimomonttheir existence, says to tlic Senate, by direction of the President-- 
I hope it "will be remarked that ttie Senator makes that point, heca-nse I shall have occasion to discuss hereafter how far the direction of the President will justify the chief ci; a Department in refusing to give in formation to the Senate-- by direction at tlio President, thtit - 
Then mioling-- 'it is not considered that llic public inte-vt^t Trill l;c promote;;! lay a, compK- 
nth s icssio 
J the saine connecticn: 
tJit; ooi;di;t of that oiEceV 
Omitting two paragraphs "wliicli relate simply to the particnlar case then before the Senate, and proceeding' with the general (jiiestion. the Senator resumes: 
It Jis .-ilirayH licon feni;post'tl that oitluir tho House of Representatives 01thc Beoato liatl plenary po\vor t,D invosfijjutc tho Depart incuts, IititlabHiidinib 
j\Ir, President, it -^vould "bs beyond 1113' power to state the case moro concisely and more strongly than it is here stated by tlio Senator from AVisconsin. 
Is this not the attiludoV -- Continues the Senator-- The 
uid poso \vliiijli iii. !iia .-judg-uient is not vritliiii the .iuribdiction of* the Soiiato. 
A contention, by the \vay, -which, I pause in the reading' to re mark, is not inside in the reply of the President in the case \vhicli is now under consideration. Ho does not base tlio refusal to fur nish the required pauer on the ground that it relates to a matter not within the jurisdiction olr the Senate. The Secretary of War writes to the President that to comply-\vitli the direction, of tlie Senate was not. in his judgment, "compatible with, the pnl>lic in terests.-'' The President quotes tho words of the Secretary, and 
 
 al, relating to the 
prn-poneot:1 " The Senator from Wisconsin asked "How would snch a mes 
sage be received from the President of tho United States:"' and. continued: 
The resolution interprets; itself. ttucJ relates upon its face to psipers which tliafc 
i by citlii-r the iisid of I 
 
the fitaten uf- 
 
Tlie Senator quoted tho minority report as follows: The minority admit, once for all. that tiny tintl every public document, psiper, or record - 
The Senator interrupted the reading to interject: ISTote this, if yon please-- And then continued tlio quotation, from the minority report: the files,of any PopiLi-tment, or in the poss_ssion of the Prosldont, relating 
iv-liioli cither Ho 
 
Cflll 
 
o in the 
 
ml 
 
Quoting approvingly and using ns a basis of his arg-ument the lang-uago of the minority' report, which I have extracted and em bodied in tho resolution now before tho Senate, the Senator goes on further reading the minority report, as follows: 
It is on this cleavly dc.fm.ecl a.i\cl well-founded wnatifatiunal principle that, 
 
 17 
itself to direct the bend of .any Department or request tin: President to trans mit any information hi the knowledge of cither -- 
The Senator again interrupts the reading of the minority report to interject: 
]STote that-- Ami'continues: 
c files nb- 
There is the statement of the who'e question. The Senator 
of V>;L-hmsto:i in somewluU; the same Inti^uage upon the s " " To tlieVucl''---fc He is now quoting the President in his message to Congress, and 
quoting approvingly, 1 will say-- 
fiilliL-To the end that the service m.iy beim"epTrot ve.-l, the Senate is invited to the iii tio appn 
tion has jurisdiction over "the suliject-rmitter." 
The Senator inafle a very earnest and elaborate speech on that "clay, from which I have read only certain parts, hut which, if time 
Eermittetl, I would be glad to read in its entirety. On a later date e"resumed the discussion, and used this language: 
I hope Senators on the other side of the Chamber will remember those words of the Senator from Wisconsin when we come to 
 
 18 
vote on this resolution, "because I shall endeavor to show l:el'orel stop that i have myself acted upon the same theory--that when it comes to the question of the tnrnntcna.?it.'o of the prerogatives of the Senate no Senator haa a r ifflit to bj controlled in his action by partisan motives: and I. in proof of my sincerity, shall show ttont at the time when a Democrat occupied the Executive ob air and had Democrats in tho Executive Departments I made tbo same utterances in tho Senate Tvliieii J. no\v innke. 
Continuing-, the Senator from Wisconsin said: 
 
ris tiiu fariiWs i'i-;tmoi1 It. is rfw-TiUiil to" 
 
' 
 
r. President, I conld read very mnch more from the very con clusive argument of the learned and distinguished Senator from "Wisconsin; and that argument is GO logical and conclusive that, if there wero no other, it would be sufficient to maintain, the propo sition contended for in this resolution: but there were other Sen ators who spoke upon that occasion. 
Mr. President, in that historic debate--for it was an historic de bate, one worthy to be preserved iu the archives of the Senate-- there wero many speeches made by distinguished Senators. In that debate the present learned and honorable chairman of tho Commit.toe on the Judiciary of the Senate f Mr. HOAK ) participated, and while, as iu the case of the Senator from Wisconsin. I should be more than glad, if time permitted, to read his entire speech, it -will probably suiilce if I show by the envmuiatiorib of principle by him that he wag in thorough accord with and support of the propo sition contained in this resolution. 
I read from page "3707 of tho same volume of the COXGRKSSTO^TATJ R.^eoiviJ. ii\ -which the Sen;!1 or from Massachusetts nsed this lan^ 
g iifige in discussing the particular issue then involved in that deate, as to the right of the Senate not only to receive, but to demand and require, any information which should be found upon the records and Glee of the Departments which related to tho sub ject within the jurisdiction of the Senate. In the course of his speech the Senator from Massachusetts said: 
I understood the report to affirm that the existence of this po^-fr in tlio Sen.ito ami the. obedience to it by tlio hearts of the. Departments are iieces- 
ttxlfe'toTK-Mi of the rj-i-bt of irtiodom ol debate is necessary to tlic'diWuarge of our uunstlrntioaaJ duty. 
Re farther said, as will be found on tho same page of tho 
I agree and I think all tho Senate a^ree. with tho Heruitov from Oregon, thnt the power of. seeing what are the papers Oil tUo lilae, orr the oOicial flies, ol the executive department is essential to a proper discharge of the duties 
Mr. President, there i no Senator here now, and there has been no Senator here, better capable of making the assertion with con fidence that that power had theretofore never been denied than 
 
 19 
was the then Senator from Massachusetts, who still is the Senator from Massachusetts. I need not elaborate or hunt the JiKPORT.> to prove the correctness of the assertion made iu that historical de bate by the honorable arid learned Senator from Massachusetts. 
On the s;ime page of the CONGRESSIOXA.TJ RKCOKB it will bo found that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts said further: 
 
Mr. President, with the characteristic faculty of the Senator 
from Massachusetts, he has stated the whole case iii one sentence. In the same debate the then Senator from Kew York, Mr. "Wil 
liam M. Evarts the great constitutional lawyer, the great Cabinet zniTjitstor. also spcxke. 
Mr. President, I want to say in passing that T am glad of the opportunity to read these utterances by these distinguished and learned men, because I am satisfied that some who have denied the prerogatives of the Senate have not read. them, and possibly, if these arguments fell from my feeble lips, they would not b.p re garded, but they may take heed when they know from whom they 
 
The' lion. 'William M. Evarts in that debate, on page 274^3 of the CoKtutressicxNAJj RE c on.D, spoke as follows: 
 
The resolutions of the .Hic1ic:iary Committee defla,rthat tlio domaml marie 
 
by the Jn-lic;iai-y Committee for the psipei-a described and under Uie e-ji-r-nm- 
 
stances in v,'Iik;h the in i-'ov rruitioi: is sosisrlit for uliouid have l>!j im c.ompliotl 
 
wiUi bv tin; A.ttoi-uey-Glc:ii(>ral. and thtit i1C-iHuu- his duly nor tlio iiii,trn<-tiori 
 
ol HIE? "Pn;f,if.lr!iit -justifled tliat rrfusal. In tlie ndnovity i-ejjorfc T r-aii very 
 
briolly iind \vluit issno is .-joined, us I think, HO i'ur as ;L deiiuiLe iano h;is iiepii 
 
noined "bv tJiissttitomfiiit iJ! opinion and duty, us the miiiorilv r>;q:i.ra it, on tho 
 
subject- ' 
 
' 
 
And again, Mr. President, he quotes the very language of the minority report which I liave adopted in this re .oitition, and quotes it approvingly as a correct enunciation of the principle of law. 
The minoritv admit, oiire f.oi- sill -- 
 
any grant of power, .-juriscli'.-tion, or coiitiMl vmds-r _the CmiHtitul-[oi],_is snliwtftui-?on!S i^oii-oVs^tijtf^in-ist^f.-nou101 '""^ l ^& ^ "' <" X '" 1 '"''^  ' J "ft oon 
Then the learned and distinguished Senator at tliat time repre senting the State of Kew 'York on this floor, n man. \ repeat, not only of national but of worldwide reputation, coriti tmes as follows: 
NT-jw. npoii this assertion of tho Judiciary Committee's Tes.vlutions. and 
 
 und exist as oil tho tiles or on deposit in the Departments are on the fa-, _ _ them papers that belong to tlie uses and for the purposes of the duty of tho Houses of. Congress. 
Where is this preliminary line to be drawn? "Who is to be patient under it? "Wlio is to look in the fao tlie two Houses of Consrs-ss in the miim-talilo 
of Justice and. the Atturnoy-G-cnei-al can lay his hand upon them, and then posits :md "select i'roin them those that are suitable for the inspection of the Houses; let it lie conw.dfy.l fhat it i* ixot tlras to be iirljitrarily, thus capi'i- 
tho 
Thus spoke William M. Evarts. On page 2799 of tlie same volume is the utterance of Senator Lo^nii in that debate. In discxissing- this question in that debate lie spoke as follows: ' It 
^ ____. ... wetWs'th^L^i^ 47.1.0 
 
 21 
 
n^^s^e1 ^!!'^ irieml of the Secretary? 
In the same speech, on page 2800, Senator Logan used this language: 
Senator Logan rejoins: 
 
this 
 
will. 
 
Oil the question of law, I cite only one word from, tl: lawyer, who by his learning ornamented thi^s ChamberGeorge. It is found on page 2li(>5 of the same volume, a passing reference, but it is a full recognition of the r. that so far as a matter relates to the jurisdiction of the anything upon the files or the records of the department furnished upon the demand of the Senate. He was dispu contention on the other side as to whether this particnl; mation fell in that class, but in that disputation he made recognition of the principle announced in this resolnti page 2(565 Senator George, one of the ablest lawyers who in this or any other chamber or upon any bench, fully ret the principle, as follows: 
 
Still the obligation of the President to uncover, to m.-vlrp In ash 
 
rightly'aVdastitutioVal'diity"," It lias been shown that" we have'no 'duty" to 
 
4710 
 
a that matter. 
 
 Showing distinctly where the then Senator from Mississippi placed his objection to the majority resolutions and where he plueed Ills support of tlie_ minority resolutions. 
In that debate Senator Wilson, o Iowa, who was then a member of the Commit.teo 011 the Judiciary, used the language which I will road from pa^-oSviQH. He speaks now, in discussing this ques tion, of the assumption by the President of the United States of the power to direct a Cabinet officer not to communicate certain information which has been required by the Senate, and he uses this language: 
Then on page 2205 the same Senator, in the same speech, -uses this language: 
Mr. President, another distinguished former Secretary of a Department and a Cabinet officer who took part in that debate was Mr. Sherman, whoso speech is quoted on page 2331. I have not his full speech right at this particular point; it is in another volume; but this is the quotation which 1 want to use and I will therefore use it as a quotation. It is cited in this speech by Mr. Kenna, a Democratic Senator, who took part in the debate: 
ago on tins subject o the conimmiicatioTi of papers. Among other things ha said: 
legislate;' but for that WcoiTldnot act wisely in executive session." And on the same page, quoted by the same Senator in the same 
speech, is an extract from a communication to Congress by Presi dent G-rant. This was in a case where be was declining to fur nish certain information, but in which he recognized the principle: 
What the House of Representatives may require as a right in its demand proper discharge of its powers of legislation or of impeachment. 
The main speech on that occasion, by reason of the position which he then occupied in the Senate, was made by Senator Ed munds, the then chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I would be glad, if time permitted, to read the whole of his speech, bnt of course that is impossible, and I am going to read the parts which are most pertinent. He began his speech, which is found on page 2211, iti this way: 
 
 I beg Senators will mark what the distinguished and learned 
 
Senator from Vermont, then representing in part that State in 
 
the Senate, said in this speech, because everyone knows not only 
 
his ability, but his erudition, his industry, and his eminent fit 
 
ness to speak not only with authority, but with accuracy, both as 
 
to propositions of law and as to the political history of this tfov- 
 
ernment. Continuing, ho says: 
 
.It ii s bee; at le; 
 
betw ithe 
 
utiv 
 
nt of the 
 
ncL the 
 
rjecessary for the proper di&chargo of their duties. 
Then in the same speech, at the bottom of: page 3213, the same learned Senator says: 
President of the Unitod States or the minority oAhis committee, official pa pers in the Department of Justice bearing upon the administration of the 
I ask the attention of Senators to this particular utterance by the learned man who was then a Senator from Vermont. 
I take 
 
Thej 
 
safe in saying1 tliat. ientatives, composing 
 
Mr. President, it would "be considered almost heresy for me to say that now, but I can read it in the language of the distinguished ex-Senator from Vermont. 
Mr. SPOONEB. Will the Senator from Georgia please read that again? 
Mr. BACOH. Certainly. 
 
