Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1907-08-22
ANSWERS TAFT.
Continued from Page One)


makes no answer to the suggestion that
the three powers of government, the
legislative, the executive and the judi
cial, are all conferred on the commits
| sion, and that this co-mingling of these
powers is unprecedented and in viola
ton of both the spirit and the letter OF
the constitution.
Il have contended that so far as l
| have yet been informed, there has been
| no lowering of rates since the Hepburn
| law was passed whereby the shippers
IOf Ohio have been benefited, except only
such as would have been made in all
probability if the Hepburn law had
never been passed. On the contrary
| since the Hepburn rate law was passed,
| til" majority Of their rates have been
advanced. Very few, if any, have been
| lowered.
| The purpose of the ElliinS law, was
| to give the shippers of the country Il
speedy remedy against rebates and
| Determinations Of every kind and char
acter and to absolutely break up and
destroy such practices.
| 'There was much doubt expressed in
the Senate committee as to the wisdom
of following the recommendation OF the
| Interstate Commerce Commissioners To
1
| AT any rate, after nearly 20 years
| of experience there was no case of sue
ccssful prosecution for any offence pun
Iishable by imprisonment and there had
lhern no case of imprisonment. The law
Iwas in that particular n dead letter
All this seemed reason enough for the
IrhanGc.
"lnasmucl as the secretary entertains
l h, 70 no
lr,,lty of convictions in such cases and
ina:nuch as the Interstate Commerce
commissioners for precisely the same
reason given by the secretary recon-
mcndcd the abolition of punishment by
Imprisonment as part Of the ElkinS law.
the charge of the secretary, made by
implication at least, that the Elkins
law, especially in the matter of abol-
iShin" imprisonment was Il railroad
lrlrasurc. is without the slightest eX
rrse or justification. Nobody has ever
claimed that the E,ltins law was per-
| feet. But while he seeks to diSparaGa
ithc Elkins law, yet he admits that all
| rr"sccuti0ns down until this time have
| been under it Because these proSecu-
tinnS we're for offences committed prior
To the Hepburn rate law and then says
that criminal prosecutions will con-
tinue To be under the E,lllinS law but
as amended by the new rate bill
In more than 100 prosecutions the
Ell;ins law, as originally enacted, has
been found n quick. decisive, efficient
and inexpensive remedy.
NO amendment of the Elkins law
: by the provisions of the Hepburn rate
; law has been invoked in any Of these
proceedings. In fact. the most trouble
some difficulties of all the cases under
the Elkins law arose and We're brought
to final and successful determination
before the Hepburn rate law was enact
ed
1.-THE secretary also seeks to create
; the impression that tho railroads unit
ndly opposed the passage of the Hep
burn rate law and that they spent q
. large amount of money and made great
| efforts to defeat 1t.
eff my recollection be not at fault,
> the Pennsylvania Railroad. the New
: | York. New Haven & Hartford Railroad
and perhaps a number of other rail-
roads favored the Hepburn bill. Cut
ting off passes was worth alone MIL
| lions to the railroads. Positive prohibit
i ton of rebates and determinations was
worth still other millions. The great
trouble about the Legislation is not fr
I its details, but basic. involving an I'M
t portant principle and policy"
Senator Foraker spoke of his recent
: | public request that Sec. Taft give 4
bill of particulars as to his tariff re-
vision views and declaring. the Co
lumbus speech not sufficiently "lumi-
nous on this point continued:
zone who was able a year ago t.
/ l. -,
Of an immediate revision at that time
should he able now to give some spec
ificat ions as to what then prompted
him to make sub a declaration. But
/; instead, VIC are told that he merely as
= sumcs that the cost of production il
II this country has so far diminished
! since the Dingley law was passed tina
the duties now in force are higher thar
necessary to cover the differences il
s the cost of labor here and abroad. AS.
: | sumng for the sake of argument tina
= he is correct in his contention that the
differences in labor. and that the diff
Il ference alone. should fix the duty. HI
;. seems to overlook the. fact that the
duties fixed by the Dingley law were
in the judgment of the Congress Una
enacted that statute. no higher wher
= cover that differential and that the du'
ties then fixed if that rule is to givern
; cannot be high enough now, for 1t IS
:. common knowledge that the cost OF al
= kinds of labor has in the meanwhlie
advanced from 25 to 80 per cent IN
$ this country without any corresponding
: advance in foreign countries.
"For second reason for immediate
revision we are told that a majority 0!
l. tho members Of the National Manu-
facturcrs Association have declared
l. themselves in favor of a revision OF
the tariff
"In the first place this action OF
this association could not have influ-
enced the secretary when he spoke al
Bath, one year ago, for it was taker
only few weeks ago. Except his as
ISumDtion and this action of this asSO
citation the secretary practically as
signs no other reason why the tariff
should be revised, except only that re-
/ Vic; NJ ho