The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-03-02
Deep HUMILIATION
OF CONGRESSMAN
LIHLEFIELD
Summary of Facts in Con-
nection With the So,Called
Anti Trust Legislation
Open Rupture Between the
Maine Representative and
President Coming.
From Globe washington Bureau.

From Globe Washington Bureau.
WASHINGTON, u. c., March l.
Representative Littlefeld, of Maine,
believes he has a grievance against the
administration in consequence of the
failure of the anti trust bill bearing
his name. AS is well known, the
measure was sidetracked after it had
passed the house, in favor of the 'one-
two-three" programme of the presi-
dent. The publicity bill, and the eX-
pediting and anti-rebate bills were
pushed through under the executive
whip and spur Two of these bills pur-
port to cover similar ground to that
covered by the Littlefield bill. But
they differ principally in not contain
ing any plan for curbing competition
and monopoly.
Littlefeld affects to believe that the
statutes placed on the books as a re-
suit of Roosevelts activities are rather
ineffectual; possibly entirely SO. But
he is deferred from a very free or pub
lie aVOWal of this belief by the fact
that he is a Republican, and this is the
Republican programme. An attitude
of criticism would put him at once
with the Democrats, who calculate to
make their platform chiefly of decla-
rations of distruSt in the administra-
tons antitrust policy They complain
that the president is not sufficiently
radical, while most of the Republican
leaders are secretly chatting because
the president is too radical
Littlefield's grievance is based on the
allegation that he was encouraged to
frame up and push anti trust legisla-
ton, and then, for some reason or
other, was suddenly dropped. The re-
port went out that his bill had been
pronounced unconstitutional by Attor-
ney general Knox and that ii was not
satisfactory to the president. Legisla-
ton was inaugurated in other commit
tees, and his efforts were rendered
worse than useless.
Administration Discredited the Bill.
IT is true beyond doubt that the Lit
tlefield bill was discTedited by the ad-
ADMINISTRATION. A story was put out
from the White house that the bill was
not satisfactory; that Attorney Cen
eral Knox considered it unconstitu-
uonal; and, moreover that the trust
lawyers in New York had advised their
clients that the bill was not constitu-
tional, and suggested that they make
no efforts to prevent its passage. Ac-
cording TO the administration informal
tion the unconStitutionality of the
measure consisted in certain provisions
and phrasings which had been written
into the bill by Mr.. Littlefeld, contra
~ TO the advice and opinion of Mr.
Knox.
tlefieid bill WAS the subject of confer
ences between Knox and Littlefield.
There were three or four-perhaps half
a dozen-meetings between the two
lawyers, while the subcommittee of
the house judiciary committee were at
work and before the bill was reported
Just what took place at these meetings
may be known some day; but at pres
ent neither Littlefield nor the attor-
ney general is willing to say. That
there was a difference of opinion fs
evident. Attorney General Knox had
drawn two bills himself, covering, as
he believed, the whole ground Mr.. Lit
tlefield saw fit to discard the phrase
OlOgy of the Knox bills and to recast
them in his own language. 1t is said
that Mr.. Knox worked for six weeks
drafting the two bills. Littlefeld af-
fects to doubt this claim, and more
over will not credit the report that the
attorney general regards the Littlefield
bill as unconstitutional. But, however
this may be, the fact remains that the
attorney general and the president
acting upon his advice, refused to in
dorse the final Littlefield product.
The Littlef1eld bill was passed in the