S

THE SCENE OF THE TRIAL

YRACUSE is (save for the coal stoves

in its trolley cars) a very modern city in appearance. Many of its main streets are lighted from a colonnade of ornamental lamp-posts, and its business district is clean and very substantial. The city is the seat of the large university which bears its name, and the home of New York State's great annual agricultural fair. It is situated at the juncture of the Oswego and Erie Canals and on the main line of the New York Central. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the New York Central is situated on Syracuse, for the trains of that railway company amble at grade, as in many other cities of Central New York, through one of its main thoroughfares. The situation is quite as metropolitan as that of "Death Avenue " in New York.

As an industrial city Syracuse seems very new, but the political history of the region in which it is situated goes back to the foundation of the Indian league of the Five Nations, for this is the country of the Onondagas and of the great councils of the Long House of the Iroquois. It is to be suspected, however, that few of those great Indian councils were fraught with as much political significance as the libel suit now being tried here under the impartial guidance of Judge Andrews, of the State Supreme Court.

As any one who has recently seen the front page of a newspaper knows, this suit was brought by William Barnes, Jr., of Albany, against Mr. Roosevelt, because of an article which the latter wrote and caused to have circulated, charging Mr. Barnes, then official Chairman of the Republican organization in New York State, with entering (according to the interpretation of the presiding judge) upon a corrupt alliance with members of the Democratic State organization specifically to make a connection between crooked business and crooked politics. For the damage alleged to have been done his reputation Mr. Barnes would like to collect from Mr. Roosevelt the sum of fifty thousand dollars. He claims that the charges against him. are not justified by the facts and that they were made maliciously. Mr. Roosevelt claims that the charges were justified by the facts and were made without malicious

intent.

A defense in a libel suit may be made on both of these grounds-a point of importance, for a great deal of evidence can⚫ first be brought before the jury "in mitigation of damages" which is, unless properly corroborated, inadmissible "in justification" of the charge because of which suit has been brought. That is what the lawyers say; but the layman onlooker at such a trial as this is inclined to wonder if any juryman entirely succeeds in keeping the two brands of evidence strictly in their cubbyholes.

IN THE COURT

The trial at which Judge Andrews is presiding is taking place on the third floor of a well-built and court-housey-looking building fully equipped with all the necessary colonnades and the central dome which all good edifices devoted to the furtherance of justice and the pursuit of law demand as a natural and inalienable right. The court-room itself is well lighted and large-large, that is, for any ordinary case-but with only room enough to harbor a very small fraction of those who line the sidewalks outside waiting to catch a glimpse of the principals, principally Mr. Roosevelt. A ticket speculator would be in paradise if he could control admission to the court-room itself. Perhaps, in the absence of such a trafficker in tickets, a pen description may be made to serve.

Seated at the back of the room behind the high desk and railing that separate him from the floor of the court-room is Judge Andrews, mild of manner, but sure-minded and surevoiced in the making of his rulings. Once, on the third day of the trial, when Mr. Ivins, counsel for Mr. Barnes, suggested that the Court was treating Mr. Roosevelt with more than ordinary consideration, the sharp rap of the Judge's gavel followed, and his quick rebuke (followed by an equally quick apology from Mr. Ivins) showed that Judge Andrews, courteous in manner though he may be, has also other qualifications befitting the presiding officer of a court of law. The ripples of amusement and satisfaction that repeatedly start across the court-room at Mr. Roosevelt's sallies under cross-examination are silenced as effectively as was the irascible outburst of Mr. Ivins.

In the space before Judge Andrews's desk

are two large tables for the use of counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant. Mr. Barnes, Mr. Ivins and his associates sit at the right; Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Bowers and his associates. at the left. Mr. Ivins and Mr. Bowers are interesting men to watch in action, both because of the keenness of their minds and because of the contrast of their personalities. Mr. Ivins is large of face and figure and smooth-shaven; Mr. Bowers is small of stature and bears a rather close resemblance to Senator Lodge. With his skull-cap, by the presence or absence of which spectators at the trial are learning to gauge to a nicety the temperature of the court-room, Mr. Ivins brings to mind the thought of a Venetian Doge or the recollection of paintings of mediæval priests. Probably there are many times when the witness whom he is examining would be very ready to add "of the Inquisition" to the word "priest."

