The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-04-27

OF 1lliholSs IN charge or the Dill, moved
to lay the measure aside for the day.
When the railroad bill is finally re
ported from the committee of the whole
10 the House, any or ali of the amend
ments adopted today may again be
voted upon and roll call on any
vote may be demanded
Debate in the Senate.
During the debate in the Senate on
the railroad bill, Senator Clapp, refer
ring to what he characterized as Mr..
G5raWtords frantic appeal to the
Roosevelt policies in support of his
amendment, declared Mr.. Roosevelt
never had attempted to dictate to his
party. Next TO Lincoln, no man had
ever so accurately interpreted the pub
Tic Will nor had been so far from at
tempting any dictation as had Mr..
Roosevelt, he said.
Holding a arms length a copy of
the railroad bill, Mr.. Clapp declared
that Mr.. Roosevelt never had sent to
Congress "a document like that, with
orders TO put it through"
The evil time had come after Mr..
RooseYelts retirement and when few
men in Congress had undertaken to
trample on the rights of the people
and to arrOgate to themselves the right
TO say what should be done, he de-
clared. No harmony could be expect
ed from such dictatiOn.
The Republican party never had re-
sided In the White House nor in the
Capitol. but was found in the country
at large.
Mr.. Clapp said he believed the Amer
lean people still were reluctant to give
up the Republican party, and thought
If Congress would pass acceptable
railroad and savings bank bills. and
give the public a tariff commission,
the party still might be saved.
Attack by Senator Hughes.
Senator Hughes made a sweeping at
tack on the railroad bill.
1t is not craftsmanship" he said,
to urge through great measures like
this without argument or eXplana-
ton. The people have right TO ask
greater consideration when their inter
csts are so materially affected.
Mr.. Hughes criticised the provision
creating a court Of commerce because
such court was not necessary. He
eOntended that, as far as transportation
was concerned, the bin repealed the
antitrust law. He thought the bill
specially Objectionable as IL delegRt-
ed Legislative authority to the inter
state commerce commission. Arguing
that under the operation OF the pro-
posed law the smaller roads would
have no chance, he declared railroad
would be out of the question. He said
It would be especially hurtful in the
development of the great west" In
his testimony he said the attorney gen
law would be evaded Declaring it
would not apply to interstate roads,
the attorney general, according to Mr..
Hughes, had said in the case OF roads
crossing a state line, different issues
of stock could be put out for each
state.
I asked him why go TO all that
trouble" said Mr.. Hughes, but / am
still waiting for the reply"
Referring to the many constructions
placed upon section II, relating TO the
OF railroad lines, Mr..
Hughes said there should be a COM
mission to determine its meaning. He
cOntended that the testimony of Mr..
Hartman before the interstate COM
merce commission had supplied the
platform from which the pending bill
had been constructed
Rejection Urged.
He pointed out the way Of remoY-
ing the obstacles in his continent wide
ambition" continued Mr.. Hughes, "and
ere the grass is green on his grave
we have bill removing all the Obsta-
cles of which he complained. In bar
gain, we are out-tradedi the things
we get are trifling compared with the
advantages we cOncede TO great rail-
roads. But one disposition should be
made of il, and that is its absolute
and unqualified rejection"
Mr.. Hepburn attempted TO refUte the
contentious that the Crawford amend
ment had the effect of repeating the
Sherman antitrust law as affecting
railroads.
MI CuinInluS challenged the correct
ness of Mr.. Heyburn's position. He as
serted the purpose of the revision was
to render lawful, that which was now
unlawful.
In response Mr.. A1drich conceded with
the views expressed by Mr.. Hepburn,
TO the extent of asserting that under
the proposed law any agreement in re-
straint of trade would be unlawful,
landing the proposed law.
Mr. Cummins would not assent de-
there had been no other idea
in framing the provision than to rem
der the railroads immune from the
antitrust law. He declared the pro-
vision would be of no avail If il did
not legalize acts now cosidered iIlega
1t would be without object