.^ .__. .__ States, and ho is t. executed. He is i Ms'tne makcr'o maker of peace, -wi hout the consei 
4710 
 
'rthan 
 
 Si, 
quotation marks, as taken from, tlte Constitution of the United 
 
 A strange use of the -word in that connection-- Confirming- farther Senator Edmunds says in the same s on page 2210: 
 
 1 
26 
ican States and tiie United States, a congress of ambassadors at Panama or President apparently were opposing the resolution, said this, which will Ua found in the Corifrressionul Debates "of tbo Itth ol' March, 1826, 'volume S, part 1, page 159. 
This is what is quoted by Mr. Edmunds: 
The PRKSIDINa OFFICER. ' Tb 
very words, of the minority report -which, was quoted by the Sen; tors oi; the other side in their discussion and by them approved t at cTTohhreererreectaaerrneeusnocmiae-tioon"thoerfrlamwa'."tters', M "r. "Pres-i-"d' en"'t, t"hat' TI d-e--s-i-r-e t' o say in conne ction with this subject. While I have been discussing the righ tional right l 
e, for instiince a matter relating tc 
/rcficy. 
But, Mr. President, the point that I desire to press is this, that the rights of the Senate must necessarily be accompanied with the 
-mine when the power shall be e 
 
 27 
panyingitin the painty possessing the power the right to determine when it sliall exercise the power. If the Senate lias an alleged power and a Department has tlio right to cletermijie when tho power shall "bo exercised, then that power in the Senate is a mock ery and really does not exist. 
Further. Mr. President, it will not do to say that the Senate can exercise the power in a reasonable case and can not exercise it in an -unreasonable case, because in every case it is for somebodv to determine when it is reasonable and when it is unreasonable: and if the Department lias the right as a matter of final determination to say that it is unreasonable, tho Department has the right to say at its will that the power shall not "be exercised. 
Now, Mr, President, if the power exists in a Department to de termine tliat the exercise of the power by the Senate is or is not unreasonable, then it is not a power in the Senate but only a right of petition; a right, as the distiiigiaished Senator from Wisconsin said in the former debate, to appear at the door of the Department, hat in hand, and with a profound salaam ask the permission of the Department to see the document or to have the information. It is in that case, I repeat, but a right of petition; and if it is only a right of petition, there must be the reciprocal right in the Depart ment to deny the request whenever in its judgment it is an un reasonable one or incompatible with tho public interests. 
Now. Mr. President, this question, may be stated in another way. The crucial question is, who has the right to determine when this demand can "be made by the Senate on the Department, and when it must "be complied with by the Department? Is it in the Senate or is it in the Department? It' it is in the Department, if the Senate or the House has not the right to demand and re quire the production of the information which may be found in the records or files of the Department, and if, on the contrary, the Department, when such a demand is made_, has a right to say, "I would let the Senate or the House have it if I thought it was rea sonable, pi' if I thought it was compatible with the public inter est; but in this instance the demand, in the opinion of the Depart ment, is not reasonable, is not compatible with the public inter ests, and therefore the Department will not comply with the de mand"--if this reply can be made "by the Department to either House o Congress, then, Mr. President, the creature is greater than the creator. Who created these Departments? They are not known to the Constitution. They are the creatures of Congress. They are not only the creatures of Congress, but they have not a power that Congress did not give them. They are not only the creatures of; Congress, but they have not a power that Congress can not at any clay take away from them. 
The President of the "United States is a constitutional officer. Y7c can not add to his power; we can not take awav from his power. Tho Senate of the United States is constitutional body, and there is no power in the Government to add to our power qr to take a~way from our power. The House of Representatives is a constitutional body, and there again there is no power or au thority -which can add to its power or takeaway from it. The sub ordinate Departments of this Government were not created by the Constitution. They are the creatures of Congress. Congress made them and Congress can unmake them. 
Mr. SPOONER. The Constitution contemplated them. Mr. BACON. That may be, but does the Senator dispute that we could abolish every one of them before the sun set, if we did. 
 
 not have to wait for the action of the President in approving or 
 
disapproving the bill, and if we did wait for tho action of the 
 
President, and he did not approve it. we could still abolish them 
 
by tlio requisite majority of two-thirds? 
 
'Mr. SPOONKR. Of course. 
 
Mr. BACON. Undoubtedly. I know, of course, when I ask 
 
the question, beyond any doubt, as to what will be the reply of 
 
the Senator. It is a fact that tho Departments are not only the 
 
creatures of Congress, but that every official of the Departments, 
 
from the chief down to the lowest dork, is a creature of Congress; 
 
that there is no authority in a Department -that it does not get 
 
from Congress, and that there is no authority in a Department 
 
that Congress can not at any time, if it sees fit, ta'ke away, Con 
 
gress can preserve the Departments as they now stand with, their 
 
.present power. It may iru-.i-easo those powers, it may diminish 
 
those powers, cr it may absolutely destroy those powers. Con 
 
gress may abolish one or1 the Departments and confer iis dnlies 
 
upon another existing "Department or TUDOU a new Department 
 
which it creates for the purpose. Congress may take away a part 
 
oi: the duties of a Department and cmii'er that part 011 another 
 
Department, as it did when it took awfiy a part of the duties of 
 
the Slate Department and conferred them upon tho Interior De 
 
partment. Congress conld create acloxen other Dfpurtmeiit^ ;md 
 
malvo them of equal dignity with those which now exist, and thus 
 
1 create a dozen new Secretaries of ep.ial dignity with those of.1 the 
 
pr 
 
tlu 
 
constitutional power when they approve, and that when they dis approve Collar kiHs&hall not exercise a constitutional power:1 That is tho proposition. If they have the right in any instance to set any limiration upon the power of Congress, they have it in all cases. There IH, there can be. no halfway station iu the conclu sion to be reached on this issue. 
"Why, sir. wo have jiisl passed ;vn act giving to the President the power to increase or cl, crease the Army a.!.,out nO.COG men, in his discretion. If the Ben ale should desire to know how many men were in the Armyat any time, oou'd the Wec'retary reply, "It is not compatible with the public interest to give the information." 
TJie ship-subsidy bill proposes to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to make contracts for ."jO. 000,000 a year. tobei~>aid in sub sidies to ships. Can he decline to i.'ive information concerning this to tho Senate, if this bill becomes the law? Where will the line be <lva\vnV 
Mr. SPOONiR, Will the Senator allow me to ask hhu a ques tion? 
Mr. BACON". Most assuredly. Mr. yPOONE-R. I suppose tho Senator will admit thnt there are some papers in. the varionw Depa.rtnients which it would be manifestly against public interest, or might be, to be made public, Mr. BACON. Undoubtedly. 
Mr. SPOONBR. Now. U! Congress, or either .House of Con- 
Press, should pass a resolution calling /or such a- paper and the 'resident should in reply state to Congress, he knowing the full 
4710 
 
 retl, - 
l>e made public, does the Senator regard that as H defiance or chal lenge ot: the riylit of Congress or of tlie House or oi' the Senate to ask? 
Mr. BACON. I say that is not the proper way to connrmnicate with tlif: Senate or the House 011 the subject of the propriety or policy oi' complying- with a direction by the Senate to a Departincut to furnish information which it renuires. 
Mr. SPOOLER-. What is the proper way? 
Mr. "BACON. If the Senator is through with his <]_ucsticn. I will endeavor to reply. 
>Ir. SPGONEK. I am through with it.  Mr. BACON. I was coming to that point, and I will take it rip right now. There is no doubt about tlio fact that there are in stances in which information in the Departments ought not to be made public-. There is no doubt about Hint whatever. But the discretion is lodged somewhere. and whoever tins that discretion has control of the power to determine when it shall be exercised. The Senator can not possibly fail to recognize that fact. And the same thing is true of alt other discretionary powers. The body or authority thus vested with the power is necessarily also vested with the discretion when to use the power. There are cases where there ought to be no disclosure, but the discretion, I repeat, must be somewhere, and whoever has the discretion has the power. Whenever the Senate has that discretion it lias the power. If the Department has the discretion when the Senate shall exercise a power, then the Seriate has not, in fact, the power, and the Depart ment, on the contrary, has the power. it is true of all discretionary powers that there is reposed in the particular officer vested -with the power the confidence that he will not abuse it: that he will exercise his discretion wisely. I say the Senate of the United States can be safely trusted to exercise that discretion wisely, and whenever the ftienato of the "United States, at the instance of anyone, directs the head of a Depart ment to furnish certain information which that officer, by reason of his greater familiarity perhaps with the subject or by reason of some consideration which had not stift-g-ested itself to the Sen ate, believes it to be unwise, it is a proper and an easy thing- for liim to do to convey that information to the Senate, and the Sen ate can he relied upon to withdraw the demand. That is a very different thing- from assuming to itself determine the tmestiott, and thereupon to cavalierly refuse, as a matter of right and power, to comply with the demand. 
I have an instance of that kind in my own experience hi the Senate. During the Spanish war I introduced a resolution, which was adopted, directing the then Secretary of War to communicate certain information to the Senate. It had not occurred, to me that' there were reasons at that time which made the publication of that information unwise. The Secretary of War thought it wonlrl be unwise. Instead of going to the President with his assumed au thority to determine cither on what he would do ot! his own mo tion, or what he could do nnder the authority of the President, in denial of the right of the Senate, which, is the case here, lie per sonally went to the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs oi: this body, the senior Senator from Connecticut | Mr. H.VWL.KV] , and laid before him the case, and said to him, ' 'I think it XT.II wise 
that this publication should be made.'' Here was the order of fche 
1710 
 
 1 
30 
Senate. The Senator from Connecticut came to me and laid the matter before me, and i instantly, under the statement made, rec ognized the fact that the Secretary of War was right, and that the information ouglit not to be given, and at my own instance the Senate withdrew the direction. 
Is not that a simple and a proper way? There was no friction "between the Senate and the War Department in that instance, and there is no necessity for any friction in any instance where the Secretary or chief of a department recognizes the power of the Senate or House, and proceeds in the proper way to prevent the publication of any information which, for any reason, should not "be published. But it is an impossibility that the Secretary of War, either \vith or without the direction of the President, can say when the Senate shall and when tiie Senate shall not have access to the records and files, and that the power to determine when the Sen ate shall have information on the records or files of a Department shall be transferred from this body and lodged in a Department which we ourselves have created. 
Mr. President, I do not want, in anything I say. to disparage the Secretaries and chiefs of Departments, certainly none of ttie pres ent officers and none of those who have been in office smco I have been here. For each and all of them I have the highest personal regard aud respect, and from each of them I have received only courtesy and kindly consideration. Nor do I underestimate the dignity and importance of their offices. 
It is true that while the Secretaries and chiefs of Departments are the creatures of Congress, while their offices were created by Congress, while it is true that every power they have comes from Congress, -while it is true that any power they have can be taken away, it is also true that a Secretary or-chief of: a Department lias a moat high and honorable office. It is also true that the very wisest and ablest men of the nation have thought it an honor to occupy the position of Secretary of a Department, and it has been an honor to them, and many of the most renowiied of our states- 
the object of the ambitit parage them in any way. But this is a question of law. While I do not disparage a Secretary or his office, I do appreciate the dig nity and the authority of the American Senate. 
It is not a vain or an idle boast that this is the greatest of all deliberative bodies of the earth. It is not a vain or an idle boa-,t that -we have powers, both as to their character and magnitude and the wide reach and extent of the interests controlled, such as no other deliberative body ever was invested, -svitli. It is not a vain and idle boast that as time goes on and as this country in creases to eighty million, and one hundred million and three ln.nidred million--which will certainly come if we are true to our in stitutions and preserve them--the dignity and axithority and power of this body will increase if we do not surrender any of the prerogatives that properly belong to it; because, while -with 800.000,000 people there might be a thousand Representatives in the other House of Congress, the time will never come when there will be over two Senators from a State to sit in this high comicil. 
Appreciating that as I do, Mr. President, I tlo not depreciate the Secretary of a Department when I stand here and say that no party consideration, no question oi: personal favor, no question of personal deference, shall stand in tite way when I can raise my feeble voice against any encroach-ment upon the "Dowers of this body. 
4T10 
 
 31 Before proceeding to discuss the next question arising in this connection I read another extract from the report of tlio majority in tlie former debate: 
the perform iuic:e ot the duties imputed, to Mi 
that tlie Itiws had not devolved upon tlie heads of JJepa 
'S"ffi not his will, lias imputed to them. 
Thus spolie George F. Edmunds, John J. Installs, GEORGE F. HoAit, James F. Wilson, and William M. Evarts in a majority report not only agreed to by all of them, but personally signed "by each one of them. 
Can the President of the United States aiithorize the chief of a Department to say "no "to the Senate? Is the Secretary of a Department, as such, as stated in this piece in the Star, the " aide or representative " of the President? From whom does a Secre tary or other chief of a Department derive his power and his au thority? From the President? If so, the President ought to have created the office. Did the President create the office of Secre tary of State, or of Secretary of th Treasury, or of Secretary of War, or of the chief of any other Department? Did he create either of these Departments? He has the authority tinder the Constitution in that case, as in all others, to appoint the incum bent, with the advice and consent of the Senate: and as to these officers, he has the same power to remove one of thorn that he has to remove any other officer not in the legislative or judicial depart ment--no greater and no less. 
But if the Secretary of a Department is a part of the executive power, if he derives his authority from the fact that the Constitu tion of the United States clothes the President of the United States with, all executive authority, and if this is a part of it, then the President of the United States was tlie only one authorized to create the office of Secretary of War, or Secretary of State, or Secretary of tlie Navy. Not only so, but if it is part of the execu tive power devolved Tipon the President by the Constitution, the President alone could define the powers of the Secretary of War and of the Secretary of State or of the Navy, and to the .President alone could the Secretary of War or other chiefs of Departments he required to make reports of tlie doings in their offices. 
No. Mr. President, not only is the Secretary of War and every other Secretary and chief of a Department the civ-ature of Con gress, and not only are his duties to the last limit prescribed by 
4710 
 
