-Caveat Lector-

an excerpt from:
The Treason of the Senate
David Graham Phillips
Intruoduction by
George E. Mowry & Judson A Grenier©1964 All Rights Reserved
Quadrangle Books
180 North Wacker Drive
LCCN 64-21838

The meetings of the Gridiron Club of Washington newsmen and correspondents
were a capital tradition, attended by most important government officials,
including the President. Sessions were informal and off the record, and
reporters felt as free to lampoon the politicians as they to ridicule the
press. Chauncey Depew bad addressed the first dinner of the Gridiron Club-its
organizational meeting-and often since had been its guest. Roosevelt could
expect a sympathetic audience there for a defense of Depew, and his
opportunity arose when House Speaker Joseph Cannon gave a dinner for the club
on March 17, 1906. The President spoke off-the-cuff and without notes of "the
man .vith the muckrake" who makes slanderous assaults on public officials.
Although he had originally intended to mention Phillips by name, be was
dissuaded by Senator Root from giving the author further notoriety. The
"muckrake" allusion, though not original with Roosevelt, immediately caught
on, and, if the speech was meant to be a trial balloon, it was a success. The
following day, Roosevelt told Steffens that he had spoken "to comfort Depew,"
but, ever sensitive to wider political potentialities, the President
determined to expand his remarks for a national audience at the laying of the
cornerstone of the House Office Building on April 14, 1906. Steffens thought
Roosevelt "felt the satiety of the public with muckraking." Ray Stannard
Baker, attempted to deter him from making the speech, on the grounds it would
encourage indiscriminate attack upon exposures "which may prevent the careful
study of modern conditions and the presentation of the facts in a popular
form," but the President insisted that he wanted to make the speech to
prevent such a misunderstanding-he would distinguish between the "light and
air" of responsible publications and the "sewer gas" of Hearst's papers and
magazines. When the speech was delivered, no such distinction was made.

 Roosevelt's muckrake speech is reprinted in the Appendix. In it he combined
"the man with the muckrake" with suggestions for federal inheritance taxes
and controls over corporations. It indicates the familiar Roosevelt technique
of balancing attacks on the left with attacks on the right. It is said that
when he reached the phrase, "Under altered external form we war with the same
tendencies toward evil that were evident in Washington's time . . . " he
waved his band over the heads of the Senators gathered around him, and the
crowd laughed merrily. Actually, the President misused the "muckrake"
allegory he borrowed from John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Traditionally,
the muck of  the barnyard symbolized worldly riches; the muckraker image
would better represent the money-seeker than the truth-seeker. But the name
stuck, permanently affixed not only to Phillips and Hearst but to a
generation of magazine reporters.

The President's speech did not end his concern over the "Treason" series.
Each new article seemed to rekindle his indignation. On May 23, he suggested
to Lorimer, the Post editor, that Phillips had accepted Hearst money in order
"to achieve notoriety." Most of the Senators Phillips attacked, rather than
being "all black" and concerned only with their own pecuniary interests, were
simply normal men. Roosevelt added:

Phillips takes certain facts that are true in themselves, and by ignoring
utterly a very much larger mass of facts that are just as true and just as
important, and by downright perversion of truth both in the way of
misstatement and of omission, succeeds in giving a totally false picture ...
[The articles] give no accurate guide for those who are really anxious to war
against corruption, and they do excite a hysterical and ignorant feeling
against everything existing, good or bad; the kind of hysteria which led to
the ,red fool fury of the Seine' . . ."

On June 18, the President wrote Lyman Abbott that the Cosmopolitan, thanks to
Hearst and Phillips, "is the friend of disorder, less from principle than
from the hope of getting profit out of troubled waters." On August 17, he
told Taft and Cortelyou that "the fact that a thing appears in the
Cosmopolitan is presumptive evidence of its falsehood." On October 25, he
wrote the Englishman John St. Loe Strachey that Hearst "is the most potent
single influence for evil we have in our life."

