ページの画像
PDF
ePub

of it on the principle that the President might do, not only what the Constitution authorized but what it did not distinctly forbid. Finally, during the spring of 1907, the Senate ratified the Treaty. In a speech to the Harvard Union Roosevelt gave a true tale of the affair: "The arrangement has gone on for two years now, while the coördinate branch of the Government discussed whether or not I had usurped power in the matter, and finally concluded I had not and ratified the Treaty. Of the fifty-five per cent we have been able to put two and a half millions towards paying their debts; and with the forty-five per cent that we collected for them, they have received more money than they ever got when they collected one hundred per cent themselves; and the island has prospered as never before." 1

In diplomatic action, Roosevelt had an opportunity to show the true magnanimity of his soul. As a result of the Boxer rebellion of 1900, China had agreed to pay to the United States nearly 24 and a half million dollars as an indemnity for this action endangering American lives and property. It occurred to Dr. Arthur H. Smith, an American missionary residing in China, that the United States might remit a portion of her claim with the understanding that China should use the money, or the income from it, for the purpose of educating young Chinese in American institutions of learning, thereby fostering a spirit which should bear good fruit. Smith came to see Lyman Abbott, who was an intimate friend of the President, and who asked him to set a day for an interview. On the day appointed, early in March, 1906,

1 Bishop, i, 435; Autobiography, 548; President's Messages to the Senate, Feb. 4, 1905. March 6, Review of Reviews Co., ed., iii. 241, 273.

Lyman Abbott was unable to keep the appointment, therefore at Roosevelt's suggestion, Lawrence F., his son, went in his place with Dr. Smith to plead for the remission of a part of the indemnity. Their visit was attended with success. This story is interestingly told by Lawrence F. Abbott who refers for its sequel to the official document.

[ocr errors]

By June 1, 1907, a little over six millions had been paid and on June 15 the Secretary of State, Elihu Root, wrote to the Chinese Minister that he was "authorized by the President to say that . . . at the next session of the Congress he will ask for authority to re-form the agreement with China under which the indemnity is fixed by remitting and cancelling the obligation of China for the payment of all that part of the stipulated indemnity, which is in excess of the sum of $11,655,492.69 and interest at the stipulated rate." This the President did in his Message of December, 1907, and on May 25 following, Congress adopted a joint resolution providing "for the remission of a portion of the Chinese indemnity." While there is no specification in the joint resolution, it was a tacit agreement that the proceeds of the sum remitted were to be used in the education of Chinese in America. As one goes over diplomatic correspondence, in which so much of it seems a game of grab, it is agreeable to read the despatch of Prince Ch'ing to our Min

1 This is the amount as stated in Root's letter but as given in the joint resolution and in the President's executive order of Dec. 28, 1908, it is $13,655,492.69 and interest. The difference is explained in the resolution thus: "the sum of two million dollars be reserved from the Chinese indemnity. . . for the payment" of American claims upon the Chinese indemnity which, having been rejected by the U. S. commissioners may be submitted de novo to the court of claims and approved by it, the balance out of the $2,000,000 to be returned to China.

ister in Peking. "I was profoundly impressed," he wrote, "with the justice and great friendliness of the American Government, and wish to express our sincere thanks." At such small cost was the friendship of a great Asiatic country purchased.1

1 Impressions of Roosevelt, Lawrence F. Abbott, 143 et seq.; Doc. 1275, House of Reps., 60th Cong. 2d Sess.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER XIV

"AMERICA had reached the point," so wrote ex-Senator Albert J. Beveridge, "where a transition from an outworn to a modern economic and social order was indispensable. .. For a long time there was no labor congestion first, because there was so much work to be done and secondly, because free land constantly drew people away from industrial centers. . . . Finally this outlet was closed. Free land was all gone." Labor troubles came. There was a "general unrest among the masses of the people." Then Theodore Roosevelt became President, tackled the question and, according to Beveridge, constituted "The Roosevelt Period." 1

..

Roosevelt appreciated fully the task. "At this moment," he said, "we are passing through a period of great unrest social, political and industrial unrest." The railroads were the largest aggregate of capital representing fourteen and a half billions of dollars, and were the most salient object of attack by the reformer. For on the old theory, they were built on the King's highway and were subject to the State. But admitting this, with a power of generalization the envy of all, Senator Lodge said, "It is the railroads which have made the rapid yet solid development of the United States possible"; they are a great "proof of the energy and intelligence of the Amer

1 Sat. Eve. Post, Apr. 5, 1919, 10.
Apr. 14, Review of Reviews, ed., 718.

1

ican people." The railroad rate legislation of 1905 and 1906 was "stimulated by the aggressiveness of the Executive," and it is a proper classification to call it Roosevelt's work, although by the progress of events he was led to a more radical stand than he at first proposed. On December 6, 1904, in his Annual Message to Congress he said, "While I am of the opinion that at present it would be undesirable, if it were not impracticable, finally to clothe the Interstate Commerce Commission with general authority to fix railroad rates, I do believe that, as a fair security to shippers, the Commission should be vested with the power, where a given rate has been challenged and after full hearing found to be unreasonable, to decide, subject to judicial review, what shall be a reasonable rate to take its place; the ruling of the Commission to take effect immediately, and to obtain unless and until it is reversed by the court of review." 3

But the House of Representatives was more radical than the President and by a very large majority passed a bill on the principle, "Resolved, That we don't like railroads and wish we knew some way to bang 'em good." 4 This is known as the Hepburn bill fathered by William P. Hepburn, a representative from Iowa, and passed the House on February 9, 1905. There the matter rested, as it was the short session of Congress, expiring March 4, 1905; therefore the Senate and the country had the opportunity to look at the question on all sides.

Roosevelt held to his original position. "My proposal," he wrote in his Message to Congress of December 5, 1905, "is not to give The Interstate Commerce Commission

1 Feb. 12, 1906, Record, 2415. Review of Reviews, ed., iii. 134.

2 Washburn's Roosevelt, 129.
The Nation, Feb. 16, 1905, 126.

« 前へ次へ »