 32 
Congress, but the office tlins created is no part of the executive power which was conferred upon the President by the Constitution. 
Whatever power there is in the President iiuder the Constitu tion vesting- in him the executive power remains with him; Con gress can not take it away. Whatever the Constitution meant to include when it said that the President should be invested with all executive power, such power is indivisible and intact. Con gress can not add to it and can not take any part of it away from him. It can not chip oft' any part of the_ power and give it to somebody else. So these Departments, while they are called Ex ecutive Departments, are necessarily independent of the executive power conferred "by the Constitution on the President and not connected \vith the particular executive 130wer which was con ferred by the Constitution on the President of the United States. ' 
Can it be said that any part of that power can be taken by Con gress away from tlie President and delegated to the chief of a Department? if so, we can strip him of all power, for if we can take one power we can take another. If we can create one chief 
i create another chief of a Department to take another part of the executive power, and still another and still another until there would be nothing left of him but the mere name. 
No, IVLr. President, the chief of a Department in his official power and obligations is not the creature of the Executive: the chief of a Department gets no power from the Executive and draws . none of his official life from the Executive. His duties are all duties prescribed by Congress; ho is the creature of Congress; he is the arm of Congress; he is the subject of Congress; he is under the authority of Congress; and, least of all, lias he the power to set any limitation upcii the power of Congress. Yet if the contention be true, it could only be sustained upon the proposition that he is not the creature of. Congress; that he is not responsible to Con gress: that he is the creature of the President: thfit he got his au thority from the President, and therefore when he is commanded by Congress he must appeal to the President to know whether or not he shall obey. 
Mr. President, I have here, but I shall not take the time of the Senate to read them, all the acts which prescribe the duties of these various heads of Departments, the statutes that created them, the statutes which lay down to them the law and the limitations, and the statutes which in all cases require them to report to Con gress. 
Has Congress the right to command the chief of a Department? If it has not, every one of those laws is a usurpation which says that the chief of a Department shall do this and shall not do that, lie shall report this to Congress, and that to Congress, and the other thing to Congress. 
It is a common impression that a Secretary of a Department and a Cabinet officer are one and the same. But this is a mistake; there is a distinction and a \vide difference between the two offices. The officer who is Secretary of a Department, and who at the same time is accepted by the President as a Cabinet officer, occu pies a dual capacity. There is nothing in the law which makes the Secretary of a Department a Cabinet officer; one could be a Secretary of a Department without being a Cabinet officer. Such officer is a Cabinet officer only because the President voluntarily accepts him as such. Even if Congress should name one as a- Cab- 
4710 
 
 itiet officer, it would be for the President to say whether lie would accept him as such. The President may invite into his private council, as his Cabinet, any officers whom he may select and de sire, or lie may exclude anyone to whom he may object. Any Secretary or chief of a Department might "be by the President ex cluded ft-om the Cabinet council without of necessity ceasing to "be such Secretary or chief of a Department. The office of Postinaster-Greueral was created in 1794, but not until 1859 did he sit in the Cabinet. Then he entered it simply because President Jackson invited him to do so. So far as I have been able to find, there is no such officer known to the Constitution or the statute as a Cabinet officer. By courtesy, the President accepts the Secre 
taries and chiefs of Departments as his Cabinet. In the sense of the offices thus held by courtesy, the Cabinet officers may prop erly be said to be the " aides" of the President. But as the officers of the Departments created by laws enacted by Congress the Sec retaries and chiefs of Departments are the officers of agencies of Government created by Congress, deriving their sole powers from Congress, and directly responsible to Congress. 
There is one thing which I have found, by the way, in that re port of the majority, which certainly was ill. considered by even that galaxy of great lawyers; and that is the assertion therein that all of. the various Departments are not required to report to Con gress. Every one of them is; and if Congress has a right to re quire a report as to one snb.;ect, has it not ihe right to require a report as to all? And if Congress, the two Houses in their joint capacity, have a right to pass a law -which prescribes what a chief of a Department shall do, it is because it has the constitutional right to command it, because it is the constitutional right of Con gress to lay down the law to a Department. 
Mr. President, is the constitulional right of the two Houses in Congress assembled superior to the constitutional right of either House acting in its separate capacity, so far as its constitutional powers are concerned? If Congress has a right to pass a law which says that the Department shall do so and so, or that it slifiH not do this or that, that it shall report this and shall report that, in the exercise of a constitutional function, has not the Senate also, if it is a part of its constitutional functions, of its constitu tional right, the right to get whatever information there may be upon the files and records of the Department--is not that a con stitutional right and power .iust as sacred as the right of the two Houses of Congress assembled to pass a law? And has not the House of Representatives the same equally sacred right? 
If the two Houses of Congress have a right to pass a law which, shall control a Department--and I suppose there is no lawyer here wlio would for a. moment dispute that fact--either House of Con gress, in order that it may properly discharge its constitutional functions, has under its constitutional right an equal power to require, not request, any chief of a Department, or any subordi nate chief of a Department-, to furnish whatever information it may deem necessary for the proper discharge of its constitutional func tions and duties. Who is there who will dispute the correctness of this as a logical conclusion of law? What possible escape is there from it? 
Mr. President, I very frequently think of that wonderful dec laration oi: Paul, " I magnifj' my office." He did not mean that he was trying- to make his office greater than it was. He was 
4710--a 
 
 34 
speaking of his great office as an apostle. Ho meant that before all men ho would maintain the grandeur and the dignity and the power of that office. In that sense, and-without any consideration of the person who may fill the office, but only in consideration of the great dignity and power and responsibility of the office, hav ing in view the great Congress of the United States and each branch, thereof, every Senator and every Representative should have and cherish the feeling in his heart that he inagnifie3 his of fice, with the unalterable determination that, regardless of party or personal considerations, the great powers which are conferred ripoii him under the Constitution shall be protected by him and surrendered by him to no one. And whenever it is Imowrt, sir, that Senators and Representatives intend to protect their powers regardless of party or personal considerations, we will have no more challenges of these powers from other Departments oi: the Government. 
Mr. President, let me read you what is familiar to all of us. Let me read the powers conferred upon Congress. Where was there ever such an array? It would have been enough if there had heen 110 powers conferred upon Congress except by tlio first section of the first article of the Constitution, which said that all legislative powers shall be vested in Congress. That great investiture of power might have been deemed enough, hut the Constitution makers did not stop there. 
The fight of all the ages had been for free representative gov ernment. Our forefathers had just been liberated from one-man government. They did not intend that by any possibility of con struction or misconstruction the great powers of this government should bo exercised by any one man; arid when they came to con fer power upon the President of the United States, they gave him but a line, that " ne shall tafeo care that the laws be faithfully exe cuted," winch is but the equivalent of the other provision that , "the executive power shall be -vested in a President.'' 
The only royal prerogative given to the President of the United States is the power to pardon. There is not another single royal prerogative conferred upon the President of the United States by the Constitution of the United States excent the power to pardon. Every other power ho exercises is either'subject to the will of Congress or in conjunction with the Senate. Jn order that there might be no doubt about this, those men. fresh, from their great struggle and wedded to liberty, men who had won it bysuch great sacrifices, when they came to frame this great document, were not content with saying that all legislative power shall be vested in tlxe Congress; they were not content-with, simply saying thatthe President should execute the laws; they were not content with simply specifying the one royal prerogative which -was given to him, but went on specifically to confer upon Congress these great powers. 
Imagine, Mr. President, when I read these powers--imagine one of the" .Departments, the creature of Congress, the very breath of the month of Congress, asserting that it has power to limit the constitutional exercise of the functions of the Congress of tho United States, or of either House thereof! Let me read them. I wish they could be read in the hearing of the American people in this day frociuently. because there is 110 doubt about the fact, and we must not shut our eyes to the fact, that, little by little, the ex ecutive department is encroaching upon this great repository of 
4710 
 
 35 
power and trying to take it away little by little; and at last, with, precedent after precedent, we will sit here as I have seen a house of representatives sitting in another government claiming to be a republican government. 
I have visited a house of representatives in a foreign country hav ing the form of a republic. I have visited the same house day after day, and I have never seen in either visit one single member rise and address the Chair. I have seen bill after bill passed, and. I have never seen a negative vote against one of them. It so happened that after I had seen that condition of affairs for a number of times--I was not familiar with the language, "but was familiar enough to understand what was going on--noting this. I one dav took my stand at the door as they adjourned, and just on a pure venture addressed a man who looked to me as though he might speak English. Sure enough he did. He was a member of that house and I got into conversation with him. 1 was not then a member of this body, "but I liad what I considered a very great honor. 
1 was a member of my State legislature, and it was a high honor. 1 said to him that I was very much interested in the de liberations of legislative bodies, and that I. did not understand the things I saw there; that I click not understand that particular language--not naming it now--and I should like very much to get some information from him. I said to him, ''For instance, I have never seim any debate in your body; I have never seen a member rise and address the Chair; I have never seen a vote in the negative on any measure, but the secretary, or whatever officer he may be, submits a bill or something of the kind to the assem bly, and every man, the roll being called in every instance"---the vote was not by general vote, but in each instance on a roll call--" every mata answers in the affirmative.'" 
I knew enough of the language to recognize a vote in the affirma tive. "Now." i" said, ' this afternoon, for illustration. I saw two bills passed. The clerk or secretary read tiiom and then the roll was called, and in each instance every member voted in the affirm ative. How was it that there was no debate and no negative vote?" "Why," he said, "there was 110 need for any debate. Those were simply appropriation bills that the President sent to us, and there was nothing to do but to pass tliem. There was no need of discussion, and everybody favored the bills." 
And so, Mr, President, it may corne that after a while we are to assemble \mder the Dome of this Capitol simply to register the de crees which may be made in another department of the G-overninent, and while we may still go through the form of passing bi'.ls our power will be in substance gone from us. 
What are the powers granted to Congress? In the eighth sec tion of the first article of the Coustituti >n there is an enumeration of the powers of Congress. After having given all legislative power to Congress, the Constitution provides: 
Sue. 8. Tlio Congress shall have po\vor to lay and collect taxes, duties, im posts and excises, to pay the debts tind provide for tlio common defense 
To c standard o 
4710 
 
 forces; " 
 
." 
 
". ' 
 
etlonV'nid repel invasions To provide for or^aniaius. urmius-aud discipV 
 
Wtfits-H, niscr\nng- to tho States, i-espectiyt-ly, t"he iippointment of tln> o~B.'ujci-s, 
 
' To exercise1 exc^sivo legislation in ail wises whatsoever, over siicli di&ti-ict 
 
Referring to the District of Columbia-- 
 
nd t Jikc 
 
arseiitT.'ls,tlockyn.rdrf, anrt'okber needful buildings. * 
 
"' '^ ^ ^ 
 
And finally, as if all this emvmei-ation of powers was not suffi 
 
cient, tho Constitution continues, as tho conclusion and summary 
 
of all those great powers: 
 
Yet we are told, that with this magnificent grant of powers, powers covering almost the entire range of sovereignty, one of these Departments, one of our own creatures, can. stand at the door and say to Congress, "Enter not; I am the judge of* whether or not you have any business here." 
IvTr. President, I have "but few more words to say, I certainly had no expectation of consuming this much time of tno Senate. I do not want to discuss the Cuban question. This contention grows out of the refusal of one of the Departments to give Con gress information relative to what has been going on in Cuba and what has been done there by our own officers. Is that within the jurisdiction of Congress? Are the officers whom we Ivave sent to Cuba outside of or beyond the jurisdiction of Congress? Have we no power over them? Is there possibly vested in the Executive the exclusive power to say what our officers shall do in Cuba? 
I am not speaking- now of those crimes private individuals may commit, "becaiise. however that may be, it is not necr-ssary to dis cuss that; but is it true the President of the United States lias ex 
clusive jurisdiction over the acts of officers of the nation who are in Cuba? Is it true that because an officer, civil or military, of the IJisited States has been sent to Cuba, Congress has no longer .jurisdiction to examine into his conduct, to protect the honor of this G-overnment against Ms malfeasances, to end the perpetra tion of. corrupt practices, and to provide for the punishment or dismissal of the unfaithful? If so, why was it, when a resolution 
4710 
 
 37 
 
^ as Introduced liere" last spring directing the Committee on Cuban Affairs to investigate what had been done by our officers in Cuba, that, the reply was iiofc made: "You have no jurisdiction there; it is nono of your business; that is pnrely a consideration and power of: the President? '' Mr. President, that reply was not made because everybody know that the fact that our officers were in Cuba did net relieve them from the jurisdiction of Congress and. that they wore still under the power of Congress. 
I am not going' into that subject, but I think that subject onght to bo gone into during this session of Congress, because with this Congress will expire that committee, and with this Congress will expire the opportunity for that committee to obey the command of the Senate. We have the right to direct Secretaries and chiefs of Departments just as we direct committees of our own body. Nothing dictatorial is intended or implied in either case, "but it is a proper thing to do. Here are tlie resolutions adopted by the Sen ate ]ast spring- instructing the Senate Committee on Cuban Affairs what they should do in making the investigation provided for therein. I read them at this place In order to illustrate the Ques tion whether or not an inquiry into the acts of our officers in Cuba has been recognized by the Senate as a proper subject-matter within the jm-iscliction of the Senate: 
 
- 
 
''''' 
 
