The Carlisle independent., 1910-03-24
Difference of Opinion Manifested Among Legislators as to h.
 terstate Commerce.
BILL DRAWN BY PRESIDENT
Chief Executive Said to Have Given the Measure Ills Personal Atten. tlen-Projected Court of Pat ent Appeals-The Presi-
 dents Tour.

tion that the debate in the senate on
 the amendments to the interstate com
 merce act will be long drawn out and that 1t will be marked by many of the acrimonious features of the tariff de bate of last spring and summer. The alignment of senators on the measure will not be exactly the same as that on the customs measure, but the ma | jority of those who will be in opposi-
 ton to the bill as it was introduced
 will be the senators who fought many of the provisions of the Payne-Aldrich bill.
 It Is doubtful If there ever was in- | troduced into congress bill upon
 which there were exactly so many d.
 verse opinions as there are upon this
 measure which the senate now has
 under consideration. Of course the l measure affects largely the work of | the members of the interstate com
 merce commission. and yet the mem- | bers of the commission themselves are | at variance in their views as to the 1 efficiency of the bill in some of its par | ticulars. The amendments were pre- | pared in the first instance by a con-
 mittee appointed by President Taft. every one of the members of which
 was lawyer of high standing. Then | MT. Taft went over the measure him. | self. bringing to bear on 1t all his ju- l dicial training. The cabinet officers l took it up and sanctioned 1t and said l 1t was proof against attack tn the | courts
 | Experts Disagree.
 l There never was such case per | haps of supposed experts disagreeing on the efficiency of bill. There is a | provision in the proposed legislation
 which allows the railroads to enter | into traffic agreements on rates. the l agreements to be submitted to the in | terstate commerce commission. who | shall be allowed to pass only on the l question as to whether the rate as an l average is exorbitant.
 , Some members of the interstate
 commerce commission declare that
 this takes away much from the prop
 osition as advanced originally by The
 odore Roosevelt. The former presi- | dent agreed that the railroads should 1 be allowed to make traffic pools. but
 said that the interstate commerce con- | mission should be given the power to l nullify them provided it was shown
 that the pools were contrary to what
 might be considered public policy. Other members of the commission say that as long as they have the power to get at the rate that Is all that Is
 necessary and all in which the people are interested. NIT. Taft and his law yer members of the cabinet hold to this view and seem to believe that
 they have smoothed the path through
 many difficulties by giving the rail-
 roads the pooling right under the law President Taft believes that appeal
 oases should be put into the hands of the attorney generals office for de fense because he has implicit conf dence in the ability and sincerity of the law officers connected with the cabinet department. Moreover, he is
 averse to multiplying the legal depart
 ments of the government.
 For Court of Patent Appeals. For years the lawyers of the
 country, particularly the patent law yers, have endeavored to get con-
 gress to pass bill to establish a | United States court of patent appeals. | Senator Beveridge recently introduced such a bill in the senate and the | judicial committee, through Senator
 Brown of Nebraska. has just reported l 1t favorably.
 | The day that this bill was reported | to the senate 1t happened that Fred
 erick P. Fish, an eastern attorney,
 and who Is called the father of the
 proposed legislation. was arguing a ! case in she supreme court only a few
 yards away from the senate chamber | Mir. Fish ten years ago began a cam l paign for a court of patent appeals | and he has been assisted in the work i by Edmund Wetmore of New York | at one time president of the American Bar association, and by other promi
 nent attorneys in the work of attempt ! ing to secure the passage of the meas ure.
 In discussing the proposed bill, Mir | Fish had something to say about the i patent system of the United States I and he gave some interesting informa- 1 tion concerning what might be called 1 the patent industry of the United
 States and the inventive genius of the American people. The patent laws 1 are admirable said Mir Fish. The l United States has the finest patent
 system in the world Under the old I British system. which prevails largely 1 throughout Europe to-day, parliament 1 rewarded a man who brought busi- ness into the country. He might have picked up the idea in France or l Germany. or anywhere else. but the l prime purpose of the law was to re-
 ward him for increasing the business
 of the kingdom. The United States
 very wisely established the principle that it's citizens should be encouraged to think. We granted a man the ex- i elusive right for II years to an in-