The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-08-22

he admits that all prosecutions down until this time have been under it be- cause these prosecutions were for of lenses committed prior to the Hepburn law and then says that criminal prosecutions will continue to be under the Ell1ins law, but as amended by the new rate bill
 "In more than 100 prosecutions the Elkins law, as originally enacted, has been found a quick, decisive, efficient and inexpensive remedy.
 NO amendment of the Elkins law by the provisions of the Hepburn rate law has been invented in any of these proceedings. In fact, the most trou- blesome difficulties of all the cases un- der the Elkins law arose and were brought to final and successful de- termination before the Hepburn rate law was enacted.
 "The secretary also seeks to create the impression that the railroads unit edly opposed the passage of the Hep- burn rate law, and that they spent d large amount of money and made great efforts to defeat it.
 "If my recollection be not at fault, the Pennsylvania railroad, the New York, New Haven and Hartford rail- road and perhaps a number of other railroads favored the Hepburn bill. Cutting off passes was alone worth millions to the railroads. Positive prohibition of rebates and discrimina- tions was worth still other millions. The great trouble about the legislation is not in it's details, but basic, involv- ing an important principle and policy" | Senator Foraker spoke of his recent i public requests that Secretary Taft give bill of particulars as to his tariff revision views, and, declaring the Co., lumbus speech not sufficiently 'lumi- nous on this point" continued:
 "One who was able year ago to de- clare himself unqualifiedly in favor of an immediate revision at that time should be able now to give some spe- cifications as to what then prompted him to make such a declaration. But instead we are told that he merely as sumes that the cost of production in 1 tAllo OOuAlllJ Ilclo 0O ldl NlIIllllSItGu since the Dingley law was passed that the duties now in force are higher than necessary to cover the differ- ence in the cost of labor here and abroad Assuming, for the sake of argument, that he is correct in his contention that the difference in la bor and that difference alone, should fix the duty, he seems to overlook the fact that the duties fixed by the Dingley law were, in the judgment of the congress that enacted that stat ute, no higher when they were fixed than was necessary to cover that diff ferential. and that the duties then fixed, if that rule is to govern, can not be high enough now, for it is common knowledge tha tthe cost of all kinds of labor has in the mean 1 while advanced from 25 to 50 per cent in this country without any cor responding advance in foreign coun- tries.
 For second reason for immediate revision we are told that a majority of the members of the National Manufac- turers' association have declared them. tariff. ''''
 Tn the first place, this action of this association could not have influenced the secretary when he spoke at Bath one year ago for 1t was taken only { few weeks ago.
 Except his assumption and this ac. ton of this association. the secretar, practically assigns no other reason whl the tariff should be revised, except onl, that revision must come some time, an, that if we do not revise the iemocrat may.
 What I contena for is, that befor, any such revision is entered upon tn people shall be- heard on the subject and I have already suggested that sue a step should not betaken until afte we have a chanceto consult them il
 the presidential campaign of nex year"
 Senator Forakeri called on the secre tary to say what in his opinion tn
 chief executive should do about tn defiant nullifcation of the war amend
 ments to the constitution, involved i
 such statutes as that passed in Georg
 only few days ago. He is properl
 in favor of doing all In our power fo
 the S000,000 of brown people in tn
 Philippines, who were until recent
 entire strangers and open enemies, Bu \ how about the 100000 of black pee ple in America not one of whom eyt NiNW b NiSioe dl lpiNdlli3 WllD re QpG!
 ly and defantly being denied their con
 stitutional rights of citizenship l
 there no power to prevent such an of . fense against human rights, and sue ? | an overthrow of our organized law?
 But I would know also what ar
 the views of an aspirant to the pres dency may be about the new rebellio
 that has brokenout in some of Il
 southern states, notably North Carolin
 and Alabama. in the form of an ooe ' States courts. Is this spirit to !
 checked and restrained. or is 1t to |
 allowed to feed upon itself and gro
 strong to the point of rnenacing our 1T | stitiltfonS 2"