Amador ledger., 1906-04-20
Washington
Letter.
(From Our Regular Correspondent. J

Washington D. G., April 7, 1906.
1t is remarkable what a number of
excellent arguments can be advanced
in favor of almost any form of rate
bill and how by the same process of
reasoning each bill presented can in
turn be shown to be so faulty as to
be scarcely worth second thought.
Another thing equally remarkable is,
that everyone in the house and almost
everyone in the senate admits the
necessity for rate regulation. None
dare deny it. Yet the stoutest
opponents of legislation can all of
them produce bills that logically are
all right while all other bills are
logically all wrong. Now senator
Elkins has always been classed, right
ly or wrongly, as champion of the
railroads and one of the strong,
Opposition senators. Yet in his
speech on the rate bill this week, he
declared he was one of the warmest
supporters of the presidents plea for
square deal. He presented bill
that as he explained 1t, seemed to
have number of advantages over
anything else produced, always ex-
cepting senator NewIand' bill, which
goes to the root of the matter at once,
but is too radical for congress to
think of passing for few years yet.
Senator Elkins in coming out for
bill of his own said that while he was
cIassed as railroad man, he had ten
times the interest in shipping that he
had in carrying. Of course anyone
can accept senator klkin's statements
at their face value or not just as they
please. Yet what he said was that he
was opposed to the Hepburn bill
because it did not go far enough. He
said there were wrongs, abuses and
determinations by the railroads and
he wanted to see them stopped. But
he said the Hepburn bill would not
stop them. He said that he wanted
bill that embodied a court review
with the right of the court to suspend
any rate fixed by the interstate COM
merce commission, but compelling
the railroads to deposit the amount
of money in dispute with the court
pending the decision on the order.
But he said he was particularly
anxious about distinct prohibition
against the railroads producing or
dealing in the commodities they
carried. This he admitted was pro-
hlblted by the decision of the supreme
court in the Chesapeake and Ohio
c;;se, but he wanted it specifically
stated in the act. He was also in
favor of compelling the railroads to
put in switches and make connections
with lateral lines on a reasonable
basis. Also he wanted the bill to
compel the carriers to make a fair
distribution of cars and to provide
for prompt connections, and pro-
rating agreement with connecting
lines.
All this coming from one who is
classed as railroad senator, sounds
very fair. 1t was more liberal pro-
position than had been expected from
him. Now the question remains, was
Mr. Elkins talking in good faith and
was he as much in harmony with the
presidents ideas as he professed to
be. If he was not, where was the
"joker'' in any of his proposed
amendments?
What puIports to be the true story
of Ambassador BelIamy Storer's recall
from Vienna is going the rounds in
diplomatic circles and if 1t is the true
explanation, merely shows that he
was not the first man in public life to
have his ambitions wrecked by a
desire on the part of his wife to play
at politics. 1t seems that while the
Storers we're automatically accredited
they spent a good deal of time in
Rome and while there Mrs Storer
conceived the idea of having Arch
bishop Ireland created cardinal.
thus making two cardinals in America.
There was another party of American
of whom Mr.. Phllbin of New York
was one, who wanted second cardi-
nal over here but who we're backing
Archbishop Farelly of New York.
The matter was brought to the attent-
ion of the president and he said that
while he was warm admirer of both
prelates and while he would be glad
to see any of his friends in the
Catholic, Methodist or Episcopal