I had expected to render what a.s.sistance I could during the next session, which convened in December, in framing the bill in committee and to a.s.sist in its pa.s.sage in the Senate. But very unfortunately, just at the beginning of the next session of Congress, when the hearings were all concluded and the committee was prepared to go into executive session to consider the bill itself, I was taken ill and compelled to spend a couple of months in Florida to recover my health. It may seem strange, but the fact is, that my absence expedited the consideration of the bill by the committee and its report to the Senate. I had telegraphed and written my late colleague, Senator Dolliver, to record me as voting for the favorable report of the bill from the committee to the Senate. It was expected that the committee would have to hold many sessions to consider the numerous amendments that had been offered. Senator Dolliver, at one of the first meetings of the committee called to consider the bill, read my telegram and letter asking to be voted in favor of reporting the bill. Objection was made to recording me, and one distinguished Senator raised the point respecting how I was to be recorded on the question of amendments. Considerable controversy, I understand, took place, and Senator Dolliver then moved to report the bill to the Senate with the amendments already adopted in committee. This closed the discussion in the committee; the vote was taken, and the bill was ordered reported to the Senate, my vote being recorded in the affirmative; after which Senator Aldrich, in order to make it appear all the more ridiculous, moved that Senator Tillman, a minority member of the committee, be authorized to report the bill. This motion prevailed; Senator Tillman did report it, and he had charge of its pa.s.sage in the Senate. So, as I have stated, my absence, through the controversy over counting my vote, really expedited the bill through the committee.
I returned to my seat in the Senate in February, while the bill was being considered, and a.s.sisted as best I could through conferences with President Roosevelt and members of the Senate in agreeing on sections of the bill which were in controversy, particularly the court review section. I was also one of the conferees on the part of the Senate that finally settled the differences between the two Houses.
It was a very satisfactory bill, in the form in which it finally became a law.
CHAPTER XXII JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN
I have always admired Mr. Justice John Marshall Harlan, who has served some thirty-five years as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, and who for a time after the death of Chief Justice Fuller acted as Chief Justice of the United States.
Upon the death of Judge Allen, who had for many years been United States District Judge for the Southern District of Illinois, it was suggested that his portrait be placed in the court room of the United States Circuit and District Court at Springfield, Illinois.
The movement developed into the broader suggestion that portraits of other distinguished judges, who had presided over the United States Court at Springfield, and also a portrait of Chief Justice Marshall, be procured and added to the collection. The portraits of Judges John Marshall, Walter Q. Gresham, David Davis, Samuel H.
Treat, Thomas Drummond, William J. Allen, John McLean, Nathaniel Pope, and John Marshall Harlan were procured, and it was planned that a suitable ceremony should take place in Springfield on June 2, 1903.
Judge Humphrey wrote me, telling me of the plans of the committee appointed by the Bar of the United States Court at Springfield, and asking me to say something concerning any one of these distinguished judges whom I might designate, leaving the selection to me.
I thought the matter over and determined that, inasmuch as I had known Justice Harlan more or less intimately ever since I became a member of the Senate, I should like to talk about him.
The occasion was quite a notable one. Vice-President Fairbanks delivered an address on Judge Gresham; Judge Kohlsaat, on Chief Justice Marshall; Lawrence Weldon, on David Davis; Judge Creighton, on Samuel H. Treat; Mr. John W. Jewett, on Thomas Drummond; J. C.
Allen, on W. J. Allen; Mr. Logan Hay, on John McLean; General Alfred Orendorff, on Nathaniel Pope; and the portraits were accepted in the name of the Court at Springfield by the Hon. J. Otis Humphrey, the District Judge.
There was a very distinguished gathering of lawyers, of Federal and State judges from Illinois and adjacent States, and of many members of the families of the deceased jurists. Judges Kohlsaat, Humphrey, and Anderson occupied the bench. The whole proceeding was a very dignified and appropriate one.
I cannot give a better estimate of my regard for Justice Harlan than by quoting some extracts from the address I delivered on that occasion:
"The Supreme Court to-day is composed on nine eminent justices, of one of whom I have been asked to speak; and I do believe that the Justice of whom I speak, in all that goes to make a noted and able jurist, is second only to that learned Chief Justice, John Marshall, of whom Judge Kohlsaat has so interestingly spoken.
"I speak of John Marshall Harlan, who has been an honored member of the Supreme Court of the United States for more than a quarter of a century.
"Justice Harlan from his youth was the architect of his own fortune; he has been a man of remarkable individuality and force of character; he impressed himself from boyhood upon the community in which he lived. Before he reached his nineteenth year he was made Adjutant- General of the State of Kentucky. Like Lincoln, he performed the obligations of a citizen, both in private and official life, with zeal and faithfulness to duty. . . .
"When Justice Harlan was but a young man, slavery became the paramount issue of the day, and naturally being a staunch Union man, he took an active part in the discussion and struggles that became more or less bitter in his very early manhood. He was one of the first to enlist and lead his regiment in the field in favor of the Union and was a.s.signed a place in that division of the army commanded by the gallant old soldier and patriot, General Thomas. . . .
