The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-05-22
HE DID NOT
HARM RATE BILL
Dakotan Defends His Amendment
Against Insinuation That
Measure Is. Killed.
Spooner Thinks Clause Is Meretri-
cious-Hints at Scheme
of Roads.
Rx w. w. Jermane.

Washington, May Ex-senator Nc
Cumber of North Dakota got up in the
senate today on a question of personal
privilege, holding a copy Of today's
New York Tribune in his hand. On the
first page of that paper is a special
dispatch from Washington headed.
cocker in Rate Bill-McCumber's
to Disregard Commission 8 Orders.p
Senator McCumber denied the story
and said the amendment referred to
would not have the effect claimed for
it by the Tribune, and then proceeded
to an elaborate explanation of b
amendment in order to justify his asser-
ton.
The Tribune article says in part:
"Leading lawyers in congress are OF
the opinion that a tiny amendment put
in the ra%ilroad-rate bill by Senator Nc
little Joker which ~vitiates the efec-
tiveness of the measure"
Deceiving, spooner Says.
Senator McCumber admits that his
amendments will prevent an order Of
the interstate commerce commission 60
ing into effect until a court has deter
mined whether or not such an order is
".iust and reasonable and a final de-
cree has been issued by the court, when
yer a carrier chooses to disregard such
an. order.
Senator Spooner, to whose attention
the McCumber amendment was called
by the Tribune correspondent this "a
ternoon, expressed the belief that =.
was meretricious and should have beeu
rejected.
''Mr. McCumber,' said the senator,
.sexplains that his purpose in offering
the amendment was to insure the court
review in the case of carriers refusing
to comply with an order of the commits
sion, being as broad as that provided.
for in the Allison amendment, where a
carrier may appeal to the courts against
an order of the commission.
No Need of Appeal.
"Under the McCumber amendment
the carrier who objected to complying
with the order of the commission would
have no occasion to appeal to the courts
for relief. He would need merely to
refuse to carry out the order and no one
could compel him to do SO until the
commission, on which would be the bur-
den of proof, had demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the courts that its order
was not only regular but just and
reasonable
The amendment which, in the opin-
ion Of the leading lawyers in both
houses continues SO great a n to
the efficacy of the bill, merely provides
for striking out the word Regularly
and inserting the word lawfully in
section 5 of the act.
Roads Wanted It.
"The motion was made last Satur-
day, without explanation, and was
agreed to without objection, no one ap-
preciating, evidently, far-reaching eff
feet of this slight change.
cit is learned on inquiry that this
question was freely discussed in senate
On interstate commerce, and
that several representatives Of railroads
urged the amendment proposed BY Mr..
McCumber, but that the committee re-
the proposition. It would seem,
therefore that effect Of amendment must
have been fully understood by some at
least Of those who permitted It's adop-
tion without debate or division.
cit is generally assumed that amend
ment will be promptly rejected by house
conferees, and that senate will be only
too glad to yield that point.n