The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1910-04-13
Senate Discusses the Administration Railroad
Bill Indirectly in Discussing Gigantic Merger
Lodge Attempts Defense of Merger
Arguments Cover Wide Range of Accu
sation Tries to Show Roosevelt Suit
Dismissed by Attorney General

Washington, D. c., April 13.-Inci-
dental consideration o. the administra-
ton railroad bill the merger of the
Boston and Maine railroad with the
New York, New Haven and Hartford
railroad through the railroad holding
law enacted by the Massachusetts, Leg
islature in 1909 was discussed at
/ length Tuesday in the senate.
The principal speech attacking the
consolidation in unstinted language
was made by Senator LaFollette.
Federal legislation is matter in
which interstate commerce was large
/ ly concerned" he declared. the people
of Massachusetts had been taken off
their guard by the authorization to
the holding company and approvingly
quoted the chairman Of the Massa-
chusetts house committee on rail
roads when he stated that Governor
Draper had been compelled to accept
Mr.. Mellen's ultimatum
When LaFollette concluded Lodge
of Massachusetts, entered upon a state
ment of facts intended to show that
Mr.. LaFollette's outline of the situa-
tion had not been accurate. He de-
clared the New Haven road and the
Boston and Maine road were not COM
peting lines, and he said that the nee
essity for the consolidation had been
found in the poor financial condition
of the latter road which was such as
to render it impossible for 1t to make
necessary Improvements
He asserted that the holding bill
had been framed as to safeguard ef-
feetually the interests Of the people
of Massachusetts and deprecated the
agitation Of subject by one who was
not familiar with the entire situation.
He intimated that New England
would be able to settle its own affairs
and declaring that he held brief for
the New Haven road, said that he
spoke only for the people of his state
where the consolidation was affected
The arguments covered a wide
range of accusation, but aside from
the speakers desire to hold aloft the
merger as a bad example the evident
purpose was to contrast the Taft ad-
ministration with the Roosevelt ad,
ministration to the disadvantage of the
former
The criticism of Attorney General
Wickersham was especially stringent
and pointed. It was towards the close
of his speech that Mr.. LaFollette made
his sharpest reference to Mr.. Wicker;
sham. He was devoting himself to
the condemnation of the pending bill
when, rising to his tiptoes, he exclaim-
ed: "Mr President, is this the wise
legislation embodying no sudden i'm
pulse, but matured views expressed
in party council, which the attorney
general in his recent speech at Chi
cago said is pressed for enactment?
rs it for legislation such as that that
the attorney general commands all
who would not be read out of the re
publican party to get in line?"
Senator LaFollette then devoted his
remarks to the Massachusetts, state
legislation authorizing the acquisition
of the Boston and Maine stock by a
holding company, but failed to find
in this legislation anything like the
Importance attached to 1t by Mr.
Wickersham. He asserted that Mr.
Wickersham had permitted state leg
islation to supercede, and consumed
the large part of the days session be
fore responses by Senator Lodge and
Senator Gallinger were made.
Both of the New England senators
defended the merger and upheld the
law under which it was made. Mr.
LaFollette presented this transaction
in great detail for the purpose, he
said, of illustrating the possible eff
feet of the enactment into law of the
merger provision of the pending rail
road bill. He traced the consolidation
from the beginning, but gave especia
attention to the Massachusetts, legis
lation under which the combination
was made effective. It was practic
ally charged by LaFollette that this
enactment had been consummatet