The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-06-11

/
legislation providing for a union sta
| ton would fail unless the house agreed
| 70 the senate bill The report shows
that the proposition did not come from
| the railroads; they were satisfied with
their present stations. but there was
demand among the people sof wash
lnston generally that there should be
one union station instead of two sta
tons. The railroads commended that
union station would not increase their
business. but would greatly increase
their expenses: they were not asking
for the legislation.
| The vote that cast then, acting as
did with a majority of the house. re-
suited in legislation for the Union sta
ton at Washington. It has lately
been opened to the public and is now
recognized as one of the most impos-
| ing and beautiful railroad stations in
the world. AS member OF the Dis
trict Of Columbia committee of the
ter with passing legislation which Sc
! cured street car tracks to the station.
| These tracks will shortly be built and
by the time the next president is in
augurated the station will be fully
completed and street cars viii De able
| to handle the great crowds that will
attend the inaugural ceremonies. 1t is
a source Of satisfaction to me now, al
| though l was not personally familiar
with the details of the legislation then,
and only followed the committee that
| had the bill in charge, that I voted as
| l did on this proposition. 1t has given
| to Washington and the country mag
| nihcent Union station that will be
source Of pride and qualification to the
| people of the United States for all time
| to come.
| My vote alone did not accomplish
| this result Other members of the
house and senate voted with me, but.
above all. President Roosevelt agreed
| with what we did by approving the bill
for which we voted. and it thus be-
| came law.
Washington Gas Light Company.
The charge in this article on this
subject is as follows:
ON page 1880, when the Washing
ton Gas Light company wanted to
water its stock and increase the
amount on which the people should
have to pay interest in the price of
| gas, Long on page 1880, volume SO,
| part 2, voted for the proposition. 1t
was in line of the things Long and
Wall street believe in. and Long voted
for Wall street.
A bill was unanimously reported
from the committee on the District OF
Columbia, which directed the Wash
| ington Gas Light company to increase
| its plant so as to enable it to meet the
growing demands of the District. 1t
| authorized an increase in the capital
| stock of the company, under the SUI
| pervision of the supreme court of the
District of Columbia: no increase of
| capital could be made by it until after
| filing petition in this court and the
decree of the court permitting it. The
| bill authorized the company to pur-
| chase the capital stock of other
Illuminating companies doing business
in the District. An amendment was
| presented to this bill providing for a
reduction in the price of gas; motion
was made to recommit the bill TO the
committee with instructions 10 report
| it back for a reduction in the price of
gas to the people of the District. The
bate, and the motion to recommit with
instructions was adopted without
debate. Later in the da~ Mr. Bah
cock. chairman of the committee,
which the bill was recommitted with
instructions 1t was this motion to
reconsider which was called up and on
which a roll call was had. 1t was my
vote on this roll call to which Mr..
White objects in the article. The on:y
question was whether the instructions
in the motion to recommit should
stand. During the debate (page 1879
1t became very apparent what inf1u-
ences were back of these instructions.
It was shown that there were two
electric lighting companies in the Dis
trict of Columbia that were competi-
tors of the Washington Gas Light
company: that IT. these . Instructions
to reduce it's charges 25 per cent
while the charges of the electric
lighting companies would not be at
fected. I voted to reconsider these
! instructions to the committee and
members voting with me on this mo-
ton were Calderhead, Cannon, Crum-
packer, Dalzell, Grow, Moody, Over
street, Sherman and Tawney.
| This was a question to which had
given no personal consideration, but in
which I followed the recommendations
of the committee in charge of the bill
The Uintah Indian Reservation
Opening.
The following charge is made or
this subject:
. ION page 5133, volume 35 of the
Congressional Record, part 5, Long l:
found voting for a proposition which
! allowed an asphalt outfit to retair
! claims that under the law belonged te
! the people, and representing unestf
mated values. But it preserved
things as they are, and so justice ano
equity and the interests of the people
Of this country were not considered a.
: against the interests of Wall street
, and Long voted for Wall street"
\ This refers to my vote on agreeing
4 to the conference report on the Ind1al
I appropriation BILL This report is Sc
5 21a pages of the Record. 1t wa
r signed on the part of the house by J
S. Sherman, chairman of the com
+ mittee on Indian affairs, and Chas
Curtis, two Of the managers of tn
p house, and by Senators William M
s Stewart, O. H. Platt and ]. L. Raw
/ lfngs, manager on the part Of the sen
+ ate. The bill originated in the house
: the senate made 1874 amendments t
= the bill, all of which went to con
: ference When the conference repor
n came before the house, objection wa
e made to only one of these amend
v ments, number s.; this related t
" the opening of the Uintah India
reservation in Utah. The report per
= mitted the Raven Mining company t
: retain 100 mining claims within tn
"a | raservafion and also nermitted tn