Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-31
SENATE AND HOUSE



vote on the amendment on Friday and the
bill on Saturday
Mr.. Dalzell explained that the rule pre-
sented was for the consideration of the two
measures reported by the judiciary COM
mttee. the resolution for constitutional
amendment empowering congress to enact
legislation dealing with trusts and the bill
for the amendment of the Sherman anti
trust law.
The Democratic Position Defined.
Mr.. Richardson, the minority leader
criticising the rule. declared that it was
framed to bring the House to a vote on the
resolution without opportunity to amend it.
I'VE are confronted with a unique situa-
ton" said he THE government has been
In possession of the republican party since
March. 1897. 1t has been supreme in all
branches of the government. The first thing
done was to enact the Dngley lava law
which has done more to foster and propa-
gate trusts than any other on The statute
books. During all the intervening time
nothing has been done to control trusts. but
now on the eve of adjournment, after
resolution has been passed fixing the day
for final dissolution, the republican party
brings In this antitrust legislation. 1t is an
effort to recoup for political effect. The
people will not be fooled"
The democratic party believes the evils
OF trusts should be checked, and We on
this side. are ready and willing to vote for
any measure for their suppression and con-
troll. We would even vote for a constitu-
tional amendment If one were necessary
but the proposed constitutional amendment
will not serve the purpose. 1t will have ex-
actly the opposite effect. 1t will take away
from the states the power to legislate
against trusts. / hope that every demo-
crat on this floor he concluded, turning
to his democratic colleagues, who loves
law and order will stand with us in the
effort to vote down this resolution" Demo-
cratic applause)
Willing to Take RespOnsibility.
Mr.. Grosvenor (Ohio) followed Mr. Rich
ardson. He said: IF this were a new
question. although it involves a radical
amendment to organic law, more debate
might, with propriety, be demanded. But
1t was not a new question: and time enough
had been allowed for gentlemen to put
themselves on record. This is a proposition
of the majority. We will be held re-
sponsible. The opposition will not share
the burden. If burden 1t be. Thereupon we
come to you saying: This is our PROPOSE
ton. You can take 1t or array yourselves
against We will place 1t before the peo-
pie and before the next session of Congress
convenes they will have ample time to dis
cuSS and pass upon it.
This is a radical action. 1 was inclined
to criticise it when the democratic leader,
Mr. Bryan suggested 1t at Chicago. l
criticised it as undemocrauc. Since that
time Mr.. Bryan has remained silent, but
we are now here submitting it. You can
either approve 1t or go on record against
1t. (Republican applauSe.)
Mr.. Bniley's Remarks.
Mr.. Bailey (Tex.), in replying to Mr..
Grosvenor. said the gentleman from Ohio
asked the House and the country to indorse
this refusal to permit amendment. In do
ing SO. said Mr. Bailey. his partisan zeal
must blind his usually clear intellect. Deal
Ing with great and comparatively new
issue fairness demanded that the minority
should not only be allowed, but should be
invited, to offer their plan for the suppress
sion of the great evil, SO that the country
could say which was the wiser and safer
remedy. The country would understand
that this was a mere play for partisan adj
vantage.
IF you insist on your amendment" he
said. in conclusion. you know it will never
become part of the Constitution. There
are two ways of encouraging crime-one is
to close your eyes to it's existence and the
other to offer an impracticable obstacle.
You are using the latter method. You I'M
derstand Its purpose. 1t is mere play. 1
have sometimes doubted your sincerity"
ed your political integrity. Some of you
may be hypocrites. some even rascals, but
none of you are fools" Mr.. Bailey's con-
GLIDING sentence was greeted with pro-
longed democratic applause, in which some
of the republicans Joined.
Mr.. DnIzeII's Speech.
Mr.. Dalzell closed the debate for the ma
jorty. No political party and no indi-
vidual said he, had future who was not
against trusts.
1.-The democrats came into power in 1899 on
a platform containing strong plank
against trusts. But for four years they did
nothing. Their executive did not even take
steps to enforce the law the republicans
had put upon the statute books The great
populistic democratic leader at Chicago de-
a1< hat Jf,,fiA Iy,,a,
should be passed giving Congress the power
to regulate trusts. Yet when we come
here" said he. with that very remedy the
leader on the other side appeals to his col
leagues to stand together against it. You
charge us with bad faith. You say that no
constitutional amendment that infringes
the power of the states should be passed.
Your objection Is not to the form, but to
the substance. The remedy proposed by the
gentleman from Texas already exists. The
Supreme Court has decided that 1t is not
sufficient. With that remedy alone Congress
Is powerless. If the trusts are not to be
frightened at the prospect of this legisla-
ton it is because they know that between
them and it stands the democratic party in
solid phalanx. Republican applause)
You believe in demagogy upon the
stump: we believe in effective legislation
upon the statute books" prolonged
publican applause)
Nearly n Strict Party Vote.
Mr.. Richardson attempted before the vote
was taken upon the adoption of the rule to
offer a motion to recommit. but Mr.. DaZel
made the point of order that the motion
was not in order, and was sustained by the
Speaker. Mr.. Richardson offered to submit
precedents including two rulings of ex-
Speaker Reed, but the chair declined to
hear him. He had, he said, examined all
presidents and his mind was clear that
the motion was not In order. The vote was
taken amid considerable excitement and
the rule was adopted. al to lis. 1t was a
strict party vote. with the exception of
Mr.. Mann ull.). who voted with the demo-
Gratis against the rule.
The Minority Amendments.
The minority amendments to the bill were
then offered and considered, pending which
the debate upon the resolution was formal
ly opened by Mr.. Ray, chairman Of the
judiciary committee, 1t having been ar
ranged that the time should be equally di-
vided. Mr.. Ray to control the time for the
majority and Mn Terry (Ark.), the rank
ing minority member. for the opposition.
Mr.. Rays argument followed the lines of