States gave him an influence, a leadership, as first citizen of the Republic, that enabled him to appeal to the patriotism and good sense of the parties to the controversy and to place upon them the moral coercion of public opinion to agree to an arbitrament of the strike then existing and threatening consequences so direful to the whole country. He acted promptly and courageously, and in so doing averted the dangers to which I have alluded.

So far from interfering or infringing upon property rights, the President's action tended to conserve them. The peculiar situation as regards the anthracite coal interest was that they controlled a natural monopoly of a product necessary to the comfort and to the very life of a large portion of the people. A prolonged deprivation of the enjoyment of this necessary of life would have tended to precipitate an attack upon these property rights of which you speak, for, after all, it is vain to deny that this property, so peculiar in its conditions, and which is properly spoken of as "a natural monopoly," is affected with a public interest.

I do not think that any President ever acted more wisely, courageously, or promptly in a national crisis. Mr. Roosevelt deserves unstinted praise for what he did.

In the years that have gone by we have made the deed square with the word.-President Roosevelt's speech accepting 1904 nomination.

The credit of the Government, the integrity of its currency, and the inviolability of its obligations must be preserved.-President McKinley's inaugural.

It is better for this country to feed, clothe, and house our own labor in this country than to support foreign labor in other countries with our money.-H. K. Thurber.

You cannot afford to have the question raised every four years whether the nation will pay or repudiate its debts in whole or in part.-Hon. Wm. McKinley to delegation of farmers at Canton, September 22, 1896.

Abating none of our interest in the home market, let us move out to new fields steadily and increase the sale for our products in foreign markets.-President McKinley to Commercial Club, Cincinnati, Oct. 30, 1897.

The success of the United States in material development is the most illustrious of modern times. It is my deliberate judgment that the prosperity of America is due mainly to its system of protective laws.-Prince Bismarck.

We have established in the islands a government by Americans assisted by Filipinos. We are steadily striving to transform this into self-government by the Filipinos assisted by Americans.—— President Roosevelt's speech accepting 1904 nomination.

A nation should never fight unless forced to; but it should always be ready to fight. The mere fact that it is ready will generally spare it the necessity of fighting.—From President Roosevelt's "Washington's forgotten maxim,” American Ideals, p. 284.

We ask for a great navy, we ask for an armament fit for the nation's needs, not primarily to fight, but to avert fightng Preparedness deters the foe and maintains right by the show of ready might without the use of violence.-From President Roosevelt's "Washington's forgotten maxim,” American Ideals, p. 288.

Many of our great industries, including the silk industry, the pottery industry, the carpet industry, and the steel-rail industry, had only a nominal existence until adequately protective duties were imposed on competing foreign products.-James M. Swank, in the American Economist.

We should no sooner debase our currency than we should weaken our coast defenses. We should no more think of introducing unsund currency into our money system than we should think of weakening the steel armor plates upon our great battleships which are gallantly withstanding the storm of Spanish slot.Hon. C. W. Fairbanks, in U. S. Senate, June 3, 1898.

CHARLES WARREN FAIRBANKS.

Charles Warren Fairbanks, Senator from Indiana, is eighth in descent from Jonathan Fayerbanke, who settled at Dedham, Mass., in 1636. The Senator's father, Loriston Monroe Fairbanks, was a native of Vermont, but before reaching manhood, emigrated to Massachusetts. At Ware, in the Bay State, he worked in the woolen mills, but later he learned the wagon-maker's trade, and when he emigrated from Massachusetts to Union county, Ohio, it was to set up in the wagon-making business and farming.

EARLY LIFE.

