The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1904-10-01
NO DECISION TO BE RENDERED UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION

I Of st. Louis have been deprived OF what
| Congress gave them.
| The Federal Congress aimed at prac-
tlcal results. They were not goals that
| could be cheated or avoided By the cir
| cuitous route employed by the Terminal
| Association.
THE Secretary Of War must consider
results. ard not the means. by which
they were brought about. according TO this
| act"
In responge to a question by Judge
Dickinson. Mr. Jeffries said:
| "A disinterested individual might. under
| this act. own stock In both companies,
| but company which owns one line can
own stock in competing line. The Ter
/ minal Association owns a majority OF the
I stock OF the Merchants Company. That
means ownership OF the latter: II means
| consolidation.
CONTENDS RESULT IS SAME.
Tho whole point rests Just there. The
counsel for the bridge confess practically
what We complain OF. but gay We must
prove technical violation. We contend
that the result IL Just the same. Just what
Congress feared would happen.
At this point in the discussion Secretary
Taft smilingly remarked that ne could
| find. without much trouble. that there is
one control of the two companies. HOW
ever. owing to peculiar conditions. there
must be a violation Of the conditions eI-
actly. He did not think there was much
dispute as to the facts. the argument on
tion must come within the technical mean
ing of the law; while. on the other ade,
TO show the intention OF Congress.
The Secretary added that he did not
mean to imply an opinion one way or the
other.
Secretary Taft asked counsel for the
bridge II there was a contract or lease be-
tween the Merchants Company and the
Terminal Association.
Judge McKcighan replied that there was
nothing but tacit understanding. the
ks.., IAa tDl
TAFT IS SURPRISED.
This seemed to surprise and annUse the
Secretary. who observed that there must
be n pretty close family relation. He
asked II business was not conducted, prac-
Keigiian said that It was. Judge Nc
Keighan argued that the part OF the act
authorizing the Secretary OF War to take
possession OF the bridge was not consti-
ton of section / Of the third article OF
ttat instrument In that IL constituted the
secrctary OF War Court Of Appeals.
Mr.. Taft disagreed with MIN. stating
finctIop; By. apPoints him the agent Of Z
the public to take steps s,Kng analogous 70
of property rights; not taking judicial
steps, but taxing steps tfnt would result
In judicial proceedings. He is to assert
the title OF tDe 'o!eihhieht iOi thc Bouo
Of the public.
Tho Secretary said II he should decide
to take possession OF the bridge. then the
Terminal Association could take the case
into court, but not before. the act specif-
caily authorizing him to proceed with
out process OF law.
At the ending of the argument. Secre-
tary Taft said he would give counsel un-
til October IS to submit written briefs.
This was agreeable to Mr.. Jefrries, but
Judge McKeighan requested that they be
allowed until November l. Secretary
Taft said his object In fixing October I5
az the date. was that he thought he
might be able to dispose OF the matter
between the 18th and 20th. after which
until after election day.
However II November was agreeable
TO Mr.. Jeffries. he would extend the time
until that date. Mr.. Jefries said he was
willing TO make any reasonable agree
Inent and the latter date was decided
upon.