0113 ^' 1 " '"l 
 
to wliicli said property Las been put, and the disposition winch lias been made 
1 will not talcc up the question now ns to what- that committee has done. They may have had good reasons for not having done anything, which I understand to be the fact. 
Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. We have done a great deal, if the Senator will allow me. 
Mr. BACON". I will accept for the present that statement. I 
 
 38 
did not intend to go into that at this time. I hope the Senator from Connecticut-will, before this Congress adjourns, let us know what the committee have done, so that we may sea whether or not they have complied with the instructions of the resolutions. I hope the Senator will not let the matter rest there. I hope the Senator will take up the subject and let us have information before this Congress ends. 
I can not now discuss the Lawshe resolution. There have been floating around and published in the papers statements that this report exposes the greatest corruption on the part of many of those who have been intrusted with public dutits in Cuba. But that can not bti gone itito now. The report is locked up in the War Department, the Senate is denied, access to it, and Lawshe himself has been sent across the Pacific Ocean, where he can not "be readied by the Senate. 
Mr. President, I promised that I would give evidence in address ing the Senate that what I have said to-day is inspired by no par tisan motive. I would say what I have said to-day just as quickly, and more quickly, and if I had the power I would say it more earnestly, if the executive officers now in office were men of my own party. In evidence of that I call attention to a speech I made in this Senate under circumstances which I will briefly narrate. 
In the winter of 3896-97 the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, of which the former distinguished Senator from Ohio, Mr. Shertnan, was the chairman, reported a resolution to the Sen ate in favor of the recognition of Cuban independence. At that time there was a Democratic President of the United States, and of course tlie Secretaries and chiefs of Departments were Demo crats. 
The office of Secretary of State was filled bya very distinguished Democrat. Immediately after the report of the committee he pub lished an authorized interview in the newspapers, in which he de nied the right of Congress to take such action, and went on to say that if Congress did take such action it would not be recog nized by the Executive, and would only be regarded as the utter- " ances of distinguished citizens of the United States. Upon that challenge I introduced a resolution in the Senate asserting the right of Congress to take the action which was proposed, and more particularly condemning the utterance of the then Secretary of State. The speech in support of the resolution was delivered by me on the 13th of January, 1S'J7. I can not read more than a lit tle of it, and that is just to show the position which I then occu pied relative to the encroachments of a Democratic Executive. 
The issue, Mr. President, was then between a Republican Benate with a Republican committee on the one side, and on the other side a Secretary of State who belonged to my political party, and who was also a man for whom I had personally the hig-hest esteem and regard. 
In the conclusion of that speech I used this language: 
power "by the executive branch of the Govern mo lit in tliis day fav exceeds the bounds set for it by tho Constitution. The correspondence in relative position of a president in a republic and of a king iiia monarchy: the glamour of a great office in which one man among- 70,000,0110 is chosen as tho sole bead 
removal -where he seems to have* unlimited power to bestow, or to withhold, or to take awav--iliese and Other influences combine to i '  -  mind the prerogatives of the President far above the pc the Constitution. 
4710 
 
 39 
 
!rs slioulcl never I 
 
"be ud.r lit of i- 
 
ntfol la\ 
 
Mr, President, that I said in answer to the attempted encroach 
 
ment oE the Democratic head o one of the subordinate parts of 
 
this Grovernruont, J read it in order that no man can think that 
 
what 1 have said to-day is in ths slightest measure influenced by 
 
the fact tliat the present chiefs of the suTjordinate Departments 
 
are now of a different political pn.rty from myself. 
 
4UO 
o 
 
 GOVERNMENT IN THE PHILIPPINES AND IN CUBA. 
SPEECH 
HON. AUGUSTUS 0. BACON, 
OK GEORGIA., 
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
Wednesday, February 27, 1901, 
"W .A. SI-i i:M G T OiM. 
1901. 
 
 1 
 
 SPEECH 
HON. AUGUSTUS O. BACON. 
 
(IT.E,.ldOT7) making-appropriation tor the support ot the Army for the liseal year ending- June SO, 1902, and thc.ameiiclraeut to the same, as follows; 
of 'l)ceember, 1898, and'at Washington on the 7fh clay of November, 1900, shall until otherwise provided by Congress, bo vested in suh person and persona and direet, for" the establish me lit of Civil government anrl for maintaining- and pro tecting the inhabitants of said islands in the free enjoyment of their liberty, 
 
Mr. BACON said: 
 
Mr. PuKSTUJiXT: On account of the impatience of the Senate that 
 
there should be a vote upon the pending amendment, of course there 
 
is naturally some reluctance on my part to occupy the attention of 
 
the Senate at this time; but appreciating as I do the gravity of the 
 
question upon which we are to pass, 1 shall not regret the fact that I 
 
have the opportunity at this time to raise my voice, however feeble 
 
it may be, in opposition to the proposed measure. 
 
Mr. President, I regard the amendment which has been proposed 
 
with reference to the Philippine Islands as the most pernicious and 
 
objectionable piece of legislation which has been proposed since I 
 
have had any connection with the American Congress. I do not 
 
think I am extravagant when I say that, so far as I have any famili 
 
arity wath measures prior to that time, this is the most preiiicious, 
 
the most vicious, and in. its baleful influence the most far-reaching 
 
measure which has ever been, proposed in the American Congress, 
 
certainly within the past thirty years. I say that because, in my 
 
estimate upon its influence tip_on the free institutions of this country, 
 
it is utterly revolutionary in its character. 
 
I desire to say for myself---and I am satisfied that I reflect the sen 
 
timents of. others--that there are no possible circumstances under 
 
which I would vote for the proposed measure. I want to say fur 
 
ther that there is no bill to which this measure could be attached 
 
the enactment of which 1 would deem of sufficient importance to 
 
secure rny vote for its passage. I will say further, Mr. President, 
 
that there is no measure in this Congress, and no measure of which 
 
I could conceive, which I would save from loss by voting for this 
 
amendment as the price of it. There is no pending measure so bad 
 
that I would secure its defeat by voting for this amendment; there 
 
is no pending measure so good that I would secure its passage by 
 
voting for this amendment. 
 
Mr. President, the free instituUoiiH of this country and the con 
 
stitutional principles upon which those institutions are based are not 
 
to be weighed in the balance against dollars. I am known to be 
 
4761 
 
3 
 
 opposed most earnestly to the ship-subsidy bill, I believe it to he 
wrong in principle; I believe the details of the bill, outside of the question of principle, are indefensible; but I would infinitely prefer to see the ship-subsidy bill pass rather than to see this amendment 
s bill ot as 
ever been before Congress within the last thirty years that I would not rather see.become the law than this amendment. 
I know from the utterances of the public press that the idea has 
been given out that Senators on this side of the Chamber have been reconciled in a measure to the passage of this amendment; that their . 
eyes have been dazzled with the benefits to come to them if they will lie down, and that the idea is given out that while they would 
vote against the bill, they are in fact no longer opposed to it. There never w*as a greater injustice done, and if there is any way that any Senator can suggest by which we can permanently defeat this meas ure, we are ready to pursue that way. 
nt is a mistake to suppose that the fear of an extra session can deter us in this matter. If an extra session could be had without the fear or the probability of the passage of the bill, that, go far from being a deterrent, would be an invitation to us. An extra session has no terrors for mo. I want my convenience and my comfort, I presume, as other Senators do; but I would "be willing to stay here, not simply in the short term of ail extra session, but during the entire vacation until December nest, if by so doing it 
were possible that the permanent defeat of this measure could be accomplished. 
I desire to say for myself right here, although it is a little out of the particular matter in hand, that I think there ought to be an ex tra session. I think there ought to be an extra session, if for noth ing else that we might consider the Chinese matter. I do not think it is any credit to the Congress of the United States that in the grave 
situation by which we are confronted there has been no word from Congress about the Chinese situation. I think it no credit to the majority in this House and in the other House, which, has the power of legislation, which has the power to give official utterance; that in 
a condition so startling and so abnormal, and, I think, so illegal, as that which now exists in China, so far as the American Government is concerned, there has been no utterance. 
Cazi there be any question about the fact that the American Gov ernment hag been at war with China? Can there be any question about the fact that there is a condition of war there to-day? And ia 
the American Congress_ to adjourn, is the Congress to expire, in the face of the fact that, with the power given to it, and exclusively to it, to declare war, war has existed in China, and not a word said by the American Congress relative to what has occurred, relative to the present conditions, and relative to what is to occur in the next 
nine months? Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Will the Senator from Georgia allow 
me to ask him a question? Mr. BACON. With great pleasure. Mr. PLATT of Connecticut. Does the Senator think that any war 
exists to-clay between the United States and China? 
Mr. BACON". I do, most undoubtedly; and I will proceed to give the Senator my reasons why I so think. 
4731 
 
 What constitutes war, Mr. President? Is it war to invade a for eign country with several thousand men under the command of a major-general and to remain with that invading army in hostile occupation of that country for nearly a year, after having fought 
battles and subjugated the armed forces of the country? Is it in. the prosecution of war to issue to the Quartermaster's and Com missary's and Ordnance Departments orders for a year's .'.-applies f<jf the support and maintenance and the arming and equipping of that 
army in a foreign country, with special reference to the needs of the army in that foreign country and with the expressed design that 
they are to be used by that army in that foreign country? Is not this the recognition of the beginning of a regular war expected to extend through a protracted campaign? Is it war to maintain that 
army there for six or eight months in the attitude of a hostile in vading army, and for-it still to he there in that attitude with no present prospect for its withdrawal? While the armies of European 
governments are there in. the undisguised prosecution of war in that country, is it war on the part of the United States when its army is there in practical cooperation with those armies hi enforcing "by violence compliance with punitive demands? 
Is it war for the accredited representative of the United States, supported by the presence of the army of the United States, to sit in concert with the representatives of the liuropean. powers, to pro nounce judgment, and to utter and announce an ultimatum to the 
Chinese Government, and say to it, "You must do so and so?" Is it war to have that tribunal surrounded by armed forces, and, among others, by bhe forces of the American Government, and to say to the Chinese Government, " you must comply with what wo pronounce to be the judgment against you, or here stands an army 
ready to slay your people and ravage and desolate your country?" Is that war? If not, what is war? 
Mr. President, I had occasion to allude to thin point a few days agq, and I do not want to be misunderstood as to my position in reference to this matter. I had no intention to go into it now; but I will do so, as Senators invite it. 
Mr. HOAK. May I ask the honorable Senator if he thinks this country made war upon the Earbary States when Decatur rescued our sailors and prisoners? 
Mr. EACOX. If the Senator had postponed his question for a few moments I was coming to that direct point. 1 was saying, when 
interrupted, that a few days ago T had occasion to allude to this very question, and that I said then that I thought the President did right to rescue our minister and those who were associated with him; that, in other words, even if that involved the invasion of the country, there was an emergency upon him whieli did not permit him to wait to call Congress together, and that, therefore, ho did right to proceed actively and promptly to effect that rescue. 
I went further and said that if he had failed to do it he would Lave failed in his duty. But I said that when in the performance of that duty a condition was developed which was really war, while 
it was his duty to act in the emergency, it was, in my judgment, equally his diitv to summon Congress immediately together to lay before them the facts in connection with the emergeiicv that had 
led him to take action which really involved the country in war. Mr. HOAR. That does not answer my question. Mr. BACON. Very well, I am going 611 to answer it. When the 
4761 
 
 6 
action was taken to which the Senator alludes, it was accomplished just as the rescue of our minister in China was accomplished, but there was not a continuing condition which constituted in fact a con tinuing condition of war. In this instance there is a continuing1 con dition of war in China. 
I am not speaking of the original act necessary to effect the res cue. I am speaking of that condition of war which has resulted since. I am speaking of the condition of war which has continued since the rescue. I am discussing this simply in connection with the statement I make that so far from being alarmed by any pros pect of an extra session it is proper that we should have an extra session of Congress in order that Congress, in trie exercise of its con stitutional functions, may give attention to our affairs in China. 
Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Georgia allow rne? Mr, BACON. With, great pleasure. 
Mr. HOAH. I wish to call his attention to my precise question. I am very glad to hear what the Senator lias said, but my question was not whether the President did right iu rescuing the Barfoary prisoners and putting an cud to the Barbary piracies, or whether lately the President did right in rescuing Mr. Conger. My question was whether, in the judgment of the Senator, what he did was war. 
Mr. BACON". Undoubtedly, technically considered------ Mr. HOAR. Very well. Mr. BACOJS1. The Senator will pardon me until I answer his question. 
Mr. HOAR. Certainly. I beg the Senator's pardon. Mr. BACON". I was proceeding to say that undoubtedly, tech nically considered, the invasion of a country, the firing upon any fort, or upon any city, or upon any part of the territory of a foreign nation, is an act of war; but it frequently occurs that tlio lisccutive, in an emergency, is compelled to do that. Mr. HOAR. Very well. Then it is the opinion of the Senator, which is what I wanted to get at, that the President of the United States under some circumstances, lias clone right in making what is technical war. Mr. BACON. I thought the President did right ill this particular instance. 
Mr. HOAR. That was war. Mr. BACON. I say he did right in this particular instance be cause it grows out of the necessities of the case- With, our itiiiiister beleaguered in Pekin and with the lives of all those who were there associated with him in imminent jeopardy, certainly the President did not have time to assemble Congress before acting. But when ever it became necessary under the emergency to do a certain thing which involved a condition of war, then it was the proper time to .see that Congress \vas assembled for the purpose of dealing with the question. 
So far from that being the case, the time was permitted to lapse until the regular session of Congress. Congress has been in session for nearly three months and Congress itself has done nothing on the subject, has made 110 utterance on the subject, and we are about to adjourn upon the expiration of the Congress with a condition of war in China, with, the actual fact, as stated by the papers this morning, that yesterday, as a result of that war, tiicre has absolutely been, under a judgment pronounced by a board of ministers of which our minister was one, the execution of subjects of China "under the de- 
47C1 
 
