Lusitania and no offer of reparation has ever been made. These facts, all within public knowledge, prove what I have already said of the indifference of this Administration to the protection of Americans in the first of rights— the right of life-when lawfully beyond our borders, and the rapid shifting of policy in order to meet the varying currents of public opinion in the United States and to avoid doing anything. This case is complete as it stands. "There was, however, one feature which does not affect or modify the essential point, but about which there was much speculation at the time, and that was why Mr. Bryan allowed his name to be appended to a very strong note, couched in the most extreme language possible to diplomacy, and yet resigned so that he need not affix his signature to the very mild note of June 9th, a note which even a man of very strong pacifist tendencies could not have objected to.

"It was currently reported at the time that the reason for this apparently inexplicable action on Mr. Bryan's part was the fact that the first note as finally sent was not the note to which he had appended his signature.

"Within a few days there has come into my possession direct information upon this subject, contained in the following letter which was addressed to Hon. Grafton D. Cushing, who forwarded it to me. The writer, Dr. Charles H. Bailey, professor in the Tufts Medical School, is a gentleman of high standing and undoubted veracity, and his letter is as follows:

'Boston, Mass., Oct. 24, 1916.

"The Hon. Grafton Cushing,

'Massachusetts Chairman of the Hughes 'National College League,

'719 Barristers Hall, Boston, Mass.

'Dear Sir:

'As you requested, I am submitting to you herewith in writing a report of a conversation between ex-Assistant

Secretary of War Breckinridge and myself. Leaving San Francisco on July 15, 1916, I rode from that city as far as Omaha, Neb., with Mr. Breckinridge. During the trip I asked Mr. Breckinridge if he would be willing to answer certain questions with regard to the conduct of our national affairs during his connection with the present administration. Receiving an affirmative reply, I asked him among other things as to the truth of the published report that following the so-called strict accountability note Secretary Bryan had informed Ambassador Dumba that the central powers need not take the note too seriously as it was written for political effect and home consumption only. He said that in all essential details I had stated the matter correctly, which led him of his own accord to tell me the following: This is not, of course, a verbatim report, but simply a brief outline of the story as told me by Mr. Breckinridge.

'He stated that following the completion of the "omit no word or no act" note, to the satisfaction of the cabinet, Mr. Wilson without the knowledge of any member of the cabinet except Secretary Bryan, himself wrote a postscript which he sent with the note to the State Department for codification. Mr. Breckinridge stated that both Mr. Garrison and he had seen this postscript and he told me what he claimed were its exact words, which, however, I cannot repeat exactly, but the substance was that the Imperial German Government was not to put too serious an interpretation on the words "omit no word or act." On the contrary he would be inclined, provided the German government did not see fit to yield to the demands of the United States, to use his efforts toward submitting the whole matter to an impartial international tribunal, the decision to be made only after the war. Both note and postscript were submitted to and signed by Secretary Bryan.

'This, according to Mr. Breckinridge, was too good for Mr. Bryan to keep to himself, with the result that it reached Secretary Garrison's ears, who immediately, with two or three (I do not remember which) other members of the Cabinet, called on Mr. Wilson and demanded that he withdraw the postscript under the threat that otherwise they would resign and make the matter public. Mr.

Wilson immediately yielded and Secretary Garrison and the others left.

'Immediately after this President Wilson summoned Secretary Bryan to the White House and when the latter left President Wilson had the assurance of his resignation; whether at Mr. Wilson's request, because Secretary Bryan had been responsible for the matter reaching Secretary Garrison's ears, or whether presented by Secretary Bryan because there had been a previous understanding between Wilson and Bryan that the latter would sign the note proper only with the understanding that such a nullifying postscript should be sent and the President was now unable to fulfil the agreement, Mr. Breckinridge was unable to state.

