GOVERNOR, 1904
he told me that “they” had talked it over and had concluded to ask me to appoint Knox.
“I will do it at once,” I replied; “that suits me exactly.”
I had determined, if Knox were willing to accept, with the
risk of the election by the legislature, to make the appointment
without an understanding.”
We were in a cordial good humor and the Senator further said to me: “Durham and I have talked over the matter and have concluded that when the next vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court of the United States or in the Supreme Court of the state, to insist upon your having the place.”
This fact further illustrates the difference in the methods of Quay and Penrose. Quay never would have made such a promise unnecessarily and unrequested, and if he had made it, would have seen that it was fulfilled.
I made the appointment at once.
Knox, through his intelligence, experience and knowledge of the law, soon took a commanding position in the Senate and the state never was more worthily represented there.
He made a mistake in accepting the position of Secretary of State under President Taft, a place in which the incumbent, if he fails, is sure to get the blame, and if he succeeds is sure to have some one else receive the credit. I accompanied the appointment with an opinion giving my view of the effect of the provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and of the state differing from that which had been expressed by Mr. Carson and been supported by the newspapers, which latter had no care to have the state well represented, and only sought to embarrass Penrose and the Republican party. Unable to meet the arguments of my paper, which no lawyer undertook to do, they sought to take it out of me by calling me a “violator of the constitution,” an “anarchist,” a “nullifier,” and by saying I had committed a “palpable malfeasance” and a “viola-
