The Chanute times. [volume] (Chanute, Kan.) 1897-1913, 1908-07-17

side and defends himself by the "un
constitutional excuse
The next charge reads:
When 1t was proposed to limit the ISSUE
of stocks and bonds on the proposed Lake
Erie Ohio river canal, so that the charges
pay fixed charges on watered stock apc
fraudulent bonds, Long voted with Wal
street and his vote is recorded on page
1926, volume 40, part 8. Again on page
1929 he voted the same way and on page
1878 he voted against provision that EN-
powered the commission to find what the
canal cost and regulate charges accord
ingly. The charges on this canal, If built
would affect every load of transcontinent-
al freight that come to Kansas or leaves
it, but also 1t will affect millions of dol
lars of interest in Wall street and Long
voted against Kansas and with Wall
street.
Longs defense is that to restrict the
amount of stocks and bonds issued by
the canal promoters would embarrass
them, Yet the restriction of stock and
bond issues is now a part of the Re-
publican platform adopted at the Chi
cago convention. Either Longs vote
in those Erie canal matters was dead
wrong-a Wall street vote-or the
Chicago platform is wrong. Either
senators must vote for their people
whether it 'embarrasses" promoters
or not, or go back on the Republican
platform. Which does Long propose
to do-to go back on his vote or upon
the Republican platform?
The next charge reads:
On page $685. Long voted against the
proposition to allow the interstate com
merce commission. of its own motion, to
correct unfair rates Wall street desired
to make it as hard to correct Injustice as
possible, and Long voted with Wall street.
Longs defense is that such a meas
ure was out of harmony" with the
general trend CT the m assure and that
the commission would have all it
could do to correct abuses uccn COM
plant" This looks well on paper, but
the truth is that often in correcting
one rate the commission has to create
another injustice, and if it could adj
just matters of its own motion, then
and there, it could do great good and
prevent abuses before they occurred.
But the Wall street crowd desired this
handicap on the commission, and Long
went with his friends.
The next charge reads:
On page 6774 Long voted against prohib-
iting judges who pass upon railroad ques-
tons from owning stock in the roads in
vOlved.
Longs defense is that it would be
an insult to the judiciary. Yet the
law prohibits members of the inter
state commerce commission from hold
ing stock in railroads upon which they
pass. Why is the court any more sa-
cred than the commission? The facts
are, the Wall street crowd lined up
against the amendment, and Long
went with them. Also he went with
them on the next charge. which reads;
He also voted against a measure pro-
viding that when railroads introduced evil
dence in court that they did not intro
duce before the commission. the commits
sion should be given Il chance to pass upon
the new evidence.
This measure was to compel rail-
roads to try their cases in the commits
sion and not in the courts. In the
courts are delays. And railroads cited
before the commission often introduce
little or no evidence before the COM
but bring evidence in the
courts and try cases upon technical
Longs defense of this OBJ
noxious practice is that his vote to
stop 1t would interfere with the regu-
larity of court procedure. Regularity
of court procedure is a fine thing,
when you recommend a Democratic
railroad attorney for federal Judge, as
Long did, to control the court proce-
lure, and then vote to tie up the rail-
road cases in the courts and out of
the commission
The next charge reads:
In the anti-pass matter Long voted for
the Fulton amendment at first Fulton be-
ing the notorious senator Just defeated by
the primary in Oregon.
He makes no defense of this vote.
But it was the attempt of the railroad
crowd in the senate to get a mild"
anti-pass law. They failed and Long
-ook the next best thing.
The next charge reads:
On page 7O14 Long is found voting
against prohibiting railroads from com
)eting with citizens in various lines of
business an obviously unfair thing to do,
rs they can carry cheaper than their com
Detitors.
His defense here is what 1t is in
hree other unenumerated cases in
hese charges: That he voted before
)r afterward for similar amendments
which were in the bill as signed by the
President. and that if Long is wrong
he President is wrong. The point in
hat case is this: That invariably
long took the easy side of it for Wall
street, and lined up. not with the free
senator's in the senate, but with those
who surrendered with Wall street.
This. of course, does not mean that all
he men who voted with Long on all of
hese different points were controlled.
I does mean that always, If there was
controlled crowd. Long might be
ound in it,
The next charge reads:
In considering the hours of service bill
asst year. when Wall street senators tried
D weaken the bill with amendments, Long
oted with that crowd and against the
Ill as introduced by the railroad en-
'loyes; yet on the final passage Long
aved his face.
The defense there is a dodge. He
avs: Many amendments were Of
cred, some of which l supported, and
ONE of which / did not" He forgot
hat the railroad boys know that the
Vail street crowd, tried to load the |
Ill down with impossible amendments |
o weaken and cripple it, and that |
,ong was with them in. nearly every
Material vote. Afterward when La Fol- |
cite forced them to a square vote on |
is measure. Long saved his face. But |
hat Infamous attempt to jeopardize |
uman life on American railroads. to |