New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-23
THE RATE BILL DEBATE
TWO NOTABLE SPEECHES.
Senators Spooner and Lodge Discuss
Legal Points.
IFrom The Tribune Bureau. ]

hours The unusual occurrence Of applause on
the floor Of the Senate marked the close of his
address. Only on rare occasions has the Senate
permitted itself TO manifest approval or dis
approval of a Senator's remarks. A spirited out
burst Of handclapping among his Republican
colleagues followed Mr.. Lodges peroration.
Senator Spooner Immediately took the floor and
spoke until $50, when he yielded for an execu-
tive session. He will finish his remarks to-mor-
row.
Mr.. Lodge spoke in advocacy OF his amend
ment looking to the enlargement Of the Inter
state Commerce Commission and in doing so re-
piled sharply to some recent utterances OF Com
missioner Prouty. He first took up the distri-
button Of the commissioners throughout the
country on the basis Of the judicial circuits.
Mr.. Tillman objected to this method Of selec-
ton because Of the Importance of the commits
sion, and Mr.. Foraker agreed with him. saying
that location should not be considered in filling
the commission. If" he said, I'VE going
TO have ratemaldng commission shall insist
upon the combining Of the number to three and
that all be residents of Washington and free
from prejudice" AS going to show that location
might influence action by commissioners he
cited case in which Mr.. Clements member
Of the commission, had written a opinion favor
able TO Rome Ca, his city, compared
" Atlanta, in the maximum rate case.
THIS reference brought Mr.. Bacon and Mr..
Timan to the defence of Mr.. Clements. both
contendng that he was above favoritism Of
the kind indicated.
Mr.. Foraker disavowed any intention to reflect
personally on Mr.. Clements.
MR.. LODGE ANSWERS Mr.. PROUTY.
Mr.. Lodge then replied to a speech recently
made in Boston by Commissioner Prouty in which
the latter had expressed the opinion that the
New England Senators were pursuing mis-
taken course on the question Of rate regulation,
contending that the Eastern states would be
better off with railroad regulations like those
of Iowa He proceeded to show the dissimilar
ity between the conditions in the two localities
and contended that it would be utterly impract-
cable TO apply the same conditions in railroad
management.
He called attention to the fact that the popu-
lation Of Massachusetts had increased, while IN
Iowa 1t had decreased.
Mr.. Newlands inquired If the tariff had not
built up industries in the New England states.
Mr. Lodge said he would n0S enter on a tarlH
discussion; that he was endeavoring to answer
Mr. Prouty's speech, wherein he said that New
England was suffering from unreasonable rail-
road rates
Mr.. Lodge referred to the charge that half
a dozen men in New York made the railroad
rates for the country, for the purpose OF con-
troverting it. He said that in Massachusetts
alone 1921, 100000 railroad securities were held
and no less than S152.0O0,O00 Of the money
held in savings banks was thus invested. With
its varied interests, New England desired rail-
road legislation, but desired also that it should
be carefully guarded. He referred to criticisms
Of the Senate, and said that body would con-
tinue to perform its duties regardless Of them.
The Senate and the Executive could take care
of their own fortunes, but the courts could not
reply. He therefore pleaded for fair treatment
Of them, saying that no greater harm could
be done than to breed distrust Of the courts"
He quoted an interview with Eugene V. Debs
concerning the arrest Of the officers Of the
Western Federation Of Miners in connection
with the recent murder OF Ex-Governor Steunen-
berg Of Idaho. Debs's remedy, said Mr.. Lodge,
was civil war. he contending that the courts
were controlled by the wealthy. This language
might be attributed to an unbalanced mind, and
might result in no serious consequences. Such
was not, however, the case when an official like
Mr. Prouty gave out utterapces, in which he
said that the courts were controlled by the rail-
roads. If these were Utterances Of some OF the
irresponsible magazine writer's. written merely
to turn penny, they would be bad enough, but
coming as they did from a high official Of the
government they became deeply serious. He
contended that the efforts to shut the courts
out Of the consideration Of railroad questions
added TO the suspicion and should not be
couraged-
MR. SPOONER ON POWERS OF COURTS.
Senator spooner announced at the outset that
he should confne himself to the discussion Of
one phase Of the question. the difference between
Jurisdiction" and judicial power" He de-
clared that if the Bailey amendment prohibiting
thu power Of injunction should be adopted the
bill would be unconstitutional.
He thought that all members OF the Senate
were striving to make a constitutional bill. He
regarded the Hepburn bill in the form in which
it came from the House as Of doubtful cOnsti-
tutiOnality in more respects than one. and pas
sionately contended that the bill should not pass
from the Senate tainted by unconstitutionaHty.
He also attacked the policy proposed as moro
important because Of its far reaching conse-
Quences than even the question Of the regulation
Of railroad rates He denied that because Con-
gress created the Circuit and District courts it
had the power to destroy them without creating
other courts 10 perform their duties. That"
he said, would be anarchy, for it would result
In the destruction of our institutions" The in
ferior courts, While not named in the COnstitu-
ton. as the Supreme Court were still pro-
vided for by it, and We're therefore, a necessary
part Of our system Of government. He made the
point that where Congress confers Jurisdiction
on the courts in any given matter il confers
complete jurisdiction according both 10 law
and equity; the Jurisdiction once conferred
could not be limited
If Congress has sole control over the manner in
which the judicial power shall be exercised. what
becomes Of the power of the cOurtS?" he asked.
He declared that If Congress had power to take
away from the courts the authority to grant
temporary injunctions it had the power to de-
prtve them Of the right TO issue permanent in
functions. OFTEN permanent injunction would
be of no utility without preliminary order Of
restraint; hence the "unwisdOm" of dispensing
with the power TO issue it.
Nv maid q iFn fri1t -, fIea