 . this proposed amendment with reference 
a reeommeiiaauoii tnat it siuniia pass- j. nave nen bill. Without reading the title, I will read the bill: thS'trea'ly concluded at ^aris^n the loV^d'ay'of Wecenifae^1808, shalMmre'bl-e^ completely suppressed by the military and naval forces of the United States, all military, civil, and judicial powers necessary to govern the said islands shall, until otherwise provided by Congress, be vested in such person and persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States .shall di rect for maintaining-and protecting-tlie inhabitants of said islands in the free 
The amendment which, it is proposed to put upon the Armv appro priation bill is the same as that bill, with two variations." One is that it makes the law immediately applicable rather than postpon- 
4761 
 
  iiado 110 effort to defend the monstrosity of that 
whether or not I represented, him correctly, the direct and positive character of my assertions might be open to legitimate criticism; "but there it is in the UECOH.O, to be read by anyone. Let anyone read that speech and say whether or not there is in it any discussion of the propriety of this proposed legislation or the propriety of the passage of the bill which had been reported by the Committee on the Philippines, of which the junior Senator from Massachusetts is chairman. 
But, Mi'. President, there is in. the history of this proposed legis lation a more remarkable thing than that. It is a much more re markable thing that the learned Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SFOOXER] , the author of the bill, a distinguished lawyer, a seasoned debater, than whom there is no superior in this Chamber, and few, i any, elsewhere, should have made a speech of three days in the Senate, nominally upon the bill--a most carefully prepared speech, an able speech, a most interesting speech, an earnest speech--and that he should not have uttered a single line in that speech in justi fication or advocacy of that bill. He discussed the Philippine ques tion. He discussed the question of our relations with the Filipmo people. He discussed at some length our obligations or want of ob ligations to Aguinaldo. But on the question whether or not it was proper that the United States Government should pass a bill confer ring upon the President of the United States absolute, unlimited, unrestrained power not only to make but to administer a government for 12,000,000 people, not a line is be found in his speech. 
Mr. President, that is not all.- We have been here for several clays discussing this question. We have endeavored to show that this is not a proper bill t'o be passed, and not a word has been said on the other side of the Chamber in justification or in advocacy of it. This proposition of this enormity, this proposition so utterly revolutionary in its character, this proposition in its destructive in fluence so far-reaching in its character, has had on the other side of the Chamber no advocate, no defender, no justiftcr. We have endeavored to show to the ^Republican who proposed this measure that it is unconstitutional. W_e have submitted arguments here which are worthy of consideration. There baa been no reply. 
Mr. TILLMAN. Because there can be none. Mr. BACON. The Senators on the other side have practically admitted that it is unconstitutional. As suggested by the Senator from South Carolina, they can not make any reply. The Senators on the other side of the Chamber say by the) r attitudes, " We admit it is unconstitutional, but -\vliat care we? What care we that it is unconstitutional? We have the votes to pass it. We are ready to pass it, if it is unconstitutional." Is that the attitude of Senators? Not only have arguments been made here, but those arguments have been based upon and buttressed by_ the decisions of the Su preme Court of the United States, and still no word of reply from the Republican party, still nothing but a smile. '' We care nothing for the Constitution of the United States. "We admit that this meas ure is unconstitutional, but we have the votes and we intend to pass it, regardless of the fact that we can not deny that it is unconstitu tional." 
 
 10 
Now, Mr. President, we not only say to the Republicans in thia Chamber that it is an. unconstitutional bill, wo not only prove it, they not only admit it, they not only say ' ' We care nothing whether it is unconstitutional or not, so wo have the votes to pass it," but we go further in the effort to evoke a reply, while that of itself ought to be sufficient to taring to their feet in thia Chamber those who have sworn to support the Constitution, of the United States and who could not take their seats in this body unless they had 
orn, to support it. Wo say to them that this imposition of thi 
 
, 
 
, 
 
of 
 
Congress tin absolute government within the jurisdiction of the 
 
United States in which every principle of free government is traru- 
 
pled under foot, is dangerous in its influence at home to the funda 
 
mental principles of free institutions and of personal liberty upon 
 
which our Government is based; that in its influence it is destruc 
 
tive of these free institutions; and the Kcpublicans in this Chamber 
 
still are dumb. They admit it all and say, * ' It matters not; we care 
 
not for such, things; wo have tlio votes and we will establish this 
 
absolute, this imperial government regardless of all this." 
 
Mr. President, is it not the most startling statement that ever was 
 
made in a deliberative body, especially in such a body as the United 
 
States Senate, that with a measure pending for over twelve months 
 
of so radical and so far-reaching a character there never has been 
 
found one man to stand in the Senate of the United States and to 
 
advocate it or to justify it? There has not been one. 
 
Mr. President, in this great body, this high arena, devoted here 
 
tofore to high, debate, where it has been understood that Senators 
 
were controlled by principle, where every man was ready to give a 
 
reason, for the faith that was in him, where no man was ready to 
 
admit that he dared not advocate and defend in debate any measure 
 
to wliich. he gave Ms support, has it come to this that at this time, 
 
in the presence of the greatest question, in its influence and in the 
 
power which it challenges the most far-reaching question, the one 
 
which is most liable to affect most radically the future of this coun 
 
try, Senators wh.o favor the proposition here sit silent and absolutely 
 
dumb? 
 
The Senators who are chiefly responsible for it absent themselves 
 
from the Chamber and say, "tt matters not what may be right or 
 
what may be wrong, we have determined upon our course, and 
 
without attempting "to justify it, without attempting to defend it, 
 
we refuse to discuss it; we plant ourselves upon the fact that we 
 
have the votes and care not whether it be right or wrong, whether 
 
it be constitutional or \m constitutional, we will ruthlessly put it 
 
through to the end that we desire." 
 
Mr. President, if the Senators on the other side wish, let this de 
 
bate close without any answer from them. We denounce this bill 
 
as unconstitutional. We say it absolutely violates every funda 
 
mental principle of this Government. We denounce it as at war with 
 
all the free institutions of this country. We denounce it as utterly 
 
subversive of the principles upon which this Government is based 
 
Sit silent if you will, utter no word of defense, and go before the 
 
American people with the statement that you care not whether it 
 
be right or wronjj; that you have the votes and that you do not feel 
 
bound by a constitutional obligation; that you do not feel bound by 
 
47G1 
 
 11 
any loyalty to the free institutions in this country; you owe no debt of loyalty to the fundamental principles of this Government; you will do what you think your party interest requires, regardless of constitutional obligation or of any_ obligation for the preservation of the great principles and the free institutions to -which, we have all acknowledged loyalty for more than a hundred years. 
Now, Mr. President, I put it whether or not this is a remarkable position in which the advocates of this measure have placed them selves. I repeat it, and I challenge the contradiction, that since the llth day of January, 1900, when this measure was first proposed to the American Senate, there has been no word uttered in defense of it, and we stand here and challenge them; we dare them to its defense. 
Mr. President, it has come to be a sad day in the institutions of this country that in this high arena a proposition in its influence so far-reachiiig in its character can be challenged on the ground that it is unconstitutional and that those who should he tlie defenders of it, those who should "be the advocates of it, the promoters of it, dare not answer the challenge, and that they proceed in the brute force of numerical majority to enact that which, they can not defend in debate. 
When we take into consideration the character of this proposition, the radical and ultra features of the proposition, "when we take into consideration the further fact that in fourteen mouths there is no advocate of it who has ever had the face to stand up in the Ameri can Senate or advocate it or utter a single ivord m its defense, there is in this connection a most remarkable exhibition of the very radical and drastic methods which are adopted for the purpose of coercing its passage through the American Senate. 
Am I rising too strong a word when I say coercion? For what purpose was it put upon an appropriation bill in the closing days of the Congress, not simply of the session but of the Congress; for what purpose was it put upon the great Army appropriation bill known to be necessary for the support of our troops in the field, but for the purpose of coercing its passage? 
They not only put it upon the appropriation bill in order that that which was admitted by them to be an unconstitutional meas ure, one they dared not attempt to defend, might be forced through the Senate, but they put it upon the bill in utter violation "of the rules of the Senate. There is not a single Senator on the Repub lican side of the Chamber but what knows and will say, if lie makes a candid answer, that it was In violation of the rule. 
Mr. President, there are some things in the rules which may have some latitude of doubt. A question of relevancy, for instance, may be a question somewhat in doubt, and men might honestly dirCcr as to whether the matter was relevant or not. It is for that reason that this part of the rule provides that upon the question of the relevancy of an amendment the Chair shall not undertake to decide it, but lie shall submit it to the Senate. Uut, Mr. President, it was not on a question of relevancy. It was on a question that the rule imposes the duty upon the Chair to decide. 
s general legislation shall bo received to any 
That is the rule, and that is all of it, which related to this matter. It was not a question of relevancy, I repeat, and I challenge reply when I say there was not a single Senator who voted to put that 
 
 upon the appropriation bill but who knew when he voted for it that it was in violation of the rule. 
The present distinguished occupant of the chair [Mr. FKYE}, real izing the fact that, occupying the chair, he should not violate a rule, although it is his custom to vote upon all question?, declined to vote on that, because the occupant of *ihe chair, clothed, as he is, with the obligation and duty to correctly administer the laws and rules in this high office, was unwilling to put himself in the position of saying that this was in accordance with, the rule. Ho knew it was not in accordance -with the rule. Every Senator who voted to put this amendment upon the bill knew at the time that it was in violation of the rule. If I ain incorrect, I challenge any Senator to stand up on the other side and say that wlien he voted to put it upon tlie bill lie believed it was in order under the rule. 
Mr. President, none of them is going to say it--not one of them. There is 110 Senator on the other side who would stultify himself by saying it. There is no Senator on the other wide who would write himself down an ignoramus by saying lie believed it to be in order. It was a plain, direct, distinct, undeniable violation of the rule. 
I say, Mr. President, with this far-reaching proposition, charged to be unconstitutional and nobody to deny it, charged to bo subver sive of the free institutions of this country and nobody to deny it, charged to be a violation of the fundamental principles upon which this Government is based, and nobody to deny it, with no Senator daring to defend it in debate on these or any other grounds, it is a most remarkable thing that such a proposition should not only be presented and urged in the American Senate, but that it should be done so in utter violation of the rules of thia body, and in the con fessed violation of them. 
Mr. President, there must be some tremendous influence behind a proposition which can command the support of Senators under such circumstances. It is not only a tremendous influence, but it is 
there arc influences outside of the Senate that are more potent than, the influences inside of the Senate, and that Senators, speaking gen erally, are ready to abandon their own views and forsake their own policies to obey" the command of others outside of the Senate. 
Now, why do I say that? I might allude to other measures, be cause (here are other measures "which illustrate this proposition very strongly, but I will confine myself to this particular measure. Mr. President, when this measure was lying for twelve months, from the llth day of January, 1.900, until after the llth day of January, 1901, and there was no sudden active influence to urge it upon this body and to endeavor to secure its passage in this body, why \vns it that after so long a lapse o time there should suddenly arise this prompt and eager and peremptory demand for its passage? 
if or whose benefit is it, 1 would, ask the Republican. Senators who do me the honor to be present? For whose benefit is it? Is it for the benefit of the Filipmo people? Why, Mr. President, we had in this very year from the distinguished author of this amendment a statement'of the method which, he thought ought to be adopted in case we were endeavoring to legislate for the benefit of the Filipmo 
Eeople, and what he then said was a sufficient explanation of the ict that he had not advocated his own measure, a sufficient explana tion of the fact that he has made no speech in justification of it, a sufficient explanation of the fact that he had not endeavored to pre- 
 
 sent or to press it to a passage--a sufficient indication that in its introduction, lie had some other motive than its passage. 
What he said upon, that occasion, which I am going to read, is a sufficient explanation of the fact that when we met in December he permitted that hill to be, displaced and another to take its place, be cause the words uttered by him on the 18th day of January in this year indicated that he thought that that bill would be utterly in- 
distinguished and honorable Senator from Wisconsin, which. I am going to read, show that he did not understand that we were in a condition to legislate for the benefit o the I('ilipino people. Me thought it was necessary for us to do something else before we would be in a position to legislate for the benefit of the Pilipinos. Now, what were those words? I read from, the third volume of the Congressional Kecord of this session, on page 129], from a colloquy between the Senator from. "Wisconsin Mr. SPOON^R] and the senior Senator from Colorado [Mr. TEii/Eif). Without going back in the colloquy, I will begin at the remark of the Senator from Wisconsin replying to a remark of the Senator from. Colorado. 
Mr. SPOONISR. Not at all. "We have, no doubt, the power to pass the amcn.d- 
thc Senator from Colorado supposed. But up to this time the responsibility ot discussed. When Congress begins to legislate for the Philippines, to occupy that tore, I think we oug-lit to be prepared to legislate to a greater extent than is pro posed by these amendments. 
Mr. Si'OONEB. I hope we willprovii Mr. TJJIJ-JIR. I see no signs of it. Mr. SPOONF.B. I.have intended, to propose a resolution of that kind, andlshall Jlr HALE, It oiig-ht to be done. Mr.SPOONEE. O* course it o\ight to be done. Congress ought to know the exact siuiation in the Philippines In every aspect, and it seems to me to be one of the iirsc duties of Congress to provide itself with 'information upon >vhi(,-h ca.ii bo adopted a reasonable 'and sensible legislative policy of some kind as to g-c-yern.- 
interefit; that it is a kindly purpose; that we propose to treat them certainly as we treat other portions ol the territory under the sovereignty of the United States. I do not think the first legislation by Congress onght to be discriminatory legis lation or legislation which, deals simply with, the habits of the 10,000,000 people 
4T61 
 