Senator Fairbanks' earliest recollections date from the log house in which he was born, on a farm in Union county, Ohio. The Senator's boyhood life was such as fell to the average farmer boy. He was early taught the value of industry and frugality. He worked at farm work and attended the country schools during the brief terms until he reached the age of fifteen, when he went to the Ohio Wesleyan College. He learned his earliest lessons in Republican party principles under inspiring conditions. His father was an intense anti-slavery man, and gave employment and food and shelter to fugitive slaves. Charles was only eight years old when the Presidential campaign which resulted in the election of Abraham Lincoln occurred. A year later he witnessed the uprising of volunteers from among the farmers of the neighborhood in response to impassioned orations and the roll of the muster drum. With boyish wonder he saw the great panorama of war unfold. He heard the enthusiasm attending the enrollment of volunteers. He saw neighbor after neighbor step forward and subscribe his name to the scroll of immortal fame. He followed the crowd of enthusiastic advocates of the Union as they marched to the railroad station, and he heard the last farewell shouts which inspired the raw volunteers as they were borne away to the battlefields.

After leaving college, young Fairbanks went to Pittsburg, Pa., where for a time he acted as agent of the Associated Press, then in its infancy as a news collecting and distributing agency. In the campaign of 1872 he reported the great Democratic and liberal Republican rally at Pittsburg, at which Horace Greely made a remarkable speech. After remaining in Pittsburg for a year he went to Cleveland, Ohio, completed his law studies, and was admitted to the bar.

Having secured his admission to the bar, Mr. Fairbanks was married to Miss Cornelia Cole, of Marysville, O., and decided to locate in Indianapolis for the practice of law. He hung out his shingle in 1874.

HIS PROFESSIONAL CAREER.

The early professional career of Charles W. Fairbanks was much the same as that of the average young lawyer. His first clients were some of his Ohio neighbors. He had no money except what came to him from his profession and it came slowly at first. He and his young wife began life in a boarding house. As the young lawyer's practice grew they furnished a modest home, and later moved into one of more pretentious architecture and costlier furnishings.

The years from 1874, when he first commenced the practice in Indianapolis, until he was elected to the Senate, were devoted by Mr. Fairbanks to law. His law library grew with his practice until it became one of the most extensive, best selected and most used of any in the middle West. Mr. Fairbanks' clientage grew proportionately. It included some of the leading business men of Boston, New York, and the large Eastern cities. His fees were unusually large for the lawyer of that day. Always a zealous Republican, Mr. Fairbanks found time from a busy professional career to take active part in every Republican campaign in Indiana. His counsel and assistance were sought by party leaders. Before he ever held office he had spoken in every county in Indiana, and was known personally to the voters throughout the State. He contributed freely of his time and money to the Republican cause. His speeches, like his other political services, were much in demand. Among the strong political friendships he

made in his early career in Indiana and which continued unbroken, was that with the Hon. Walter Q. Gresham.

IN NATIONAL POLITICS.

Senator Fairbanks' entry as a positive force in national Republican politics may be said to date from the St. Louis Republican convention of 1896. Mr. Fairbanks and Major McKinley had been friends of many years' standing. Both were Ohio born, both ardent members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and in exact accord in their political views. In temperament their mutual friends believe they were much alike. Mr. Fairbanks was chosen as a delegate-at-large to the St. Louis convention, and soon afterward it was announced that Major McKinley, whose nomination was then a foregone conclusion, had invited Mr. Fairbanks to be temporary chairman of the convention. His speech as temporary chairman attracted wide attention.

The State of Indiana which in recent years had developed great industrial activity, particularly in the natural gas belt, showed an interest in the restoration of the protective tariff. The State was the center, also, of a strong gold Democratic propaganda. "Sound money and protection" were the watchwords employed by the Republicans that year to wrest the State, which had a Democratic Governor and two Democratic United States Senators, from the Democratic party. In this fight, which was made on the basis of a thorough political organization of the State, Mr. Fairbanks was easily leader. He returned from the St. Louis convention with additional political prestige, if possible, and his friends began the work of organizing the State in behalf of his Senatorial candidacy. The Republicans carried Indiana on national and State tickets that year by about 20,000. In the Republican caucus which followed in January, 1897, Mr. Fairbanks was nominated for United States Senator on the first ballot.

