The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1906-05-15
PRESIDENT MAKES REPLY
TO CHAMBERS CHARGES
Continued from Page :, column /. !

centInued from Page I, Column I.
tory; as TO none did ever say. either to
Afr. Chandler o. TO anyone else. that ]
should insist upon having them in the
bfu as a condition OF my approving it
On the contrary, was always most care
full to state that was not trying to dc
tate any particular programme of action.
N no case, either in the case Of Mr..
Chandler or IN the case OF anyone else.
was there the slightest opportunity for
any honest nnisconception OF my attitude
or any belief that I had pledged myself
specifically 10 one and only one amend
ment or set Of amendments, or that
would not be satisfied with any amend
ment which preserved the essential fea-
lures OF the Hepburn bin as it came from
the House. You viii doubtless recall
that IN the course Of the several visits
that you personally made ne We dis
cussed q number OF these proposed amend
nents, trying 70 find out for which one
there could be obtained a sufficient body
OF assent 70 secure its passage and the
passage OF the rate bill.
TO almost every amendment proposed
by any one found that there were other
excellent men who objected, or who at
least wished to change II. and I finally
became convinced that II was impossible
for Senators with advantage TO use me
as the intermediary IN coming to an
agreement with their colleagues. espec-
tally when they only communicated with
me through another intermediary, and
earnestly suggested TO all to whom I
spoke that they should communicate with
YOU, whose purposes and mine were iden-
teal
DEMOCRATS NOT UNITED.
About this time I was informed by
various democratic Senators that they
could not come 70 an agreement upon
any amendment and that the best chance
for success lay IN passing the Hepburn
bin substantially unchanged. 7 was in
formed and believed that this was Sena-
Tor Bsileys view. and q number Of the
Republican Senators who favored the bill
expressed the same opinion.
Shortly after this you. IN company
with Senator Cullom, called upon ne
with the amendment which IS now conf
monty know as the Allison amendment. I
told YOU that, while I should prefer the
Long and Ovsrman amendments, vet that
your amendment was entirely satisfac-
tory Your amendment does not in the
slightest degree weaken or injure the
Hepburn bill II merely expresses what
its friends have always asserted was i'm
Piled by the terms Of the bill I may add
that my own opinion that your amend
r1ent IN no way changed, whether by
diminishing or enlarging, the scope Of the
court review as provided IN the original
Hepburn BIZ. is also the opinion Of the
Attorney General, Of Mr.. Root and of
Mr.. TAFT. Their Judgment is that the
amendment merely avoids the criticism
that the Hepburn bin would be constitu-
uonally invalid in not expressly provid-
ing the court reviews which its sup
porters have always contended was plain
ly implied IN the original language.
The original Hepburn bin stated that
the venue in certain actions was in GER
tain courts; the amendment states that
these courts shall have Jurisdiction to
consider such actions. To my mind II
seems difloult 70 assert that this works
any change whatever IN the principle OF
the bill
Yours sincerely,
THEODORE ROOSEVELT"
Hon. VIM. B. Allison, Z. 8. Senator"
MOODY TO THE PRESIDENT.
The Attorney Generals letter 70 the
President:
once Of the Attorney General. Wash
ington, D. c.. May Il, 1906:
Ny Dear Mr.. President: I send, at
your request, an account Of the conference
which I had by your direction with SEN
ators Tillnan and Bailey upon the sub
ject OF the court review feature Of the
pending rate legislation.
''on April IL you told me that Messrs.
Tiilrnan and Bailey had communicated
with you through third person, inform
ing you that they were willing 10 Cup
port an amendment to the Hepburn bin
which, while expressly comforting 1tlris-
diction upon courts 10 review the action
Of the commission. should limit the re-
view 20 the two questions OF the authority
OF the commission and the constitutional
lty OF It's action and include a provision
forbiding the Issuance Of interlocutory IN
functions. You told me that they were
not willing 70 confer directly with YOU.
but would meet me. You asked me II
thought that Congress had the power
70 prohibit the Issuance Of introductory
in1unctons by courts inferior TO the
Supreme Court, and told you that hav-
Ing read part Only OF the debate 1lpon
thai question, the subject being new to
ne hac not formed final opinion. You
then asked me whether. II such 8 pro-
vision were declared unconstitutional IL
would affect other provisions Of the law
to4o you that IN my opinion, Il would
not, as that provision would be easily
separable from the remainder Of the law
Recalling the advice which I had the
honor to OFFER to you, that you should
not az any stage become finally com
Tnitteo beyond recall 10 any form Of Ian
guage IN any part Of the bin and affirm
-Ab your DtllEl II the WISDOM OF that
course, you then said that a provision
limiting the court review to the authority
Of the commission and the constitution
atty Of It's acts. and q provision limiting
the issuance OF introductory inJunctions,
as TAR as was conEtitutionally possible,
would be acceptable to you, provided Il
was decided not 70 try 10 pass the Hep
burn bill substantially unchanged, and
you asked me 10 meet the gentlemen.
named IN conference.
The conference was arranged by Mr.
Chandler and occurred on April Is It
waS full and free. II would be impos-
gfble % state all that was said in a con-
ference OF two hours. but I think no
false color is given TO the conference by
the following statement:
informed the gentlemen Of my be-
lief that VOC desired. II the scope OF the
court review ives 20 be expressed in the
law az al. that II should be limited to
ne TWO subjects hereinbefore named;
that IN such case the so-calied Long
anendnent waS acceptable 70 you; that
you would be glad 60 see q rigid lirnita-
uea % the issuance Of interlooutory In
1unooona, u such limitations were Dos
Biblei and / stated further that would
net assume 60 agree 70 any form Of Ian
guege whatever for you. but would SUBJ
nit any proposed amendment 70 you for