the minority party during his entire service in the Senate, he had a powerful influence upon the foreign policies of three administrations. His review of the limitations upon the treaty-making power under the Constitution, for instance, was one of the most profound arguments the Senate ever listened to upon this subject. His definition of the scope and meaning of the Monroe Doctrine was another monument to his ability as a practical intepreter of international law and a student of its historical bearing. His appeal to the Senate for the termination of the Russian Treaty was answered by an overwhelming vote in favor of abrogation. His denunciation of the administration's policy toward Santo Domingo resulted in an instant reversal of that policy and a special message of apology from President Roosevelt.

But throughout his whole career, from first to last, this Marylander was an apostle of peace. He preached it in season and out. He called upon the United States to take the lead among the nations of the earth for the arbitration of international disputes. He supported every step in this direction, whether it originated in Congress or out of it. To him, war, as a means of settling controversies between governments, was nothing more or less than a return to barbarism. He could see no sense or sanity in the human sacrifices it entailed or the misery and desolation that followed in its wake. To him, war was simply organized and legalized murder, though "clad in martial pomp." It was brutal savagery, though exalted in history and glorified in tradition. And he verily believed that the time was approaching when war would be banished from the earth and "cease to be a mockery of religion's holiest offices, and a defiance of the Providence of God."

Another article of Senator Rayner's faith was, respect for the duly constituted courts and a deference to their judgments. No man in public life in his day was more zealous in his defence of the judiciary. No man stood oftener between it

and that distrust, encouraged by those who sought by insiduous means to subordinate the processes of justice to political expediency. No man fought harder to protect these tribunals from every influence tending to prostitute their machinery by making it responsive to public clamor. He believed that the courts were a bulwark, which once broken down, would mean the end of constitutional government. He did not believe them to be infallible, but he did believe that their functions should be inviolate and that any interference with them from the Executive or from Congress was a crime against the people whose rights and property were in their keeping.

Twice during Senator Rayner's service in the Senate, Congress faced the tariff issue. Twice during that period the citadel of protection was stormed and twice the assault was repulsed. The day was approaching when this structure was to crumble and fall, but it had not then arrived. In all the debates upon this the greatest of all economic questions, however, Senator Rayner stood firmly against a protective tariff, the effect or purpose of which was the prohibition of competition of foreign goods. He did not believe that Congress had any authority to levy an impost tax that was prohibitive. A duty to be constitutional, under the taxing power of Congress, according to his judgment, must be assessed for revenue only and could not be assessed for the primary purpose of aiding home industry. This was, of course, pure Democratic doctrine, a doctrine that has since been supported by an overwhelming vote of the people.

Senator Rayner took a stand upon every great national issue that arose during the period of his public service. And when he assumed a position he defended it with a vigor and a resourcefulness that even early in his career marked him as a man of uncommon promise. Henry Watterson was present at the first speech this Marylander ever made in Congress, and in

his report of this circumstance, he ventured a prophesy worthy of one inspired. In this review of the Rayner speech he said:

"If I were asked to select the member of the 50th Congress of the most marked intellectual force, I would, without hesitation, immediately name the Honorable Isidor Rayner, of Maryland. He is as profound and as brilliant as Judah P. Benjamin, and, as an orator, has no superior in the Senate or the House of Representatives. His speech yesterday on the Bill against Trusts captivated the House and took the galleries by storm. It compares favorably with anything that has been delivered in Congress since the days of the giants of the Augustine Age. It was argument and learning, and eloquence combined with satire, and when it was delivered the most noisy body in the world became hushed. The members of the House, including Mr. Reed, leader of the Republicans, crowded about him. The spectators in the galleries leaned over in their seats, not to lose a word, and when he closed it was a perfectly useless task of the Speaker to control the applause that came from both sides of the House and the galleries."

From that day until his death this Marylander ranked foremost among the public speakers of the last two decades. And it is not too much to say that in the sweep of his oratory, he combined the eloquence of a Sunset Cox with the logic of a Henry Wirt; the fire of a Henry Winter Davis with the force of a Reverdy Johnson; the brilliance of a Bourke Cochran with the beauty of a Robert L. Taylor. Such was the expanse of his genius. Often his speeches were luxuriant in their phrasing. Oftener though, this quality, this intensity, was sacrificed to cold, hard reasoning. Senator Rayner wanted to be more than merely eloquent. He wanted to be effective.

He first leaped into national fame by his masterly defence of Rear Admiral Schley, when the hero of Santiago was fighting desperately before the naval Court of Inquiry to clear his record. He electrified the whole country by his demand that

justice be done that gallant commander. And the popular response was as much a tribute to his eloquence as it was a vindication of his cause. By a singular circumstance Mr. Rayner's last addresses upon the floor of the Senate was an appeal for an increased pension for the widow of the brave officer in behalf of whose honor he had plead twelve years before.

But Isidor Rayner has passed. This faithful tribune, this valiant defender of the Constitution, this fearless fighter of executive aggression, this strong right arm of his party has gone forever. He did not live to see the fruition of that party's hopes. He died just as a triumphant Democracy came into power in every branch of the government, just as the principles and policies for which he had contended were being given a vote of approval and confidence by the country. Had he lived he would have become one of the ablest spokesmen of the new order. He would have done his part in carrying into effect the pledges which had swept his party into power. "The sun has made a glorious setting."

He had

These were the last words of Isidor Rayner. And a glorious setting it was. He had fulfilled his mission. He had kept the faith.

fought a good fight.

J. FRED'K ESSARY,

Washington, D. C.

CLOSING ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SCHLEY

COURT OF INQUIRY.

It was this eloquent appeal for justice to the hero of the Battle of Santiago that first introduced Isidor Rayner to the country as one of the ablest advocates at the American bar. This argument occupied two days, and it has been practicable to include only the peroration in this volume.

Now, may it please the court, I have finished. I want to say that I have now briefly presented this case as it appears to me in its general outline. Such a trial as this has never, to my knowledge, taken place in the history of the world. It seemed to my mind that this case had hardly opened with the testimony of Captain Higginson before it commenced to totter, and from day to day its visionary fabric has dissolved from view. When Captain Cook, their last witness, was put upon the stand, the entire structure collapsed, and now, after the witnesses from our own ships, and the gallant captain and crew of the Oregon, and Admiral Schley, have narrated their unvarnished tale, the whole tenement, with all its compartments, from its foundation to its turret, has disintegrated and lies like a mass of blackened ruins.

It has taken three years to reveal the truth. There is not a single word that has fallen from the tongue of a single witness, friend or foe, that casts a shadow of reflection upon the honored name of the hero of Santiago. He has never claimed the glory of that day. Let it be known, he has never claimed the glory of that day. No word to this effect has ever gone forth from him to the American people. The valiant Cook, the heroic Clark, the lamented Philip, the intrepid and undaunted Wainwright, and all the other captains, and every man at every gun, and every soul on board of every ship are equal participants with Admiral Schley in the honor wrought upon that immortal day. We can not strike his figure down standing upon