of the distinguished and able statesmen of this country who have considered this question fully. The former Congress, two Presidents of the United States, and really three now, in his first view of it, have favored the present law. The people of the country have favored it. The proposition now is to reverse and overrule the former action, and it seems to me clearly that the burden of showing the propriety of doing so rests upon those who ask that that action be taken. I think it fair to those that they be allowed full hearings. I would be glad to have Mr. Bryan appear before the committee and give us his reasons for supporting this measure, or any other gentleman who entertains views along those lines.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you think that Mr. Bryan would also be glad?

Senator SHIELDS. I would leave that entirely to him. I think, in accordance with his usual courage in expressing his views and his ability in doing so, he would be glad of the opportunity. And I would be delighted to hear from Judge Taft upon this question. I consider him one of the ablest and purest men in this country, and one of the greatest jurists. He has had decided opinions upon this question. I would add to that Secretary Knox, and I would be glad to hear from Mr. Olney on the subject. He is one of the greatest lawyers we have in this Nation, and has views upon this subject. Senator THOMAS. I suppose ex-President Roosevelt will not return from his trip in order to be heard.

Senator BORAH. He will likely be heard from, however.
Senator THOMAS. Yes; but not before the committee.

Senator WALSH. I am going to object, so far as I am concerned, to the prosecution of the inquiries along those lines. I do not believe that this is quite the forum for men to argue this matter upon facts which the world knows. I think the inquiry here ought to elicit facts, to inform ourselves about the facts of the case.

Senator SHIELDS. If the Senator will pardon me, some of the gentlemen whom I have suggested are gentlemen who know more about the facts relating to the treaty and to the causes now for changing the policy of this Government than any other men in this country, and it was with reference to those facts that I suggested we hear them, and not upon any general argument or opinions. We are going to form our own opinions when we hear all the facts and the reasons for making this change.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Does not the Senator from Tennessee, if that is what he wants, think he can get that better from the man who is responsible for bringing this subject up now, the President, and find out what all the circumstances are?

Senator SHIELDS. That might be so, but that has not been the custom of this country. The President is a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect for his judgment and opinions, but I have always more respect for any man's opinions when I hear the facts upon which he bases them and the reasons which he gives to support them.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The assertions which the President made in his message to Congress were based upon some facts, I assume, which he has not revealed. I did not know but what it would be pertinent to get those facts.

Senator SHIELDS. It is not customary for the President to appear before a committee, and I would not suggest such a thing.

Senator BRANDEGEE. No; but I did not know but what you might invite him, in the language of the chairman, it being suggested that we invite certain distinguished gentlemen to come here.

Senator BORAH. I was going to remark that we do not want to initiate this hearing by a ridiculous preamble. The President of the United States is not going to come before this committee, and it should not be thrown out to the country that we have any intention of inviting him here.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I should be very glad to hear him.

Senator SIMMONS. Is there any precedent in the history of this Government for calling the Secretary of State before a committee dealing with an economic question or any other question?

The CHAIRMAN. It is not an infrequent occurrence for the Secretary of State to appear before our committees.

Senator SIMMONS. Is there any precedent in the history of this country for calling the Secretary of State before a committee, inquiring of him, and entering into a discussion of our foreign relations?

The CHAIRMAN. The present Secretary of State has visited our Committee on Foreign Affairs perhaps half a dozen times during the year.

Senator SIMMONS. As a committee dealing with foreign affairs, though.

The CHAIRMAN. Incidentally, however, in considering this legislation there must be a consideration of foreign affairs.

Senator SHIELDS. There is no suggestion to call on or compel any of these gentlemen to appear, but to express our wish to hear from them upon these subjects. The Senator speaks of Mr. Bryan. I do not wish to compel him to appear. It would be far from any man in the Senate, I apprehend, to have anything divulged that would militate against the public interest, or even put him in a position to say that to express his views on it would have that effect. But I do not understand that he has been averse to giving his views to Senators upon this subject.

Senator SIMMONS. I am not advised, Senator Shields, as to Mr. Bryan's attitude about the matter. I just made an observation.

Senator SHIELDS. It was in no sense either a criticism or an assault upon Mr. Bryan, but with a view of getting light from the sources where I thought it could be obtained, that we might act with deliberation and with judgment upon these matters. As I said, I do not consider that we are here to discharge just a perfunctory duty-either to report favorably or unfavorably on this bill-but I favor the hearings. The matter is entirely new to me. I was not in the Senate when the former hearings were had. I agrée fully with Senator Walsh that the matter he referred to is a most important matter, and, as I understand, it was not considered before. The question which is being largely urged here is the question of subsidies, and I understand a new one even since the message of the President. I should like to know very much whether there is a shipping trust or whether it is attempting to affect this Congress. So far as I am personally concerned I have heard nothing upon the subject from any trust or anyone against a trust.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Mr. Chairman, can we not take up, later on, the particular witnesses we are going to request to appear? I thought the leading motive of these hearings was that we were going to grant the request of some people who wanted them.