 14 
Mr. President, a change has come over the views of the Senator 
from Wisconsin. That was leas than two months ago when he said wo ought not to legislate for the Filipinos until we had investigated as to the character arid habits and needs and requirements of the Filipinos; it was less than two mouths ago when he said there ought to be no discriminatory legislation, but that we ought to legislate for them as we did as to all other people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Government. 
Mr. President, we know the honorable Senator from Wisconsin. He is not a fickle man; he is not a man who comes to hasty con 
clusions, but yet he has utterly changed in his view of the bill which he had allowed to slumber, and in support and advocacy of 
which to this day he lias never uttered a word. He has heard it attacked; he has heard it denounced, and there has been not a word 
cither in its advocacy or its defense from him. And yet the dis tinguished Senator thus expressing his views as to our duty has all oi a sudden awaked to the fact that it is not true that we ought to know about the Filipinos before we legislate for them; that it is not true that there ought to be no discriminatory legislation; that it is not true that we ought to legislate for them as we did for Alaska or 
for Porto" PJco or for Hawaii, but that we should discriminate against them; that we should pass a law for the government of those islands which not only has no precedent imder our free gov ernment, but a parallel to which can not be found on the statute book of a civilized nation in the world. 
Now, Mr. President, iu all sincerity, I am a great friend and ad mirer of the Senator from Wisconsin, and what I say as to this change 
which has overtaken him is not for the purpose of disparaging him. There is no man in this Chamber for whom I have a higher per sonal regard; there is no man in this Chamber for whose intellectual power I have a greater admiration; there is no man in this Chamber whom I consider his superior, if his equal, as a lawyer and as a de bater, and there is no man in this Chamber or out of it whom I 
would be less apt to voluntarily disparage or offend in any manner whatsoever. 
But, Mr. President, I want to present to the Senate and to the 
American people the remarkable fact that there has been some overpowering influence to control the Senator from Wisconsin in an utter reversal of his attitude and to control the Republicans in the 
Senate to make them, with scarcely an exception, follow him with out a word, and that in the absence of any defense by him of his 
proposition and with none of them to volunteer to do that which he omits to do. I say, Mr. President, it must be a most remarkable influence which can bring about a result so remarkable. 
Mr. President, do we not need information about the Filipinos 
before we proceed to legislate about them? Does anybody believe that we know the conditions there? Does anybody believe that the censored reports which come from there tell us the truth? Does anybody fail to know that only those things which are favorable are 
allowed to come through? If anybody doubts it, T see in that press gallery now men who have been on duty in the Philippines as repre sentatives of the press, men who are prepared to tell you, if you want 
to learn, as to what kind of reports are allowed to come from those islands. Do you want to know the truth? Form your committee, and you shall know the names of the men. They will tell you, Mr. 
President, not only that the truth has been suppressed and that they 
4701 
 
 15 
were not permitted to tell the truth, but that they were required to give partial and. rose-colored accounts of occurrences there which. \vould be pleasing to the American people. 
Does anybody think for a minute that the American Congress is In possession of the facts which would enable them to correctly leg islate as to the Philippine Islands? The Senator from "Wisconsin said that it would be grossly improper, for us to attempt to legislate, and he gave as a reason why he opposed any attempt at legislation, even of a partial character, that it was improper to attempt to leg islate until we acquired the information through a regularly consti tuted committee of this "body and of the other House. 
Now, under whip and spur, and with the added speed of wings, lest some should pursue your lingering, you arc rushing through this measure, and coercing the American Senate to pass it in an unusual way--a measure which its friends are afraid to discuss, and which they have never dared to attempt to defend or to justify. 
Mr. President, what is that influence? It has come very sud denly. It is potent. There is no doubt about that. It is power ful; it is peremptory; it admits of no denial. "What is it? I am not going to suggest; I am not going- to guess at what it is; but I am going to see if I can not find it in the records which have been sent to us from the executive department. 
As I have endeavored to show, it certainly is not in the interest of the Filipino people. It is not to their interest, because, confessedly on that side of the Chamber, we are not in a position to legislate properly for their benefit. But there has been a new light; there has been a new demand. 
vicious one, a piece of legislation utterly revolutionary, a piece of legislation in its influence and in its necessary tendency utterly de structive of our free institutions, "but as it is at present constituted, a very unnecessary piece of legislation, so far as relates to the ne cessities of government in the Philippines, because the President under the war power now lias the power to establish, the civil govern ment there that may be necessary for the temporary civil control required there. But to have Congress establish, an absolute civil government there in the person of the President, while not neces sary for the control of the Philippines, is necessary for the private interests of the exploiters. 
The demand for the establishment oE this absolute civil govern ment is not to be judged by the present status of the measure as it has been amended, but by the original amendment as it came here and by the influences which brought it here. What was it? Up to the 18th of January, as I say---perhaps later, but there is the official HECORD of that date--there was the pronounced judgment of the author of this bill (now converted into this amendment) that this bill ought not to be pressed at that time. There was the statement made that we were not prepared to legislate for the Philippine Islands, and now here is an active, ardent demand that there shall be legislation. 
What produced it? It had its origin in the Taft communication, to the Secretary of "War, in which the Secretary of War quotes that communication, stating that the necessity for the passage of the Spooner bill, which had slumbered for more than a year, grew out of the fact that there was a very large amount of public land there 
4761 
 
 indorsement and approval or not? ]n this communication of Judge Taft to the Secretary of War he 
discloses the purpose. He says: 
loois arm instruments 01 specuiaLors ami piunuert ravenous vultures, to prey upon a prostrate laud. 
That is what these exploiters propose; that is what they desire; and that has been the source from which lias come this demand to which the Republicans in the Senate have so speedilv responded. Oh! it is a rich prey, according to Taft--a rich prey. Let me show you what the Secretary of War says that Mr. Taft has reported: 
The report shows that the islands are estimated to contain about 73,000 000 acres of land of which less than 5,000,000 arc held in private ownership, leaving in public lands over 08,000,000 acres. 
That is an extract from Taft's report, and then, continuing to state the substance of the report, the Secretary of War says: 
This hind is for the most part exceedingly fertile, well watered, adapted to the raising of a great variety of useful crops, much of it covered by the most valuable timber, witli extensive deposits of gold, of copper, yf high-grade iron, and of ex cellent coal. 
I am not speaking of 
 
 17 
What did the Taft commission mean when they reported that to the Secretary of War? What did they moan, except that those vul tures, these exploiters, these plunderers, should get this 68,000,000 
acres of land.; these rich gold fields, these rich deposits of coal, and copper, and iron, these fertile lands? 
That is what it meant, Mr. President, and that it is which through its indirect influence has produced this sudden change which has resurrected the Spooner bill from the tomb where it has lain sleep ing the sleep of death for a year, and now puts it to the forefront 
to such, an extent, as I have said, that in violation of the rules of the Senate--in confessed violation of the rules of the Senate--it has been 
put upon the Army appropriation bill, and its passage thus coerced 
and assured. Who can deny that that is the influence which, has produced this 
sudden change? If there is anyone on the other side of the Cham 
ber who can deny it, I hope he will do so for the credit of the American Senate. If there is a single Senator on the Republican side of this Chamber who can stand in his place and show that the influence which has suddenly resurrected the Spooner bill and put it to the forefront under these circumstances is not the influence which sought to plunder and to exploit the people of the Philippine Islands and their property, I say I hope for the credit of the Ameri can Senate that that Senator will rise in his place and show it. 
Mr. President, I say here that it is no credit to the American Sen 
ate if, under such circumstances, the influences which press this re markable bill, this far-reaching bill, this revolutionary bill to the forefront--under these circumstances it is 110 credit to the American 
Senate if these influences which accomplish this are the influences of those who seek to plunder and despoil that land. If there is a man to defend it, I hope he will not allow party behests to keep him silent. If there is a Senator on the other side who knows an argu ment that will free the American Senate from this scandal, he owes it to the Senate and to the American people to pronounce that argu 
ment, and not keep it hidden in his bosom. I recognize the fact that the enormity o this proposition was one 
which caused the Republicans to revolt. I recognize the fact that 
they would riot let it go through in the way those people intended it should. I recognize the fact that they put a most important amendment on it, which will deprive those plunderers and those vultures of much of the prey; but that does not change the fact that 
those were the Influences which instigated it. Those were the mfluences corning from outsiders which, although not avowed to Sen ators who now favor it, resurrected this bill from what was practi 
cally the sleep of death, and put it forward as the most exacting and most absolute and peremptory of all measures now before the Senate. 
Mr. KYIJ3. The Senator does not mean to say------ The PRESIDING- OFFICKR (Mr. CI-A.Y in the"chair). Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from South Dakota? 
Mr. BACON". With Tory great pleasure. Mr. K.YLK. The Senator does not mean to say that the Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONEK] was moved by such a motive, does he? Mr. BACON. I certainly do not. I have given my estimate of 
the Senator from Wisconsin, and it is not necessary for me to repeat 
it; but I do say the Senator from Wisconsin is but one of fifty-five Republicans in the Senate, counting the Senator from South Dakota 
4761--2 
 
 18 
[Mr. KTLU] as one of them--the Senator from, "Wisconsin is but one 
of fifty-five, and he and some fifty odd of them--I think there area few very honorable and conspicuous exceptions, not but what all of those Senators are honorable and conspicuous; all those Senators are obeying the party programme; I am speaking generally of the party and not of individuals, and I say that the party, of which the Sena tor from South Dakota is now a conspicuous member, must neces sarily pi ead guilty of having been moved by these influences whether 
the individual Senators approved them or not unless they can show to the contrary, and I appeal to them in the name of the American 
Senate to show to tbe contrary. Kobody will be more delighted than I will be if they can show that what I say is not so, and that . 
the conclusion I draw is not justifiable. I am speaking of the out side influences in this case being urged upon Senators, in the same 
way that in the case of the ship subsidy bill those outside influences were spoken of in debate here. I am charging 'no unworthy motive on any Senator. 
Mr. KYLE. I think tlie Senator misunderstands me. I merely wanted to know whether he included the Senator from Wisconsin as being among those influenced by such motives as those the Sen ator from Georgia "was referring to. 
Mr. BACON". I understood perfectly. I am very glad of the Senator's interruption, because it enables me to repeat and to em phasize all that I said about the Senator from Wisconsin. No one 
can possibly understand me as impugning in the slightest degree the personal motives of the Senator from Wisconsin, or of any other Senator. I utterly disavow any such purpose. 
How is there any answer to this? The Secretary of War comimmieatmg to the President the statement of the Taf t commission, that there Were these 68,000,000 acres of public land; that there is this 
fertile soil, this great timber, these gold mines, these copper mines, and minerals of all kinds, echoes and repeats and approves the re quest of the Taft commission that there shall foe legislation which, will enable them to sell this property, these mines, and the fran chises of that land, and the President of the United States of -whom. 
I will say no word of disrespect either here or- elsewhere, because, aside from the fact of the personal respect which I have for him, I have made it a rule never to speak disrespectfully of the President 
of the United States, because of his high office--the President of the United States transmitted to Congress the report of the Secretary of War, including, as lie does, the telegram o the Taft commission. 
Mr. President, we not only Jiavo these official documents, but we have others. I have a clipping from a paper, which shows how widespread this thing is. The vultures are not all American vultures. In this Philippine trouble we have undertaken this great task, and we have made this great sacrifice of treasure and blood; we have 
endangered our political institutions; we have put a burden of tax ation, the end of which no man can see, upon the American people, not simply for the exploiters of this land, but for the exploiters of 
all lands. The Spooner bill is not only known in America and the Philip 
pines, but it is known in Europe, and not only the exploiters from this country, but the exploiters from Europe are anxious that the Spooner bill shall be passed, in order that they may flock with the 
other vultures and share a- part of this rich prey. I clipped the following press dispatch from Manila, dated January 
4701 
 
 19 
29, which is certainly very interesting reading. It is at the end of the dispatch. It says this": 
Dr.KrUEer. the German consul-general here, has cabled to the Berlin Govern m-- e-'nt asking that the Germaonf tahmebassador at Washington bo instructed to diplo- 
by the British 
Some more influences, Mr. President. Of course, I have not the slightest idea that either the German ambassador here or the British ambassador has had any part in this. I am confident they have had no communications from their Governments on. the subject. It is impossible that they should have done so. I only read this be cause it shows the influences that are at work. Here is a rich prey, a rich quarry, and the vultures not only from America, but froin Europe, are hovering over it that they may get their claws and beaks into it. 
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. TILLMAN] calls my atten 
, I am not sufficiently familiar, without further examination, to prop erly present to the Senate. 1 hope, however, the Senator from South Carolina will take an opportunity to do so. 
This brings me to the question of the character of this bill that I think Senators here ought to consider seriously. 
Mr. President, there are some questions higher than party ques tions; there is some allegiance loftier in Hs demands than allegiance to party, and how any man who is familiar with our institutions, any man who lias in his veins the blood of Revolutionary sires, can give his support to this Philippine amendment I can not see, whether ho be Itepublican or Democrat. 
I see sitting before me a distinguished son of New England. There are more than one of them. There is behind him the Sena tor from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR], but he needs no adjuration on this subject. I am talking now about the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PJLATT], Some people do not altogether admire some New England traits, but there is no question that New England was the cradle of American liberty--the birthplace of the freest of the free institutions of America. Although the other colonies were equally devoted to liberty, circumstances gave to New England the honor of the first patriot blood shed in the struggle. As one who is in part of New .England ancestry, I do not see how any man who has New England blood in his veins can be indifferent to the question of human liberty and free institxitions. ., It docs seem to me that not only New Englaiiders, but all people in America, ought to prize institutions which give liberty to any peo ple. I am not talking now about the question of the independence of the people. I am talking about the government of a people by free institutions, I do not see how it is possible for any man who prizes free institutions to give his assent to this bill; for what is the bill? It is a bill which puts absolutely under the, control and domi nation of one man ten or twelve million people, and gives to that one man the absolute, unrestrained power not only to administer their government, but to prescribe their government and every feature and every detail of it. 
This bill does not make this government the creature of Congress. 
 
