Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1899-05-04
BUT REPUBLICANS REMAIN IN THE
ANTITRUST GAME.
PRESENT SWEEPING MEASURE
1T Is THE wHALEY BILL IN A NEW
DRESS.
Special Committee Appointed by the
House Loses No Time in Carry
ing Ont the Wishes of the
Goycrnor-wenk Knees
BoIstered.

The house spent most of the morning ses-
sion in considering two antitrust resolu-
tions and in passing TWO antitrust bills
Immediately after the house convened Mr. |
Hubbard. Republican, of Barry. precipi- |
tated debate by Offering resolution in |
structing the judiciary committee Ito pre- |
pare bill and report the same at once
that will rigidly govern trusts or compel
them to go out of business in this state"
Mr.. Hubbard tried in vain to get direct
vote on the resolution.
On motion of Bohart, Democrat, of Clin-
ton. the resolution was referred to the
committee on judiciary.
DR.. Tubbs Republican. of Usage. tried
new tack. He offered a resolution de-
claring 1t TO be the sense of the house that
no adjournment be taken until stringent
antitrust 5ill should have been passed.
Mr.. Bohart said this resolution was a
piece of political buncombe and should be
rejected.
Mr.. Hamilton, of Daviess. thought other
wise. Addressing himself TO the Demo-
Gratis. he said that the majority should
vote for the resolution without dissenting
voice. 1T is too late for the Republicans
70 change their COURSE he said. They
can't hope TO right themselves at this late
day. They have voted to n man against
every antitrust measure that has come up
during this session
DIR. Tubbs challenged him to prove his
statement.
Mr.. Hamilton enumerated the cent fare
bill. the stock yards bill and the Farris
insurance bill in support of his contention.
Judge Hawthorne explained that seven
teen Republicans had voted for the Far
ris bill and that although the Democrats
had eleven more than majority in the
house, it took Republican votes to pass
the bill. s-..--a
II was also pointed out that the stock
yards bill and the 2 cent fare bill We're
not antitrust measures. but, even though
they were. the vote on them was far from
strictly party.
DR.. DelzelI then got mixed up on an old
adage: i'When the devil was sick, the
devil saint was he he exclaimed in
accents intended TO be witheringly sar-
castle.
Mr. Williams. of Scott, thought the Re-
publicans must be troubled with con-
science. ..
Mr.. Mann. asked him If 1t wasn't a-fact
that the Whaley bill was the most far
reaching antitrust measure proposed dur
ing the session and if all but five Re-
publicans hadn't voted for it and fifteen
Democrats had voted against it
Mr.. Williams could not say as TO that.
Mr. Hamilton. of Daviess. asked Mr..
Mann how he voted on the Farris insur-
ance bill.
II voted against it, replied Mr.. Mann.
but 1 voted for the Whaley BILL.
whitecotton's Amendment.
Mr.. Whitecotton offered amendment
which was adopted, constituting Messrs.
Tubbs, Hubbard and Mueller a committee
TO prepare and report to the house rigid
antitrust measures.
Mr.. AydeIott, of Warren, offered an
I,snI1 sI,a a1yar Hi,stra
of order. The amendment provided that
neither the governor nor the attorney gen
eral shall have the right TO pass upon the
constitutionality of such measures.
Mr.. Aydelott contended that antitrust
legislation was not safe in such hands and
cited the governors veto of his bill aimed
at the book trust and which passed with
out dissenting vote.
The Tubbs resolution was then adopted
by unanimous vote and Mr.. Whitecotton
Immediately called up the two senate bill.
designed TO enable the attorney general tC
secure testimony in relation to pools, trusts
and conspiracies and defining the proceed
ure TO be followed in so doing.
The bills are very much alike. One was
introduced by Senator Farris and the Other
by Senator Wilson at the request of Attor
ney General Crow. The Farris bill passed
by unanimous vote, 10 to o. Nine Repub
licans voted against the Crow biIl-Beedle
James. Johnston. of st. Louis county; Muel
Ter. Paule. Charles A Smith, of st. Louis
Wilson, of Hickory; Wilson, of St. Louis
and Young.
These Republicans took the position tina
part of section of the Crow bill woul
preclude the prosecution of witnesses 70
perjury. The clause is follows:
THE testimony given by a witness in
proceeding or examination under this ac
shall not be given against him in any Grim
inal action or proceeding nor shall an
criminal action or proceeding be brougt
against such witness on account of an
testimony given by him.
Mr.. Young asked Mr.. Whtecotton to es
press an opinion on this question, but Nj
Whitecotton avoided a direct reply.
Senator Wilson, however, says that til
clause in question would not prevent pro.
ecutions for perjury.
Judge Hawthorne and Mr.. OFaIlon, bot
of whom voted for the bill express Ii
same opinion.
A lawyer of reputation stated to-day tn;
he feared the acts which will now go
the governor for his signature will pro,
TO be sandbagSers
However, an attorney general of stri
integrity could accomplish much by them
he added.
The Democrats Surprised.
In the afternoon the Republican commi
tee chosen to draft an antitrust bill su
prised the Democrats by reporting A swee