"Wise legislation," declared Roosevelt in seconding McKinley's nomination at the Republican convention in Philadelphia during June, 1900, "is vitally important, but honest administration is even more important." 1 The importance which he gave to administration is apparent from his action during the time that he was President. Believing that a bad colonel makes a bad regiment, he was particular in getting efficiency at the head of departments and in other places where the master gave the cue to his subordinates. He knew McKinley to be a good judge of men and Roosevelt was not of the sort who believed so thoroughly in his own selections that he could not accept those of others. He would take a good man wherever he found him. Root, Hay, Knox and Governor Taft were all chosen by McKinley, yet they became trusted counsellors of Roosevelt. On September 17 he asked all of the members of the Cabinet to remain in office, which they consented to do."

"It is a dreadful thing," he wrote to his friend Senator Lodge, "to come into the Presidency in this way; but it would be a far worse thing to be morbid about it. Here is the task and I have got to do it to the best of my ability, and that is all there is about it."

Continuing "absolutely unbroken the policy of President McKinley" was not the same as continuing the heads of the departments. That Roosevelt meant exactly what he said when he took the oath of office is undoubted, but what he promised was entirely impossible.

1 Official Proceedings, 118.

2 The reasons for the retirement of Gage, Smith and Long are given by Leupp, The Man Roosevelt, 73 et seq.

• Bishop, i. 151.

I am, he said, temperamentally more like Cleveland than like McKinley. The legacy which McKinley left to his countrymen in his Buffalo speech was to revise the tariff in the direction of lower duties by means of reciprocity treaties. And there is no doubt that Roosevelt balanced the policy of attacking the tariff first instead of attacking the trusts. Not that he believed that the tariff was the mother of all trusts but he wrote, "As regards political economy I was of course while in college taught the laissez-faire doctrines - one of them being free tradethen accepted as canonical." By extreme tariff men he was not regarded as sound on account of this education, as Harvard College was looked upon as devoted to the doctrine of free trade. Although he felt that he could carry a reduction of duties through Congress such a course would divide his party, while in an attack on the Trusts he could carry his party in Congress with him. Therefore during his administration there was no revision of the tariff 2 but his fight against Big Business was one of his keynotes.

Roosevelt endeavored to carry out faithfully what he had said on the day that he took the oath of office. He wrote a cordial letter to Senator Hanna requesting an early conference and received this reply: "There are many important matters to be considered from a political standpoint and I am sure we will agree upon a proper course to pursue. Meantime 'go slow.' You will be be

Charles G. Washburn, Theodore Roosevelt, 112. Autobiography, 30. 'Charles G. Washburn, Theodore Roosevelt, 114; see Roosevelt's ideas on The Tariff and Trusts. Speech in Cincinnati, Sept. 20, 1902. Roosevelt, His Life Meaning and Messages, The Current Lit. Pub. Co., 1919, 82.

sieged from all sides and I fear in some cases will get the wrong impression. Hear them all patiently but reserve your decision." 1

McKinley's inheritors did not like the position which Roosevelt took towards the large financial interests of the country. He touched upon the subject in his first Annual Message and submitted what he said to Senator Hanna, receiving the advice not to give it so much prominence, but this suggestion he disregarded. His action ought not to have been a surprise to those who had followed his course while Governor of New York and had rated correctly his many public utterances. Nevertheless the announcement of it in the merger of two competing railroads into the Northern Securities Company caused a shock to the financial world.

The Northern Pacific and Great Northern railroads ran from Lake Superior to Puget Sound on the Pacific coast, and on through traffic were competing lines; but for a number of years their relations had been altogether friendly. Both desired a terminal in Chicago which should connect with their St. Paul-Minneapolis lines, and after much discussion and negotiation acquired the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy. James J. Hill, as honest a man as ever lived, whose career from early poverty to superfluous wealth was noted for the confidence other men reposed in him, may be said to be the hero of the merger of the three railroads. He formed a company

1 Oct. 12, 1901. Bishop, i. 154. One cannot fail to be reminded of Polonius's advice to Laertes:

"Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice:

Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment." Hamlet, Act i., Sc. 1. * Bishop, i. 159.

called the Northern Securities which was to own the C., B. and Q. property as well as that of the other two. This was a holding company whose officers should manage the three railroads and divide the dividends among the stockholders of the Northern Pacific and Great Northern; the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy stockholders were paid by joint bonds of the two purchasing railroads. Hill's idea in making the merger was for the sake of no vulgar profit but to render the stock of the Northern Securities Company an investment to men and their heirs who would have a greater protection in the event of the death of those now in control. Hill and his attorneys studied the precedents, laws and regulations and especially the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Knight case, arriving at the conclusion that the Anti. Trust Act of 1890 did not apply to such a merger; they went forward therefore with their plans. And if James J. Hill could have left men who would carry on business as he had carried it on, the merger could not be said to interfere with the public good.

But he had to reckon with Theodore Roosevelt, who was antagonistic to the operations of large financiers and believed that it was incumbent on him as President to protect the public against their operations. While Roosevelt liked Hill, he did not consider J. Pierpont Morgan, who was an active coadjutor with Hill in this enterprise, a good financial adviser. When Morgan heard of the President's opposition to the merger he went to Washington and said to him, "If we have done anything wrong send your man (meaning Attorney-General Knox) to my man (naming one of his lawyers) and they can fix it up." "That can't be done," said the President.

"We don't want to fix it up," added Knox who assisted at this interview, "we want to stop it." Morgan inquired, "Are you going to attack my other interests, the Steel Trust and the others?" "Certainly not," replied the President, "unless we find out that in any case they have done something that we regard as wrong." When Morgan went away Roosevelt expressed his opinion, saying to Knox: "That is a most illuminating illustration of the Wall Street point of view. Mr. Morgan could not help regarding me as a big rival operator, who either intended to ruin all his interests or else could be induced to come to an agreement to ruin none." 1 Roosevelt considered Hill a good financial adviser but said that he had to be on the watch that Hill, in giving him counsel, had not an eye to his own interest. Still Roosevelt appreciated a man who from nothing had amassed a fortune of sixty millions, although he did not rate as the highest ability the acquiring of wealth in this country of enormous resources. His heroes were drawn from another class.

It is interesting to note the conflict between these two honest men. Roosevelt requested an opinion from Attorney-General Knox, who on February 19, 1902, authorized the publication of the following statement: "Sometime ago the President requested an opinion as to the legality of this merger, and I have recently given him one to the effect that, in my judgment, it violates the provisions of the Sherman Act of 1890 (the Anti-Trust Act), whereupon he directed that suitable action should be taken to have the question judicially determined." 2

1 Bishop, i. 185.

Meyer, History of the Northern Securities Case. Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, No. 142, 258.