"Justice Harlan"s record as a soldier was a brilliant one. Certain promotion and higher honors were a.s.sured him, and he was nominated by President Lincoln to the position of Brigadier-General; but the responsibilities resulting from the death of his father compelled him to abandon what was certain to have been a distinguished military career, and he reluctantly returned to Kentucky. . . .
"Following the struggle in arms came important reconstruction legislation and important Const.i.tutional amendments, necessitating judicial interpretations. These grave questions of state gave opportunity for the development of great statesmen and judges.
"Great crises produce great men. Justice Harlan was at home in the thickest of the struggle, through the period of reconstruction, an able lawyer, an uncompromisingly bold man, a.s.serting his position without fear or favor. While many of the important judicial and Const.i.tutional questions growing out of reconstruction legislation remained unsettled, Justice Harlan took his place on the Supreme Bench, having been appointed by President Hayes in 1877, and an examination of the decisions of the Court since that year will show the prominent part he has taken in the disposition of these Const.i.tutional questions.
"It has been said that there never was a very powerful character, a truly masculine, commanding man, who was not made so by struggles with great difficulties. Daily observation and history prove the truth of this statement. Hence I believe that the rough-and-tumble existence to which the majority of ambitious young men of our country are subjected, does much to prepare them for the higher duties of substantial, valuable citizenship. The active life and early struggles of Justice Harlan in his State have had their influence in making him the fearless jurist that he is.
"Shortly after his appointment, Justice Harlan was a.s.signed as the Supreme Justice for this circuit, and served here for eighteen years. Many of you present remember his visit to Springfield and his holding court in this room.
"To be a member of the Federal Judiciary is the highest honor that can be conferred upon an American lawyer. The crowning glory of our Nation was the establishment, by the fathers, of the independent Federal Judiciary, which is the conservator of the Const.i.tution.
I have unbounded faith in it. It is the protector of those fundamental liberties so dear to the Anglo-Saxon race. State Legislatures and the Congress may be swayed by the heat and pa.s.sion of the hour; but so long as our independent Federal Judiciary remains, our people are safe in their legal, fundamental, Const.i.tutional rights.
"Perhaps there is nothing that ill.u.s.trates so well Justice Harlan"s character, the equality of all men before the law, as do some of his dissenting opinions."
I then referred to his famous dissent in the Civil Rights case, delivered in 1883; to his dissent in the Income Tax case, and others of his notable utterances from the Supreme Bench; and at the same time I referred to the fact that he had written more than seven hundred opinions, covering nearly every branch of the law, the opinions on Const.i.tutional questions being unusually large. I added:
"In many respects Justice Harlan resembles his namesake, John Marshall. Like John Marshall, he received his early training for the bench in the active practice at the Bar. Like John Marshall, he enlisted and fought for his country. Like John Marshall, while still a young man, he was appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court, and has for more than a quarter of a century occupied that position.
And like John Marshall, his great work on the bench has been in cases involving the construction and application of the Const.i.tution.
He has been especially a.s.signed by the Court to the writing of opinions on Const.i.tutional Law. In my opinion he stands to-day as the greatest living Const.i.tutional lawyer.
"If the Court please, I desire to refer to one more phase of Justice Harlan"s character. He is a religious man. He does not parade his belief before the world, yet he possesses deep and devout convictions and has given deep study to church questions. And it may be said that the great men of the world from the earliest dawn of civilization, with but few exceptions, have believed that the life of the soul does not end with the death of the body. Cicero, long before the birth of the Saviour, said:
"When I consider the wonderful activity of the mind, so great a memory of what has pa.s.sed, and such a capacity of penetrating into the future; when I behold such a number of arts and sciences, and such a mult.i.tude of discoveries thence arising, I believe and am firmly persuaded that a nature which contains so many things within itself can not be mortal."
"Centuries later the famous Dr. Johnson well said: "How gloomy would be the mansions of the dead to him who did not know that he should never die; that what now acts shall continue its agency, and what now thinks shall think on for ever."
"Justice Harlan is a firm and devout believer in the immortality of the soul.
"He is now approaching the age when under the law he may retire from the bench, yet he is in the vigor of health and is perhaps the greater judge to-day than at any time in his past career. I am sure I voice the general desire of the Bar of the whole country that he shall, so long as his health and strength continue, remain an active member of that great Court."
It is more than eight years since I delivered that address. In the ensuing period, five justices of the Supreme Court have either retired under the law, or pa.s.sed away, none of whom enjoyed a length of service equal to Judge Harlan"s; and yet Justice Harlan is attending daily to his duties as a member of that court, apparently in vigorous health and certainly as profound and learned a judge to-day as at any time in his past career. And I repeat now what I said eight years ago--that I hope he shall for years to come remain an active member of that great court.
CHAPTER XXIII MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
It has been said that Charles Sumner considered the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations as the highest honor that could have been conferred upon him by the United States Senate.