 fiiiiiium.. There Is an. amendment pending saving that lie shall observe the restrictions of the Constitution in the formation of that government. That amendment is not going to "be adopted. It is going to be voted down. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] smiles and shades his head. I knew it before he said it. 
_So it is a fact that one man is empowered to conduct and to ad minister a government without any restraints whatever and without any responsibility to anybody whatsoever; and not only without 
doiibtless will require, every officer of that government, legislative, executive, and judicial, to perform the duties of his office subject to 
ii so, ne is in laci me legislator. e- nas tne power, wnciiever a law is passed that he does not approve, either to say it shall not be law or to abolish the legislature and put in another which will pass a law as he may dictate- 
 
 21 
-ruler, the irresponsible ruler, the imperial ruler, of ten or twelve million people. 
According to the Constitution of the United States the President of the United States can not appoint even a second lieutenant in the Army without the consent of this body. He can not appoint a marshal or a postmaster without the consent of the Senate. Yet here is a proposition that there shall he a government where, over this vast territory of a hundred and fifty thousand square miles, with ten or twelve million people, one man shall be utterly, abso lutely supreme and irresponsible over the lives, the liberty, and the property, the business and the prosperity of that vast population. . Mr. President, the mau never lived who was good enough and wise enough to exercise such imperial power, and the man never will live who ought to be intrusted with it. 
Is it any answer to say that the President of the United States ia a wise man and a just man? If that were the case, if that were a sufficient guarantee, the framers of our Constitution need not have gone to the extent which they did to hedge about and guard the people against the improper conduct of officials, But suppose that to be conceded; and I have no doubt he will do his best: I have no doubt he will act. according to what he thinks is best. But it is not according to the genius of our institutions that any man shall be in trusted with such power. Again, we are not dealing simply with the present President of the United States. 
Who is to be the next President of the United States? Does any body know? What manner of man will he be? Shall lie inherit this gigantic, this absolute, this imperial power? Shall we put upon the statute boots this act without limitation of time, except to s_ay ' that it shall continue until Congress shall adjudge otherwise? With such enormous power vested in the President of the United States, with the immense patronage--probably ten thousand different officers to be appointed, -with, this vast control, with this tremendous acquisition to his present great power, where will the time be found 
It is my opinion that when once we have conferred this power, so long as there shall not be a complete revolution, not only in the Presidential office but in each branch of Congress, that power will remain in the liands of the Executive of the Government. 
Mr. President, we have heard a great deal about imperialism, and I shall not discuss that, but I want to ask Senators to answer for themselves one question. They say there is no such, thing as im perialism in our relations with the Philippines, and there can not be such a thing as imperialism, under the American Government. 
There arc two kinds of imperialism. Ono is the imperialism of Russia, which deals with its own citizens. That is not the kind of imperialism we a_re now talking about, although that will in the end surely come if we are faithless to our free institutions in deny ing their enjoyment to others. AVe are talking now, however, about the imperialism which holds subject colonies without their partiei- 
Satioii in the Government and without their consent. I>oes anv man ispnte that that ia imperialism? If so, what is imperialism? la not this the perfect fruit of imperialism? We had the first fruit of imperialism when we established the Porto Kican government, deny ing as we did that Porto Rico was a part of the United States, and denying that the Porto Kieans were citizens of the United States, and asserting that Congress had the power to legislate for thci^ 
4761 
 
 22 
without constitutional restraint. That made Porto Rico an outside colony. They were, however, allowed some of the features of a free government. But this Philippine legislation establishes an absolute unlimited government of one man; and thus step by step we advance on the march to a fateful imperialism. 
The question with the Arnevican people is a most grave and. se rious one. I am fond of quoting my friend, the Senator from Wis consin [Mr. SPOOLER], because he expresses himself so strongly and so clearly. Does anybody doubt that this is one of the grayest questions ever presented to the American people? Does anybody question the fact that this question, which is sought to "be railroaded in the 3ast hours of Congress, is the most serious question which has been presented to the American people possibly since the foundation of the Gf-o vern.me.nt? If there is such, doubt, let me read what the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. S:POO:NTCR] said about it. 
In a speech delivered by him. on the 2d of April, 1900, when the Porto liican question \vas "before the Senate, tb_e Senator from Wis consin used this language: 
upon to solve problems equal in difliculty to those wliicli confront us. 
Mr. Presid.ex\t, if that is true ought those problems, ought p_erb,apg the most serious problem of them all, to be passed upon in this way? Ought it be passed upon under this coercion? Ought it be passed upon with no word from the Republican side of the Chamber to help us in its solution, or in justification, or in defense of the measure which they propose? Again continuing, the Senator from Wiscon sin said: 
kindred. Til' 
"Yet, Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin who uttered those solemn words now advocates the passage of. a bill without a single word from himself or his colleagues in support or in defense of the measure which lie proposes for the solution of this great and tre- 
ndous question. 
ay 22 and 24, to i 1 have already alluded, the speech which he made upon the subject of the Spooiier bill, but the speech in which he had nothing to say about the Spopner bill, but in which he discussed generally the Philippine question, ho used the language I will read. I ask the Senators who clo me the honor to be present to listen to this language because it has never before been more forcibly stated by anyone than it is bore stated by the learned Senator from. Wis consin. It was 011 Tuesday, May 22, 1900, that he made the speech in this Chamber from, which I quote: 
I suppose, Mr. President, it will be admitted that had there been no war with. Spain ;i,Md rfie liad tendered to us "without money and without prito " a cession 
 
 ing in the dsirkne.^s of Ignorance and half civilization, in order to uplift th. 
 
them complicated, all of them important, and that the lirst duty of this'Govern ment, trustee of our people, is to subserve the interests of our people, to develop the illimitable resources of this continent, to spread the blessings of education among the people, to give to the country equal laws, and to lift up as far as may be all here who are oppressed. If it had been said that the islands are full of mineral wealth, of untold richness in soil, and of unspeakable beauty, that would have produced no effect in this Chamber. 
Our people would, not have harbored the thought of going into distant seas and 
 
cor 
 
Dfcj] 
 
ould 
 
try. 
 
There would have been found no IT: stof empir 
 
cay opinion, in the scns_e in which th; 
 
country by certain distinguished gen 
 
I could not state that more strongly, nor could I state it as strongly. 
Is it not the fact that we have the same motives now to constrain 
us in some way that is just to that people, in some way that is just 
to ourselves to rid ourselves of this body of death? >o not Jet me be misunderstood. I am not one of those who 
think that the United States Government under the present circum 
stances can summarily withdraw its Army and leave those people 
to themselves. As I have had occasion to say before in this Chamber, we have 
overturned and destroyed whatever there was of government in those islands. Consequently the same duty and the same obliga tion now rest upon us to pacify the islands, and to see that a proper government is setup, which can assume its proper relations to other governments and which can maintain peace among its people, as rest upon us in the case of the people of Cuba, although that is a duty arising out of different circumstances. 
But if we are able, as the Committee on Relations with Cuba seems to think we are able, to prescribe a method through which we cari retire honorably from Cuba., is it not equally possible for us 
by a similar method to prescribe a way by which we can retire safely and honorably from the Philippine Islands, having due regard to every obligation, having due regard to the necessity that there 
shall be governmental control there before we do so, having due regard to all obligations to other people and to the people of the islands themselves? 
Mr. President, we have entered upon a dark and devious road. We have entered upon one involving sacrifice beyond measure, and it is 
one which, has been at last recognized by some of those who have favored this policy. There are Senators on the otlier side of the Chamber who say to me they are sick of this Philippine business and tliey wish we had never gotten into it. If so, the part of wisdom 
now is not to inaugurate legislation, in order that the vultures and the harpies of the land may prey upon that country, but that we shall inaugurate legislation which shall lead to a termination, relieving 
us of this great burden and setting us right in our own estimation as regards our duties to others. 
I hold in my hand--I hardly would undertake to say this myself-- a clipping from the Washington Post, which is not a paper advocat ing the abandonment of the Philippine Islands, but the contrary. 
4761 
 
 vk-tfms of cUseswe been anticipated; Jiad n been believed tliat, in the last montli oi 1900, ship lo;icla of corpses would have been coming home from tfce Philippines; liad the present prospects of continued conflict, witli its growing; aggregate of loss 
or even a tithe of that partial bill of particulars been discernible* then, 'who imagines Uiat \\-c should have taken the sovereignty of t&e Philippines? 
If we inado a mistake--and I think we did make a most grievous 
tall?, if I felt I could do so without unduly trespassing upon the Senate, about the question whether there is any material interest to us in this matter; whether there is any possibility that the much more than, a hundred million dollars a year that the Philippine Islands are costing us can ever be restored to us, 
I should like to discuss the qiiestion whether all tlie gold, and coal, and iron, and copper which are found in the Philippine Islands, if they are developed, are going to be to the interest of this country; "whether they can he o auy advantage to any o our people, except those who exploit them, reaping their rich harvests of wealth in the use of the cheap labor in those islands; whether it is to the interest of this people that China, which is looked forward to as the, great market^ shall be supplied from the Philippine Islands by the development which is to come from. American capital with cheap Asiatic labor, or whether it is to the interest of ourselves that that market shall bfe supplied irom our own mines and our own people, our own fields and factories, through the labor and industry of our own people. 
What tolly will it be, looking, as we now do, to the Chines xaar"ket to take from us our own products, to build up instead competi tion in every industry in the Philippines worked by American capital using the cheap Asiatic labor at 12 or 15 cents a day. But time will not permit. If we were to put this question upon, the purest commercial "basis., I do not. believe it would be possible for anybody to say that it is to the interest of the American people to continue this condition oj affairs- 
The prospect hi the future is not one of amelioration of condi tions. I hold in my hand an. Associated Press dispatch of Decem ber 30, 1900, less than two months ago, as to the condition, of affairs in the Philippine Islands. Everybody knows that the Associated Press is an institution the correctness of whose reports is its capital. It can not afford to be otherwise than, correct. Tills is headed: 
[CorrcspEm.tl.eace ol the Associated Press.] 
 
 Mr. BACON. I have no doubt that is true as the Senator states it. I have not seen it. I \vilL eay, however, that I think the dis patch of tbe Associated Press from its man on the ground is very fnneh more entitled to credence and to l>eliei' in its accuracy than the opinion of Mr, Wildman. 
I am glad the Senator spoke about that. It reminds me of some thing I. was about to forgjet that I "want to read to the Senate. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. MONEY] suggests to me a fact which I suppose was recognized, tliat Mr. Wildman'a estimate was taken from views expressed to him at Hongkong and not at Manila, whereas this Associated Press dispatch is from Manila. 
Mr. GAI/LINGEB, Of course we all know, if the Senator will permit me, that Ooiis\il Wildman kept in very close touch with af fairs in the Philippine Islands, It is true that he was consul at Hoiigkong. 
.Mr. BACON. The Senator did not recognize that fact when he voted for an army of 100,000 men under the statement of the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. SEWELI/] that seventy-odd thousand are still needed in the Philippine Islands arid would be needed there for some time. That did not look as if the Senator from New Hamp shire at that time thought that the contrary and opposite of this was correct. 
Mr. GAiU^GBR. "Well, Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me a moment further. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia yield to the Senator from New Hampshire? 
Mr. BACON. Certainly. Mr. GAtiLIisGEIl. I have no disposition to get irito a contro versy as to that matter at all. I simply desired to call the Sen ator's attention to this matter, knowing him to be a very fair man always, and to express the hope, that was all, that matters were better than the Senator feared they were; that "was all. Mr. BACON. And I -will reciprocate the hope, Mr. President, that as the Senator from New Hampshire now is prepared to give credence to what Mr. Wildman says, he will give full credit to the statements o Mr. Wildman to be found in Senate Document Ko. 62. Mr. GALTjUSTGEE. I ara familiar with them. Mr. BACON. Now. I am going to refer to a. matter that I passed over. I "was speaking of the arbitrary character of the Government 
ng B. pu of it. I had forgotten it entirely. 
Just to show how utterly arbitrary such a government is, to show xiow absolutely every interest o a people is vmder the control of an arbitrary ruler, I read an ftstract which I took from the Evening 
4761 
 
