New-York tribune., 1906-05-15
NEVER THREATENED A VETO

A. to many of those amendments (incIuding
among others the substance Of the sO-called
Long, OVerman, Bacon and SpoOner amend
ments) I stated that l should be entirely
satisfied to have them in the bill; as to Others
/ suggested notifications which would make
them satisfactory; as 70 none did ever say,
either 70 Mr.. Chandler or 70 any one else, that
should insist upon having them in the bill as
a condition OF my approving it. On the con-
traTy, was always most careful to state chat Q
was not trying TO dictate any particular pro-
qramne OF action
In no case. either in the case OF Mr.. Chandler
In the case of any one else, was there the
slightest opportunity for anv honest T,isco1lo
ceptiOn OF my attitude or any belief that I 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 essential feature OP tho
Hepburn 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 amend
ments, trying to find out for which one there
could be obtained a sufficient body OF assent TO
bill
one found that there were other excellent men
who objected or who at least wished to change
1t, and / finally became convinced that IL was
impossible for Senators with advantage to use
me as the intermediary in coming TO an agree
ment with their colleagues. especially when they
only communicated with me through another
intermediary and earnestly suggested to all
TO whom / spoke that they should communicate
with you. whose purposes and mine were iden-
tical.
About this time I was Informed by various
Democratic Senators that they could not come
20 an agreement upon any amendment and that
the best chance for success lay in passing the
Hepburn bill substantially unchanged. / was
Informed and believed that this was Senator
Bailey's view: and a number Of the Republican
Senators who favored the bill expressed the
same opinion.
ACCEPTANCE OF ALLISON AMENDMENT.
Shortly after this you, IN company with SEN
ator CullOu, called upon me with the amend
ment which is commonly known the
Allison amendment. told you that. while
should prefer the Long and Overman amend
ments yet that your amendment was entirely
satisfactory. Your amendment does not IN the
slightest degree weaken or tn1ure the Hepburn
bill II merely expresses what the friends OF
the bill have always asserted was implied by
the terms Of the bill / may add that my own
opinion that your amendment In no way
changed whether by diminishing charging.
the scope OF the court review as provided in
the original Hepburn bill. 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
bill would be cOnstitutiOnally invalid In not ex-
pressly providing the court review which its
supporters have always cOntended was plainly
implied in the original language.
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. To
my mind Il seems difficult to assert that this