The Irish standard., 1899-07-01

without the cooperation of railroad ex-
perts. Notwithstanding these facts, the
proposed amendment to Section %, by
Senate File No. "A, leaves out this
vitality important provision of the Sec
ton as it now stands. Now Senator,
let me ask you in all candor, why
was this left out2 Did you realize that
it had been left out when you intro
duced the bill! Would You have intro
duced it, knowing that it was left out?
Would you have voted for this amend
ment with the knowledge that the effect
OF 1t would be to shift the burden of
proof from the shoulders of the railroad
company to the side of the producer
and the state2 ~ candid answer to
these questions l have a right to ask
and do ask of you. But this is not by
any means the sole reason why l omit
ted to sign Senate File "a, although it
seems to me that any candid man would
regard this not only sufficient but i'm
peratively demanding that it should not
have my approval.
recommended in my message that
the record made before the Commission
on II hearing should be made and con-
stituted the record on appeal. This was
for the sole purpose of eNpediting mat
ters and saving time. Tho protracted
delays resortod to by the railroad com
panies on all proceedings against them
is, as you well realize, the worst feature
in the administration of the law that
we have to contend against. Tho pro-
visions of Senate File "a, instead of
tending to curtail and prevent delays,
seem especially calculated to further
them. The proposed amendment, SEN
ate File No "a, provides that the COM
mission should report to tho Court the
papers and testimony taken before it
and further, that if tho Court shall
think it needful, that additional evil
dence shall be taken or further inquiries
be prosecuted, it shall recommit the
matter to the Commission to prose-
cute such inquiry" Now. if you know
anything about legal procedure, YOU
know that it would be infinitely more
expeditions for the District Court to try
and dispose of the case before it in its
own way than send a portion of it back
for rehearing or for the taking of addi-
tional evidence before another tribunal.
You also know or realize that if this
provision had become q law tho first
thing that the railroad company would
the District Court, would have been to
make innumerable motions, all of
which take not less than 10 days notice,
to have this question and that question
and the other rccolnmitted to the Com
mission for the taking of further evil
dence. But this is not all, nor tho worst
feature of this provision. The proposed
amendment provides that the Commits
sion might be called upon or it might in
its own discretion rehcar and reconsider
all the questions "involved in or CON
nected with it's order or requirement.,
to enforce which the petition was tilod.
such rehearing to be had aduponalldi-
tional evidence in connection with the
whole record filed with the petition as
above provided, and may thereupon
make and file in the case with its report
and return of evidence taken. an
amended or supplemental order, which
shall then be substituted for the original
order or requirement of the Commits I,
sion" When this amended or supple
mental order was brought in, it would,
of course. be subject to the same power
of the court to be rccommitteGl, and 80
on without limit. Now, although l
realize that You are not Il lawyer, it
seems to mo that when you consider
these facts, especially If you will take
the trouble to confer with some compe-
tent practitioner, or say Judge Brown,
you will see that am correct in saying
that these provisions seem especially
calculated to further delays. You will
also observe that these are very different
provisions from those that recommends
ed and this subject was not new to me.
| l had it up i'll all its phases when u
member of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce of the House of
Representatives.. and then arrived at
the same conclusions which guided my
action in this matter.
You criticise me for not consulting
with the Attorney General. Whv
should L? Would you ask anyboay's
advice upon n plain proposition where
your duty was clear? But make this
suggestion to you. You arc ut liberty
to submit this letter to the Attorney
General and take his views upon the
questions which I have discussed.
am surprised, in Wow of your expe-
rience in the senate and the Judgment
which you entertained and expressed of
the majority of your colleagues. that
the fact that this bill was permitted 10
go through without opposition was not
sufficient to put you on your guard,
especially after the passage through tho
senate with only three dissenting votes
of the Shellbach bill, which would have
repealed the Anderson law taxing rail-
road lands, had 1t passed the house and
received my approval. With such cxpe-
rience fresh in your mind, it seems to
me that you might have scented the
woodchuck in Senate File No. "a.
If you require further information to
enable you to understand this subject,
let me know and will cheerfully fur
nish it. In the meantime, denounce
every statement and innuendo contained
in your several articles bearing upon
this subject as absolutely false; and as
small measure Of reparation, de-
mand that you retract your charges and
that you give this letter such publicity
III your paper rs You have given tho
libelous articles referred to.
Yours truly,
JOHN LIND, Governor.