Although the President seemed to grow angrier as he pondered Phillips's
articles, the suspicion remained that Roosevelt had encouraged attacks on
Congress by using outspoken language about his Senatorial adversaries in
private conversation. After his muckrake speech, some newspapers-such as the
New York World and the New York Post-suggested not only that the President
was a muckraker himself but that some of the very anecdotes about various
Senators originated at his table. A personal experience of Upton Sinclair
confirms this impression; Sinclair, who lunched with Roosevelt in the spring
of 1906, recalls that the President characterized Eugene Hale as "the Senator
from the Shipbuilding Trust ... The most innately and essentially malevolent
scoundrel that God Almighty ever put on earth." On another occasion,
Roosevelt wrote Steffens that Senator Bailey's leadership showed ". . . an
eagerness to sacrifice the interests of the public to the favored interests
of a faction . . ." This sort of language was not far removed from that used
by Phillips.

The United States Senate, loath to dignify the "Treason" series by direct
defense of itself, generally maintained an attitude of silence toward it.
That the Senators were increasingly sensitive, however, was indicated when
Senator Foraker, assuming that a fellow Senator was questioning his motives,
announced March 14:

I do not want any Senator to insinuate again that I have any interest in any
railroad, or that I am an advocate of any special interest, or that I am
influenced here in my conduct and in my arguments and in my votes by anything
whatever except only a sense of duty.

(Yet 'he was accepting payment from the Standard Oil Company, as Hearst
revealed in 1908 by publishing the so-called "Archbold letters.") On March
22, after publication of the Aldrich article, Senator Lodge rose in the
Senate to denounce reckless attacks upon public men. Lodge said, "Concocting
slanders and heaping together falsehoods for the purpose of selling them is
not a pleasing trade, and when carried on in the name of virtue and reform it
is a peculiarly repulsive one." Such articles, Lodge continued, sought to
gratify envy and were "morally on a very low level." Their real evil lay not
in the extent to which they affect the man attacked, but in the creation of
distrust in our institutions. But virulent attacks on the Senate had occurred
before "checks and balances are rarely popular"—and sober second thought
would vindicate us, Lodge concluded.

No further comments were heard on the floor of the Senate until Senator
Bailey of Texas rose, on June 27, to criticize Hearst and Phillips and to
defend himself against the Cosmopolitan charges. He would not normally answer
such an attack, he said, "But the fact that the publication which contains
the false and offensive matter to which I object is owned by a Member of
Congress seems to take this case out of the general rule and to demand the
answer which I am about to make." His answer was a strange one, compounded of
indignation, self-righteousness, and the realization that he was speaking for
a large number of his listeners who did not attempt (or could not attempt) to
controvert the charges of "Treason." Bailey's speech was not so much a
challenge to the facts contained in the Phillips articles as it was to the
conclusions the author drew from the facts. He claimed that it was fantasy to
believe that "Democratic and Republican Senators are acting together in a
secret agreement ... carried out behind closed doors and in committee rooms."
He also defended his commercial dealings, saying:

I despise those public men who think they must remain poor in order to be
considered honest. I am not one of them. If my constituents want a man who is
willing to go to the poorhouse in his old age in order to stay in the Senate
during his middle age, they will have to find another Senator. I intend to
make every dollar that I can honestly make, without neglecting or interfering
with my public duty . . .

In essence, therefore, Bailey's disagreement with Phillips was moral-what
should constitute the proper standards for public officials-and his
indignation with the "Treason," in addition to the threat it posed to his
political career, resulted from the extent to which it challenged
contemporary political standards in the Senate. (Bailey's arguments are
reprinted in the Appendix.)

No further direct answer to Phillips was made on the floor of the Senate,
although Senator George C. Perkins of California defended the Senate in an
article in the Independent of April 12, 1906. Perkins's attestation was vague
and inconclusive. He wrote that the Senate was fair, impartial, and
truth-seeking, and indicated that he did not believe any Senator sought his
seat for a reward other than the honor of belonging to the "most
distinguished legislative body in the world."