Senator Fairbanks went at once to the head of the Senate committee on immigration. The subject was one which had interested him for years. He felt there could be no more profitable study than that which concerned the character of immigration yearly pouring into this country to enter into the national life and be assimilated with its customs and habits into the nation's citizenship. To the study of this subject he gave the most earnest consideration, visiting the immigration stations of the country, and putting himself in daily touch with the officers charged with the responsibility of administering the immigration laws. The results of his research and labors took the form of a speech which was widely read and commended.

Although Senator Fairbanks afterward took a step higher to the chairmanship of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, his interest in the immigration question has never abated.

In the agitation which preceded the declaration of war with Spain, Senator Fairbanks was one of the President's closest advisers. He was at the White House almost daily, participating, with other members of the administration, in conferences that lasted not infrequently far into the night, the purpose of which was, if possible, to devise some way to secure the amelioration of conditions in Cuba without bloodshed.

Senator Fairbanks was named by President McKinley as one of the American Commissioners of the United States and British Joint High Commission, and was Chairman of the American Commissioners. His service on that Commission is regarded by many as one of the most important and useful of his public acts.

The principal questions before the United States and British Joint High Commission, aside from the Alaska boundary question, were the proposed abrogation of the Rush-Bagot treaty of 1817, which prohibited the building or maintaining of war vessels above a certain tonnage, on the Great Lakes, the lake fisheries question and Canadian reciprocity.

Senator Fairbanks was invited by President McKinley at one time to become a member of his Cabinet.

Senator and Mrs. Fairbanks have always retained a lively interest in the prosperity of their alma mater, and the Senator has been for a number of years one of the trustees. Senator and Mrs. Fairbanks are members of the Meridian Street M. E. Church, of Indianapolis, and the Senator is a Trustee in the Church.

THE PANAMA CANAL.

The Course of the Administration Fully Justified-It Has Rendered Possible the World's Ambition of Centuries-A Record in

Which Every American May Take Pride.

Ever since the geographic formation of the connection between the two Americas became known, early in the sixteenth century, the merchants, statesmen, and intelligent people of the maritime nations of the world have dreamed of an interoceanic canal across Central America. Beginning in 1527 far-seeing men in Portugal, Spain, England, and other countries have proposed plans for a canal across some part of the Isthmus.

Early in the history of our own nation it was the subject of instructions to our delegates to the Panama Congress which was held in 1826. John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay were enthusiastic advocates of a "canal * * * somewhere through the isthmus that connects the two Americas, to unite the Pacific and Atlantic oceans." It was the subject of a resolution of the Senate in 1835 asking the President to open negotiations with other nations looking to the protection of parties who might undertake to construct a ship canal across the Isthmus.

It was not, however, until December 12, 1846, that any effective action was taken on the subject. On that date was conIcluded at the solicitation of New Granada (now the Republic of Colombia) a treaty between the United States and that Republic, which is still in force. Article XXXV of that treaty is in part as follows:

“** * * The Government of New Granada guarantees to the Government of the United States, that the right of way or transit across the Isthmus of Panama upon any modes of communication that now exist, or that may be hereafter constructed, shall be open and free to the Government and citizens of the United States, and for the transportation of any articles of produce, manufactures, or merchandise, of lawful commerce belonging to the citizens of the United States. * * * And, in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the said advantages and for the favors they have acquired by the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of this treaty, the United States guarantees positively and efficaciously to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea, may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this treaty exists; and in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory."

THE CLAYTON-BULWER STATUS.

At this time (1846) the canal was regarded as an enterprise to be undertaken by two or more governments. The idea of a canal under the exclusive control of the United States was not thought of, but it has been a gradual evolution corresponding to our growth as a nation. Indeed, when the treaty known as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was concluded, April 19, 1850, it was stipulated therein that neither government would "ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal." And by the treaty all the other powers were invited to join in the agreements it contained. Feeling itself too weak as a nation to act alone, our Government sought by the said stipulation to prevent any scheme for a canal under the exclusive control of Great Britain.

