Amador ledger., 1906-05-25
Washington
Letter.
(From Our Regular Correspondent.
Washington D. G. May y, 1906.

AS the rate hill is shaping itself in
the final days of the struggle, it looks
as though the amended measure when
it goes back to the house would be
much more drastic than the original
Hepburn bill. One of the most i'm
portant of the several amendments
that have been offered is that OF
senator Spooner, offered this week,
which aims to preventive endless
litigation that court review of the
commission findings lwould entail.
To put his plan briefly as possible,
he provides that in case of an appeal
to the. courts from thessfindings of the
commission, the railroad shall pay
into court the difference between the
rate fixed and the rate complained of
with an additional six per cent inter
est on the money involved. In case
the court decides in favor of the COM
pIainant, the railIoad is to pay the
difference and the SIX per cent inter
rest on the money so held up. This
would if enforced make the railroads
almost as anxious to conclude case
as the shipper and would put an end
to diIatory motions and prolonged
hearings such as would otherwise be
sure to follow. 1t is even provided
that the payment shall be made to the
person who has in effect paid the
freight, even though he may not be
the actual shipper. This would work
IN the case of farmer who had sold
grain to an elevator based, as is fire.
quentIy done, on the freight charges,
to some central market point. In
that case the farmer would be the
beneficiary and would receive the
money instead of it gong to the
elevator company.
But the Spooner provision is not
nearly so drastic as the proposal OF
senator McCumber to make rebatlng
punishable with fine and imprison-
ment. This is avowedly blow at the
Trusts, for wealthy men, who do not
care particularly about fine such as
any court might impose, have rooted
aversion to going to Jail. The pro-
vision makes the penalty of rebating
fine of three times the amount paid
in rebates and Imprisonment for not
more than five and not less than one
year. AS if to clinch the matter and
to render the penalty as heavy as
possible, the statute of Limitation,
which is in the nature of things only
three years, is extended to six years
IN the matter of rebates. The law is
of course not retroactive, as that
would be unconstitutional. But
evidence may reach back from the
time of the action for six years, not
of course antedating the passage of
the bill.
On the principle that half loaf Is
better than starvation, secretary Taft
is preparing modification of the
Philippine tariff bill that comtem-
plates a reduction of only fifty per
cent in the duties on Philippine rice,
sugar and tobacco. Other products
of the islands are to be admitted to
this country duty free. This step
would be of some practical advantage
to the islanders, but it would he
chiefly advantageous 10 the United
States as an educational step. 1t will
be recollected that there was a vigor-
GUS fight against the present reduction
of twenty five per cent in the Dingley
rates when that measure was first
enacted. 1t was claimed that the bill
would injure if not kill the business
interests of the United States. 1t
has been fonnd that no harm resulted
and it would have been found that
no harm resulted had the Payne bill
passed, as it seemed at one time likely
to do. But if the fifty per cent re-
duction is adopted and it is shown
that there is no harm done, then in
all probability the seventy-five per
cent reduction will come in time and
eventually free trade with the islands,
which is natural evolution and one
hoped for by many, both the republi-
cans and democrats in congress.
Opponents of the free alcohol bill
are coming out of the brush, so to
speak, but the biggest one is still in
hiding. There was hearing before
the senate committee this week of one
George Clapperton, representing the
wood alcohol interests of the north
west. 1t is just possible that in his
evidence Mr.. Clapperton tried to kill
two birds, for he came out frankly
and said that his opposition to the
bill was that it would kill the wood
alcohol industry. He said that there
was SIS, 900, QUO of capital invested in
the business and that Is, 600 men de,
pended on it for a Iivlihood. He did
not say, which is probably the truth,
that both of these figures were largely
overstatements. But what he did say
was that there was no likelihood OF
the bill hurting the Standard Oil
Company. Now of course from g
popular point of view this has beer
one of the most attractive features oi
the bill, to whack the Standard. But
Mr. Clapperton says ''tut, tut, the bill
will not touch the Standard, but il
will hurt US. This would render
cheap alcohol none the less attractive