Reaction of the nation's press to "The Treason of the Senate" was mixed, but
on the whole, unfavorable. Conservative newspapers and magazines considered
the articles inflammatory, even revolutionary. Phillips's old paper, the Sun,
editorialized, "Those who seek to undermine that confidence and to destroy
respect are playing with matches in dangerous proximity to a powder
magazine." In The Critic, F. Hopkinson Smith charged Phillips indirectly with
"sowing the seeds of anarchy." Century called periodicals like Cosmopolitan
"the parents of all the vulgarities . . . a danger to American democracy."
Some of the moderate New York newspapers, such as the World and the Post,
treated both "Treason" and the Senate with amusement. Other publications,
such as the Hearst metropolitan press and smaller newspapers further West,
came to the defense of the series, insisting: "The Senate has become an
appendix to the trusts and the protected interests. It represents the people
no longer."

"Treason" troubled most of the other muckraking magazines; they feared that
the series would discredit the entire movement. Hearst publications had a
reputation for leaping aboard reform bandwagons, only to derail them by
insensitivity, sensationalism, and commercialization. One did not uplift
politics, as Ellery Sedgwick moaned in the American, by ". . . two weeks in
Washington and then a general onslaught on the Senators, good, bad,
indifferent." Of all the criticisms of Phillips, that which depressed him
most was the judgment of Collier's editor Norman Hapgood, which appeared on
November 17, 1906:

"The Treason of the Senate" has come to a close. These articles made reform
odious. They represented sensational and money-making preying on the vogue of
the literature of exposure, which had been built up by truthful and
conscientious work . . . Mr. Phillips's articles were one shriek of
accusation based on the distortion of such facts as were printed, and on the
suppression of facts which were essential.

Throughout the appearance of 'Treason," David Graham Phillips bore the brunt
of criticism. The author expected Washington to react sharply and at first
paid little attention to attacks upon himself. His fame and Cosmopolitan's
circulation reached new heights, and he basked in both. Compliments from his
friend, Senator Beveridge, assured him that the articles were not without
effect. Yet Phillips was hurt by Roosevelt's Gridiron Club speech and,
particularly, by the censure from his former colleagues in the press. He
began to receive threatening letters. Some of his judgments were bluepenciled
by the editors. In August, as pressures built up against "Treason," Phillips
wrote Beveridge, I don't mind telling you that I would even make sacrifices
in order to carry the thing to some sort of decent finish. However, I don't
think sacrifices will be necessary, as Mr. Hearst has shown every disposition
to leave me entirely alone." The conclusion of the series, when it came in
November, was abrupt. No summary paragraph of consequence, no
prognostications for the future, standard Phillips devices, were included,
beyond the simple suggestion that until the people woke up to what was going
on, things would be as they were. No novel Phillips wrote ended on such a
flat, anti-climactic note. It is probable that he had grown discouraged;
Charles Edward Russell later wrote that ". . . Phillips could never see the
good that he had wrought and to the end regarded his series as the one
failure of his career." The editorial attack by Hapgood caught him in a
pessimistic mood. The Sunday after it appeared, Russell walked Phillips
around the streets of New York. Russell recalled:

I had an anxious time . . . tr[ying] to comfort and console him under the
blow. He was terribly cut up, but need not have been ... All reformers are
rascals. Good men are always perfectly content with things as they are. . . .
Then the good men, having vindicated their superior virtue and the perfect
state of everything in general, presently proceed in a quiet way to remedy
the evil complained of and to that extent straighten their walk.

Phillips had no worries about libel; he was not sued. Phillips's biographer
assumed that the lack of libel suits attested to the validity of the author's
sources, the truth of his facts, and the strength of his conclusions. But
public figures who were muckraked during the progressive years generally did
not sue. If a story was ignored, people might forget about it, whereas at a
libel hearing a great deal more unfavorable publicity might be brought out.
Most of the muckrakers, to protect themselves against suit, withheld some of
the most damaging information about their subjects. This may have been true
in the case of "Treason"; certainly Hearst had facts in his possession which
he did not turn over to Phillips. In late 1904, be began buying a series of
letters stolen from the papers of John D. Archbold, executive vice president
of the Standard Oil Company, which indicated that Archbold bad manipulated
legislation with the aid of Senators Foraker, Hanna, Penrose, Quay, and
Bailey, among others. These letters would have provided documentary evidence
of Phillips's charges, but they were not revealed by Hearst until the 1908
election campaign.

