Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-09-24

the senate JuStlneS the expectation VHat
in an honest division, there would be a
small majority in favor of progressive
railroad legislation, provided it were
not too progressive. Senator Cunhmins
will urge provision directing the In
terstate commission to make a sched-
ule OF reasonable rates for the entire
country. That may prove too progress
sive. 1t is already being attacked as a
physical impossibility, tho the Iowa
senator will have some interesting evil
dence that it is not only possible. but
a simple task. All railroad and inter-
nal waterway rates in Great Britain
are so made, and the task was not
found to be even a very great one, Of
making the original schedule.
Senator LaFollette will press his pro-
position for a valuation of the rail-
roads; and this, likewise may prove
too progressive to command a major
ity. 1t is observed with some interest
that President Taft. tho in his cam
paign speeches a year ago he tentative
ly admitted that he might favor such
a measure, did not mention it in his
Des Moines address. The interstate
commission is more strongly in favor
of it than ever before.
The Probable Line-u up.
A recent analysis of the senate, made
with view to determining how 1T
would stand on an administration pro-
position designed substantially to
strengthen the federal arm in hand
ling interstate commerce, enumerated
fifty-four affirmative and thirty eight
negative senator's: The list:
In favor of progressive admins
~, 4{Ov, l.; \
McCumber. Dolliyer Clapp, Gamble.
Burkett, LaFollette, Warner, Curtis.
Smith of Michigan, Borah, Bourne,
Brown, Dixon, Cummins, Bristow,
Crawford, Johnson, Jones-all republic
cans.
Daniel, Bailey, Martin, Tillman, Clay
! McEnery, Money, Culberson, Taliaferre
Bailey, Foster. McLaurin, Simr1ins
Clarke. Newlands. Overman. Stone
Rayner, Frazier, Davis, Paynter, Tay-
or, Bankhead, Johnston, Gore, Owen
Smith of Maryland, Chamberlain
Fletcher, Hughes. Shively. Smith. al
democrats, total, 80. Grand total So, In
favor of legislation.
Opposed to a progressive bill-Hale
Frye. Aldrich. Gallinger, Lodge, Per.
kins. Burrows, Clark, Warren, Elkins
Penrose, Depew, Kean. Scott, Dilling.
ham. Durham, Hepburn, Smoot, Dick
Crane. Buckley. Carter Flint, Nixon
Piles, Sutherland Brandegee, Dupont
Briggs, Guggenheim. Richardson, Step.
henson, Wetmore, Page. Burton, Root
Oliver, Lorimer; total SO, all republi.
cans
Not nearly all the men, who in u
foregoing list are placed in favor o
such legislation, would really want /
to pass; many would vote for 1t as
measure to conserve their politica
health. These can not be counted III,
reliable and useful friends, in the pre-
liminary stages. They will Civ
record support" rather than senti
mental and sincere. On the other hand
many of those who are listed as OPP
posed to such a measure would lacl
the courage to vote against it. Thu
truth is that the senate Is pretty evenl,
divided. but, as three years ago, a bill
once assured of passage would hav
almost a unanimous vote.
Assurance Of Little Value.
New England is set down in all tn
lists to cast it's votes solidly agains
such measure. Yet there are som
reports that President Taft, in view
OF his handsome Endorsement of AL
drich. has assurances of Aldrich sup
port for certain amount of progress
siveness. This assurance would be un
likely to develop much value. becaus
anything Aldrich would support woul
be hopelessly too conservative for tn
progressive republicans and SINGER
democrats, and Aldrich would soon b
forced to oppose the measure thes
men would formulate if once they &C
control.
The interstate commerce committe
, of the senate is not so overwhelming
opposed to legislation now as it wa
! three years ago. OF tits republican
. Elkins, Aldrich, Kean, Crane and Nixo
, are set down as opposed; Cullon
Clapp, and Dolliver, as for Legislation
Cullom, however, would not go near
so far as Cummins and Clapp Won
desire. On the democratic side. Til
man, Foster, Newlands and Taylor a
regarded as favoring a progressl'
y move, with McLaurin as opposed.
Many Debates Certain.
But Foster, representing Louisian
is a very possible supporter of Il
Aldrich element, because he has II
habit of voting with Aldrich in tar
and some other matters. 1t thereto
u appears that the committee is We
uncertain, with the chances in fav