The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-12-28

eral law Is to be amended so "a to protect
witnesses. IN order that they may be COM
PEELED TO testify. The old statute of 1865.
nnder which the law operates, Is held not
To be broad enough. and for 10 must be SUBJ
stItuted an amendment TO the Interstate
law that Will give absolute pro-
lection To the witness in the matter OF
eliminating testimony. The law should
be amended In the interest OF other prose-
BUTTONS.
The decision OF Judge Gresham is to the
effect that the federal courts OF the
country cannot be required under the
Constitution TO act as aids TO an admins
tTative body in the prosecution Of it's
work. However. the decision indicates
that a law Will be constitutional which pro-
vides a penalty for refusing TO testify or
produce books, and that the penalty could
be prosecuted in the federal court. The
proper remedy thus suggested In the de-
eision of Judge Gresham can be supplied
in IN amendment that has been introduced.
a decision made by Judge Bre wer has been
taken mp by other courts and made tho
basis for decisions that are apDar-
emily not in harmony with the original
opinion. but which will be held to
DO good law until reversed, and
perhaps the best way to avoid any entan-
clements is to amend the law at the outset.
The decision referred TO is perhaps right In
itself, but the dictum makes a declaration
as to what is a railroad line, or what com
prIses line and has more or less bearing
upon the long-and-sh0rt-haul clause. This
dictum is wrong. and legislation is re-
CURED to define what q line IS.
Another bill the railroads are interested
in" continued the Senator. rs the general
amendment popularity known as the bill 10
permit pooling. 1t Is not. properly speak
ing. such q measure. but is intended to
give railroads authority to make contracts
between competing lines for the division Of
freight. subject to the approval OF disap-
prova al of the Interstate 0mmerce Com
mission. The original senate ball. passed
In 1855, had q provision authorizing
the commission TO investigate the
question whether pooling was advisable
end report to Congress. When the measure
came before the conference the House con-
ference insisted upon the elimination of
the clause. and Mr.. Reagan was especially
persistent, and refused to sign the report
unless the clause was taken ont. This was
done. and the bull passed. l have noticed
recently that Mr.. Reagan has experienced
q chang of sentiment on the 81 biect, for L
hear that he Is ont in q letter, in which he
favors the gran ting OF authority to DOM
peting roads TO make contracts for division
OF freight, subject 10 approval by tho CON-
mission"
Mr.. Cullom does not say whether ne
fayors the pooling amendment or not, but
the Inference 10 that he would be opposed
To II. The committees Is not a unit on the
amendment. for there arc some members
who believe it would be a good thing and
would gate much OF the evil now exist
ing. or. at least, claimed by tho railroads
TO exist, in the matter Of freight rates, and
wouid be n sure remedy for that discrim-
inati0n which Is said to TO @ exhibited by
some of the trunk lines in favor Of the
large and against the small shippe..