The Dickinson press., 1908-06-06

and that at page 71s this bill was
passed and that I voted for it.
This bill is now a law and on the
statute books. 1t is admitted to be
the most drastic, most complete and
most effective measure against trusts
on the statute books of any state.
1t was agreed by the judiciary
committee and by the senate. to be
the best bill on the subject that was
introduced and was passed for that
reason.
Senate Bill al, of which you seek
to make a charge against me, was
another bill covering similar subject
matter, and vas not reported for the
reason that Senate Bill Y was pass
ed and covered the subject more
thoroughly and more effectively.
This being the case, there was no
reason for further action on Senate
Bill 141.
This proves amply that your COM
piler. either ignorantly or deliberate
ly, seeks to convey a false impres-
sion from publishing the bare record
on an antitrust bill that died in
committee because a better bill had
passed, for which I voted and which
was reported by my committee.
The Record on Trust Measures.
Let us complete the record on this
antitrust matter.
In the session Of 1897, Senate Jour-
nal of 1897, at page 602, I am re-
corded as voting for one Of the earl
lest antitrust bills that wa intro
duced, SO that my record on this
matter Is clear from the first anti
trust legislation in the state down to
the present time.
Let US go q little further into the
matter.
You charge that my absence with
out excuse from some roll calls indi-
Gates that I lodged" matters of
this same nature.
I call your attention to the fact
that, on the vote of the Palmer anti
trust bill. session Of 1907, page 71S,
there was absent without excuse,
Messrs. Kelly, democrat; Macarthur,
democrat, and Kotel, insurgent.
If your reasoning is good and your
deductions fair, then these gentlemen
are to be classed as lodging"
If we are judging men from the
simple record, then all must be judg-,
ed by the same standard.
Let us analyze your charge with
regard to Senate Bill 10, Of the ses
sion Of 1907. whose title you gave as
follows:
a bill for an act to regulate
transfer facilities at points where
different lines of railways cross
or intersect and providing a pen
atty for the violation Of the
same. !
You say that this bill was referred
to the senate Judiciary committee
and was never e again. From that
you seek the conclusion that I aided
in %supressing this legislation.
Now what are the facts?
This bill was Senator McArthur's.
Senator Macarthur also introduced
Senate Bill 27s, covering this same
subject.
Senate bill 273 was reported by
the Judiciary committee Of which /
was chairman, at page 439 OF the
Senate Journal. It was recommend
ed to pass. It passed. at page 47s
Of the Senate Journal Of 1907. i
voted for It.
This bill provides arbitrarily for
the construction Of Y's by railroad
companies where their lines cross.
It provides that states attorneys may
enforce its provisions. It is : bill
that railroads would naturally. and
+ dld, oppose ;sSa M
Now, what do we find in the roll
call. on this bill?
We find that Senator Macarthur,
who had introduced Il, was absent
and moi voting when Il Was passed.
think this reduces your dedpe-
tion that absence from roll call eyi-
dences 9 desire to dodge to ans9sab.
surdity. Il also dispossesi efectual-
II Of your charge with reference q
Senate Bill 70, which was not report
ed because another and more effec.
tive bill on the same subject was
reported and passed. 1 ss.