Many muckraking articles resulted in the passage of reform legislation during
the progressive years. To what extent did "The Treason of the Senate" series
influence the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for direct
election of Senators by the people? The answer is probably little and much.
Though Congress did not act for six years to pass the amendment, "Treason"
did excite wide public discussion and made the issue a dominant one for most
reformers. The editors of Cosmopolitan accompanied Phillips's articles with
editorials and letters to the editor pleading for direct election, probably
to indicate that the magazine was not simply  "raking the muck" but bad a
definite "uplifting" purpose in mind. In June and August, 1906, editorial
introductions by Ernest Crosby suggested that Senators naturally represented
those who chose them. The muckrake had revealed the dirt, Crosby said; now
must come the man with the hose to wash it away—"Let the people elect their

The first resolution providing for direct election was introduced into the
House in 1826, and, in the eighty-five years prior to 1912, was followed by
197 similar resolutions. Of these, six came to a vote in the House; they were
passed by the necessary two-thirds majority in 1893, 1894, 1898, 1900, 1902,
and 1911. The Senate ignored this mandate. Not until February, 1911, was the
matter brought to a vote in the upper house; then it was narrowly defeated.
However, political pressures for Senate action were strong for several years
prior to the appearance of "Treason." Among the parties to advocate such a
measure were the Peoples party, in its platforms of 1892, 1896, 1900, and
1904; the Democratic party, in 1900 and 1904; and the Prohibition party in
1904. Referendums urging direct election were passed by the voters of
California by a 14 to I margin in 1892, of Nevada by 7 to 1 in 1893, and of
Illinois by 6 to 1 in 1902. By 1906, thirty-one state legislatures had
proposed that Congress initiate steps necessary to secure the amendment.

In June, 1896, the Senate committee on privileges and elections strongly
recommended adoption of such an amendment, deploring the fact that ". . . the
tendency of public opinion is to disparage and depreciate its [the Senate's]
usefulness, its integrity, its power," and suggested that the amendent would
revivify its reputation. But the committee's report was ignored and the
resolution pigeonholed. Similar measures were blocked in succeeding years by
the opposition of such Senators as Depew and Penrose. On February 23 and
March 12, 1906, just after the first issue of "Treason" appeared, the Iowa
legislature instructed Governor Cummins to call a national convention on the

On December 4, 1905, early in the first session of the 59th Congress, Hearst
introduced into the House a joint resolution (H.J. Res. 22) providing for
direct election of Senators. Nine similar resolutions were introduced and, as
the publicity for "Treason" mounted, so did pressures upon Congress for
passage of the amendment. The Hearst press, the Arena, and the Independent
were among the publications to link the Phillips series with a call for
direct election. On June 30, 1006, midway through the series, Senator
Gallinger told the Senate that copies of a Senate committee report on direct
election, published by the 57th Congress, had been exhausted in recent
months, and that demand for reprints was heavy. The Senate authorized the
printing of another five thousand.

Though the "Treason" articles may have stimulated public interest in direct
election, the Senate took no action during the 59th Congress. It may well be
that the immediate impact of the articles was negative, for the Senate's
chief concern in public debate seems to have been defensive. Some progressive
Senators, like some progressive editors, assumed that the intemperate nature
of the series gave the enemies of direct election a further weapon in their
formidable arsenal of delay.

Because one-third of the Senate is elected every two years, three elections
are necessary to accomplish a complete turnover. Precisely three Congresses
following the publication of "Treason," the Seventeenth Amendment was passed.
In a special session of Congress convened in April, 1911, the resolution was
introduced into the House by William W. Rucker of Missouri, and into the
Senate by Senators Bristow of Kansas, Culberson of Texas, and Borah of Idaho.
The character of debate in both houses was profoundly different from that of
1906. Many of the speeches rang with phrases out of Phillips:

Senator Owen (Oklahoma), June 1, 1911: "The American people have been very
patient and long-suffering, but the limit of their patience has been reached
by the subservience of the United States Senate to the selfish commercial
interests of this country and the indifference of the Senate to public
opinion . . ."