The principals themselves can hardly be said to need any description, least of all Mr. Roosevelt. Of Mr. Barnes it may be remarked that, unlike his opponent, his least inviting characteristic is his smile. Usually as he sits at his counsel table his face is impassive and cold. It is only rarely that the side of his face lifts. Then Mr. Barnes is smiling, though the fact would hardly be guessed from an examination of his closely set and steady eyes.

To the left of Judge Andrews are the witness chair and the jury-box. Behind the two counsel tables a double row of newspaper men extend the width of the court-room. These men are sending out more daily telegraphic correspondence than has ever gone from Syracuse before, even during the sessions of important political conventions. Behind these are the fortunate ones who have gained admission to the trial.

As I write, for a week this trial has been in progress, and the first phase of it has not yet been completed. The plaintiff has established the fact of the publication of the article alleged to be libelous; the defendant has set forth his answer to the complaint. The defendant has been in the witness chair for five days-one under the direct guidance of his counsel, Mr. Bowers, three under rigid cross-examination of the suave and skillful Mr. Ivins, and one under the waspish questioning of Mr. Barnum, Mr. Ivins's Syracuse associate.

In a very general way the attack of the plaintiff may be summed up as an attempt to dis

credit Mr. Roosevelt as a political leader, as a citizen, and as a witness to his own past acts. From the time of his entrance into politics as an Assemblyman of New York State his whole record has been gone over with a very fine tooth comb. He has been searchingly questioned as to his relations with the leaders of his party, as to the sincerity of the reforms which he has advocated, and in an attempt to establish the fallibility of his memory. He has been most minutely examined as to the details of almost every political movement in which he has taken part, questioned as to the qualifications of the appointees he put in office as Governor of New York State, questioned as to the bills brought to his attention as Executive of New York State, questioned as to his actions as candidate for Presidenthardly anything has seemed too trivial or too far in the past to receive the exacting attention of his cross-examiners. When it is remembered that during the course of his public life Mr. Roosevelt has probably appointed more than forty thousand men to office, and that in this same period of time he has written, as he testified at the trial, more than one hundred and fifty thousand letters, the wonder is, not that he remembered so little, but that he remembered so much, of the great army of facts with which 'he has had to deal. His "I don't remember or his "I haven't the slightest recollection " only seemed to add conviction to his statement as to the details of his life of which he had either general or vivid remembrance.

Aside from the attempts of the plaintiff to break down the weight of Mr. Roosevelt's testimony by proof of the fallibility of his memory, there was, as has been said, a general attempt to discredit him as a public man. The attempt was first made to establish the fact that Mr. Roosevelt was, prior to his election to the Governorship of New York State, a would-be tax dodger. The production of tax receipts for the years in question rather damaged the force of this argument. Next the counsel for the plaintiff tried to show that Mr. Roosevelt at the time of his election to the Governorship had no legal domicile in New York State, a fact which under the Constitution would have debarred him from the right to become a candidate. It cannot be said that this ancient if not honorable criticism, a matter thoroughly thrashed out during Mr. Roosevelt's campaign for Governor, added any more than the tax-dodging bugbear to the weight of the plaintiff's attack. Next in

order of presentation, if not of time, came the discussion of the campaign contributions made when Mr. Roosevelt ran for the Presidency in 1904. Mr. Ivins tried to draw from Mr. Roosevelt admission that the funds contributed to his campaign were made with an ulterior purpose. To add impressiveness to the sums contributed he took up each one by itself, questioned Mr. Roosevelt about the donor, and asked whether he doubted the truth of the statements made to him as to the size of these contributions and their source. Mr. Roosevelt so emphatically and so smilingly denied any intention of not accepting Mr. Ivins's word that the cumulative effect of the evidence seemed to trickle away in good humor and the boredom of the jury. Despite Mr. Ivins's very apparent desire to pin his witness down to categorical answers, Mr. Roosevelt got into the evidence the fact that the funds contributed to his campaign were just half those given to help McKinley in 1900. He also adroitly introduced an allusion to the five hundred thousand dollars contributed by Thomas F. Ryan to the Democratic campaign, and gave it as his opinion that even this great sum, contributed to help his opponent, was given with no strings attached. As to the money for his own campaign, he testified that he saw no more connection between business and politics in the large contributions made in 1908 than if these same sums were given to erect buildings for the Young Men's Christian Association. To quote directly, he said:

I mention that because I know that Mr. George W. Perkins during the time that he was contributing so heavily to the campaign funds had contributed much more liberally to the building of the Y. M. C. A.'s, and the contribution from Mr. Perkins of $25,000 might be considerably less than a contribution of $25 from the station agent at Oyster Bay, and I should feel as grateful to the one man for the $25 as to the other man for the $25,000 contribution, and I should be incapable of acting for either in any way because of that contribution.

