The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-05-15

definition did not seek to grant broad re-
view but explicitly narrowed it to the two
subjects which as a. matter of fact l believed
that the courts would alone consider in case
there was no attempt to define the limits Of
their review--that is, would limit it to the
question as to whether the commission had
acted ultra wires, and as to whether any mans
constitutional rights had been impaired. 1
stated that IL the question of defining or limit
Ing the review was brought up at all personally
I felt that this was the way In which it should
be limited or defined
Never Insisted.
At different times at least of tenta-
tive amendments We're either prepared by the
| attorney general at the request of senator's OF
submitted to me by senators. AS to many OF
these amendments (ipcluding among others the
substance of the so-ca1led Long, Overman, Bacon
and Spooner amendments) stated that | should
be entirely satisfied to have them in the bill;
| as Ito others / suggested notifications which
would make them satisfactory; as to none did
ever say, either to Mr.. Chandler or to anyone
else, that should Insist upon having them
in the bill condition of my approving It.
On the contrary, I was always most careful
to state that I was not trying to dictate any
particular program Of action - ..s.s
In no case, either in the case Of Mr. Chan.
dler In the case of anyone else was there the
slightest opportunity for any honest misconcep.
ton of my attitude or any belief that had
pledged myself specifically to one and only
one amendment or set Of amendments or that
I would not be satisfied with any amendments
which preserved the essential feature OF the Hep.
burn bill as it came from the house.
You will doubtless recall that in the course
Of the several visits that you personally made
me we discussed a number OF these proposed
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. ~ q .-., Ill, -. .-.~
To almost every amendment proposed by any
one found that there were other excellent mer
| who objected or who at least wished to change
it, and I finally became convinced that it was
impossible for senators with advantage to use me
as their intermediary In coming to an agreement
| communicated with me thru another intermediary
and I earnestly suggested to all to. whom
spoke that they should communicate with you,
| whose purposes and mine were identical.
About this time. was informed by various
democratic senators that they could not come to
an agreement upon any amendment and that the
best chance for success lay in passing the Hep
burn bill substantially unchanged d
.-a.s. =: Does Not Weaken Bill.
I was informed and believed that this was
Senator Bailey,s view, and number Of the re-
publican senators who favored the bill expressed
| the same opinion Shortly after this, you, in
| company with Senator Cullom, called upon me
with the amendment which Is now commonly
known as the Allison amendment. told you
that while I should prefer the Long and Over
man amendments yet that your amendment wa.
entirely satisfactory. J,
Your amendment does not in the slightest de-
gree weaken or injure the Hepburn bill II
merely expresses what the friends have always
| asserted was implied by the terms Of the bill
an may add that my own opinion that your
mtnishing or enlarging the scope of the court re-
view as provided in the original Hepburn bill
is also the opinion Of the attorney general
of Mr.. Root and Mr.. Taft. Their contention IL
! thof fho
that the Hepburn bill would be constitutionally
invalid in not expressly providing the court re-
view "h1ch Its supporters have. always contend
| ed was plainly implied in the original Ian
| guage. =. j j. >"
The original Hepburn bill stated that the
| venue for certain actions was in certain courts
| the amendment states that these courts shall
have jurisdiction to consider such actions Tt
my mind 1t seems difficult to assert that this
works any change whatever in the principle
| Of the bill. Yours sincerely,
Theodore Roosevelt.
MIR. Moody's Letter. -. .
The following is the letter Of Attor
ney General Moody: 6 -
My Dear Mr.. President: 1 send at your re-
quest an account of the conferences which
had by your direction with Senators Tillmar
| and Bailey upon the subject of the court review
feature Of the pending rate legislation. "
On April IA you told me that Messrs Till
| man and Bailey had communicated. with yor
| thru third person informing you that they
Hepburn bill which, While expressly conferrins
| jurisdiction upon courts to review the action o.
| the commission, should limit the review to ths
| two questions of the authority of the commits
sion and the constitutionality of it's action 4ant
include provision forbidding the issuance O.
| interlocutory injunctions.
You told me that they were not willing to con
| fer directly with you, but would meet me. 70,
asked me If I thought congress had the powe
to prohibit the issuance of interlocutory injunc
! lions by courts inferior to the supreme court
and told you that having read only part Of thu
| debate upon that question, the subject bein!
new to me, had not formed a final opinion.
| You then asked me whether, If such a pro
vision were declared unconstitutional, it .Wou
affect other provisions of the law. L. told yo
| that in opinion it would not, that pro
vision would be easily separable from the re
mainder Of the law. Recalling the advice whic
had the honor to offer to you, that you shOhl
not at any, stage become finally committed be
yOnd recall to any form of--language in an
part Of the BILL and affirming your belief in th
wisdom Of that course, you then said that
provision limiting the court review tofs til
authority Of the commission and the constitr
tionality Of Its acts, and provision limitin
the issuance Of interlocutory injunctions as ia
as oonstitutionally possible, would be az
ceptable to you, provided IT decided not
try to pass the Hepburn bill substantially III
changed, and you asked me to meet the ger
tlemen named In conference.
4 Arranged by Chandler.
The conference was arranged by Mr.. Chandle
and occurred April Is. 1t was full an
free. 1t would be impossible to state all ths
was said in conference of two hours, but
think no false color is given to the conferenc
by the following statement: -,
II I Informed the gentlemen of my belief
you desired If the scope of the court reyie
were to be expressed in the law at all, that
should be limited to the two subjects hereil
| before named; that in such case the so-calle
| Long amendment acceptable to you; tht
, you would be glad to see a rigid limitation G
the issuance Of interlocutory injunction, If sue
, limitations were possible and I stated furths
, that would not assume to agree to any for
of language whatever for you but would subm
! any proposed amendment to you for your col
sideration. I also stated my doubt whether
l any event it would be possible to enact pr
, vision entirely forbidding interlocutory injun
9 tons .4:
. found myself in entire accord with Senat
Bailey as to the rules Of constitutional law a
plicable to the situation, with the exception
. those relating to the power, Of congress to TO
bid all interlocutory iniunctions. upon which
. did not offer any final opinion, only saying TIL
: Mr.. Baileys argument needed an answer
II An attempt was then made TO adopt phras
n ology which would effect the Intention OF II
two senator's made some notes upon tn
branch Of the subject, and at the close of tt
interview said stO Senator Bailey that l, wou
put my understanding Of their views upon t
. | question Of phraseology in writing, send 1t
y him and, if it met with his approval, subn
l {6N NAV III