Senator La Follette (Wisconsin), May 23, 1911: "We complain sometimes here
because we think that the so-called muck-raking magazines . . . present to
the public a distorted and imperfect characterization of the Senate of the
United States. But . . . taken as a whole, this collective editorial judgment
of the Senate is generally in accord with what they deserve."

Representative Adair (Indiana), April 13, 1911: "Wealth, plutocracy and
subserviency to the interests . . . [are] the qualifications necessary for a
Senator . . ."

Similar sentiments were offered by Congressmen Rucker, Underwood (Alabama),
and Kindred (New York), and Senator Chamberlain (Oregon). That the Senate
concurrently was investigating charges that corruption and bribery marred the
election of Senator William Lorimer (Illinois) enlivened the debate and
probably aided adoption of the resolution.

The Rucker resolution passed the House on April 13, 1911, by a vote of 296 to
16, and was reported favorably to the Senate by its Committee on judiciary.
On June 12, the Senate added an amendment which, in effect, retained
Congress's power to supervise elections, and then passed the resolution by a
vote of 64 to 24. Of the Senators attacked in "Treason" who remained in the
Senate in 1911, Bailey, Cullom, Stone, and Nelson voted in favor of the
resolution, Lodge, Penrose, and Crane against. For nearly a year, the
Senate-House conference wrangled over a compromise between the two versions;
finally on May 13, 1912, the House agreed to the Senate version. Three days
later the amendment was proposed to the states; it was declared ratified on
May 31, 1913. Phillips's series was only one of a number of factors
influencing ratification, but it was certain that his articles dramatically
focused attention on the problems of the Senate and stimulated popular
discussion of their solution.

A more immediate result of "Treason" may have been the passage of progressive
legislation stalled in committee. The Pure Food bill, passed by the Senate 63
to 4, became the first Roosevelt proposal "to run the gauntlet of the upper
house to safety," reported Current Literature in April, 1906, after pointing
out that "for a 'treasonable body' . . . the United States Senate has been
behaving very well of late," under the "tonic influence" of the critics. The
Oklahoma statehood bill, the Hepburn bill providing railroad regulation, the
Beveridge meat inspection amendment, a consular reform law, and an employers'
liability act were all passed by the Senate while the beat of public
attention was focused upon it.

It is difficult to evaluate the effect of the series upon the political
careers of the Senators criticized by Phillips, because the exposures of
investigating committees and other muckraking publications also influenced
public estimation of candidates for office. Some Senators involved died in
office, some simply retired. Nevertheless, a considerable turnover resulted,
which contrasts strikingly with the length of time these men had been in
office prior to publication of "Treason." Of the twentyone Senators analyzed
by Phillips, among those who refused to seek re-election or who were defeated
following the Cosmopolitan articles (for one reason or another) were Aldrich,
Burton, Depew, Foraker, Hale, Kean, Platt, and Spooner. Only four of the
twenty-one were present when Congress convened in 1913.

Phillips's career as a successful novelist was abruptly ended by an
assassin's bullet on January 24, 1911, prior to the passage of the
Seventeenth Amendment. He was killed by a member of an old Washington family,
Fitzhugh C. Goldsborough, who mistakenly believed that Phillips bad been
persecuting Goldsborough's sister in his novels. For more than a day, with
Beveridge, Lorimer, Lewis, and Brisbane among the callers at his bedside,
Phillips fought for life, but eventually be succumbed. Shortly before losing
consciousness, be said, "I could have won out against two bullets, but it is
pretty hard against six." The author's gravestone, in Kensico cemetery in New
York, bears the inscription, "Father forgive them, for they know not what
they do."

