The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1900-06-01

give good reason 70 justify the action OF
his party, he CHR. Bailey) was warranted
In assuming that no good reason existed
The gentleman from Ohio, said he, asked
the House and the country to endorse this
refusal 70 permit amendment. In doing
50, said kfr. Bailey, his partizan zeal but
blinds his usually clear intellect.
Dealing with a great and comparative
ly new issue fairness demanded that the
minority should not only be allowed but
should be invited to offer their plan for
the suppression Of the great evil 50 that
the country could say which was the wissr
and safer remedy. The country would
understand that this was mere play for
partisan advantage.
'You have no real purpose to dissolve
or destroy trusts said he, addressing the
Republican side. You have been In ses-
lon six months, but 10 Is not until six
days before adjournment that you let this
question come up. No one dare stand up
here and declare seriously on his honor
that he expects either the bill or resolu-
ton to be acted upon by the Senate at
this session. They will be left on the
Senate's calendar. They may or may not
be passed at the next session. But
whether passed or not this constitutional
you know viii never become
part Of the constitution. 1t can never be
ratified by enough states. No state that
believes In the right Of self government
will place in Congress the power 10 come
into the state and control Its domestic in
dustries. The trusts understand they are
not In the remotest danger from this
II you would propose q
simple amendment giving Congress con-
troll of all organizations engaged in In
terstate and foreign commerce 1t would
receive every vote on this side Of the
chamber.
"If you insist ON your amendment you
know It win never become part Of the
There are two ways Of en-
crime-one Is to close your eyes
to its existence and the other to offer an
obstacle. You are using
the latter method. You understand its
purpose. 1t Is mere play. have some
times doubted your sincerity" said he in
81 have even doubted your
political integrity. Some Of you may be
Of you are FOOLS"
Mr.. Bailey's concluding sentence was
greeted with prolonged Democratic APP
plause In which some Of the Republicans
joined. Mr.. Dalzell closed the debate for
The majority. No political party and no
said he, had future who
was not against trusts. This utterance
was greeted with derisiye jeers from the
side. 1.-THE difference between
he three political parties" he continued
was that the Democratic and Populistic
parties confined their opposition to speech
making while the Republican party be-
lieved in Legislation" (Republican APP
,lause and renewed Democratic jeers.
The Republican party, he went ON, had
placed on the statute books in 1890 the
sherman anti trust law. The Democrats
.ame into power in 1862 on a platform
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
lpon the statute books. The great Popu- |
ist- Democratic leader at Chicago declared
hat constitutional amendment shou Id |
" passed giving Congress the power to |
egulate trusts.
"Yet, when we come here" said he, |
with that very RENE 1y the leader on the |
'ther side appeals to his colleagues to
tand together against 1t. You charge us
With bad faith. You say that no consti- |
utional amendment that infringes the
,ower of the sta ties should be passed.
Your objection is not to the form but to
he substance. The remedy proposed by |
he gentleman from Texas already exists.
The Supreme court has decided that 1t Is
lot sufficient. With that remedy alone
congress is powerless. II the trusts are
not to be frightened at the prospect of
his legislation, it is because they know
hat between them and it stands the
party in solid phalanx.
"You believe in demagogy ON the
tump; we believe In legislation upon the
tatute books" prolonged Republican
pplause.)
Mr. Richardson, before the vote was
AIKEN upon the adoption Of the rule, at
empted to offer motion to recommit,
nut Mr.. Dalzell made a point Of order
nd 1t was sustained by the Speaker. The
ote was then taken amid considerable |
excitement and the rule was adopted al |
o lis.
1t was strict party vote with the Eek
option of Mr.. Mann of Illinois, who
oted with the Democrats against the
ule.
The minority amendments to the bin
vere then offered and considered pend
ng, after which the debate upon the
esolution was formally opened by Mr..
Ray, chairman Of the Judiciary commit
ee, 1t having been arranged that the
ime should be equally divided, Mr.. Ray
o control the time for the majority, and
Or. Terry Of Arkansas the ranking mi
Iority member of the committee for the
pposition.
Mr.. Rays argument followed the lines
4 his report. He said that the PROPOSE