The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-05-15

r,sey M s%,bttsai In ~ rH~ t~f,re ~
ramgnls1sn pfBvttei M tes,ianury cn'tid
lave Iasb srtrut ~ d,m dliaHrra W.
Ttsnlsi In suppof, n ~ antehrimeag satd
shat fallrsafu hal q wsy ~ efUfueiua
uHlespoftsUi testimony hrfafe ths etfH.
fplssloo and IN fevlew tsfoFv 'Sps eHtiTta
bgineine MI me f,fil Testimony
Ne In Foliafte HNerud 4 athaiitWe Tor
tho flaalel a~menifn-nf, whieh Wsa promptly
ms, wv NJ. Hale N Walns win 4 masloH
w. lev upon Tho table,
On fnil e,ll W.. Ia Foile,,e's sub.
ssltute eas voaed down ny " Ia ~ the
lellowine HsputiieanH voting Win W.,
~ Fores,e CulioFn, Hophina, Knos and
Warner.
NJ Danlel'a substitute Wa also voted dUwn.
and a demand for roll call vas REFUSED
Mr. Taniei proposed 10 ihseft o nr~ sc.
iion 10 tho hili, and a doD"n Senators Taia~d
= point ~ order. The Chair ruled MF.
Daniel OFT ~ order. hut IN persisted and
was finally DECLARED In order. Mr.. Daniels
~amsndmen' required that suits brou ght
In courts 20 ts@, The orders " the som
mission should he brought within thirty
days after the ORDER vas made.
Mr.. Morgan ~ Alabama stepped into
tho arena with q substitute, thua adding
another complication.
NJ. Morgan'a substitute proved 70 he an
elaborate amendment aFordinR q jury trial
In oaaes Of appeal TO the court where u rem
edy at law was plain. adequate and com-
plete. Mr.. Morgan declared that this was
a constitutional right which ought TO be
maintained.
The amendment was long and Il required
-...l Nt.aa % RAAA 10 "A Nkn aInTL Rad
there was much impatience. The Repub-
lican Senators were evidently disposed to
hurry things, and the Democrats were un-
willing to be hurried. Frequent demands
for order and complaints that the speakers
could not be heard added to the confusion
on the floor. Senators Morgan and Daniel
the precedence Of their respective amend
ments, and finally Mr., Morgan with a show
Of feeling, withdrew his substitute.
On motion Of Mr.. Aldrich. Mr.. Daniels
amendment was laid upon the table, and
MIR. Morgan's amendment met a like fate a
minute afterward. Mr.. Morgan served no.
tioe that later he would demand q roll call
on his amendment, He provoked a roar OF
laughter by the statement that he had in
vestigated and found his amendment was
voted down by 7 TO 4.
The seventh section Of the Hepburn bill,
relating to the keeping Of accounts by rail-
roads under the direction Of the commission,
provoked much debate. Mr.. Foraker said
he seriously questioned whether Congress
had the right TO prescribe and regulate the
bookkeeping methods of the railroads except
so far as they related to interstate oom-
merce. MANY OF these carriers were in
corporated under State law, said he. They
are engaged in interstate commerce. i do
not believe we could exercise the power
OF visitation and inspection except, per-
haps, for statistical purposes" =
Hr. Knox pointed out that under the
imprisonment clause formerly In the Inter-
by Mr.. Lodges amendment adopted a few
days ago, the acts of the officers and agents
of the carrier corporation were to be con-
sidered the acts of the carrier under the
bill and subjected to the same penalties.
Mr.. Knox said he had no doubt that a rail-
road officer who kept a set Of private books
or memoranda under the bill would be SUBJ
ject to imprisonment.
Mr.. Lodge defended the section and said
it was the most important feature In the bill.
II it was not enacted the evil OF rebates
would go on unchecked.
Mr.. La Toilette proposed his amendment
directing the Interstate Commerce Com.
mission to ascertain the actual value OF all
the railroad properties in the United States
Mr.. Foraker presented his amendment in
tended to strengthen the Elkins law against
rebates. Mr.. Foraker made a speech in
which he approved OF Mr.. Lodges amend
ment restoring penalty clauses Of the Inter
state Commerce law and Mr.. McCumber's
amendment applying a penalty OF for
fixture by a shipper Of three times the
value Of any rebate or discrimination
solicited and received. But he argued
that the bill was still, in his Judgment,
unconstitutional in certain OF its features.
The Foraker amendment was voted down
on a roll call, so to 10. OF the votes cast
for Mr.. Foraker g amendment nine were
Republicans and one a Democrat, as fol-
Republicans-Aldrich (R. ~. Bulkeley
Comm, Dick and Foraker (0hioD, Gallinger
IN. H, Kean (N. j., Plat IN. ", Scott
IW. Va). and Wetmore Or. ~; Democrat
Morgan fAla.l.
Mr.. Morgan proposed his amendment
the commission, which on roll call was re-
jected by a vote OF Al to 2s.
Mr.. La Toilette proposed q new section
requiring the use OF safety appliances.
The Senate voted downHthe ,Fa Toilette
amendment without a roll call.
Mr.. Fa Toilette then proposed an amend
ment fixing the liability Of a railroad COM
pany for injuries to employees through the
negligence Of the company.
Mr.. La Toilette interrupted the reading
Of his proposed amendment and declared
there had been 30 much confusion on the
floor that no Senator could hear or UNDER
! stand his amendment. IL know that one
Of my Republican colleagues is waiting to
move 10 lay tne dIn0uulneHI On tne DIG
as soon as the reading is concluded, said
he. Il believe, however. that when this is
done the Senators should know what they
are voting on"
Mr.. Hale promptly moved to table, and
Mr.. Spooner protested against cutting
| his colleague from Wisconsin of without
! an opportunity to talk on the amendment.
Think common courtesy entities him to
be heard for fifteen minutes, IL he desires
it, to explain his amendment said Mr..
Spooner.
Other Senators protested and Mr.. Clarke
of Arkansas lectured Mr.. Hale for assum-
ing to regulate the affairs Of the senate.
Mr.. La Toilette said with some warmth
that he had not been Indifferent to the treat
ment accorded his amendments by the
| Senator from Maine. He served notice on
the Senate that there would be no more
unanimous consent agreements without
proper allowance for debate. Mr.. La
Toilette defended his amendment. CON-
Stunning the full fifteen minutes under the
rule
Mr.. Hale renewed his motion to table,
and he was voted down on a viva vooe
vote. He demanded a roll call, which car
RED his motion, 40 to 81. Senator'S Burkett0
Dolliver, Elkins and Gamble, Republicans,
voted against Mr.. La Toilette.
Mr.. La Follette's employers liability