heralded by so high an authority it is worthy of consideration. The Secretary of War never makes a suggestion, even at a feast or a convention, that does not carry weight with it, and we must not reject this proposition simply on account of the novelty of the conception. The Senator from Indiana, as I shall presently show, claims that we are a trustee for all the uncivilized nations of the earth, and now if you add to this, that in the meantime we are to act as receivers for them, you confer upon us a duty that is by no means a sinecure.

I would like to know who will act as receiver? It will evidently be impossible for Mr. Taft to perform these functions. As Secretary of War, upon frequent occasions ex officio Secretary of State, constructive governor-general of the Philippines, and, in the absence of the President, Acting President of the United States, I am quite sure that he has not the time to act as receiver for all the impecunious people on this earth. We will, therefore, evidently have to provide a new portfolio, to be known as the "department of foreign receiverships," and a new Secretary to be known as the "secretary of foreign bankruptcy." This official will, undoubtedly, have a sufficient amount of work to occupy his time, because there are a large number of people in the territory to be covered ready to go into the hands of a receiver, from Yucatan to Tierra del Fuego. The question arises: Are these receiverships to be temporary or permanent? Take the receivership of Santo Domingo. Is it for the purpose of reorganization or liquidation? If for the former purpose, how long will it take to reorganize its finances, and if it is permanent in character, who is ultimately to become its distributee? And then comes the serious question: Who are our clients in this controversy? In Santo Domingo, we claim that the Government ought to be supported, because it is in favor of protecting American interests. In Venezuela American interests were with the revolutionists. Is this to be our policy—that we are to be allied with

the party that is in favor of American interests? Is it not time, I appeal to you, to call a halt in this entire program? Are we not trying to accomplish too much within a brief period? Are we not venturing beyond our limits as a world power and intruding officiously into affairs that do not possibly con

cern us.

I would also like to know under what clause of the Constitution we derive the right to act as receivers and take possession of the custom-houses of other countries. I would be obliged to some Senator upon this floor to select the provision that confers this authority upon the Executive. If this is an Executive function I shall be extremely grateful to anyone to point me to this article that so defines it. Make no mistake about this. We are now in possession of the custom-houses of Santo-Domingo and collecting their revenues. Please give me the warrant and precept under which this process has been issued. If there is a statute for it, let me have it, and I will ascertain whether there is any sanction for the enactment. If it is a custom, where and when has it ever been practiced or pursued? Is it not a fact that among all the interpreting decisions of the Supreme Court, among all the archives of the State Department, there is no precedent or example that justifies this assumption of authority? I am not fastidious or technical upon this point. I am not what you call a strict constructionist of the Constitution, if by strict construction you mean that I would sacrifice its intention to its phraseology or its spirit to its letter. Give it now the broadest exposition that it can stand, the most liberal interpretation that it is capable of, treat it magnanimously, as the Supreme Court has done in its various revisions and translations, and I challenge you to find a single grant or franchise it contains that justifies this usurpation. I am not criticising the President now. If he has made a mistake, he has done so with a love for his country and a devotion to its people, and not for the purpose of personal aggrandize

ment, but, in all justice and fairness, has he not fallen into the gravest possible error in supposing that he has the right to execute a treaty before the treaty itself is ratified? It is childish to assert that the Senate is jealous of its rights or its prerogatives. That is not the point. The point I apprehend is that you, as the representatives of your States, will see to it with unabated vigilance that there is no intrusion by the Executive upon legislative functions and no encroachment upon constitutional limitations. I have no feeling, certainly no partisan feeling, upon this matter. Perhaps what has been done has been done for the best, but I want to avoid the precedent, because precedents live forever and bad precedents make good law. We are dealing now with a most important branch of our system.

This is the dead line of the Constitution, and the slightest trespass is fatal to the organic life of our Government. The limitation upon the Executive power is the keynote of the instrument, and when once you rend that cord in twain you destroy the delicate adjustment of the master's hand. It is the implied covenant that underlies the grant. It was the pillar of fire that led us through the stormy days of the state conventions to the shores of our deliverance. All the guarantees of the charter, habeas corpus, civil rights, the liberty of the press and religious freedom pale into insignificance before its light, and, if I am correct in the position I am assuming, I would like it once and forever understood that no treaty with foreign nations and that no compact, convention, or protocol in the nature of a treaty shall be performed and carried into practical effect, and no custom-house shall be seized, no revenues administered, no status quo established by any minister or military commander until the act of the agent is confirmed by the principal and the negotiations of the President are submitted to the only body under the Constitution that has the right to reject or ratify them.

Look for a moment at the situation of a number of the States that are involved in these controversies. Of course, I am not speaking now of the states where order prevails and whose governments are stable and responsible. We know that they are in a condition of constant upheaval and are resting upon a political volcano. I will not dignify by the name of revolution, the sedition and turmoil that since their liberation have raged within their borders. In some of them the public franchise is a mockery and a travesty upon republican institutions. In the city of Buenos Ayres, for instance, at the last election, with 800,000 population, 2,000 votes were cast, and they were largely the votes of persons who had been dead and buried for an indefinite period of time. In a number of instances their presidents are military dictators whose chief ambition seems to be to acquire as large a fortune as possible from the public funds before the time arrives for their assassination.

It will be utterly impossible for us to follow our citizens into these realms and inferentially become the ally of every rioter or usurper who regards the domain of his country as his private emolument, and who is willing for a consideration to part with every concession upon its soil, with a full knowledge that they will be forfeited by the tyrant who succeeds him. Those who are in control are entirely justified when they announce to us that we have no right to interfere with them. There is a ruler now upon the republican throne of Venezuela, "half patriot, half brigand," who extends a hospitable invitation to the navies of France and the United States to bombard him, and while the whole world is smiling at the grotesqueness of his blustering pretensions, when you analyze the philosophy of the situation, he was unqualifiedly right. He proceeded to forfeit the concessions of our citizens, claiming that they were in league with his opponents. We demanded arbitration, and when he took refuge under the principle that the controversy was pending in the Venezuelan courts we answered him by

saying: "You own your courts, and you can induce them to render any decision that you desire. We are, therefore, not bound by their judgment, and we shall bombard you if

you do

not submit to arbitration." Mr. President, we might as well admit that he is on the right side of the question and the law is with him. Corrupt or not, we know that these concessionaires must submit to the judgment of the courts that have jurisdiction over them. We can not bombard Venezuela because these tribunals have rendered an improper decision. Let us reverse positions for a moment. Here are hundreds of decisions flooding us every day in this country, from county, circuit, and municipal courts, and from district, appellate, and supreme tribunals. Suppose that every jury that rendered an improper verdict, and every judge who pronounced an unsatisfactory decision were to be bombarded. Why, the land would reverberate with the roar of cannon, and the firmament would be draped in fire.

The President takes the ground that these States should pay their honest debts. That is the proper ground to take. If they repudiate them, says the President, we will intervene and compel them to fulfill their obligations. This was the purpose declared by him in one of the earlier communications made upon the subject, which at the time was profanely criticised as policing South America. The method of intervention that we were to resort to was the seizure of their custom-houses and a virtual assumption of suretyship for them, because it stands to reason that the moment we come into possession of their revenues we can never abandon their administration, but must continue their collection until the indebtedness is liquidated. This makes us the guarantor of these claims. This will force them to be honest, says the President. I humbly take a position that is diametrically opposed to this doctrine. I say that such a policy on our part will deprive them of every motive for honesty, and will close up for them every avenue of ambition. I