Phillips's best-known novel, Susan Lenox, Her Fall and Rise, was published
posthumously in Hearst's Magazine from 1915 to 1917. His papers were
dispersed to his family, and eventually, some of the original manuscripts of
his novels passed into the special collections department of the library of
his alma mater, Princeton University. The manuscript of "Treason" was not
publicly acknowledged, but Judson Grenier located a major part of it in an
uncatalogued folder labeled "Special Articles" among the Phillips papers at
Princeton. Like many of his novels, "Treason" was written on a tablet of
yellow copy paper, torn in half; the manuscript is faded and decaying but
clearly displays Phillips's small, scratchy, but neat handwriting. It bears
little evidence of correction; its revisions are largely additions, some
provided by Phillips and some by his editors. The manuscript cannot outlive
the century unless it is in some way preserved.

Professor Louis Filler, probably the most astute observer of the muckrakers
and their times, has written that "Treason" did not receive a contemporary
reprint in book form like many lesser exposes because "It was too desperate a
work, and too dangerous." Phillips's gallery of Senators was therefore
unavailable to history, buried away in Cosmopolitan, and forgotten.
Phillips's intemperate idiom is no longer considered good journalistic style,
but the questions of public morality be raised remain. Direct election
altered but did not purify the Senate.

Although the Senate is no longer as sensitive to the rich man's point of
view, it still is subject to the enticements of those who seek to use public
power for private profit. Charges by contemporary critics that the Senate
suffers from "influencepeddling" and "conflict of interest" are not far
removed from Phillips's complaints about "vested interests" and "entrenched
privilege." When Senators plead for a code of ethics-to prohibit members from
acting as counsel for firms seeking legislation, accepting commissions from
another branch of government, or refusing to make public their sources of
income-they are agitating in the reformist tradition of LaFollette and

Throughout its history, the Senate has continued to play the role for which
it originally was conceived-to represent the states in the federal system,
and, by expressing the attitudes of the wealthy and influential, to provide
checks and balances in the government. Much of the criticism of the Senate,
then as now, stems from the character of its representation. Whenever things
move fast, as they did in the Progressive era and as they do today, the
Senate comes under attack; it is accused of inelasticity, of inability to
respond to rapid social change, of representing a minority of the citizens,
of becoming enmeshed in the rigidity of its own procedures. Yet the
Seventeenth Amendment, combined with modern communication procedures, has
considerably broadened the electorate to which Senators must justify
themselves. Although their ethical standards need be no greater than those of
their constituents, we may hope that Senators resolve that their position
demands exemplary behavior and maintain the highest possible personal
integrity. To aid them and the voting populace in developing increased
political morality, continuing examination of the origins and roots of
political corruption seems justified. If renewed acquaintance with Phillips's
"The Treason of the Senate" strengthens our ability to recognize the sources
of corruption, it should help mitigate their effect.


A Political Directory of the Senators

Named in "The Treason of the Senate"

The following capsule biographies of the men criticized by David Graham
Phillips in "The Treason of the Senate" are provided for reference purposes.
They include each Senator's political affiliation, home state, life span,
years in the Senate, profession, number of terms in Congress, and committee
chairmanships held in 1906. If an individual had no experience in the House
of Representatives, the biography contains his major elective office at the
state level, if any, in order to indicate his political appeal. Much of the
data is excerpted from Biographical Directory of the American Congress,
1774-1949 (Washington, 1950).

NELSON WILMARTH ALDRICH (R, RI), 1841-1915; Senate 1881-1911, not a candidate
for re-election. Merchant. Two terms in House, five in Senate. Chairman,
finance committee.

WILLIAM BOYD ALLISON (R, la), 1829-1908; Senate 1873-1908, nominated in
Senatorial preferential primary for reelection in 1908, but died. Lawyer.
Four terms in House, six in Senate. Chairman, appropriations committee,
steering committee (unofficial).

JOSEPH WELDON BAILEY (D, Tex), 1862-1929; Senate 1901-January 3, 1913, when
he resigned. Lawyer. Five terms in House, two in Senate. Unsuccessful
candidate for governor of Texas in 1920. Acting minority leader.

JOSEPH RALPH BURTON (R, Kans), 1850-1923; Senate 1901-June 4, 1906, when he
resigned. Lawyer. No terms in House, four years in state house of
representatives, one term in Senate.

