The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-06-02
Bailey Wants Given the
Judges to Understand
Provision.
ATTACK DECREE
AS "REW RITTEN"
Despite Torrid Appeal, Amend
ment Offered by Texan Is De-
feated, Senate Refusing to
Challenge Court to Another
Decision in Railroad
Transportation Case.

Washington. D. c., Juno by a
vote OF 25 to 81 the Senate to-day
refused to challenge the Supreme
Court of the United States to another
decision regarding the right of COM
mot, carriers to transport commodities
produced by themselves.
The vote was taken upon an amend
ment to the railroad bill offered by
Senator Bailey, OF Texas. making II
unlawful for any railroad company
10 transport from one state to another
amy article or commodity manu-
factured. mixed or produced by It or
under it's authority or by any corpora
ton. Joint stock company or partner
ship in which said railroad company
holds. owns or controls directly or In
directly any stock or interest"
The amendment was intended to
remedy tho supposed defect In the
commodities clause of the Hepburn
act of 1906. out of which grew the
famous decision OF the Supreme Court
of the United States. in which the
government undertook TO prosecute a
number of the roads engaged in the
mining OF anthracite coal in Pennsyl-
vania. The court held the law to be
constitutional. but materially limited
its application.
"Fling" mt the Court.
The original provision was drawn by
Senator Bailey, and he sought by
to-day's amendment to force the court
TO face squarely the question OF right
Of Congress TO prohibit railroad com
panles from transporting commodities
produced by themselves. Mr.. Bailey
said that it was his intention to make
the language the present provision
,,Tu utt3 ffti pf
the Supreme Court could fail to under
stand IT.
The time consumed In debate on the
Bailey amendment prevented final
vote being reached on the bill as had
been hoped.
The La Toilette amendment provid-
ing for the ascertainment OF the ply
sical valuation OF all railroad prop
erty as basis for the fixing OF rates
was defeated 20 to 80. A modified pro-
vision. by Mr. Simmons, requiring such
valuation of property affected BY any
given case also was lost, 2S TO 30.
The tendency towards bringing
water transportation under the juris-
diction OF the Interstate Commerce
Commission, which has been noticeable
throughout the consideration of the
Bill. found expression in two amend
ments, one offered by Senator Sim.
mons, OF North Car rolina, and the other
by Senator Burton, OF Ohio. both OF
which found acceptance.
The first was presented as proviso
in connection with the long and short
haul provision heretofore adopted. It
provides that when application is
made to the commission by carrier
to dx lower rate for longer than
for shorter distances on account of
water competition, said application
shall not be granted If the commits
sion, after investigation, shall find
that the lower rate asked for will
destroy water competition
Boat Lines Driven Out.
Mr. Simmons, in support of his
amendment. gave instances in which
he said railroad companies had put
down rates to drive out boat lines.
and then, with this result accomplish
cd, had increased the rates again. Fol-
lowing is the text Of the Burton
amendment:
Whenever a railway or railways in
competition with water route or
routes, shall reduce the rates on the
carriage of any species of freight it
shall not be permitted to increase such,
rates unless. after hearing by the In
terstate Commerce Commission, 1t
crease rests upon changed conditions
other than the elimination or the de-
crease in water competition, and the
said commission Is hereby given the
right to prescribe minimum railroad
rates on lines competing with water
ways whenever, in its opinion, the OBJ
ject of the railroad or railroads in
reducing rates is to destroy waterway
competition
Mr.. Burton had not proceeded far
with his explanation Of his amend
ment when he was stopped by an an
nouncement by Mr.. Elkins, In charge
of the bill, that he would accept the
provision. Nevertheless the roll was
called, resulting SO to /.
Mr.. Bailey. in speaking in support
of his amendment, freely criticized the
decision of the Supreme Court, out Of
which the amendment grew He went
SO far as to express the opinion of the
court as promulgated had been a re-
written document. He explained that
this conclusion had been reached
through his knowledge of literary
construction and not through any Sin
side Information"
Wants Direct Decision.
His purpose, he said. was to divorce
transportation from production, and he
added that he had made special ef-
fort to draw the provision so as to
render it impossible for the court to
evade a direct decision on the right
oil Congress thus to leglslate.
1T they can get around this amend
ment. they will show themselves poH-
sessed of an ingenuity that will sur
prise NO." he said.
Mr.. Bailey said he had been careful
10 confine his prohibition to the car
irier and not to extend 1t to the COM
modify itself.
Doubting the power OF Congress even
under the commerce. clause OF the Con.
stltutton to interdict Interstate COM
merce In a wholesome and merchant-
able article, he said he had not un-
dertaken to prevent the shipment OF a
commodity prodllced by. a common cnr-