CHAPTER XXXVIII.

1902-1908

THE PHILIPPINE TREASON AND SEDITION ACT-AUTHORSHIP OF SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW-THE CHINESE EXCLUSION BILL-DEFENSE OF GOVERNOR TAFTJOINT STATEHOOD-THE PHILIPPINE TARIFF-THE SECESSION OF PANAMA.

EBRUARY 6th, 1902, the Secretary of War, in response to a Resolution calling for the same, sent to the Senate a copy of what was called the Philippine Treason and Sedition Act. When it was read from the Secretary's desk, Mr. Hoar, addressing the Senate, said:

If I understood that correctly, a wife, knowing of what is alleged to be the treason of a husband, or a husband knowing what is alleged to be the treason of a wife, or a mother knowing what is alleged to be the treason of a son, or a son knowing the treason of a mother, and so on, of the son and the father and the brother-the person knowing that and not acting as an informer to the government is, under a law imposed by the authority of the United States, to be punished by seven years' imprisonment. I should like to know whether that is true.

The Senator had reference to the following section of the Act mentioned:

Section 2. Every person, owing allegiance to the United States or the government of the Philippine Islands, and having knowledge of any treason against them, or either of them, who conceals, and does not as soon as may be disclose and make known the same to the provincial governor in the province in which he resides or to the civil governor of the islands or to some judge of a court of record, is guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not more than seven years and be fined not more than $1,000.

When the Secretary had concluded re-reading the statute, in answer to Senator Hoar's inquiry, I sent to the Secretary's desk and caused to be read the revised statutes of the

United States on the same subject, one of which sections read as follows:

Section 5883. Every person owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, who conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some Judge of the United States, or to the Governor, or to some Judge or Justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not more than seven years and fined not more than $1,000.

A general debate followed, participated in by a number of the Senators, with the result that it was made quite clear that our Commissioners in the Philippines, in enacting the legislation complained of, were but following our own statute and applying to the Filipinos precisely what our fathers had from the beginning of our government applied to the people of the United States.

Senator Hoar was quite sensitive over the matter. He disliked exceedingly to have to admit that for thirty years or more he had been a member of one House or the other of the Congress of the United States, with such a provision of law all the while in force, and during all that period had not discovered there was any necessity for repealing, altering or amending it.

Always, until this encounter, he had been exceedingly friendly in his relations with me. After this he did not seem so cordial in his manner. The trouble was cleared up, however, in a very accidental and somewhat amusing way three or four months afterward. The Congress had adjourned for the summer vacation and I had occasion to be in New York. I was stopping at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. I had retired rather early and was sound asleep when I was awakened by hearing some one walking in my room, in which there was no light. At once that awful sensation came over me that there was a burglar in the room. I listened intently and there was no mistake. I could hear him distinctly as he, with evident purpose as I supposed, to make as little noise as possible, seemed to be

carefully making his way toward the dresser that stood against the wall about the middle of the room. Presently he turned on the light. To my great surprise and my great relief I recognized Senator Hoar as the supposed burglar. About the same instant I recognized him he looked toward the bed and recognized me. Explanations followed to the

effect that he had arrived at the hotel from his home in Massachusetts a few minutes before he appeared in my room. He registered and was assigned to a room on the next floor above and immediately over mine. After he had gone to his room he recalled that he had written a letter on the train which he desired to mail, and left his room and went below for that purpose. Returning, he left the elevator on my floor instead of his. He said the thing that bothered him somewhat was that he had left his light burning, yet he felt so confident he was in his own room that he accounted for that by supposing that in some accidental way it had been turned off.

I was quite surprised to think I had retired without locking my door; a most unusual thing for me to do.

The whole incident was so ludicrous and at the same time so humorous that it served to efface whatever of disagreeable feeling he might have toward me, and from that time on he was as friendly as formerly until we had another clash over the secession of Panama.

I did not at any time have the slightest ill-feeling toward him. He was a man of exalted character who enjoyed to the fullest extent the respect and esteem of all his colleagues without regard to political differences. He had, however, reached that stage where he was at times a little bit fussy, and on that account prone to treat with impatience, if not with petulance, any positive dissent from the views he might advocate. He had also come to the point where it was easy for him to think mistakenly that he was not fully appreciated and that others were given credit to which he was entitled.

The truth of history and justice to Senator Sherman require that I should mention an instance of the kind:

AUTHORSHIP OF SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW.