WINTHROP MURRAY CRANE (R, Mass), 1853-1920; Senate 1904-1913, declined to be
candidate for re-election in 1913. Paper manufacturer. No terms in House, but
terms (two years each) as lieutenant governor and governor of Massachusetts;
one and one-half terms in Senate (appointed after death of Sen. Hoar).

SHELBY MOORE CULLOM (R, 111), 1829-1914; Senate 1883-1913. Lawyer. Three
terms in House, two terms as governor of Illinois, five terms in Senate.
Chairman, foreign relations committee.

CHAUNCEY MITCHELL DEPEW (R, NY), 1834-1928; Senate 1899-1911, unsuccessful
candidate for re-election in 1910. Lawyer. No terms in House, two years in
state assembly, two terms in Senate.

STEPHEN BENTON ELKINS (R, WVa), 1841-1911; Senate 1895-January 4, 1911, when
he died. Lawyer. Two terms as delegate to Congress from territory of New
Mexico, three terms in Senate. Chairman, interstate commerce committee.

CHARLES WARREN FAIRBANKS (R, Ind), 1852-1918; Senate 1897-1905, when he
resigned, having been elected Vice President of the U.S. (1905-1909). Lawyer.
No terms in House, one and one-half in Senate. Presiding officer of Senate at
time of "Treason." Unsuccessful candidate for Vice President (R) in 1916.

JOSEPH BENSON FORAKER (R, Ohio), 1846-1917; Senate 1897-1909, unsuccessful
candidate for re-election in 1909. Lawyer. No terms in House, four years as
governor of Ohio, two terms in Senate.

WILLIAM PIERCE FRYE (R, Me), 1830-1911; Senate 1881-August 8, 1911, when he
died. Lawyer. Six terms in House, six in Senate, though first term only two
years (replaced Blaine) and last shortened by death. President pro tempore of
the Senate. Chairman, commerce committee.

ARTHUR PUE GORMAN (D, Md), 1839-1906; Senate 1881-1899, unsuccessful
candidate for re-election; re-elected 1903-June 4, 1906, when he died.
Businessman. No terms in House, six years in state senate, four terms in
Senate. Minority leader.

EUGENE HALE (R, Me), 1836-1918; Senate 1881-1911, not a candidate for
renomination. Lawyer. Five terms in House, five in Senate (at time of
retirement, Senator with longest continuous service). Chairman, naval affairs

JOHN    KEAN (R, NJ), 1852-1914; Senate, 1899-1911. Banker. Two terms in
House, two in Senate. Chairman, contingent expenses committee.

PHILANDER CHASE KNOX (R, Penn), 1853-1921; Senate 1904-1909, resigned to
become Secretary of State; Senate 1917-October 12, 1921, when he died.
Lawyer. No terms in House, U.S. Attorney General 1901-1904, two terms in

HENRY CABOT LODGE (R, Mass), 1850-1924; Senate 1893-November 9, 1924, when he
died. Lawyer, author, and scholar. Three terms in House, six in Senate.

KNUTE NELSON (R, Minn), 1843-1923; Senate 1895-April 28, 1923, when he died.
Lawyer. Born in Norway, three terms in House, two years as governor of
Minnesota, five terms in Senate.

BOIES PENROSE (R, Penn), 1860-1921; Senate 1897-December 31, 1921, when be
died. Lawyer. No terms in House, eleven years in state senate, five terms in
Senate. Chairman, post offices and post roads committee.

THOMAS COLLIER PLATT (B., NY), 1833-1910; Senate 1881, 1897-1909.
Businessman. Two terms in House, three in Senate, though resigned after two
months of first term in disagreement over patronage.

JOHN    COIT SPOONER (R, Wise), 1843-1919; Senate 1885-1891, 1897-April 30,
1907, when he resigned. Lawyer. No terms in House, one term in state
assembly, three terms in Senate. Chairman, rules committee.

WILLIAM JOEL STONE (D, Mo), 1848-1918; Senate 1903-April 14, 1918, when he
died. Lawyer. Three terms in House, four years as governor of Missouri, three
terms in Senate.

Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Roads End

CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
Archives Available at:

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:


Reply via email to