The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-03-16
FIGHTHS
THE RAILROAD BILL
Continued from Page One.

'bulluuNu ii'i'i chN'
TO attach much Importance to the
practice which now seems TO be very
general, were ii not that its cures, III
the nature of things, must be disastrous,
Although a senator may be IN ful
sympathy with the broad purposes
which the executive proposes TO ac-
complish, the moment he asserts his in.
dependent view Of the best way TO
accomplish the purpose he finds himself
in direct conflict with the president,
and he must choose between losing the
presidential favor and doing thing IN
a way his conscience tells him 1T ought
not to be done.
~ do not fear that in slight IN
stance or during one administration the
Independent Will of the member of
congress can be overcome; but if, upon
sub iecus like the one before us, the
practice of having bill prepared in the
executive offices and presented to con-
gress for passage, accompanied with an
implied message that punishment fol
lows disobedience is continued from
year to year, in The end congress VIII
become mere form in organized So
ciety
With the utmost respect for the
exalted Office of president of the United
States and for him who occupies it at
the present time, | record my protest
here and now against u practice which
| believe TO be full of dangers and
disasters. -
Extraordinary Circumstances.
Declaring to be extraordinary the
circumstances connected with the origin
of the bill, the Iowa senator detailed
the meeting last August Of Attorney
General Wickersham in New York with
others who. he said had undertaken to
put into shape for enactment the va
rlous recommendations of the president
on railroad legislation The report as
made to the chief executive was sup
posedly confidential, he said, but as a
matter of fact, long before it reached
the president il had fallen into the
hands Of the railroad men,
Discussing the progress of the bill
after it reached the president. Mr., Cum
MINIS declared that it had been vastly
changed Indeed. he declared, "but for
the blrthmark of the commerce court
no one would recognize the measure
born in the dog days up there in
New York,
These changes he attributed TO the
influence of the railroad men that had
been brought to bear upon the pres-
dent and attorney general before Jan
uary IL, when the bill was presented
to the chairman of the committee on
interstate commerce. He asserted from
the time the measure had been turned
into the president until it had left him,
nearly every railroad president in the
country had visited Washington and
had been heard by the president and
the attorney general, many Of them
twice. Substantially every change had
been made TO suit the railroads, He
did not object to the granting of hear
lngs on legislation. he said. His OBJ
lection was TO the course of the exccu-
tive officials IN taking in hand the en-
tire direction Of legislation. If the at
to prepare bills it was emlnently fair
that they should hear those interested
Not Heard by Senators.
But while the railroad men had pre-
sented their views TO the president and
his attorney general. only one of them
had been heard by the senate commit
tee.
Because of the method of proceeding,
the senate, he urged. necessarily was
ignorant of the arguments used to
bring about the changes. No doubt
there was good reason for the changes,
but be that as it might, the introduc-
tion of system (Which would lead
those desiring TO influence legislation to
appeal to the White House rather than
to congress- he considered pernicious.
Mr.. Cummins inveighed against the
proposed court of commerce as unnec-
essary and expensive. He asserted that
not to exceed seven or eight cases a
year would come before the court and
the expense would not be short of $780,
900 year. He also argued that any
court created for the trial of railroad
cases alone would be unwise because
of influences surrounding the selection
of members of the court and because
Of "the tremendous power of the rail
roads,
Mr.. Cummins also pointed out the
possibility of an enlargement Of the
jurisdiction Of the proposed court over
that now exercised by the United States
courts, He thought the jurisdiction
should be made as specific as possible.
More serious and disastrous than any
Of these objections, he said, was the
blow to shippers IN taking the inter
state commerce commission out of the
defense of the cases. making the
United States the defendant and plac~
ing the cases entirely in the hands of
the attorney general. Such course,
he contended. would give the depart
ment of justice power of secret review,
from which there could be no APP
peal or redress. This course. he
thought, must necessarily destroy the
effectiveness of the law.
Mr. Elkins defended the provisions
for the utilization of the services of