pared to prevent it; and instead of criticising President Roosevelt for the action he took, he ought to receive and he will receive from the American people their unqualified approbation for that which he did in this respect, because that which he did was but to redeem the promises and obligations of our Government, just as other Administrations have done the same thing over and over again.

We do not have to wait until there is actual war. We do not have to wait until there is a hostile force landed and engagements actually commence and blood is being actually shed. It is much better, Mr. President, foreseeing the situation of which all have common knowledge, to take steps to prevent these conditions that would have followed but for our intervention.

Mr. President, other nations have recognized the Republic of Panama. I do not remember how long they delayed. It was quite natural, perhaps, as the Senator from Massachusetts suggested, as I understood him, that France should promptly recognize, but I do not know of any reason why Germany should recognize or Russia should recognize or China should recognize the Republic of Panama, except only the reason that according to international law, as I have stated it, the conditions existed that warranted and justified recognition, and they recognized at their option.

Mr. President, no Senator on this side, I am sure, has the slightest objection to all possible information being given with respect to this whole transaction; no Senator on this side has the slightest objection to all the light being had on this transaction that can be shed on it, but there is a time and there is a place for Senators to discuss propositions of this character. Here in this open session is not the time nor the place. I have undertaken to say enough only in answer to the Senator from Massachusetts to show that the President in this matter did not act hastily; that he did not act without precedent or without the warrant and authority of international law, and that he did not act contrary to, but strictly in conformity with, his official obligation, charged as he is, as the head of this nation, with the faithful execution of all our treaty obligations.

I have no hesitancy in saying, Mr. President, that I have the profound conviction that when this matter is thoroughly understood even our Democratic friends will hesitate to criticise him. Certainly they will hesitate, at any rate, when they make their nonpartisan speeches, of which we have heard so much, and then give their nonpartisan votes.

But, Mr. President, as I have already intimated, I do not want to discuss the question at any greater length than I have. I do not think it proper to do so. I have undertaken to say just enough to express the view I entertain with respect to it and the view which I believe my brother Senators entertain and the view which I believe the American people have and will approve with respect to it, and with that, for the present, I am content.

It seems to me now, as it did then, that neither our Government nor President Roosevelt did anything in that whole. matter that was the subject of legitimate criticism. On the

contrary, I feel now, in the light of subsequent events, as I did then, that President Roosevelt's action was entitled to the highest commendation as not only wise and patriotic, but as absolutely necessary to the protection and advancement of American interests in connection with an Isthmian Canal.

As I dictate these lines a rather amusing incident comes to mind. The claim Colombia is now making is not now made for the first time. She commenced making the claim. immediately after we recognized the independence of Panama, and entered into a treaty with her under which she gave us a canal zone, upon which we commenced the construction of the canal.

At the beginning she claimed only ten millions of dollars, but that she claimed very vigorously and very industriously. The Colombian Minister then in Washington in some way had hope that the Congress expiring March 4, 1904, would make an appropriation of that amount for her benefit. It seems that in connection therewith he had a number of interviews with Mr. Hay as Secretary of State.

The day after Congress adjourned I had occasion to call upon President Roosevelt. He told me, with much appreciation of the humor involved, that he had heard from Secretary Hay that the Colombian Minister had visited the Department of State; that he was greatly disappointed because the Congress had not made the appropriation he desired and expected. He wanted Mr. Hay to advise him what he should do, and Mr. Hay, according to his report, told him to "be patient and trust in the Lord." Mr. Hay added that he left with a despondent look on his face that "plainly enough indicated that in his opinion trust in the Lord' was a poor substitute for an appropriation."

IN

CHAPTER XXXIX.

CAMPAIGN OF 1904

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.

N 1904 I was chosen by the State Republican Convention of Ohio to be for the sixth time in succession a delegate-at-large to the National Republican Convention held that year in Chicago.

In that convention, as in a number of the previous conventions, I served as the Ohio member of the Committee on Resolutions, and in that capacity assisted in the framing of our platform.

Long before the convention assembled it was evident that President Roosevelt would be nominated. In fact, there had been no reasonable doubt in the mind of any one, subsequent to his indorsement in 1903 by the Republican State Convention of Ohio.