Mr. Roosevelt testified that he had no knowledge of the sums contributed to his campaign save that he was absolutely convinced that they had been contributed in accordance with his agreement with Mr. Cortelyou, the Chairman, and Mr. Bliss, the Treasurer, of the National Committee. this connection he said:

I had talked with Mr. Cortelyou and Mr. Bliss, and had received from them the assurance that no gifts of money would be accepted

with any implication that anything whatever was to be done in the way of legislative or executive action or political action of any kind in return for the gifts of money, and I had their implicit assurance that that would be the case; and they acted afterwards in accordance with that assurance to me.

Mr. Roosevelt told of the return of a large sum of money because it came from persons interested in a suit then before the Government. He said that the only request which came to him in connection with a campaign contributor was that made by friends of Mr. James Hazen Hyde that he be appointed Ambassador to France. With a characteristic chuckle Mr. Roosevelt said that he was willing to appoint Mr. Hyde Minister to Venezuela. Needless to say, the substitution of Venezuela for France did not prove agreeable to Mr. Hyde and his friends.

The last chapters of his life which underwent scrutiny before this article was sent to press dealt with Mr. Roosevelt's relations to the campaign for the renomination of Governor Hughes and with his relations with Senator Platt. The counsel for the plaintiff spent one whole day in reading the correspondence between Mr. Roosevelt and the " easy boss" of New York State. The object of this was, of course, to prove that Mr. Roosevelt was subservient to Platt while Governor of New York State. Perhaps the effect of these letters upon those in the court-room can best be judged by a quotation from the report of the New York "Sun," a paper not noted for its political friendliness towards Mr. Roosevelt. The writer says:

It is entirely by insinuation that Barnes's counsel seek to impress the jury that Roosevelt was a wrong-doer. So far nothing indicative of moral turpitude has been adduced, not the slightest bit of evidence to indicate that as Governor or President he advocated or attempted or accomplished anything tinged with evil, or that the appointments he made at Platt's suggestion were bad appointments. . . .

He admitted to-day with the utmost frankness that he had consulted Platt at all times in the year referred to, 1899, and that he always tried to please Platt when he thought it was right, because he regarded Platt as the leader (or boss) of the party, and considered his duty as a good organization man.

...

He insisted that he always talked over with Platt the merits of each case, and then acted as he thought would be best for the people's interest. During the reading of one of these letters, an invitation to breakfast with Mr. Platt, Mr..

Roosevelt, in an aside which probably failed to reach the jury, remarked, "Chops and tomato sauce!" His own trial had doubtless evoked a memory of the troubles of Mr. Pickwick.

Of Mr. Roosevelt's relation with organization men more will be said later on. It is interesting to note in this connection, however, that when Mr. Roosevelt's counsel started to ask that certain of these Platt letters should be excluded on the ground that they were immaterial and would only waste the time of the Court, it was Mr. Roosevelt who insisted that they should all be laid before the jury.

POINTS FOR THE DEFENSE

Practically all the points for the defense which have been made so far have been introduced in "mitigation of damages." If these same points are corroborated by the testimony of others besides the defendant, they will, of course, have standing in court as being in justification of the charges made. Perhaps the most telling blows dealt to the character of Mr. Barnes during the progress of Mr. Roosevelt's testimony were contained in that portion of the Bayne report of the Committee of the New York Legislature which dealt with the grave political abuses in Albany County under the Barnes régime. This testimony the Court permitted to appear in the record in "mitigation of damages." This report shows in detail that Mr. Barnes, through his newspaper, the Albany "Evening Journal," received profits by securing public printing in evasion of the law.