May 20, 1903, at Chillicothe, Ohio, on the occasion of the Ohio Centennial celebration, I delivered an address entitled "Ohio in the Senate of the United States," in the course of which, speaking of Senator Sherman, I said:

Many statutes bear testimony to his far-sighted wisdom as a legislator. One of the most important was one of the latest.

It shows how clearly he understood the progress of changing conditions and the legislative remedy to apply to correct apprehended evils and abuses.

He was among the first to see the enormous combinations of capital we have been witnessing and the temptation there would be to unreasonable restraint and monopoly, and before others realized the danger or comprehended that any legislation was necessary, or even appropriate, he had secured the enactment of what the whole country has recently become familiar with as the Sherman Anti-Trust Law of 1890.

This address was printed in pamphlet form for distribution. A copy of it reached Senator Hoar. Thereupon the following correspondence ensued:

WORCESTER, MASS., May 28, 1908. My Dear Senator:-I have received, I presume through your courtesy, a very interesting address on "Ohio in the Senate of the United States." It is a valuable contribution to history.

I observe that you say, p. 24, that John Sherman, "before others realized the danger I had secured the enactment of what the whole country has recently become familiar with as the Sherman AntiTrust Law of 1890." If there was any man in this world who did not have anything to do with the Anti-Trust Law of 1890, it was John Sherman. He had altogether a different plan of dealing with the matter. The bill he introduced was amended by the Senate, and then sent to the Committee on the Judiciary, and an entirely new measure substituted for it, of which I wrote every syllable myself. It was then carried through the Senate. The House refused to accept it. Two Conference Committees were appointed, of both of which I was a member, and the House finally yielded. Mr. Sherman was not a member of the Conference Committee that finally agreed on a bill. Your familiarity with parliamentary proceedings, which appear in the Record, will enable you to readily verify the correctness of this statement. I am, with high regard, faithfully yours,

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH B. FORAKER,

United States Senator,
Cincinnati, Ohio.

GEORGE F. HOAR.

CINCINNATI, ОнIо, June 1, 1908.

My Dear Senator:-I am in receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo. What you say about the Sherman Anti-Trust Law of 1890 is entirely new to me, and as surprising as it is interesting. I regret exceedingly that I did not have the information you give before I prepared my address. I shall at once have the subject looked up, with a view to adding a footnote to the permanent record, if I can do so with propriety, making proper corrections.

What you say affords another illustration of how credit in such matters is sometimes erroneously given. In this instance, I have never heard of credit being given to any one except Mr. Sherman. The law is universally referred to as the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. I supposed that was because the bill passed substantially as he introduced it, or rather I would have so supposed if I had thought of it at all. With sentiments of highest regard and esteem, I am, Very truly yours, etc.,

HON. GEORGE F. HOAR,

Worcester, Mass.

J. B. FORAKER.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY.

UNITED STATES SENATE.

WORCESTER, MASS., June 27, 1908.

My Dear Senator:-We all know Mr. Sherman's great wisdom, especially when he had to deal with questions of finance, in which he was at home. But he was quite in the habit of introducing bills, especially at the beginning of a session of Congress, which were sent to him by other people, or the scheme of which was proposed in the newspapers, without giving them much consideration, and very often without supporting them afterward himself. He introduced some very radical measures to correct crimes in regard to Southern elections which he was not prepared to stand by afterward. Another instance was the introduction of a bill for national appropriation for education which he supported in the beginning, but which afterward he opposed very vigorously. That policy was defeated undoubtedly, chiefly through his opposition. He also introduced a bill providing that whenever any protected article was manufactured by a trust, it should be put upon the free list. The result of that would have been, as I now recall, although I have not the bill before me—that if some importers in New York should get up a little trust for the purpose of manufacturing some woolen or cotton or steel product in the manufacture of which hundreds of thousands of men and millions of dollars of capital were employed, it would at once go on the free list; and that would be true, although the thing were done for the very purpose. That always seemed to me one of the wildest schemes ever proposed.

The Anti-Trust bill which he introduced in 1890 was considered too radical by the committee to whom it was referred-the Committee on Finance who amended it, undertaking to deal with the matter in a very different manner. To that I moved an amendment on the floor of the Senate and the bill was finally referred to the Judiciary Committee. We struggled with the question there, and at last I proposed