The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-05-15

commonly known the Allison amendment
I told you that while should prefer tho
Long and overmon amendments. yet that your
amendment was entirely satisfactory.
Does Not Weaken Bill
Your amendment docs not In the slirhtest
degree weaken lnJurc the Hepburn bill
II merely expresses what the friends have al
ways asserted was implied by the terms Of
the bill I may add that my own opinion
that your amendment In no way changed.
whether by dininishine or enlnrBne, the
original Hepburn bill. is also tho opinion OF
tho Attorney Gonorel, OF Mr.. Root ond OF Mr..
merely avoids tho criticism that the. Hepburn
bill would be constitutonaIiy Invalid In not
expressly providing the court review which
It's supporters have always contendcd was
plainly implied In the original language
Secs No Change,
Tho original Hepburn bill stated that the
venue OF certain actions wss In certain courts:
the amendment statcs that these courts shall
have Jurisdiction TO consder such actions. To
my mind It scems dIfilcult 10 nssert TINT this
works any change whatever In the principle
Yours sincerely.
THEODORE ROOSEVELT,
Hon William 3. Allison. L, S Senator
Attorney Generals Letter.
The ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS letter to the
President
D. C.. May H. 1905.
My Dcnr Mr. Prcsidcnt:-I scnd at your
| had by your direction with Senators Tillman
and Bailey upon the subject Of the court re-
view feature Of the pending rate legislation.
Would Limit Review.
On April Il you told me that Mcssrs, TIL
through third person. informing you that
they were willing 10 support an amendment
TO the moP6Grn BILL Which whliS nn- s1Prsssy re
Wow the ncton OF the commission. should
r y,nIg sIn, hnI fha IL
tionality OF Its action. and, Include provision
forb!dding the Issuance Of intcrlocutoIy In
functions.
Had Not Formed Opinion.
You told me thot they wcre not willing TO
confer directly with you, but would meet me.
You asked me II l thought that Congress had
the power 10 prohibit the issuance OF Inter
Supreme court and i told YOU that having
read port only OF tho debate upon that qucs-
tion, the subject being new to nc l had not
whether. II such provision We're declared un-
constitutional, 1t would AFFECT other provisions
II would not. as that provision would be easily
separObls from the remainder Of the law
Should Not Commit Himself.
Recalling the advice which / had the honor
10 of1cr to you. that you should not at nny
stage become finally committed beyond rccnll
10 any form OF language in any part of the
bill ond affirming your belief In the wisdom OF
that course. you then said that provision
the commission and the constitutionality OF Its
acts and provision limiting the issuance OF
interocutory injupctons. MS for was con-
stitutionally possible. would be acceptable to
YOU provided It was decided not TO try 10
pass the Hepburn bill substantially unchanged.
and you asked me TO meet tho gentlemen
named in conference.
Was Free Conference.
The conference was arranged by Mr. Chand-
Ter and occurred on April IL. II was full and
free II would be impossible 20 state all that
was said In a conference of two hours. but
by the following statement;
Glad to See Limitations.
/ Informed the gentleman OF my belief that
wore TO DO expressed In the law ut all, that
Il should be limited TO the two subjects hero
inbefore named; that in such case the So
called Long amendment was acceptable 70
limitation the issuance OF interlocut0fy In
functions II such limitations were possible,
and 1 stated further that l would not assume
to agTee TO any form OF language whatever
amendment to you for your confederation.
Attorney Was in Doubt.
also stated my doubt whether In any
Ion entirely forbidding intcrlccutory lnJunc
tIons ! found myself In entire accord with
Senator Bailey TO the rules OF constitutional
law applicable TO tho situation. with the
Congress TO forbid all interlocutory lnJunctons,
upon which I did not offer any final opinion,
only saying that Mr.. Bailcys argument need
cd answer.
Took Some Notes.
An attempt was then made to adopt phrase
ology which would effect the intention of the
two Senators 1 made some notes upon this