'I asked Mr. Breckinridge if he would be willing to bring such knowledge as he possessed to the active support of Mr. Hughes. He said that he was still at heart a Democrat, but that neither he nor any other patriotic American could support Wilson. Whether, however, he would be willing to actively support Hughes, he said that he could not say at that early date.

'With best wishes for the success of your campaign, I am,

'Sincerely yours,

'CHAS. HERVEY BAILEY. "Tufts Medical School, Boston, Mass.'

"This adds nothing to the main facts which, as I have said, are wholly within the public knowledge. It simply throws an additional light on the shifty character of this administration in its foreign policies. It is also of interest in one way, for it shows apparently that Mr. Bryan's reason for resigning was the highly creditable one of objecting to having his signature go out appended to a document differing in an essential point from the one which he had signed.

"It brings out very vividly the point I have been trying to make. It shows the signal failure of this administration to protect American citizens. It shows the writing of one note to meet a rush of public sentiment, the writ

ing of another to gratify one racial group, and of another to gratify another racial group-trying, in the maddened search for votes, to get them by doing the worst of all things in American politics, trying to draw race lines among Americans who ought to have only one allegiance and tradition—the allegiance and tradition of the American Republic."

At the conclusion of my speech Professor Bailey said to the press: "I was present when Senator Lodge made the statement tonight and there is nothing more which I can add, as he quoted directly from my letter to Mr. Cushing. I can only say that Senator Lodge's statement is absolutely correct."

The publication of Dr. Bailey's letter attracted much attention and brought a statement from Mr. Breckinridge in which he denounced Dr. Bailey for repeating the conversation which he had held with an actual stranger on the train, but he neither denied the fact of the conversation nor the essential point in the report of his conversation. It seemed to me necessary, however, in view of the comments in the press and Mr. Breckinridge's statement, to take the matter up again, and at Fitchburg, on Monday, October 30th, I spoke as follows, and gave a letter which I had received from Mr. Jeffries, a gentleman in Boston whose family were well known to me and who had been for some six weeks with Mr. Breckinridge during the previous summer.

"As additional evidence of the truth of what I said at Somerville on Saturday evening about the preparation of a postscript to the Lusitania note I give the following letter which has come to me from Mr. J. T. L. Jeffries of Boston:

'Dear Senator Lodge:

'I have noted in Boston papers your remarks connecting President Wilson with a postscript to one of the socalled Lusitania notes. According to the papers you

state that the effect of this postscript was to vitiate the force of the note, or purposely to inform the Imperial Government that the vigor displayed in earlier parts of the note was designed for Anglo-American consumption solely. According to the press accounts this postscript was added rather surreptitiously and under star-chamber proceedings, and was withdrawn only because the few manly members of the cabinet happened to discover its existence by luck and naturally threatened to turn the government upside down.

'I assure you, sir, I deeply regret being drawn into this affair; but I cannot sit idly by and see you called a liar when I know your statements are true.

'My friend Major Breckinridge several times made to me remarks similar to those reported by Professor Bailey. I cannot swear to every minute detail, for my memory is only human; but the general substance of your statement is correct to my personal knowledge.

'As I have telegraphed to Major Breckinridge to tell him of my proposed action, and as his remarks were not secret, and as Professor Bailey has already involved the Major, I feel obliged to state that I know your statement is true. With regard to Major Breckinridge, he is one of the finest examples of the American gentleman, and his distinguished family has been famous for its chivalry in the South for years. His statement also is unquestionably true beyond any possibility of doubt.

'Believe me, dear Senator Lodge,

'Yours truly,

'JOHN TEMPLE LLOYD JEFFRIES.'

"The writer of this letter, Mr. John Jeffries, is a member of a very well known family in Boston, a gentleman of honor and now known to me personally. The evidence that Mr. Breckinridge made the statement attributed to him about the postscript I therefore think cannot be successfully controverted, and if Mr. Breckinridge made the statement it can be absolutely believed.

"Mr. Breckinridge has published one or two telegrams in which he refers to Dr. Bailey and myself in a very