He spoke of his pleasant relations with different Senators, mentioning particularly Senator O. H. Platt of Connecticut. He spoke of him with words of highest praise and said he hoped during the next four years to have these same pleasant relations continue with all of us, so that at the end we might lay down our labors with the same respect and feeling of warm friendship for each other that then prevailed.

He was a very happy man. He was full of the spirit of triumph and full of hope and courage with respect to the future.

He fully realized that a great opportunity had come to him for usefulness to both his party and his country, and was determined to embrace and improve that opportunity to the utmost.

I had the same opinion and entertained the most optimistic expectations as to his forthcoming administration. He went out of office saying, according to a published interview, that he had "had a bully good time," and expressing the thought that he "had made good."

I am sure he did have a "bully good time," and that as to most matters he "made good," but in some particulars there is at least room for argument. At any rate I was compelled to disagree with him as to some important questions, of which I shall speak in the next chapter; not, however, either offensively or defensively, but only because not to do so would be to leave these notes incomplete.

While testifying (April 23, 1915) as a witness in his own behalf in the Barnes libel suit, he said, speaking of me, according to newspaper reports, that I had bitterly opposed him, but "nevertheless he always had for me a great liking." This was a kind expression which I not only appreciate but fully reciprocate, and never more so than now when "watchful waiting," truckling to Colombia and the Panama Canal surrender combine to recall in refreshing contrast his stalwart Americanism, his virile character, his fearless courage and his rugged and aggressive way of doing things that ought to be done.

CHAPTER XL.

DIFFERENCES WITH PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.

PRIOR to President Roosevelt's election in 1904, he and

I had never had any serious differences of opinion about public affairs. Later I differed with him in a broad way as to the Initiative, the Referendum, the Recall and all the other Socialistic ideas, as I regarded them, that had been advocated by W. J. Bryan and other Democrats, and by Socialistic leaders generally, to the extent he adopted and advocated them.

It is not my purpose to speak in this connection of that difference, but rather of three matters that presented themselves in concrete form, about which my Senatorial duties required me to differ with him positively and earnestly. They were Joint Statehood for New Mexico and Arizona, the conferring of the rate making power on the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Brownsville shooting affray, on account of which he discharged a whole battalion of the 25th Infantry, colored troops, without sufficient evidence as I thought then and still think.

In the Senate I discussed at length and repeatedly all these subjects generally and in detail. It never occurred to me in connection with the question of Joint Statehood for New Mexico and Arizona, or the discussion of the rate bill, that I was either saying or doing anything that would give him offense, or cause him to have any kind of ill feeling. I assumed that he was strong enough and broadminded enough and had respect enough for my duties as a Senator to accord me the privilege of differing from him and of maintaining and advocating with respect to such differences such views as my convictions of duty might lead me to entertain.

I am sure if there had been only these two differences there would not have been any trouble-not more at least than a mere temporary disappointment.

As to the Brownsville matter it was different, but I shall deal with that in another chapter.

So far as the Statehood matter is concerned that has already been, perhaps, sufficiently dealt with. If I add anything at all to what has been said, let it be that the President first officially announced his position in favor of Joint Statehood in his Message sent to Congress December 5, 1905. On this subject he said:

I recommend that Indian Territory and Oklahoma be admitted as one State and that New Mexico and Arizona be admitted as one State. There is no obligation upon us to treat territorial subdivisions, which are matters of convenience only, as binding us on the question of admission to statehood. Nothing has taken up more time in the Congress during the past few years than the question as to the statehood to be granted to the four Territories above mentioned, and after careful consideration of all that has been developed in the discussions of the question, I recommend that they be immediately admitted as two States. There is no justification for further delay; and the advisability of making the four Territories into two States has been clearly established.

With special reference to his claim that territorial subdivisions involve no obligation on the part of the Government to adhere to them in making States, I pointed out in the course of the debate on the subject that when the territory of Arizona was created in 1863 during the administration of Mr. Lincoln, Congress provided in the act

That said government shall be maintained and continued until such time as the people residing in said territory shall apply for and obtain admission as a State.

