The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-11
DECISIONS CRITICISED.
Ann 1RBOR IND LAKE. SHORE CASES
BEFORE THE SENATE.
Senators Voorhees, and German Question
the Judges Right to Hand Down Such
OPinions-Lengthy Debate.

III the Stndte tO-udy MI tiodT pre-
sented the petition of Joseph w. Ady
for an investigation OF the election Of
United States Senator from the State
of Kansas. Referred TO the Committee
on Privileges and Elections.
The resolution for a committee to wait
on the President and inform him that
the Senate is ready 10 adjourn sine die
was offered and agreed to without ques-
ton; but subsequently a motion to re-
consider was made by Mr.. Hoar and en-
| tered to be called up hereafter. Mr.
| Hoars reason for moving to reconsider
was understood TO be his determination,
| If possible 10 force the Senate to take
action in the way Of investigating Sena-
tor Roach. of North Dakota. Resolutions
! 10 investigate Mr.. ROachs case and that
of Mr. Power, of Montana, were offered
| by Mcssrs. Hoar and Chandler and went
over without action. In pursuance Of the
| same purpose. Mr.. Hoar successfully re-
sisted a motion TO proceed to executive
| business.
Mr.. Butler reported from the Com
! mittee on Interstate Commerce the resolu-
tion authorizing that committee to in
| quire whether or not the methods pre-
| vailing in the transportation Of freight
and passengers on the great railway lines
| of the country, and the conditions and
necessities of travellers and shippers and
! transportation companies justify or re-
| quire an appeal or modification Of section
| Of the Interstate commerce act. which
prohibits pooling under any circum-
| stances.
Also to inquire whethA the system
| OF closing and scaling cars engaged in
/ transportation Of merchandise from one
|
| tory, and from such foreign territory
! into the United States needs TO be modi
| fed, whether all roads engaged in such
| traffic should be either required TO con-
| form to all conditions Of the Interstate
| commerce act or prohibited from con-
| tinuinc in such transportation. also
| whether any notifications should be made
| In the law concerning the relations be-
| tween common carriers and their en-
| plOyes. The resolution was referred 10
! the Committee on Contingent Expenses.
I Later IL became a basis Of discussion
| into which entered the recent decisions
| Of Judges Taft and Kicks in Ohio. and
Speer T. Gerogia. in relation to the rights
] and duties Of railroad employees.
Mr. GOiman took the lead In the dis
cussiOn. He said the investigation pro-
posed by the Interstate Commerce Com
mittee was most pressing and important
one. II affected millions OF people and
hundreds Of millions Of invested capital.
| One question was whether il was possible
70 make provision by law 10 enable rail-
road companies 10 protect themselves in
the matter Of freights and freight charges
without doing injustice TO communities
and individuals. Senators We're only. he
said on the threshold Of that investiga-
tion. Another matter 10 be inquired into
was the recent decisions OF United States
judges and whether, In view Of the Inter
state commerce law and of the antitrust
law judges had a right 10 determine not
only what a railroad employe should do.
but what he should not do. Those de-
cisiOns were the first great step on the
part Of the judiciary 70 make serfs OF the
men who were employed by railroad cor
pOrations. II the law warranted these
decisions ard possibly 1t did. then that
law ought to be modified or repealed.
He did not believe that the American
people would ever submit 10 any branch
Of the Government whether judiciary or
legislative putting such impOstions upon
them as were put in the recent judicial
decisions.
Mr.. Hoar asked Mr.. German TO be
somewhat more specific.
MI German explained that what he
meant 10 say was shat the recent Judi
cial decision that railroad employees micht
be restrained by an order Of the court
might he fined and imprisoned il they re-
signed their positions-was a most ex-
traordnary decision. and one that had
10 be met a the very threshold Of the
next Congress Il ought 10 be inquired
into carefully BY men who mad but one
motive. and that was TO see (while pro-
tecting the interests OF commerce. that
no Injustice was done TO individuals. and
that the courts of the United States
should not be armed with powers as ar
bitrary as those Of the Car Of Russia.
Mr.. Platt said that he had not yet seen
in the decision referred 20 anything that
looked like usurpatiOn Of power by the
courts or that looked like degrading the
workingmen Of the country 20 the condi-
ton Of serfs. He believed that the en-
ployes Of railroads had no more right TO
engage in determinations Of commerce
than their employers had. and he did not
believe that there was anything either In
the Interstate Commerce act or in the
Antitrust act that was not an afiirma-
tiOn Of well-cOnsidered and well-estab-
lished common law.
Mr.. Hoar remarked that the Antitrust
law simply extended 70 the commerce Of
the United States the principles Of the
common law. so that he was quite GER
tain that no such doctrine as that appre-
hended by the Senator from Maryland
a mere extension Of the common law In
regard TO combinations in restraint Of
trade in United States commerce. The
Interstate Commerce law was different
one. That was a new piece Of machinery.
and he had no doubt that It contained
a good deal that would at some day re-
turn to plague the inventor
Mr.. Vest thought IL unfortunate that
this matter should have come up for dis
cussiOn. because ii was necessarily in
the nature Of eX parte criticism. Every
lawyer knew how unsafe IL was TO take
newspaper statements OF judicial de-
cisions. He had been. for instance,
startled this morning 10 see in the Wash
ington Post that great revolution had
taken place. The article was headed. "A
Great Triumph for the Brotherhood Of
Locomotive Engineers and the impress
sion was conveyed in the article that
Judge Speer Of Georgia, had decided that
the regulations Of the Association OF Lo-
comotive Engineers were 20 be recog-
nized hereafter by the Federal judiciary.
On reading the text Of Judge Speer's de-
cision he had found that the text did not
al all bear out the heading, and that
Judge Speer had only affirmed what every
lawyer knew to be the common law.
He had decided that any contract or |
regulation I'm restraint Of commerce Of the |
United States was absolutely void: that |
any engineer had a right to give up his |
employment but that when the Asso- |
citation OF locomotive engineers. or any |
other Association or corporation, under |
took TO make a rule and 70 enforce IL in |