The Saint Paul globe., 1900-06-01
N)NE OF THIN FOOLS
MIR. BAILEY'S SHARP SHOT AT RE-
PUBLICANS FOR DODGING ANTI
TRUST MEASURE
lPPLAUDED ON BOTH SIDES
REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVES,
FORCE ORDER AGAINST AMEND
MENTS ON HOUSE
PARTY TRICKERY IS CHARGED
Democrats Boldly Assert That the
Republicans Are Seeking to
Give Aid and Comfort
to the Trusts.

WASHINGTON. May 31-The house to-
oaV' under special order adopted after
an exceedingly hot debate, in which the
leaders on both sides charged each other
with playing to the political galleries. en-
tered upon the consideration of the reso-
luton reported from the judiciary COM
mittee, proposing a constitutional amend
ment to lodge in congress the power "to
oenne, regulate, control, or dissolve
trusts monopolies or combinations" I'm
der the terms of the order today, with a
hlght session tonight, was devoted to de-
pate and tomorrow at o'clock the vote
is to be taken without opportunity to
amend Saturday is to be devoted to the
Dill TO amend the Sherman antitrust law.
The Democrats charged that the pro-
posed constitutional amendment was oh
Jecuonable In every way; that 1t was a
mere political pretext; that it was unnec-
essary, and that it was proposed at the
end of the session for election purposes
in the coming campaign.
The Republicans repudiated the charge
of bad faith.
A constitutional amendment requires a
two-thirds vote to adopt 1t, or 236 votes
with the present membership Of the house.
Inc Republicans have only 1S6, fifty less
than the requisite two-thirds.
The Democratic party believes the evils
OF trusts should be checked, and we will
cast our vote for a constitutional
amendment If one be necessary said
Mr.. Richardson (Tenn), ''but the pro-
posed will
pose. 1t will have the exactly opposite
erect. 1t will take away from the states
the power to regulate trusts. hope every
member on the floor" he concluded, who
loves law and order will stand by us to
correct this resolution" Democratic ap-
plause)
Mr. Grosvenor followed Mr. Richardson.
why do we not allow amendments to
be offered?' he asked. "Our justification
is a perfect one We are in the majority.
We are held responsible. The opposition
will not share the burden, if burden there
be. Before the next session of congress
the people will have ample time to pass
upon 1T. This is a radical action. 1 was
inclined to criticise it when the Demo-
cratic leader, Mr.. Bryan, suggested it at
chicago. L criticised it as undemocratic
Since that time Mr.. Bryan has remained
silent and we are now here submitting it
You can neither approve it or go on record
against it. Republican applause)
SENATORS NOT FOOLS.
Mr.. Bailey Dem., Tex) replied to Mr..
Grosvenor The gentleman from Ohio.
he said, asked the house and country to
indorse his refusal to permit amendments.
Mr.. Bailey and his party in all fairness
demanded that the minority should not
only be allowed, but should be entitled
to offer their plan for the suppression of
the great evil, so that the country could
say Which was the wiser and safer rem
edy.
In our opinion you have no desire to
destroy trusts" said he, addressing the
Republican side "You have been in ses-
sion six months, but it is only six days
before adjournment that YOU LET this
question come up. No one dare stand up
here and declare upon , honor that he
expects the resolution or bill to be acted
upon by the senate at this session The
constitutional amendment will. never be-
come part of the constitution The
states will not ratify it. No state which
prizes its rights of home rule will permit
congress to come into its territory and
legislate for it. If it was made to apply
to interstate and foreign commerce it
would receive every vote on this side of
the chamber. If you insist on the present
form, you know 1t will never become a
law. There are two ways to encourage
crime--one way is to close your eyes to
it, and the other is to offer every possible
obstacle to checking 1t. You are using
the latter plan. L have always doubted
your sincerity. Some of you may be hyp-
ocrites, some rascals, but none of you are
fools"
Mr.. Bailey's closing sentence was greet
ed with applause, in which some of the
Republicans Joined.
MIR. DALZELL'S PLEA.
Mr.. Dalzen closed for the majority. No
political party or faction has a platform
that is not against trusts. This was
greeted with jeers by the Democrats. Of
the three last political campaigns the
Democratic and Populist parties confined
themselves to speecnmaking, while the
Republican party believed in legislation 4
(Republican applause and Democratic
jeers.) The Republican party had placed
on the statute books in 1890 the Sherman
antitrust law. The Democrats came
into power in 1892 on a platform contain
ing a plank against trusts. In the next
four years their executive did not even
take steps to enforce the law the Repub-
licans had placed on the statute books.
The great Populistic-Democratic leader at
Chicago declared that an amendment
should be passed giving congress the pow
er to regulate trusts
''Yet when we come here" said he,
with that very remedy the leader on
the other side appeals to his colleagues
to stand together against 1t. We charge
you with bad faith. You say that no
constitutional amendment that infringes
on the powers of the state should be
passed. The remedy proposed by the op-
position already exists. The supreme
court has decided that it is not sufficient
With that remedy alone congress is pow
erIess. If the trusts are not to be
frightened at the prospect of this legisla-
ton it is because they know that be-
tween them and it stands the Democratic
party in solid phalanx. Republican ap-
plause)
"You believe in demagogy upon the
stumps; we believe in effective legisla
ton upon the statute books prolonged
Republican applause)
NO AMENDMENTS.
Mr. Richardson attempted to offer an
amendment, but Mr.. Dalzell made a point
of order against it, and it was sustained
by the speaker. The vote was taken
amid considerable excitement and the
rule was adopted-141 to 11S 1t was
strict party vote, with the exception of