 26 Star of April 21, 1900, from an interview with General Otig by Frank Gr. Carpenter, never denied, and I presume it is undoubtedly cor rect, in which. General Otis "was speaking of his powers there and. how absolute he was; how he could do anything he wanted to do, And lie gave this as an illustration. It is put in his language, not giving the substance, bnt professing to give his exact language: 
We have, you know, the rigiit to fix prices. 
This is what General Otis says-- 
That is what General Otis said in an interview published in the Evening Star on the 2lst of April, 1.900, as to his power in this arbi trary government 7,000 miles away, where we can not reach it; and as an illustration of the power, he said: "I can with a scratch of my pen inalsD meat worth a dollar a pound or forty cents a pound, as I may choose." 
Mr. President, what is the government thug to be set up by this bill--for I presume, of course, that Senators who do not dare to defend it intend to vote it through? It will have control of every Interest of that people. It will have the control, not only of the organiza tion of tlie government and the appointment of all officers, the dic tation of every la\v, the dictation of the judgment of every court, the dictation of the execution of every judgment, but it will have the power to regulate prices, to make a man. rich or poor; and, Mr. President, how many of them will get rich? 
Docs any man doubt here that with that government set up there, with the revenues of that government subject to the absolute con trol of those who shall be in power; with the power to assess, Jevy, and collect taxes; the power to appropriate money; the power to disburse money; the power to assess revenue, to collect it, and dis burse it; tlie power to give contracts; the power to inaugurate great enterprises; the power to give franchises; the power to start great public improvements; tlie power in a hundred ways to raise or de press values at will--does anybody doubt the cloud of harpies which will Viover around and settle upon those islands and gorge them selves with, plunder? "We have had an illustration down here in Cuba of what irresponsible officers will do when they have the un restrained control of the revenues of a people whom, they dominate and to whom they are not responsible. 
There was a resolution introduced in. the Senate and adopted t>y the Senate instructing the Committee on Relations with Cuba to perform a certain duty--not only to find out what had been ex pended, but why it had been, expended; by what authority it bad been expended; what necessity there was for its expenditure--and. the only reason I can surmise why the Committee on Relations with Cuba did not obey the order of tho Senate was that the disclosure which would have resulted from that investigation, would have "been the deepest disgrace that has ever stained American honor. 
Mr. President, who is going to investigate expenditures in the Philippine Islands? Who is going to have the opportunity to super 
figures of money spent in Cuba in a little over a year. Who has looked through them? Who is going to examine t 4=761 
 
 That is a people of about fifteen hundred thousand, and here is a, 
people numbering 12,000,000. The Cuban people are 70 miles from our shores. The Filipinos are 7,000 miles away, where no eye can. reach them, and the opportunity for plunder and spoliation ia un limited and the power for detection is almost nothing. 
I have here a Manila newspaper. I have two of them, in fact, and I just want to show what a chance there is out there, even at present, under a government very similar to that which, is to be set up but subordinated to the military control. I have here two newspapers, 
one is called the American and the other the Manila Times. They 
were sent from, there to me by some one, among a number of other 
papers, 
It gives an account of this wonderful legislative body we have over there now, in the shape of a commission--iive men setting up to be the legislature of the Philippine Islands, and setting up to be not only the legislature, but, eseept so far as the military gov 
ernor may have control--having themselves control of every part of the government--legislative, judicial, and executive; in one minute passing laws which assess duties, in the next minute appropriating the money, in the next mmute letting the contracts, and then su pervising the contracts, and then controlling the judge who Is to pass upon them, and controlling tho judgment which is to be pro nounced concerning them. 
I will give an illustration of the wholesale scale upon which they are proceeding there with this temporary government, and I com mend to my honored friend from Massachusetts the danger in tem porary government as well as permanent, because I think the 
amendment offered by him, while excellent so far as it goes, will not close the door to the plundering which will be had under a temporary government. 
Mr. HOAR. I hope the Senator does not for a moment suppose that I approve the amendment, even with the amendment. 
Mr. BACON. No; I fully understand the Senator. I am only sorry that with tho weight of his name and influence his amendment 
had not gone further. I fully understand the Senator's position and am very glad to do so. 
I hold here a paper published in Manila containing a pretended 
legislative bill. These live men set themselves up as a legislature and they go through all the forms of legislatures. They introduce bills 
and they read them the first, second, and third time and pronounce them passed, just as if they were a legislative body, the only differ ence being that instead of "being in the name of the Government of the United States, as is set out in the Taft report, they are all of them 
by authority of the President of the United States. Here is a harbor bill winch appropriates a million dollars in gold 
out of the revenues of the people of the Philippine Islands to improve the harbor of Manila--$1,000,000 at one time; and they set up aixd go through the form of legislating with a presiding officer and a 
man getting np and making a speech as if he were in a legislative 
body. 
Now, Mr. President, I care not how honest the Taft Commission is, that million dollars is a part of the prey that these harpies will succeed in taking to themselves. I am told--I do not know whether 
it is a myth or not--that one of the old gray-back sharks will sight an Atlantic liner at Sandy Hook and follow it to Queenstown to take the plunder that may fall overboard. I have no doubt that when 
47G1 
 
 28 
the Taft Commission sailed for Manila there were other sharks who sighted the prey and followed them there. 
Mr. President, if the Philippine amendment to this bill had passed as it was introduced--as it was reported by the committee and be fore the amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts had been attached to it--there would have been iiithe Philippine Islands the greatest orgie of plunder, of jobbery, and of spoliation that the world oversaw. With 68,000,000 acres of land, with rich mines, with fertile lands, with gold and copper and iron and coal, there would have been an inconceivable amount of plunder. Oh, Mr. President, plunder is not the word. It is loot. Thev would liave looted the island, and they would have come away from there so heavily laden with prey that they could scarcely have borne the burden of their spoil. 
Now, Mr. President, the Philippine amendment has been very much improved by the amendment of the Senator from Massachu setts, "but I do not think it goes far enough.. I do not suggest it be cause it was offered by myself, but I think the amendment offered by myself goes further and is better adapted to the situation. It did riot originate with me. I copied it from the Porto liiean Jaw that this Congress passed in reference to franchises in Porto Kico. I quoted it literally, only changing it so as to make it adapted to the situation there instead of Porto Kieo. I will read first the provision in the Porto Kican law: 
;r. That all laws enacted by the igreas of the United -States, whi coined advisable to annul the sa 
To that extent the amendment offered by me is a literal verbatim tcopy of the Porto Kican law. Then the other part of it in the Porto Trtiean law is as follows: 
 
 29 
imagination grown fat on 68,000,000 acres o public land and on.all the mines and fertile hinds, will lose much of their interest in this act when, they find that to that extent they have been robbed of their prey, 
Mr. President. I have "but a few more words to sav, and as there 
 
I can not vote for the Cuban amendment, and I will state rny reason for it. I believe that the future of Cuba is necessarily iden tified with the future of the United States, and it is not in antago nism. to that view that I decline to vote for this Cuban amej'idment. I do so on two grounds. 
In the first place, I do not think that the amendment is in har mony with, the pledge which we made when wo went to war with Spain. I think that we are bound by that pledge, Mr. President. That pledge is not consistent with the pronunciation by us of an ultimatum' to the people of Cuba, saying that we will not release them, from military eontrol until they comply with that ultimatum. 
I know that it is common for people to disparage the action of the Senate in the adoption of the clause_ recognizing the independence of the people of Cuba in the resolution declaring war against Spain, Which says: 
rth. That fhe -United States li&reby clisclaims any disposition or Intention rcise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island except for tl\e cation thereof, and asserts its determination, when tlistt is accomplished, 
I know that some who were not then members of this bodv are disposed to ridicule that resolution as a piece of silly sentiment. " But, Mr. President, it was not a sen.tim.eBt, That declaration was made under very solemn circuro stances, at a time when we thought it was prudent and good policy to make the declaration, At the time we went to war with Spain we did not know but that we had en tered upon a world's war. At the time "when we stripped ourselves for the conflict, when we flung clown the gage of battle, we did not know but that the whole of ISurope- would be at the back of iBpain. That was then a. serious apprehension. 
Mr. President, I recollect very well the language to me of the President of the United States at the time when there was great travail, great doubt, great labor and trouble in the effort to deter mine upon what was a wise course then to be pursued. The Presi dent of the "United States invited expressions of. opinion, not only from Republicans, but from Democrats; and I remember distinctly that on a day I received an invitation with another Democratic Sena tor to go to the White House and. confer with the President about 
 
, 
 
, 
 
, 
 
clo the justice to say of the President that he was most earnestly 
 
opposed to war; that he most earnestly desired the preservation of 
 
peace ; and I remember, distinctly as we parted in the Cabinet room, 
 
the last words he said to us were, "Senators, remember if we have 
 
war it may be a world's war." 
 
Now, Mr. President, in the presence of such an emergency as that, 
 
in the presence of so great a danger as that, we deemed it proper to 
 
stand before the whole world, when we did not know but that we 
 
had chal.enged their hostility, and say to them, " We desire no ag 
 
grandizement by this war; we do not go to war for the purpose of 
 
4761 
 
 30 
sa_ hhc. aaq,.ll_ullirhhi.oon_llg,,ddC_y_uob_ua.r_; h*,w.ane dw-s_a.onf"tf,v.t-oh_n.a_t-toojuuurnnodnie.l,r_ys_t,daen- sd.i_r. ie_ti. iss_ t,oo__ad.ro, d_jue_- ssit.ri-ece,t,,hto_att,,hyeoseu_ 
against a threatened danvsror which we apprehended, we said to all the world, "Our purpose is simply to produce a condition that is tol erable there, to stop this inhumanity, and to bring about peace in our own home sphere-, and when we shall have done that, we pi-edge ourselves we will make no attempt to take this island; when we have, pacified those people we will withdraw and leave their affairs to them, alone. "We declare solemnly before th& \vor4d that they are, and of a right ought to be, free and independent, aud we will be true to that declaration." 
Now, I say that was not a matter of sentiment. It was a great and a solemn asseveration made for a high purpose, deemed essential to our own safety. 
Mr, President, if I desired a,bo\'e aH tilings the acquisition of Cuba I would do nothing which -would be in co&Siet either with the letter or with the spirit of that asseveration which we then made under those trying eircmxv&tao-ees. Therefore, Mr. President, while I have the utmost deference and respect for the committee which, have brought in this amendment, according" to rny view the amend ment is not consistent with, the obligation which we then solemnly took in the presence of tbe world. Cuba can not be free and inde pendent if we can enforce these restraints upon her. If we are de termined to violate OUT pledge, why stop half way? In that case we should go the whole way and take the i&l&nd without reservation. 
Mr. President, I will state another reason why, with the utmost respect for the committee, I must dettlinft to vote for tbo amendmetit, I believe, as I have already said, that the future of Cuba will certainly be identified with that of the United States. It may tak.^5 a little longer time to bring about a proper understanding, but I think me future relations of the Cuban people- with oura should be so carefully guarded that they will jjot be affected 7;>y any irrita tion which might result from auultisaatvxin presented by us to them at this time. 
1 &m in favo'r of assisting them, in the effort to bring about a con dition of good government it\ HIC^T island. I am in favor of assist ing- thera in. all 'proper ways; but Mr. President, I am not in favor of irritating their spirit of love for independence by now flaunting in their faces the demand that they shall agree to that in the very in ception which, is the acknowledgment tfiat they are not an inde pendent people, but that they are a stibject people, who must do whatever \vti demand oj them. 
There is one provision in the Cuban amendment in which my section is deeply interested. That is the pro vision to insure the sanitation of the island. That is of extreme importance, and I have 110 doubt that will be carefully-guarded, whatever plan of settle ment is adopted, I am confident that more can be accomplished tliTowgb a plan which does not irritate the Cnbans, ior at last we must larg-ely depend upon their willingness to make this sanitation effective. 
Mr. President, this much. I though.! proper that I should say con cerning Cuba. 
To return to the question of the Philippine Islands, I want to 
 
 31 
repeat ttiat J_ regard tliis as the most vicious and pernicious legisla tion which the country has ever known to bo proposed in these legislative halls, for while, as surges led by the Senator from Wis consin, the question of union or disunion was a more serious one, it was not a legislative question- I want to repeat that there is no bill in this Senate, or which can come to the Senate, the passage of wliicli I would be -willing to secure "by in any manner or in. any degree withdrawing the slightest of aH the opposition whieli 1 iiave io this bill. 
I want to say further, Mr. President, that while there Is no hill 
at I said "before--that while 1 am utterly opposed to tnc subsidy bill, I would rather see ten subsidy bills passed than truss bill. If Senators on the other side think that Senators on tltid side are relaxed in their opposition to it or in their desire to see its defeat, let me say to them, that they -will see in this vote n more unanimous D&movT&tiit party than fans ever showed itself in any rote that has been fast in this Chamber in the present Congress. 
Mr. President, I again repeat, an extra session, has no torrovs for me. I wonM be willing to resort to any of thesti devices if anybody could show me they \voulcl result in a permanent defeat of this amendment. I am ready to follow anybody or anything that-will show that permanently we can defeat this measure, which, I think, in all respects is a most, iniquitous measure. 
t was speaking just now oj the commercial question. I was try ing to express the idea that there TF&S something- higher than cam----l coiiaidera.tioi.is in this great question; and in discussing that 
.Jury, a man oi unsurpassed patriotism, otie who -\\-as ojice an honoreii member oi this body, and who now, in dignified retirement, has the honor to be an ex-Pi-evident of the United States, 
Indiana not only should be proud of hint, iiut the whole country; 
January of this year---a most instructive article, one of great lo^ie and power--this great and good man concluded -with tliesfe words: 
 
mid tinder the Con^tUulIoii of the [Jniled Stares ;i.n impossible thing-. The view 
 
pansion, blit it \yi!l l?a-cl us ie> limit tUc is&e of iliat power lo regions thai; may safclv become a part of the United States and Lo peoples wliose Ameriea.n citi zenship may tie allowed. 
3t lias fccen saict ttmt t?ic flash of Dcivcy's guns 3n Manila Bay revealed to the Araciiean people a rwyw mission- 1 like ratVicr to think ot then! as reveal ing the 
 
God forbid that tlie day sHould ever c&me ivlien, in tlie American mind, the 
 
thought ol a man as a "consumer" shall submerge the old American thought 
 
man 
 
oO, en ov,c \\i ima ^^j^.^ HABB1SO3T.