Willmar tribune., 1899-07-05

perrs. Notwithstanding these facts, the
proposed amendment to Section 22, by
Senate File No. "a, leaves out this
vitality important provision of the sec.
tion as it now stands. Now Senator,
let me ask you in all candor, WHY
was this left out? 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 out2
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
these questions I have right to ask
and do ask of you. But this is not by
any means the sole reason why I 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 q hearing should be made and con-
stituted the record on appeal This was
for the sole purpose of expediting mat
ters and saving time. The protracted
delays resorted to by the railroad COM
panies on all proceedings against them
is, as you we'll realize, the worst feature
in the administration of the law that
we have to contend against. The 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 the Court the
papers and testimony taken before it
and further, that if the Court ''shall
think it needful, that additional evi-
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
own way than send portion of it back
for rehearing or for the taking of addi-
tional evidence before another tribunal.
provision had become a law, the first
thing that the railroad company would
have done upon report being filed in
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 recommitted to the Com
mission for the taking of further evil
dence. But this is not all, nor the worst
feature Of this provision. The proposed
amendment provides that the Commis-
sion might be called upon or it might in
its own discretion rehear and reconsider
all the questions involved in or con-
nected with its order or requirement,
to enforce which the petition was filed,
such rehearing to be had adupon alldi-
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 it's 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
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 recommitted. and SO
on without limit. Now, although |
realize that you are not a lawyer, it
seems to me 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 I 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 recommend
ed and this subject was not new to. me.
had it up in all its phases when q
: member Of the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce of the House OF
Representatives and I then arrived al
the same conclusions which guided nv
action in this matter.
You criticise me for not consulting
with the Attorney General. WIN
should I? Would you ask anybodys
advice upon plain proposition where
your duty was clear? But I make this
suggestion to you. You are at liberty
to submit this letter to the ATTORNEY
General and take his views upon the
questions which I have discussed. ]
am surprised, in view 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 tc
go through without opposition was not
sufficient to put you on your guard
especially after the passage through the
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 expe
rience fresh in your mind, it seems tt
me that you might have scented the
woodchuck in Senate File No. "a.
If you require further information tc
enable you to understand this subject,
let me know and I will cheerfully fur
nish it. In the meantime, I denounce
every statement and innuendo contained
in your several articles bearing upon
this subject as absolutely false; and as
a small measure of reparation. l de-
mand that you retract your charges and
that you give this letter such publicity
in your paper as you have given the
ibelous articles referred to.
Yours truly,
JOHN LIND, Governor.
ADTICTC NE TAnAM