This I contended was in the nature of a pledge given by the Government on which the people of Arizona had a right to rely in becoming citizens of that territory and in taxing themselves for the erection of public buildings and the establishment of schools and colleges.

In addition to the fact that I entertained the views I expressed in debate, on account of which it was impossible for me to accept and follow the President's recommendation for Joint Statehood, the record shows that as early as in 1903 I had, in support of the bill then under consideration

providing for separate Statehood, taken the same position and made the same character of arguments to which I adhered until the end. In other words, the position I took and contended for throughout was taken and contended for long before the President expressed any opinion on the subject.

So far as the Joint Statehood matter was concerned, it was not, therefore, a difference of my seeking, as some one charged, for I was not aware we had different opinions on the subject until his Message of December, 1905.

So far as the giving of the rate making power to the Interstate Commerce Commission was concerned, a much broader and more important question was involved.

The President first advocated this proposition in his Message to Congress of December 5, 1904.

I was a member of the Interstate Commerce Committee of the Senate. For several years that committee had constantly under consideration measures of various kinds for the further and more efficient regulation of the railroads, most of them brought forward at the instance of commercial bodies and labor organizations, but quite aside from my membership of that committee I was active in promoting legislation of that character.

As early as June 24, 1902, I introduced Senate Bill No. 3560, known as the Railroad Safety Appliance Bill, which became a law March 2, 1903. I introduced this measure at the request of the organized employees of the railroads and championed it in the committee and on the floor of the Senate, where I had charge of the measure when it was put on its passage.

I took an active and very prominent part both in the committee and in the Senate in the work of bringing about the enactment of what was known as the Elkins law, passed February 19, 1903.

The Interstate Commerce Committee referred this measure to a sub-committee, composed of Mr. Elkins, Chairman, Senator Clapp and myself. We recast the measure and put

it into the form in which it was reported favorably by the committee, and passed by the Senate. It was called the Elkins law, because it was reported by Mr. Elkins, Chairman of the committee; but no one had more to do with the framing of the law than I had.

It was a measure designed primarily to break up secret rebates and discriminations of every kind and character practiced by the railroads. It was advocated by the shipping interests of the whole country and opposed generally by the railroads.

The Interstate Commerce Commission, in its seventeenth annual report, made December, 1903, set forth the character, scope, purpose and beneficial operation of this law, follows:

as

Its provisions are mainly designed to prevent or more effectually reach those infractions of law, like the payment of rebates and kindred practices, which are classed as misdemeanors.

In the first place, the recent amendment makes the railway corporation itself liable to prosecution in all cases where its officers and agents are liable under the former law. Such officers and agents continue to be liable as heretofore, but this liability is now extended to the corporation which they represent. This change in the law corrects a defect which has always been a source of embarrassment to the Commission, as has been explained in previous reports, because it gave immunity to the principal and beneficiary of a guilty transaction. As a practical matter, it is believed that much benefit will result from the fact that proceedings can now be taken against the corporation.

The amended law has abolished the penalty of imprisonment, and the only punishment now provided is the imposition of fines. As the corporation can not be imprisoned or otherwise punished for misdemeanors than by money penalties, it was deemed expedient that no greater punishment be visited upon the offending officer or agent. The various arguments in favor of this change have been stated in former reports and need not here be repeated. Whether the good results claimed by its advocates will be realized is by no means certain, but the present plan should doubtless be continued until its utility is further tested.

Without further reference to the changes effected by this amendatory legislation the Commission feels warranted in saying that its beneficial bearing became evident from the time of its passage. It has proved a wise and salutary enactment. It has corrected serious defects in the original law and greatly aided the attainment of some of the purposes for which that law was enacted. No one familiar with railway conditions can expect that rate cutting and other secret devices will immediately and wholly disappear, but there is basis for a confident