The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-06-01

OF the Constitution II can never be rati-
ned by enough States.
STATES RIGHTS.
y State that believes I'm the right of
self-government will place In Congress the
power TO come into a State and control its
domestic industries. The trusts understand
they are not in the remotest danger from
this legislation. II you would propose a
simple amendment giving Congress control
OF all organizations engaged in interstate
and foreign m il would receive
every vote on this side OF the hambe
There are two ways of encouraging crime.
One is TO close your eyes TO its existence
and the other TO offer an impracticable
obstacle You are using the latter method.
You understand its purpose. / have some
times doubted your sincerity said he in
conclusion. Il have even doubted your
political integrity. Some Of you may be
hypocrites, some even ~rascals. but none OF
you are fools" Mr.. Bailey's concluding
sentence was greeted with prolonged DEM
ocratic applause in which some Of the Re-
publicans Joined
Mr.. DalzeIl closed the debate for the ma
5ority. No political party and no individ-
ual. he said. had a future who was not
against trusts. This utterance was greeted
with derisive Jeers from the Democratic
side The difference between the three po-
hticaI parties, he continued. was that the
Democratic and Populistic parties confined
their opposition TO s~peechmaking. while the
Republican party believed in legislation.
tRepuolican applause and renewed Demo-
cratic jeers.1 The Republican party, he
went on, had placed on the statute books
In 1890 the Sherman antitrust law. The
Democrats came into power in 1892 on a
platform containing a strong plank against
fTHGfa The great POnIliGfiC-I
leader at Chicago declared that a consti-
tutional amendment should be passed CIV
ing Congress the power TO regulate trusts.
Yet when we come here" said he, with
that very remedy the leade on the other
side appeals to his colleagues TO stand
against IL. 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 il is not sufficient. With
that remedy alone Congress is powerless.
II the trusts are not TO be frightened at
the prospect of this legislation IL Is be-
cause they know that between them and IL
stands the Democratic party in solid pha-
lanx, Republican applause.] You believe
In demagogy upon the stump; we be-
lieve ia affective legislation upon the stat
ute books" prolonged Republican APP
plause
THE RULE ADOPTED.
Mr. Richardson attempted TO offer a mo-
tion to recommit. but Mr.. DalzeI made a
point Of order against ii and was sustained
hy the speaker. The vote was taken amid
considerable excitement, and the rule was
adopted-ln to lis. II was a strict party
vote. with the exception of Mr.. Mann, of
Illinois. who voted with the Democrats
against the rule. #
The minority amendments to the bill were
then offered and considered pending, after
which the debate on the resolution was
formally opened by Mr.. Ray. chairman of
the judiciary committee. Mr.. Rays argu-
ments followed the lines of his report. He
said the proposition of the minority to
write into the Constitution something that
was already there was ridiculous. The
power TO regulate corporations engaged In
Interstate already existed. II
the proposition of the minority was not
political clap-trap he did not know what
was. The people had felt the sting of the
trust evil. he said. and had appealed to
state legislatures. and twenty-seven had
responded. Twenty Of them had passed eff
fectfve ~enti-monopoly legislation, but IL the
laws of the forty-five States were uniform,
ana II Congress passed laws in perfect har-
mony with them. he argued, IL would still
De impossible for the States and the United
States together, without "A constitutional
amendment TO relieve the people. Mr.. Ray
said II the resolution was defeated the re-
sDonslhihty would rest with the Democrats.
The majority had but eighteen majority.
1t required a twO-thirds vote to pass the
resolution. IL the opposition defeated ii
they must answer for IL at the polls.
MI. ray was followed by Mr.. Terry, of
ArkansaS. on behalf of the minority. He
expressed regret that i'm so grave an issue
the Republican party had seen fit to pre-
sent a constitutional amendment in so OBJ
J~ectfonable a form that 1t could never be
incorporated In the Constitution. The whole
question, he said. had been treated, not
from the broad standpoint Of patriotism.
but from the standpoint of party expedi-
eIcy. III there was a sincere desire to
adopt a constitutional amendment, why. he
asked. had the very first section been so
wprded as TO make every Democrat who
voted for IL subscribe to the doctrine that
the Constitution did not follow the flag?
Why submit such an entangling proposition
as thisY In view of all the facts, he said.
the country would not believe that the Re-
publicans were sincere. The leaders of the
Republican party knew where the sinews of
war came from. and they would do nothing
70 actually threaten their base of supplies.
The trust managers. he said, were laugh
ing In their sleeves at the antics being cut
up here with the purpose of deceiving tho
people Mr.. Terry commended that there was
ample authority without a constitutional
amendment TO suppress trusts. The very
power invoked a few days ago in the bill
10 place convict-made goods within the
police powers OF the Btates. he said, was
available
II told my colleagues" interposed Mr.
Ray. that that bill. IL IL became a law.
would be declared unconstitutional"
was IL not passed in good faith" in
CURED Mr.. Terry. did you not vote for IL?
under the control OF the States it can place
trust-made goods under similar control"
Democratic applause.1
Mr. Lanham. of Texas. occupied the re-