Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-29
OF Mr.. D0LLIvER
Mr.. Aldrich Quotes the Record to Sus-
tain His Criticism.
APPEAL FROM CATTLE RAIsERS
They Claim That Rates Have Been
Raised So That Increased Cost Of
Shipments Has Been SIC, OOo,0o

| When the Senate met today Mr.. Cu,ber-
son presented and had the clerk read
memorial from the Cattle Raisers Assocta-
| ton of Texas, urging the passage of the
railroad rate bill as 1t came from the House.
| The letter was accompanied by letter
| from S. Fl. vowan, attorney for the asso-
| citation, In which he said that the raiI-
roads have In the past six years increases
| rates on cattle shipments to the extent of
| SIS car causing total outlay of $40
| 100000 above the amount that IL would
| have been necessary to pay under the Old
| prices He said the change had affected all
| the range states. The petition urged the
Senate to resist efforts to seriously amend
| the bin as mere subterruges on the part
| of the opponents of the bill. -
| The Senate agreed to adjourn from to-
| day until Monday.
The. following bills were passed:
| Amending the law requiring lights on
| RATS so as to make 1t apply to rafts IN tow
Authorizing a survey of the PaSsaic river,
| New Jersey.
| Authorizing the erection of three itfe-
saving stations the coast of Washington
between Cape Flattery and Grays HarDos.
Authorizing a dam across st. Joseph river
| at Berriam Springs, Mich.
| Authorizing the erection of dam across
| the Choctawhatohee river In Dale county,
| Alabama.
| MI Lodge presented the conference re-
| port on the consular reorganization bill, and
| it was agreed TO without discussion.
MI. Clay ON Railway Rates.
When the railroad rate bill was taken up
Mr.. Clay addressed the Senate. saying that
he did not consider the principal point or
controversy a serious one. He had heard
charges that both the House and the Knox
bills We're drawn In the interest OF the rail-
| roads. but the facts. he declared. were con-
VII cling that such was not the case Hs
then traced the history of the House BILL
So. wing that it owed its origin to the ms
terstate commerce commission. and had
been accepted by the entire membership
OF the House committee, republicans and
democrats alike, and had passed the House
with practical unanimity.
The bill might not be perfect, but he was
satisfied that it had received only honest
the Knox. the Tillman and Culberson bills
had all been drawn in the interest of the
people He discussed the question OF a court
review of the orders of the interstate CON-
merce commission, saying that If under the
House bill the regularity of the commits
sion's orders only was contested the carrier
would be deprived of the right of contesting
a rate fixed.
Mr.. Delivers Position.
Mr.. Aldrich interrupted with the state
ment that Mr.. Deliver had said that the
only question that could be taken into court
was whether the commission had decided
what, in its opinion, would be a just and
reasonable rate.
Il never expressed any such opinion" re-
sponded Mr.. Dolliver.
Mr.. Adrich replied that the record would
bear out his assertion and he quoted
statement made by the Iowa senator In a
colloquy with Mr.. Bailey in support of his
contention.
MIR. Dolliver declared that this state
ment was fragmentary and said that lie
had stated not fewer than ten times on
the floor of the Senate that the courts
would necessarily review the findings of
the commission from the standpoint as TO
whether the commissions order deprived
the carriers of property without due process
of law.
for Itself" responded Mr.. Aldrich, adding
that the friends of the bill failed TO agree
as to It's purport.
Mr.. Clay declared that if it was tile In
tention 10 permit a review of the commits
sion's finding the right should be conceded
in the bill.
Scope of Proposed Review.
"Why not say so directly in the bill and
get over the controversy" he asked. Il
believe that review ought to be permitted.
but / believe that the review ought to be
confined to the question as to whether the
rate fixed is constitutional. The court should
not DE dut0OiiLtu " ~ IHlt tie HtlDIc
case"
Mr. Tilrnan and Mr. Fulton asked why. IL
the review privilege was TO be confined TO
the constitutional question, any provision
of the kind was necessary, and Mr.. Clay
replied that he would agree with them II
there We're nothing in the bill as Il stands
on the subject of review, but that In view
of the text of the bill he thought it should
be amended so as to authorize the courts
to say whether the rates fixed were con-
iiscatory
Mr. Elhns raised the question as 10
whether the bill confers authority TO pass
on rates between communities, and said
that Mr.. Doliver had taken the position
that II does not confer this authority. He.
like Mr.. Aldrich. asserted that the friends
OF the bill do not agree in its interpreta-
ton.
THE trouble Is not among the friends of
the btll." Mr.. Nelson said but among its
enemies. One class opposes t. on high con
stitutional ground; another contends for
the right of review. while a third class.
like Mr. Elkins, stands out against any
regulation at ALL" He expressed the opn-
ion that the bill grants authority 10 pass on
/ the rates as between places.
BEST Friend the Bill Has"
| Mr. Elbins replied by declaring that he is
| the best friend the bill has, and that his
| only reason for desiring TO have the bill
amended Is to make It strong. He declared
| that he is even better friend OF the meas
ure than either Mr.. Dolliver, Mr.. Nelson
| or Mr. Tillman
In the course of his remarks Mr. Clay re-
ferred to the differences of opinion between
eminent lawyers when the income tax
| measure was before Congress
| Mr.. Tiliman said II was no wonder law
| yers were "befuddied" on that measure be-
| cause the Supreme Court had been on both
| Sides
| Mr. Clay said that he did not always agree
| with. Mr.. Tllman concerning the courts:
that he lad faith Ia their integrity.
| But not always In their infaliibI!ty 90
| asked Mr.. Tillman.
mo. not always" said Mr.. Clay. II have
| NOT con hdenFa alu,aNs In my ..,-.. MIN