The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-08
Ended by the Passage of the Anti
Scalping Bill.
1T PASSED AS REPORTED
The Matter Has Been Before Congress
Ever since leee-The Practice OF Ap-
pointing Senators on Commissions
Attacked in Executive Session.

vote or 119 to 1Ol. ThiS action is the
elimination OF a 10 years struggle on
the part of the railroads to put an end
to the business of ticket scalping. The
interstate commerce commission first
called the attention to the subject in its
report of 1858. and 1t has been before
congress ever since. in one form or an
other. During the last session exten-
sive hearings were given both to the
representatives Of the railroads and the
scalpers and Sherman of New York
secured Ia pledges for the measure. 1t
was. however, deemed inadvisable to
bring the measure forward until the
present session. The debate to-day
lasted four hours and was spirited upon
both sides. None of the amendments
offered were adopted. The bill passed
as reported by the committee.
The bill to carry Into effect the recon-
mendation OF the International Ameri-
can conference by the Incorporation of
an international bank at the last ses-
sion had been made the special order
for to-day. but in the absence OF Hill
of Connecticut. who had charge of the
measure. Walker of Massachusetts,,
chairman of the committee on banking
and currency. asked that IL go over for
one week without prejudice. There was
no objection and II was so ordered.
Mr.. Hepburn. rep, Iowa, demanded
the regular order. This was the call Of
committees. The first committee called
was the committee on interstate COM
merce. and Hepburn called up the anti
scalping bill. Hepburn offered to make
arrangements regarding the time to be
occupied in debating the bill.
White. rep, Illipols. said there was
opposition to the measure.
Adamson. dem, Georgia. who made
the minority report. was absent.
Bland, dem, Missouri, said he de-
sired to raise the question OF considera-
tion, but the speaker announced il was
too late. Bland said an important bill
like this should be debated at length
and he objected 10 the offer of another
hour on a side. All efforts to effect an
agreement as to time failed and Hep
burn was thereupon recognized for an
hour. He yielded TO Sherman. rep, New
York. who explained the bill was very
similar to the one passed by the house
during the last congress. The changes
were mainly restrictive upon corpora
tions.
The bill requires the carriers subject
to the interstate commerce act to pro-
vide each agent authorized to sell tick
cts with a certificate and makes IL un-
lawful for an officer of such carrier to
supply tickets to any but authorized
agents. Ii IL makes violation OF these
provisions a misdemeanor and provides
for the redemption Of unusued or par
TALLY used tickets and also provides
penalties for forging OF altering tickets.
Mr.. Sherman said this legislation had
been repeatedly recommended by the
interstate commerce commission: that
Il had the support of newspapers and
commercial bodies and that over 5000
petitions in its favor had been present
ed to the house during the present con-
gress.
Mr. Brundige. dem. Arkansas, Of
fered as an amendment a proviso to the
effect that the bill should not apply to
tickets that are issued by any railroad
or other common carrier for the pur-
pose of being transferred. In explain
ing his amendment, Mr.. Brundige de-
clared that the real purpose Of the bill
was to prevent certain railroads from
placing tickets in the hands of scalpers
for the purpose of being transferred.
The provision relating to forgery was
unnecessary. Every state had statutes
against the issue of forged instruments.
Mr.. Hepburn. in advocacy of the bill.
said there were but two sources OF op-
position to the pending measure. the
ticket scalpers who made money out of
the business and certain railroads who
succeeded through scalpers in violating
the interstate commerce law,
Mr.. Mann, rep, Illinois. said there
were some weak roads which would not
he able to compete with their strong
rivals except through the agency Of
ticket brokers.
Mr. Bland. dem. Missouri, said he
favored the Brundige amendment. but
was opposed to the bill as a whole. III
- n. -.
the friends Of the bill would lose inter-
est in IT. The purpose of the bill was to
legalize pooling of passenger traffic and
to take away from the states. as far as
possible. Jurisdiction over this subject
The bill was opposed by Messrs. Lit
tie. dem, Missouri; Bodine. dem, Mis-
souri,: Bartlett. dem. Georgia. and Gil
lett. rep. Massachusetts.
Mr. Corliss. rep. Michigan. said that
this bill would not prevent discrimlna-
ton. II would simply transfer the
right TO discriminate from the scalpers
10 the authorized agents. He gave no.
tice OF an amendment he would intro
duce TO make the authorized agent OF
any railroad equally liable with an un-
authorized agent for selling tickets be-
low published rates.
Mr.. Updegraff. rep, Iowa. made a
warm speech in opposition TO the bill.
He could not. he said. allow so mon
strous a proposition as the bill con-
tained to pass without a word. II ought
to be entitled "A bill to suppress com
petition in passenger traffic"
Mr. Marsh. rep. Illinois and Mr.. Con-
nell. rep, Illinois. opposed the bill in a
vigorous manner.
Mr. Hepburn. in charge OF the bill. re-
Piled TO its critics. IL was not designed
to stifie competition.
on a rising vote the Brundige amend
ment was defeated. 20 TO IS. The vote
was then taken by ayes and noes. The
amendment was defeated. lOl 10 l22
The vote then recurred on Mr.. Corliss'
amendment II was also defeated,
TO 60.
Mr.. Atkinson. dem. Georgia: Mr..