Senator SHIELDS. I wish to correct that impression. I did not make a motion to request any particular witnesses. There was just a suggestion of the general policy to be pursued by the committee, and it was along those lines that I was making suggestions, but not a motion to ask anyone.

Senator BRANDEGEE. My idea is this-and I may be wrong about it: The chances are the distinguished gentlemen who have various views on the different sides of this question will request to be heard themselves. We might start in with a hearing from the authors of these proposed bills and see what develops.

Senator SHIELDS. I will make a motion that we hear from the authors of these bills.

The CHAIRMAN. And that they be invited to attend the meeting of this committee on Thursday of this week-as a part of your motion, I presume?

Senator SHIELDS. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. When I came into the committee room the chairman was reading a lot of telegrams from various and sundry people who were asking to be heard by the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. I think the people who want to be heard before the committee should be given the opportunity during these 15 days. It may be if the committee wants especially to hear some other person that it would ask him to come. But I hope the hearings will not degenerate into an inquisitorial proceeding with the Government as the defendant in the proceeding.

Senator SHIELDS. Senator, if that refers to my suggestion, you are entirely mistaken. I have no hostility, but on the contrary my feelings toward the Government, as everybody ought to know, and you know, are entirely different.

Senator SIMMONS. I meant no reflection on the Senator.

Senator SHIELDS. I am not suggesting any inquisitorial proceedings in this consideration, and I would oppose that under any circumstances.

Senator SIMMONS. The Senator singled out all the high officials of the Government and several of the officials of the late administrations. Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but I do not see that we are going to make any headway in inviting the authors of these several bills here. I thought we were particularly here for the purpose of considering the House bill. Of course, these other bills are before the committee, but I thought the bill we are now going to consider was the House bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, before you came into the meeting a calendar was read here which contained about six or seven bills for the consideration of this committee, one of which happened to be the House bill. I presume every Senator who introduced a bill here thinks it just as important to have his bill considered as to consider the House bill.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I have no earthly objection to them being heard if they want to be heard.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Senator Owen, who is a member of this committee, has introduced a duplicate of the House bill, which is here, and will be one of the bills which we will take up.

Senator SIMMONS. The House bill probably takes the place of Senator Owen's bill. He introduced that bill before the House bill came over. It is identical, as I understand, with the House bill. Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Simmons, if you will pardon me, I should like to call your attention to this circumstance at this time: The citizens who have asked the committee to give them a hearing come from the remote sections of the country, from the Pacific coast, and from Louisiana, which perhaps is not so remote. It is not likely that any of those witnesses, in response to our invitation, will be able to attend here before the early part of next week. In the meanwhile we can probably employ our time profitably in hearing the views of the authors of these various bills, and in examining such witnesses near by as are available, either with respect to the economic phases of this question, or possibly the diplomatic relations in which it is said we are more or less involved.

Senator SIMMONS. The Chairman does not understand me as being at all opposed to hearing right away such near-by witnesses as can get here on the 9th, does he? Neither am I objecting to any Senator or Representative who has introduced a bill coming before this committee if he wants to, and making a statement. But I do think that to invite six or seven gentlemen to come here and make statements means that we will have several days or a week of oratory here from various gentlemen who have introduced these bills. I believe in the last analysis the real bill that we are going to consider is the House bill and not these other bills.

Senator BRISTOW. If I may suggest, Mr. Chairman, in the hearings on the currency measure we found that sometimes these gentlemen at a distance could not arrange their affairs to meet our convenience. Then we would take a day where we were short of witnesses and hear a member of the House or the Senate. Why not wire these parties who have asked to be heard and invite them to come, and then when you hear from them as to when they can come, getting them here as early as we can, have some Representative or Senator occupy the time which they do not occupy? A Representative or Senator who is here all the time can occupy a day or so when it might not be convenient for the other witnesses to be here.

Senator SHIELDS. My suggestion was that we get the issue before us by hearing the authors of these bills first. I want to state my views about these hearings. I do not want to hear any oratory, and I think it would be good policy for the chairman, in regard to all these gentlemen, to state that we want a clear, succint, concise statement of the reasons for their bills, and nothing else. And I also believe that such a statement should be made to these various parties who desire a hearing, from the Pacific coast, from New Orleans, and other cities. I do not think that because we have allowed 15 days that we ought to consume it. I am in favor, if possible, of getting it done in even less than the 15 days. I think if the chairman would exercise about the same practice as procedure that he did on the bench he would do it in less than 15 days. That is, if he would confine the

witnesses to the issues, and confine the questions of members to the issues.

Senator BORAH. The chairman perhaps will not have as much trouble with the witnesses as he will with members of the committee. Senator SHIELDS. He could make some very good suggestions to members of the committee, and I am in favor of disposing of this matter as expeditiously as possible, as it is an important matter.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senate meets in three minutes. If there is no objection we will now adjourn until Thursday at half past 10, at a room in the Capitol to which the attention of the committee will be called later.

Senator SHIELDS. Mr. Chairman, did you put that motion that we hear those men in opposition to the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. If there is no objection to it, that is the ruling of the committee.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned until Thursday, April 9, 1914, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)