The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-06-26
ag WONT WEAR $50" BRAND.
FILLNAN OPPOSES tONTgRENtE
REPOHT Nv RATE HfLL,
Dssiases That stsRassa 90 IHeaesee
Ghsaera Ire Pipe line pvsttssee ~
g. " Essmpt Iis Tines the Aathgass
k~eesatHfat u Alss Unsatisfactory,

Amenatatai T. Alss Unsatisfactory
waaaIwaYux, Juns - The aena,e spsns
ms, NJ the day in consideration ~ The con.
fsysHca report On the railroad rate htll
No oonolualaa hid bcen fea"hed ~ an
= N and the Eanage decidei 10 allow the
question NJ adopting the report ~ 80 oVef
until to.morrow, and aGre~t 10 NEST 81
~ 0'cloch
A feor.s was then taken on IN agreement
10 mcr, again o. sP NJ Tho evening 80.
slon was duvo,ei entlfeiy 10 consideratiun n
private hills,
Tlllnan abraitted the conferences FepoFt
on tho railroad rate hin In the Senate this
afternoon. lie had declined 10 algn thu CON
ierenc- IMPORT. In explaining hIs attitude
he aald hs would ask thu Ssnate % dinagfes
10 the IMPORT and rscommit Mr.. Utlfnan's
objection was 20 the change Of the words
common carrier TO railroad" In the
EIkIna amendment f~orbidding common
carriers TO transport their commodities
Tho change exempted pipe lines from the
provisions OF tho law.
sThe amendment ~ changed In
plain English that the Standard OIL Company
has got In its work, said Mr.. Tllman. He
said that the effect Of the change would be
to exempt the Standard monopoly romt the
law. Thsrsiwaseome mysterious influence at
work, he declared. that had changed the
whole atmosphere Of the conference when
IL reassembled. u began 10 smell n mouse
or something, said Mr.. Tillman. Il don't
know but l am a little Suspicious. Any
man who is around the Senate long will
become more or less doubtful as to motives"
Messrs. Elkins and Cullom appeared I'M
easy while MIR. Tillman was a%rraigning
the conferees, and Mr.. Elkins looked dis
gusted and frequently interjected sid re-
marks.
Mr.. Tillman declared that every Senator
who voted to adopt the report exempting
the Standard Oil Company would be branded
by the public across his forehead with the
letters IS. o.
THAT is the reason / didn't sign the re-
port" said Mr.. Tillman. Il didn't want
anybody to say to me, You have got IS. o.
written on your forehead, Ben Tillman."
Mr.. Culberson of Texas suggested that
the term railroad" which had been sub
stituted for common carriers, would prob
ably result In permitting the corporations
TO escape unless the word company or
Corporation was added to the word rail-
road"
At this point Mr.. Lodge, who had been
absent, returned to the chamber and ad-
dressed Senator Tillman, asking permission
to make a statement.
an be glad to nave the Senator come
into this debate and help me to explain
some of his good English or defend some OF
his bad English" said Mr.. Tillman.
This reference was to the peculiar word
ing Of Mr.. Lodges pipe line amendment,
which had been criticized by Senators and
which Mr.. Tillman refused to defend, saying
Mr.. Lodge wrote it.
MIR. Culberson interrupted to inquire OF
Mr.. Lodge whether he believed it right to
make oil pipe ines common carriers when
thew had never been common carriers nor
engaged in carrying anything but their own
commodities.
Mr.. Lodge said pipe lines had been de-
olared common carriers by law in West
Virginia and Ohio and by the Supreme
Court in PENNSYLVANIA. The trunk lines
which had engaged In carrying oil not their
own ought to be required, Mr.. Lodge
thought, % carry for the public. He re-
ferred to the alleged protests from the
independent oil operators and said he had a
suspicion that they were inspired by the
great trunk lines which carry 90 per cent.
OF the oil of the country.
Mr.. Bailey Of Texas asserted tina the
Standard Oil Company was not only a pro-
Queer Of oil. but a transporter and refner,
and it m~onopolized every branch OF the oil
industry. Either the trunk pipe lines should
ducing and refining oil or out OF the business
of transporting it. ,
Mr.. Tillman suggested that the railroads
engaged in the lumber and timber business
were also excepted from the Elkins amend
ment f%orbidding railroads from transport
ing their own
Replying to this reference to the Piles
amendment, Mr.. Bailey declared that that
fact alone was reason why the conference
| report should be rejected. The country
was on the verge Of a timber famine, and
vet Congress excepted the timber railroads,
which were denuding the forests. The pass
amendment was another reason for recon-
hitting the bill. He believed Congress
would do we'll to attend to Federal affairs
alone and let the State regulate the 40
eePtanee Of Passes by State employee anaI;Gyo o.,,sd
attention to the fact that the conference
pass amendment had legalized the issuance
of passes to everybody except the small
excepted class by declaring that issuance
of passes to others shoul not be prohibited.
Mr.. Tillman interrupted to say that the
best pass amendment was that in the first
conference report. which excluded every
body from the pass privilege. -,
But Senators objected he added, and
I never have heard such a howl or seen
such an exhibition Of hysterical oratory in
opposition to it,"
Mr.. Bailey believed Mr.. Tillman had a
right to complain. II was not a seemly
spectacle, that of Senators pleading for a
continuation Of special favors in the way
of free passes. Tn evil OF the pass bust
ness was that Passengers who paid their
fare had to pay enough to make up for the
free passengers.
Mr.. La Toilette said that a railroad audi:
tor, an undoubted authority, had estimated
some time ago that 10 per cent. of all pas
senger ira vel in the United States, amount
ing in va ue to $50, 900. 900, was free.
Mr.. Foraker thought the conferees acted
wisely in changing the pipe line amend
ment, for had the bill ma de pipe lines COM
mon carriers and then prohibited them
from carrying their products 1t would
have been unconstitutional. 1t is uncon-
st%itutional in other respects.
Mr.. Cnllom defended the work OF the
conference committee and read letters
and kilograms condemning the provision
in the bill. which had been omitted in con-
ference, forbidding pipe lines from carrying
their W commodities. He was not going
to support a measure simply to punish
the Standard Oil Company which worked
a hardship to independent oil companies
and producers. and he wouldn't be scared
owo V nv his cry of Sta d Oil,