he showed his independence was his
taking up the fight of the troops dismissed on account of the so-
called Brownsville affair. This was very unselfish on the part of
Senator Foraker. He had nothing to gain by espousing the cause of
a few negroes, but much to lose by antagonizing the National
administration. He did not hesitate a moment, however. There is
no question that President Roosevelt acted hastily in dismissing
the entire company; but this was one occasion when President
Roosevelt would not recede even though it became perfectly clear
to almost every one in Congress that he was wrong.

Senator Foraker always did make it a point to attend the meetings
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, but for some reason or other
he was never punctual and was seldom in attendance when the committee
was called to order. But at the same time he was prepared on all
important questions coming before the committee. He seemed to me
to have given attention beforehand to subjects which he knew would
come before a particular meeting, and his opinion on any treaty or
bill before the committee was always sought by his colleagues and
listened to with respect, and almost without exception his opinion
prevailed.

I regretted exceedingly to see him retire from the Senate. From
the time he entered that body, he was consistently one of the
principal defenders of Republican policies and Republican
administrations on the floor of the Senate.

Senator John C. Spooner, of Wisconsin, was, in my judgment, one of
the best lawyers who ever served as a member of the Senate, and
among its membership we find the names of the greatest lawyers and
judges of America. He had served in the Civil War, having retired
at its close with the brevet of Major. He early took up the law
as a career, and never abandoned it, even when elected to the
Senate; and as I write this, I believe he is regarded as one of
the foremost lawyers of New York.

He came into the Senate two years after I entered that body, and
I remember him there as opposing the conference report on the
Interstate Commerce Act. His State having passed into the control
of the Democrats, he retired from the Senate in 1891, but was re-
elected in 1897. He declined several tenders of cabinet positions,
preferring to remain independent as a Senator.

I knew him for a good many years. Representing a neighboring State,
as he did in the Senate, I became very intimate with him, and never
h