The Washington times., 1906-05-15

that is. the jurisdiction OF the courts
but did Tot attempt to define IL, thus
leaving the courts to prescribe the lin
its of their own Jurisdiction This was
in accordance with the ideas % the At
torney General. his belief being that
thereby we avoided all danger of the
bill being declared unconstitutional be-
cause of the attempt to confer either
too much or too little jurisdiction on
the courts
1 also repeatedly stated that while il
was entirely satisfactory TO me simply
TO leave the Hepburn bill IN substance
as II was-that is, with the recognition
OF the jurisdiction OF the courts, but
without any attempt to define that jurls-
diction-yet that 1 was entirely willing
that there should be a definition, pro
vided that this definition did not seek
to grant a broad review. but explicitly
narrowed II TO the two subjects. which.
as matter OF fact, I believed that the
courts would alone consider in case
there V1s no attempt 10 define the lin
It's OF their review; that is. would limit
II 10 the question as 10 whether the
commission had acted ultra wires. and
as to whether any mans constitutional
rights had been impaired.
I stated that II the question OF defn-
ing or limiting the review was brought
up at all l personally felt that this was
the way In which II should be limited
or defined
Views on Amendments.
At different times at least a score Of
tentative amendments we're either pre-
pared by the Attorney General at the
request OF Senators or submitted 10 me
by Senators. As 10 many Of these
amendments Gncluding among others
the substance Of the so-called Long
Overman. Bacon, and SpOoner amend
ments), 1 stated that I should be en-
tirely satisfied 20 have them in the bill /:
as 10 others. 1 suggested notifications
which would make them satisfactory; as
TO none did 1 ever say. either 10 Mr.
Chandler or 10 any one else. that
should insist upon having them In the
bill as a condition Of my approving It.
On the contrary, I was always most
careful 90 state that I was not trying TO
dictate any particular program Of ac-
ton. In no case, either In the case Of
Mr.. Chandler or in the case Of any one
else. was there the slightest opportunity
for any honest misconceptiOn Of my atti-
tude or any belief that 7 had pledged
myself specifically TO one and only one
amendment or set of amendments. or
that I would not be satisfied with any
amendment which preserved the essen
tial feature of the Hepburn bill as II
came from the House.
You will doubtless recall that in the
course Of the several visits that you per
sonally made me we discussed num-
Der OF these proposed amendments, try
ing 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
To almost every amendment pro-
posed by any one 1 found that there
were other excellent men who objected
or who at least wished TO change It.
and ] finally became convinced that II
was impossible for Senator's with ad-
vantage, to use ME as the intermediary
in coming TO an agreement with their
colleagues. especially when they only
communicated with me through an
other intermediary, and earnestly sug-
gested to all TO whom I spoke that they