The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-05-15

i3i i-f'f.t Il. 1906.
,.'hy Dear Senator Allison,--As Sen
ator3 Tillman brought In your name III
connection with mine III the state
r1ent he made concerning our rela-
tions to rate bill Inst Saturday 1t IS
perhaps due to YOU TINT should
II wife you on the matter. After the
rate Bill was reported from the COM
tr,ittee. and after BY vote OF the com
mittee, Mr.. Till11an had been put III
charge of It. many senators and many
outsiders came to see me u4l refer
ence TO II. Among others was asked
to see Senator Chandler as repre-.
sentatinc Mr.. Tillman. who was IN
charge of the bill stated in response
that I was, of course, entirely willing
to see Mr.. Tillman personally or to see
Mr.. Chandler or anyone else who
could speak for him. and accordingly
directed my secretary to make m APP
poirtment for Mr.. Chandler to sec me.
My ,,nderstan was that he was,
the representative Of Mr., Tillman. N
In this first interview he stated to
me the views Of Mr.. Tllman, with
seen1ing authority He called on me
several times. During the same Pc
Rod I saw other gentlemen who pro-
fessed to give the views Of otter SEN
ators. In addition I saw numerous
senator's, both Republicans and Demo-
Gratis, some Of them once or twice,
some OF them many times. ] also saw
numerous outsiders, railroad men,
shippers, newspaper men and students
of traffic regulation, including espe-
clally the attorney general and the
; members Of tho Interstate Commerce
Commission. and on two occasions
saw groups Of newspaper men IN a
mass. TO all Of these, senators, repre-
sentatIves Of senators and outsiders
alike, made the same statements;
those that I made to Mr. Chandler
being the same IN substance that
made to you and to those Of your
colleagues, to both political parties with
whom I had any extended conferences
on the subject. The letter of the at
torney- general, which l enclose, shows
fully the facts rs to the conferences,
which, at my instance, he held with
Senators Tlllman and Bailey.
''Those conferences were precisely
such as, at my instance, he held
many other senators to determine the
phraseology and discuss the effect Of
amendments proposed by them.
The Hepburn Bill.
ITO all whom ! saw, stated that
the Hepburn bill was In its essence
entirely satisfactory to me. The Hep
burn bill as 1t passed the House sim
ply recognized the rights of review
by the courts-that Is. the jurisdic-
ton Of the courts-but did not at
tempt to define It, thus leaving the
courts to prescribe the limits Of their
own jurisdiction This was in ac
g 1. 49, ~
ney-General. his belief being that
bills being declared unconstitutional
because Of the attempt 10 confer
either too much or too little iurisdic-
ton on tho courts. m
IT also repeatedly stated that while
II was entirely satisfactory to mo
81 simply to leave the Hepburn bill in
substance MS it was. that s with the
recognition OF the jurisdiction Of the
courts. but without any attempt to
define that jurisdiction; vet that l
was entirely willing that there should
Z be a definition. provided that this de-
f1nition did not seek to grant a broad
review, but EXPLICITLY narrow 1t to
I the two subjects which as n matter
OF fact believed the courts alone
would consider In case there was no
attempt to define the limits of their
reviews; that u.s. would limit it to the
question as to whether the commission
had acted ultra wires and as to wheth-
er any mans constitutional rights had
been impaired. l stated that If .he
question of defining or limiting the
review was brought up at all, ] per-
4 eonaly felt that this was the way In
which 1t should be limited or defined.
.At different times at least score
,n,,fc nj
prepared by the Attorney General ut
the request of senators or submitted
to me by senator's As to many OF
those amendment+ (including among
others the substance Of tho so-caled
Long, Overman, Bacon and Spooner
amendments), l stated that ! should
be entirely satisfied to have them
in the bill; as to others l suggested
notifications which would make them
satisfactory; as to none did l ever
say. either to Mr.. Chandler or to any
one else, that should insist upon
having them in the bill as condi-
ton of my approving It. On the con-
trary, was always most careful to
state that ! was not trying to dictate
& any particular programme of action.
Tn no case. either In the case of Mr..
Chandler or in the case Of any ono
Glset was tliSit t''S s'itisNoN oPboi lNi'lNS
for any honest rnisconception of my
attitude or any belief that had
pledged myself specifically TO one and
only one amendment or sci of amend
lnents, or that ! would not be salts
fled with any amendment which pre-
served the essential features of the
Hepburn bill as 1t came from tho
House.
You will doubtless recall that in
the course of the several visits that
you personally made me we discuss
ed number of thcscproposed
amendments, trying TO find out for
which one there could be obtained a
sufficient body Of assent to secure its
passage and the passage OF the rate
bill.
Could Not Agree.
R''To almost every amendment pro-
posed by any one, found that there
were other excellent men who OH
jected, or who at least wished ia
change II. and | finally became con-
WINGED that it was impossible for SEN
ators with advantage 10 use me as
the intermediary In coming 10 an
4 agreement with their colleagues, es.
pecially when they only communicated
with me through another intermediary
and earnestly suggested 10 all L
whom spoke that they sho'
nnuniCnte with YOU, whose PURPOSES