-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 Chicago LCCN 64-21838 --[10b]-- 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 Senate!" 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 matter. 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 Beveridge. 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 committee. 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 Senate. 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. pps.9-50 --[cont]-- Aloha, He'Ping, Om, Shalom, Salaam. Em Hotep, Peace Be, Omnia Bona Bonis, All My Relations. Adieu, Adios, Aloha. Amen. Roads End Kris DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== 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: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