The re

port maintains that Mr. Barnes not only was the recipient of such profits through his connection with the Albany "Evening Journal," but that he was also the beneficiary of a secret printing "combine" of companies apparently working in competition, but actually in collusion. This testimony as to Mr. Barnes's connection with the profits from State printing was further strengthened by the admission as evidence of a letter written by Mr. Barnes to Mr. Roosevelt when Governor, asking that the latter drop the project of establishing a State Printing Bureau because of the financial loss which would accrue to the plaintiff in the present suit. Mr. Roosevelt in his Message to the Legislature recommended the establishment of such a Bureau..

Mr. Roosevelt further, "in mitigation of damages," testified that he believed that Mr. Barnes did act in collusion with the Demo

cratic boss, Mr. Murphy, and in justification of his belief testified that he had been told by William Loeb, Jr., that Mr. Barnes had stated that, on account of his arrangement with Mr. Murphy, he would not influence the Republican organization to elect an Independent Democrat in the Senatorial fight of 1911. Mr. Roosevelt further testified as to the activities of Mr. Barnes in killing the Hughes direct primary measure, in killing the Hughes bill against race-track betting, and his activity in promoting a bi-partisan alliance to elect Allds, a Barnes Republican, to the presidency of the Senate. Most of this testimony will be later corroborated, it is expected, by Senators Davenport, Newcomb, and Hinman.

Of Mr. Barnes's attitude towards democracy, Mr. Roosevelt said that Mr. Barnes had told him that "the people are not fit to govern themselves, but must be governed by party organizations."

Legally, the most vital part of the case for Mr. Roosevelt, it is expected, will be brought out in the corroborating testimony of the witnesses who are now waiting a chance to appear before the Court.

WHAT THE TRIAL MEANS

Of course at this date it is too early to forecast the verdict of the jury, nor would an attempt to invade the regions of prophecy be at all proper. It can be safely stated that the verdict, whatever it may be, will have important effect upon the freedom of political criticism throughout the country. As to the immediate political significance of the trial, and as to its effect upon the historical record of Mr. Roosevelt's career, much has already been definitely determined. In this latter field easily the most important feature of the trial has been the presentation in concrete and extended form of evidence as to Mr. Roosevelt's relations with the political organizations with which he has had to deal. Politics for Mr. Roosevelt has meant

a tug of war between the forces of democracy and the forces of political reaction. He has not hesitated to work with organization men at any time in his life merely because his "silk-stocking" critics did not approve of the entire political code of his associates. He worked with them just as long as they worked with him for the general ideals for which he has stood. Though he has been accused of being an opportunist, this has been the opportunism of the skillful swimmer who knows the folly of trying to

FREE PUBLIC MBRARI

19

been in attendance at the trial seems to be that Mr. Barnes has already suffered serious damage. That in bringing suit Mr. Barnes has departed from the paths of political wisdom is the view of a great many in sympathy with the system for which he stands. To cite a single instance: the Bayne report, which bid fair to slumber forever within the archives of the Capitol at Albany, has now been spread broadcast through the columns of almost every newspaper in the land. It is a poor advertisement for a man who desires to retain his hold upon the National organization of the Republican party. H. T. PULSIFER.

Syracuse, April 26, 1915.

and, even if their claim of the subsequent recapture of this place is true, the German accomplishment near Ypres is important enough to make the week's honors easy for the Kaiser, and incidentally to wipe out the memory of Neuve Chapelle.

The Ypres blow was what boxers would call a counter. It followed the stroke that gained sanguinary "Hill No. 60," south of Ypres, for the Allies. Coming near the hinge where the British trenches meet the French, it was strategically well chosen, and as a purely local engagement was very successful. The British lines which formed a salient at Langemarck were pushed inside out, so to speak, till they formed an arc from Noordschote to St. Jean, with the greatest concavity at Boesinghe, on the west bank of the Ypres Canal. What was one of the strongest points in the Allies' line is now one of the weakest.

GERMAN STRATEGY

Those critics are mistaken, however, who speak of this second battle about the only city in Belgium held by the Allies as a 'second drive on Calais and the Channel." The German operations were not a "drive" at all. They were more properly comparable to the shifting clutch which a wrestler makes to get a better hold on a stubborn, straining adversary. If it was impossible to crash through