Evening star., 1905-10-06
IN NO WAY CHANGED
Mr.. Townsend Not Influenced
by Committees Testimony.
He DOUBTS IT'S VALUE
DECLARES THAT LITTLE OF IT
CAN BE CALLED EVIDENCE.
Discusses the Purpose Of His Railway
Rate Bill and the Attitude
Of the President.

Representative Townsend of Michigan.
whose name has become household word
in connection with the Esch-Townsend bill
for the regulation of railroad rates. is as
| fully determined as ever to advocate the en-
actment of a law by which government
commission will be empowered to fix rail-
road rates in the manner provided by the
measure that passed the House of Repre-
sentatives last winter. The discussion of
his bill during the recess of Congress- and
the mass OF testimony taken by the Senate
committee en- Interstate commerce hasin no
way changed Mr.. Townsend's essential
policy of empowering a government COM
mission to fix railroad rates
Object of the Bill.
I'VE had but one idea in framing that
bill" said Mr.. Townsend when seen by a
Star reporter today at the Raleigh, where
he Is staying while in the city, "and that
was to correct an omission in the original
law for the regulation of the railroads.
According to the law the commission could
not make an order which would remedy an
evil condition or any unjust condition that
was found to exist. 1t actually exercised
that power for number of years, but it
was finally determined that 1t did not have
the power. 1t was to give the commission
that power that the House Of Representa-
tives passed it's bill last winter.
THE rest of the bill merely furnished the
machinery for expediting the hearings and
for carrying out the essential provision or
the bill. which was to fix reasonable rate
when a rate was found to be unreasona BILE.
No statement that 1 have seen in opposi
ton to this legislation since Congress ad-
journed has modified my view as to the
wisdom of adopting this course"
TT has frequently been stated in the press
that the language of the President in his
latest message to Congress favoring rate
legislation Is somewhat ambiguous and that
the President was not on record in favor
of such legislation in the form in which it
was proposed in the bill that bears your
name was suggested to Mr.. Townsend.
The Presidents Attitude.
There can be no ambiguity about the
language of the President. The Presidents
language was clear and explicit and he
stands on the same ground today that he
did when he sent his message to Congress
/ am satisfied that he is determined to do
rything he can to put such legislation
through Congress That Interpretation of
the Presidents language has been put for
ward in order to let him down easy If he
should to change front But he does
not want to be let down easy.
Nobody who believes in this legislation
had any doubt about what the President
meant. The President simply meant what
he said and those of us who know the
President pretty well never doubted what
he meant and 1t Is almost an insult to him
to presume to doubt his position on this
question He not only said it in his mes
sage, but on every proper occasion since
sending his message to Congress he has re-
affirmed his views. If I am not mistaken.
when his message goes to Congress in De-
cember, among the first subjects, If not the
first, that he will consider will be the rail-
road rate question:.
Not Influenced by the Testimony.
Mr. Townsend was asked whether the
testimony that has been offered before the
Senate committee interstate commerce
has inclined him to approve any change in
his bill Of the last Congress.
NO" he replied; "tney have not attacked
the bill in any important way. The Senate
committee on Interstate commerce called
witnesses, and the railroads, of course,
knew whom to send to the hearings. During
the first part of those hearings the time
was devoted. largely to showing that it
would be unconstitutional to confer such
power on the commission as the bill pro-
posed. They contended that the commits
sion never exercised such power but they
were confronted with the record of the in
terState commerce commission, showing
every order the commission had ever is
sued, and it was shown that they had exer-
cfsed the same power as was proposed by
the Townsend bill. Then they had eminent
lawyers to come and tell the committee
that the bill was not constitutional, and
after those opinions had been received the
committee called the attorney genera!
for an opinion, and he clearly set forth
that it would be constitutional to confer the
power as proposed.
They then proceeded to present, not evil
dence, but theories of railroad men as to
the nature of the effect that such legisla-
ton would have on the railroads. / be-
lieve that not per cent of all the railroad
evidence presented there could be. desig-
mated by the name of evidence. 1t was
simply the opinions of interested parties.
What the Bill Proposes.
Now you ask me If that has changed my
opinion during the past summer. l have
seen nothing that has led me to change my
views this question. All that is pro-
posed by our bill for railroad regulation is
that when rate or regulation, whether in
the form of discrimination between indi-
viduals or between places and products or
in the charge on refrigerator cars, and
when complaint is made, there should be
an impartial tribunal to hear the testimony
n IN