I have been chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations for a longer consecutive period than any man in our history, aside from Mr. Sumner, who served as chairman for ten years. If I continue as chairman during the remainder of my term, I shall have exceeded the long service of Mr. Sumner.
The Committee on Foreign Relations was among the first of the permanent standing committees of the Senate. Prior to 1816, there were no permanent standing committees, the custom being to appoint select committees to consider the different portions of the President"s messages, and for the consideration of any other subject which the Senate might from session to session determine necessary for committee reference. On December 13, 1816, the Senate, by rule, proceeded to the appointment of the following standing committees, agreeably to the resolution of the tenth instant, which was as follows:
"Resolved, that it shall be one of the rules of the Senate that the following standing committees be appointed at each session: a Committee on Foreign Relations, a Committee on Finance, a Committee on Commerce and Manufactures, a Committee on Military Affairs, a Committee on the Militia, a Committee on Naval Affairs, a Committee on Public Lands, a Committee on Claims, a Committee on the Judiciary, a Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads, and a Committee on Pensions."
It will be noted that under this rule, the Committee on Foreign Relations was named first, and Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, was its first chairman. Whether it was at that time considered the most important committee, I do not know; but I do know that from the date of its formation, the Committee on Foreign Relations has been among the most important committees of the Senate, and at times in our history it has been _the_ most important committee. It has been from the beginning particularly noted for the high character of the men who composed its membership, and we find in the archives of the Senate the names of some of the greatest men in our national history, who have from time to time acted as its chairmen.
Barbour of Virginia, Henry Clay, James Buchanan, Rives, Benton, King, Ca.s.s, Sumner, Windom, John F. Miller, John T. Morgan, John Sherman, and Cushman K. Davis are a few of those who have at different times occupied the position of chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
My predecessors, as their names will indicate to those familiar with American history, have been noted for their conservatism in dealing with matters pertaining to our foreign relations, and there is no position in the Senate where conservatism is so essential.
My ambition has been so to conduct the business coming before the committee as to keep up the high standard set and the high standing maintained by the distinguished statesmen who have preceded me in the position.
The work of the Foreign Relations Committee is almost exclusively executive and confidential, and consists largely in the consideration of treaties submitted by the President to the Senate for ratification.
Very little important legislative business comes before this committee, although it has jurisdiction over claims of foreign citizens against the United States, and all legislation that in any wise affects our relations with other nations.
It was almost, I might say, by accident that I became a member of this important committee. I had been a member of the Committee on Commerce for a number of years, and took quite an interest in the very important legislation coming before that committee; and the improvement of rivers and harbors was a subject in which Illinois was greatly interested.
The late Senator Mitch.e.l.l, of Oregon, was in 1895 chairman of the Committee on Organization, having in charge the make-up of the committees of the Senate, and he wanted a place on the Committee on Commerce for some Western Senator. He came to me and explained his embarra.s.sment, and asked me if I would be willing to be transferred from the Committee on Commerce to the Committee on Foreign Relations. I wanted to accommodate Senator Mitch.e.l.l, and I told him that I would consent to be transferred, but at the same time I was not at all anxious to leave the Committee on Commerce.
The transfer was made in due course, and I have served continuously on the Foreign Relations Committee since that time, 1895.
John Sherman was chairman of the committee when I became a member of it. It was at a period when there were very few material foreign matters to engage the attention of the Senate. Sherman served as chairman of the committee, at different periods, for nearly ten years. He was a wise, conservative chairman; not especially brilliant, as was Senator Davis, or Senator Sumner; but every one had confidence in him and felt that in his hands nothing unwise or foolish would emanate from the committee.
I was chairman of the Committee on Interstate Commerce at that time, and the work of that committee, added to the work devolving upon me as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, engrossed most of my time; and while I regularly attended the meetings of the Committee on Foreign Relations, I cannot say that I took a prominent part, or, indeed, a very deep interest, in it until I became its chairman, succeeding the late Cushman K. Davis in 1901.
Cushman K. Davis was a warm personal friend of mine. As the years pa.s.sed by and I grew to know him more and more intimately, I became more deeply attached to him, and my respect for him as a statesman constantly increased. He was what I would term a specialist in legislation. He took little or no interest in any other subject than matters pertaining to our foreign relations. He was a prominent figure in public affairs for many years. A soldier in the Civil War, serving in many prominent places in civil affairs in his State, including the position of Governor, he came to the Senate as a ripened statesman. He entered the Senate in 1887, and in 1891 became a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and very early became one of its leading members. Succeeding the late Senator Sherman, in 1897, he became its chairman and served in that position until his death. Few more scholarly or cultivated men have ever occupied a seat in the Senate.
He was a peculiar man in many respects, and did not court, or even encourage, the advice of his colleagues on the committee, or even of the Secretary of State. I had served on the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House when Mr. Seward was Secretary of State and I knew what a help it was to the committee to have the Secretary meet with us personally and discuss matters of more or less importance.