Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-05-15

review feature of the pending rate leg
islation.
''On April 18th you told me that
Messrs. Tillman and Bailey had com
municated with you through a thlru
person, informing you that they were
willing to support an amendment TO
the Hepburn bill which while express
" comforting jurisdiction upon the
courts TO review the action of the COM
mission. should limit the review to the
Two questions of the authority of the
commission and the constitutionality
| of its action, and include Il provision
| forbidding the issuance of interlocu-
| tory injunctions You told me that
they We're not willing to confer direct
| ly with you, but would meet me. You
asked me if | thought that Congress
had the power to prohibit the issuance
of interlocutory injunctions by courts
| inferior to the supreme court and |
| told you that having read part only
| Of the debate upon that question, the
subject being new to me, | had not
| formed q final opinion. You then ask
ed me whether such a provision were
declared unconstitutional it would eff
| feet other provisions of the law. I
told you that in my opinion it would
not, az that provision would be easily
separable from the remainder Of the
law.
| Recalling the advice which l had
| the honor to offer to you, that you
should not at any stage become finally
committed beyond recall to any form
| of language in any part of the bill
| and affirming your belief in the wis
dom of that course, you then said that
a provision limiting the court review
to the authority of the commission
and the constitutiOnality of its acts
and 4 provision limiting the issuance
of interlocutory injuctions as far as
was constitutionally to pass the Hep
burn bill substantially unchanged, and
you asked me to- meet the gentlemen
named in conference. The conference
was arranged by Mr. Chandler and oc-
CURED on April 18th. 1t was full and
free. 1t would be impossible to state
all that was said in a conference of
two hours. but l think no false color
is given to the conference by the fol-
lowing statement:
II informed the gentlemen of my be-
lief that vcu desired if the scope of the
court review We're to be expressed in
the law at all. that it should be limit
ed to the two subjects herein before
| named, that i'll such case the so-caled
Long amendment was acceptable to
you; that YOU would be glad to see a
| rigid limitation on the issuance of in
| terlocutOry iniunctionS if such limit
atoms were possible. and | stated fur
Their that | would not assume to agree
to any form of language whatever for
you, but would submit any proposition
20 you 70" your consideration I also
stated my doubt whether in any event
it would be possible to enact a provi-
sion entirely forbidding interlocutory
injunctions. l found myself in entire
accord with Senator Bailey as to the
rules of constitutional law applicable
to the situation. with the exception Of
those relating to the power of Con-
gross to forbid all intCrlocutory in
functions, upon which I did not Offer
any final opinion. only saying that Mr..
Eailey's argument needed answer.
"An attempt was then made to adopt
phraS cology which would effect the i'll
tehtion Of the two senators. | made
some notes upon this branch of the
subject and a the close of the inter-
view said to Senator Bailey that
would put my understanding of their
views upon the question of phra scolo-
ey in writing, send it to him and. if il
met with his approval. submit it to
YOU. This | did and on the next day
sent the annexed memorandum to Mr.
, Bailey. enclosed in a letter which read
s follows.
i. april &c. 1906.
MY Dear Senator-This rough draft
is rs 7 understood your suggestions of
yesterday. 1 think it quite likely that
. This draft might be bettered but | SIM
Ply send 1t to see if | understood you
"NC,y truly yours.
"W. Fl. MOODY
| The draft referred to IS the one printed