It was not until long after our civil war-a struggle which strengthened and developed our national sinews and brought us to full political maturity-that the policy of exclusive American control was first adopted and was somewhat indefinitely outlined by President Hayes in his message to Congress.

It has taken years to remove the obstacles in the way of a realization of that policy. The two chief obstacles were, first, the treaty of 1850, which as a subsisting engagement the Government of the United States regarded itself in all good conscience and international honor bound to observe until it was

lawfully abrogated or superseded; and second, the fact that the French Panama Canal Company had secured a right of way, and in 1883 had begun to dig a canal. This obstacle was practically removed by the irretrievable financial collapse of that company in 1889, before the completion of the work. But the removal of the first-mentioned obstacle, the treaty of 1850, required the employment of diplomatic skill and ability, and it was very successfully accomplished by the negotiation of the treaty known as the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, signed November 18, 1901, by Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote, and ratified by the senate December 16, 1901, which stipulates in terms that it hall supersede the convention of the 19th of April, 1850, and agrees to the construction of the canal under the exclusive auspices of the Government of the United States.

COLOMBIA WHOLLY TO BLAME FOR HER LOSS.

The great abstacles to the construction of an interoceanic canal by the United States having been thus practically removed, through the medium of our diplomacy, and the Isthmian Canal Commission having reported in favor of the Panama route, our Government promptly entered into negotiations with the Republic of Colombia for the purpose of securing a right of way across the isthmus, and Colombia joined in the negotiation of such a treaty which was signed on January 22, 1903, and is known as the Hay-Herran treaty. It was promptly ratified by our Senate, and with every expectation that it would meet with similar action on the part of the Congress of Columbia, "the dream of the ages" seemed about to become potentially an accomplished fact. In this treaty the Government of the United States went to the limit of generosity and consideration for Colombia in agreeing to pay her $10,000,000 down and $250,000 per annum in perpetuity, since the payment of anything seemed an unjust exaction in view of the unmeasured benefits Colombia was to derive from the existence of a canal upon a small tract of otherwise worthless land, and in view of the countless millions the Government of the United States obligated itself to spend in building the canal, millions which would be permanently invested in that country. Colombia would have benefited more by the building of the canal than any other nation upon the earth. It would have afforded her incalculable opportunities for development and wealth.

She had already acknowledged the world's right of way to the United States by the treaty of 1846. But when the long-desired object was about to be definitely provided for, the Congress of Colombia in a spirit of greed made still larger demands of the United States, and, on refusal, adjourned October 31, without ratifying the treaty, though repeatedly warned of the probable course of Panama as the result of such action. A condition of affairs was thereby precipitated fraught with momentous consequences to Colombia and the world.

The State of Panama, whose future prosperity and development was vitally involved, faced the prospect of practical ruin. It was a matter of life and death. She had watched the course of the arrangements with eager interest. She was aware of the provisions of the Spooner Act, and that a failure on the part of the Colombian Government to ratify the treaty might necessitate a change to the Nicaragua route. The leaders in Panama with admirable foresight had provided for the possible contingency of a failure of the Colombian Congress to ratify the treaty, and the people of Panama, realizing what was at stake, by unanimous action arose on November 3, 1903, in revolt against the Government of Colombia, declared their independence, and established a de facto government. On the 13th of November the United States recognized the independence of the Republic of Panama by receiving a minister from the new Government.

Negotiations were promptly entered into between Mr. Hay and Mr. Bunau-Varilla, the new minister, for a treaty with the Republic of Panama. A treaty was drawn up on lines corresponding very closely to those in the Hay-Herran treaty, and was signed November 18, 1903, and ratified by the Senate February 23, 1904.

In the meantime the revolutionary leaders submitted their action to the people of Panama, who by a popular vote unan