The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-03-03

government in the awkward position OF the
treasury refusing to collect the revenue
provided in this section. The collectors at
our every ports did not attempt to collect
the revenue. They were stopped by the
treasury department, under the direction
OF the attorney general. In this respect the
government worked against itself. The
law should have been enforced, just as 1t
passed congress, and If objected to by i'm
porters or foreigners, they could have ap-
pealed to the courts.
IF we had enforced section % just as it
stands on the statute books we would
have had Canada today at our feet
suing for terms to save Canadian Pacific
Interests in our country, instead of suggest
ing what policy should govern us touching
Canadian Matters
IF" inquired Mr.. Platt (Conn) "the
Canadian Pacific was subject to the
long and short haul clause of the in
terstate commerce law, would it be
able to take away the business of our
RAILROADS.&C.
1T would not" replied Mr.. Elkins.
THE senator has struck the point OF
this entire matter. While our railroads
are hampered by law, the Canadian
Pacific is free from it's restrictions"
In the course of brief reply to Mr..
E!kins, Mr.. Hoar expressed some re-
gret that Mr. Elkins had brought into
the discussion of the pending bill so
much matter that was apparently ir-
relevant.
Nelson Replies.
Mr.. Nelson (Iinn.) followed Mr. Hoar
with a sharp, though short, protest
against Mr.. Elkins' proposition on the
ground that 1t was aimed at the inter
ests Of the farmers of the Northwest.
1--WE have" he said, 'other interests
than those of the railrod trunk lines.
At the further end Of Lake Superior
there is located a great empire Of five
or six millions of farmers, and the in
terests of those farmers are far high
er consideration than are the interests
of the railroads, however important
they may be to their owners"
Continuing, he said that the Cana
dian Pacific road had brought to those
farmers reduction amounting to an
average of about 10 cents a bushel on
the transportation of their products to
the Atlantic seaboard.
Why, he asked, should this advant-
age be destroyed in the interest of a
few stockholders and bondholders in
these railroads, most of whom resided
abroad? The question, as it presented
Itself to him, was whether these rail-
roads should be made to pay large div
1dends to their foreign owners or
whether we should afford adequate
protection to these farmers of the
Northwest. 1t was the duty of con-
gress, he contended, to look after the
interests of this vast community and
the interests of the people of New Eng
land rather than the interests of the
coupon-clipping foreigners who hold
the stocks and bonds of the trunk
lines. He asserted that Mr.. Elkins'
proposition was blow at the Amer
lean farmer and to get him into the
cauldron of the railroad and there to
roast and SINCE him without mercy.
Mr.. Chllton, in a few words, said
that Mr.. Elkins was proceeding on a
mlsconception, and that the Canadian
Pacific rates were not subject to the
law controlling the long and short
haul. He also said that recent su-
preme court decisions made 1t possible
for the American roads to reduce their
through rates so as to compete with
this line without regard to the long and
short haul clause
AT o:42 p. m. the senate adjourned.