Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-11-12
OUR LETTER BOX.
commercinI club polterr.

OMAHA, Nov Ito the Editor OF The
Bee: In a recent issue of the World
Herald, a member of the executive COM
mittee of the Commercial club takes you
to task for your editorial criticising the
action of the club in endorsing the course
pursued by Euclid Martin and other MEM
bers of the club who went to Chicago as
delegates to the Interstate Commerce Law
convention. This member says:
II The Bee had any patriotism Or interest
try to help the Commercial club instead
of misrepresenting 1t, backbiting its mem
bers and belittling its work.
The criticism of this member is Unfair
and unmanly toward you and the business
men of Omaha. The convention at Chi
cago was called for specific purpose, l. e.
q quote from the Gallo
To impress upon congress the extent
and persistence Of the demand or the
people of all parts OF the country for
legislation for government rate control out
lined in the presidents last annual mes
sage to congress.
The presidents statement in his mes
, sage concerning rate control was as fol
lows:
That the power to pass upon the I'M
reasonableness of a challenged railroad
rate or practice should be lodged In some
tribunal upon which can be also consti-
tutionally cast the power TO fix a reasona-
BILE rate, or practice, in lieu of a rate found
by Il TO be unreasonable, and the rate
80 fixed should become as nearly immedi-
ately operative as possible.
Now, when a convention is called to up
! hold and endorse the presidents policy, and
it 10 80 stated in the call and the COM
merciai organizations OF the country are
! invited to serd delegates for that pur-
pose, it seems to me out of place and
unfair to send delegates who are direct
! opponents of the presidents policy. II is
an insult to the~president and to the IN
! terstate Commerce Law association, and
| l think your criticism of the acts of the
executive committee of our Commercial
club perfectly proper and in order.
The member who finds fault with your
article says that the convention 10 which
the committee hrst sought admission was
not called for the specific purpose of en-
dorsing Mr.. Roosevelt's policy That state.
| ment is not true, as the call stated spe-
cihcally that It was for delegates TO up.
hold and endorse the presidents policy
He further says that before delegates
could gain admission they were required tc
take an ironclad oath to endorse Mr.
Bacon's policy. whatever that might be
and against such a proviso the committe,
rebelled- We have heard a great dea
from the boiling delegates from Omahs
and other parts Of the country about tn,
ironclad oath which was so obnoxious q
them, but l have never seen a oopy o
this terrible document printed. so that IN,
people could decide whether IL was a.
bad az represented OF not
II was not an ironclad oath nor was /
en- endorsement Of Mr. Bacons policy I
was simply a declaration TO which delegate
were required TO subscribe prior to thei
admission 20 the hall This was foun,
necessary on account of the unwarrante,
attempt OF the railway people TO obtai
control OF the convention through the dele
gates whose appointment they had secure
for the purpose OF opposing the lsgisla tior