A few days after the convention I took a short vacation with my family. We visited Yellowstone National Park. All of us enjoyed greatly the outing.

After my return I commenced active campaign work in Ohio, but was called upon to participate in the campaign in other states. In the course of the campaign I spoke in New York, Pennsylvania, several of the New England States and a number of the Western States.

One of the first of these speeches was made under the auspices of the Hamilton Club of Chicago on the 17th day of September, 1904, and one of the last speeches was made in Music Hall, Cincinnati, October 29, 1904.

My speech at Chicago was widely published in the Republican press of the country as one of the keynotes of the campaign. I had many beautiful letters of congratulation

on account of it. Among them the following from Mr. John Hay:

NEWBURY, N. H., September 20, 1904. Dear Senator Foraker:-Only a word-to say what a magnificent speech that was with which you opened the campaign in Illinois, crowded and crammed with facts, energy and eloquence. That is the sort of thing that is worth while.

Yours faithfully,

JOHN HAY.

Words of commendation from him for such an effort were always highly appreciated by every one fortunate enough to receive them. The fact is, I trust, a sufficient excuse for my using here what he said. But much as I appreciated his letter about the Chicago speech, I appreciated still more a letter I received from him about the Cincinnati speech, of which the following is a copy:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
WASHINGTON.

December 7, 1904.

My Dear Senator Foraker:-I had a leisure minute or two yesterday, and once more read over your magnificent speech of the 29th of October. One gets a new light on such an address by reading it a month after it is delivered, and after the smoke has cleared away from the battlefield. Read even in this light, it is still an admirable piece of work, and, while congratulating you on it, I must thank you for your very kind reference to myself.

HON. J. B. FORAKER,

Yours faithfully,

JOHN HAY.

United States Senate.

For John Hay, Secretary of State and as busy a man as could be found connected with the Government, to read a political speech once and write a note about it was a high compliment. To have him read a speech twice and write about it, as he did in this letter, was indeed the very highest character of compliment. I appreciated it accordingly.

I not only insert the letter with pleasurable pride, but I also insert extracts from the speech because it shows the character of the campaign of that year, the arguments

made and the spirit that was abroad in the lard. The speech was a free and easy talk adapted to an enthusiastic mass meeting assembled in the closing hours of a triumphant campaign when exhortation was more in order than argument.

Our candidate for Vice President, Senator Fairbanks, was present, and thousands had come to see and hear that distinguished statesman. I had spoken that afternoon at Xenia, Ohio, and was not expecting to do .more than speak a few words of congratulation following the remarks of our candidate for Vice President.

The meeting was, however, so enthusiastic, the spirit was so splendid and the responses to what I said were so emphatic that it appeared impossible to find any place to stop.

I complimented Mr. Fairbanks on the good work he had done in the campaign, dwelt upon the prosperity the country was enjoying and then said:

And yet I find in the newspapers of this morning a speech made yesterday by Judge Parker at his home at Esopus, in which he says, speaking to a delegation of farmers-from Wall Street (laughter), that the farmers of this country have suffered on account of the tariff. Let me read his exact language:

"The farmers suffered even more, possibly, than the wage earner, by excessive tariff duties." Then he proceeds to tell those farmers how they are compelled to pay $9.00 a ton more for steel rails than they are sold for abroad. (Laughter.)

But, my fellow citizens, let us stop and think for a moment of what he says about the farmers. Have the farmers af this country been suffering during the last seven years? (Cries of “No!") Only this afternoon in Xenia, Ohio, I spoke in an opera house filled with farmers, and from their general appearance they might have been mistaken for so many bank presidents. (Applause.) I did not see one of them who was not clad in becoming clothing, who did not look happy, who did not look prosperous, who did not seem to know that "The frost was on the pumpkin and the corn was in the shock." (Applause.) Senator Fairbanks well remembers how the Dingley law was framed, and if you never read it, I would be glad if you would read it, in view of this statement of Judge Parker. You will find that the framers of that Dingley law did not forget any interest or any industry in this broad land, least of all the farmer, who is protected by it as to every product he brings forth. There is a tariff on corn, and on wheat, and on everything else, from corn and wheat down to butter and eggs; and the result is that the farmers of this country were never so prosperous as they are today, because they not only have our tremendous home markets that have