governmental policies have been committed have faithfully performed their functions, and they deserve all the commendation that has been accorded to them by the tribute of a united people. Every advance that we have made under their administration has, received with glowing emphasis and regardless of party lines, the grateful recognition and acknowledgment of our countrymen. The whole danger that exists with us today is in attempting to accomplish too much, and involve ourselves in cares and controversies that will only distract and complicate us. There must be a limit to our zeal and a boundary line to our aspirations. It is not necessary that every day shall dawn upon some new accomplishment.

Some years ago in this Hall, the Senator from Indiana, Mr. BEVERIDGE, in an address replete with power and eloquence, gave expression to the following sentiment:

We will not renounce our part in the mission of our race-trustee, under God, of the civilization of the world. And we will move forward to our work, not howling our regrets like slaves whipped to their burdens, but with gratitude for a task worthy of our strength, and thanksgiving to Almighty God that He has marked us as His chosen people, henceforth to lead in the regeneration of the world.

No member of this body is imbued with deeper religious convictions than I am, but I do not believe in this doctrine that we are trustees under God of the civilization of the world. The Senator from Indiana will find no such decree as this enrolled in the chancery of heaven. When the time arrives, which I hope may be far distant, and he has passed through the eternal gates, he will search in vain for such a document as this among the archives of the celestial regions. If we are trustees, under what instrument do we hold? We are not a judicial trustee. We may, perhaps, be a constructive trustee, de son tort. One thing is sure, we are not a conventional trustee. Search the Constitution, the origin of the grant, and the Magna Charta of our title, and you fail to find in any one

of its provisions a justification for the exercise of such an authority. It is just this unfortunate confusion between the power of the individual and the power of the Government that has cast upon us, the onerous burdens that we now assume. This Government is not a foreign missionary society or an insitution for the feeble-minded, and however commendable the efforts of individuals may be in this direction, this Government as a government has no such functions to perform. This is our whole trouble. You start from a false premise, and then you conclude that it is our duty as a trustee to march around the outposts of civilization, to patrol the waters of the world, and wherever we can find a feeble or degenerate race to claim them as our cestuis que trust, to appropriate their possessions and then, jure divino, as the chosen people of God, impose upon them our sovereignty. My heart goes out with thrilling love and sympathy for all those self-sacrificing souls who are spreading the solace and comforts of religion in foreign lands, who, courting danger and affliction, have gathered around the emblems of their faith the forsaken children of mankind, and upon every path of human suffering have ministered to the agonies of despair; but I can never acquiesce in the proposition that this is a governmental function, and that it is our duty to deprive a single race on earth, no matter how depraved and degenerate it may be, either in the interest of religion or civilization, of the slightest fragment of its possessions or the slightest vestige of its liberty.

I am with the slave in every darkened corner of the globe where he is struggling to be free, and I hope the day will come when every government that is built upon the bowed bodies of its subjects may disintegrate, and that upon its ruins republican institutions may arise. Let me say to you, however, Mr. President, as deeply as I love my country, with all the devotion I would lay upon her altars, with a fervid reverence for her flag wherever its colors greet the eye, I would rather see that

flag lowered and trampled upon than used as a pirate's ensign, and raised, not as an emblem of honor, but as an instrument of terror and oppression to the helpless and enfeebled races of mankind.

AMENDING THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.

During the long debate in the first session of the Fifty-ninth Congress upon a bill regulating railroad rates, Senator Rayner on May 11, 1906, contended that orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission should not be set aside by the courts unless it could be shown that the Constitution was violated.

This raises the distinction between what has been called the broad and the narrow review. If I may be permitted to say so, I think both those words are misnomers and that the proper names are "the constitutional" and "the statutory review;" the statutory review, of course, always including the constitutional review.

I am in favor of the constitutional review. The review that the President of the United States has submitted to us is the broadest sort of statutory review; and I think, as I shall presently try to demonstrate, that whatever may be the result of the vote upon this amendment, this distinction ought plainly to get into the Record, so that we may all know how to vote upon it, and that the people may understand the distinction.

I wish very much that the President of the United Statesand I say it with great respect and deference-had not interfered in this legislation, but had permitted us to settle this case right here in this body, where the responsibility devolves. I do not say, Mr. President, that anyone has set a trap for the President of the United States. I would not make a declaration of that kind upon this floor. But I do say, and I say it again with the greatest respect and deference to the President,

that the President, unfortunately, is so constituted that he can not look at a trap without fooling with the spring. Last week, after he was caught in this trap for a day or so, in some way or other he worked his way out of it, and then he kept on looking at it and walking around it and walking in and out of it until he was caught beyond all hope of escape. Now his party friends and his party enemies are vying with each other as to which one of them can get in first and participate with him in his gratuitous captivity.

A few weeks ago- four or five or six weeks ago-he sent to us as his envoy extraordinary the Senator from Kansas, Mr. LONG, and he intrusted to him the mission of a constitutional review. Last Friday, without notifying the Senator from Kansas that his credentials had been revoked, he appointed in his place, a minister plenipotentiary, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. ALLISON, with the mission of a broad statutory review. Now, I understand perfectly well that the Senator from Iowa did not seek this appointment. I am informed that he was peacefully reposing in nocturnal innocence when this appointment was made, and when these mighty honors and this distinguished servitude were thrust upon him. At any rate, we have two reviews sent here by the President-the one in the hands of the Senator from Kansas, and the other in the hands of the Senator from Iowa-and each of them in deadly conflict with the other.

I say here, in passing, that each of these ministers is equally well accredited. The certificate of the Senator from Kansas had the impress of the royal authority, and the testimonials of the distinguished Senator from Iowa not only bear the imperial seal, but they are authenticated in a manner that ought to give them absolute authenticity by the coat of arms of the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. ALDRICH.

Mr. President, we understand what all this means here, but the people do not understand it. We understand that the

President is no longer caressing the junior Senator from Iowa, Mr. DOLLIVER, as the Senator from Kansas, but that he has trasferred his affections and is now clasping to his bosom, with the fondest and most fervent devotion, the senior Senator from Rhode Island.

The President tells us that these two reviews which he has sent in here are one and the same thing, but, Mr. President, they are as widely different as it is possible for two divergent propositions to be. The one is the review under the Constitution, which you can not eliminate without invalidating your law. The other is the broad statutory review, which permits the courts to try the cases de novo and in the same manner as if no such body as the Interstate Commerce Commission had ever existed upon the face of the earth.

The one, the review of the Senator from Kansas, confines the court within a given compass-the compass of the Constitution. The other extends to the utmost limits of their jurisdiction. The one leaves the rate-making power with the Commission. The other, as I shall presently show, transfers the whole controversy to the court and renders the Commission absolutely impotent and powerless to accomplish the object and purposes of its creation.

Let us see whether I am right or not. I will guarantee to any probationer or apprentice in his profession, if this review passes and he will take this case into court, I will stand surety and sponsor for him that the courts, without hesitation, will decide that they have a right to try the whole case from its inception to its completion as if no proceeding whatever had taken place under it.

What is this review? The original Hepburn bill gives the venue. Giving the court the venue does not give it jurisdiction.

I say, therefore, Mr. President, when you give the full venue