The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-04-27
RAILROAD BILL
MAIN FEATURE
Continued from i'age One,

ally voted for the amendment, which
was carried. 1873 to 1874.
The commerce court provision had
not been disposed Of when Mr. Mann
of Illinois, in charge Of the bill, moved
| to lay the measure aside for the day.
When the railroad bill is finally re
| ported from the committee Of the whole
| to the house, any or all of the amend
ments adopted today may again be
voted upon and roll call on any vote
| may be demanded.
the railroad bill, Senator Clapp, refer
ring to what he characterized as Mr..
| Crawford's "frantic appeal to. the
Roosevelt policies In support of his
( amendment, declared Mr.. Roosevelt new
or had attempted TO dictate to his
party. Next to Lincoln, no man had
ever so accurately interpreted the pub
lie will nor had been so far from at
tempting any dictation as had Mr..
Roosevelt, he said.
Holding at arms length copy OF
the railroad bill, Mr. Clapp declared
that Mr.. Roosevelt never had sent to
congress ga document like that, with
orders to put it through
The evil time had come after Mr..
Roosevelt s 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 declared.
No harmony could be expected 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 Ameri-
can people still were reluctant to give
up the Republican party, and thought
If congress would pass acceptable rail
the public tariff commission, the party
still might be saved.
Does Not Spare Attack.
Senator Hughes made n sweeping at.
tack on the railroad bill.
''lt is not statesmanship. be said.
Ito urge through great measures like
this without argument or explanation.
The people have right to ask greater
consideration when their interests are so
materially affected -
Mr. Hughes criticized the provision
creating court of commerce, because
such court was not necessary. He con-
tended, MS far as transportation was
concerned, the bill repealed the anti
trust law. He thought the bill especially
Objectionable as it delegated legislative
authority to the interstate commerce
commission. Arguing that, under the
operation of the proposed law the
smaller roads would have no chance,
he declared railroad construction. ex-
cept by large systems 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 general had ex.
evaded. Declaring il 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.
~ asked him why go to all that
trouble" I" said Mr.. Hughes. "'but I am
still waiting for the reply
Referring to the many constructions |
placed upon section 10, relating TO the |
construction of railroad lines, Mr.. |
Hughes said there should he commits,
sion TO determine its meaning He con
tended the testimony of Mr.. Harri- |
man before the interstate commerce
commission had supplied the platform
from which the pending bill had been
constructed,
Urges Bills Rejection.
"He pointed out the way OF removing
the obstacles in his continent-wide am.
bition'' continued Mr. Hughes, "and |
ere the grass is green on his grave we
have a bill removing all the obstacles
of which he complained. In bargain.
we are out-tradcd; the things we get are
trifing compared with the advantage
We concede to great railroads But one
disposition should be made of il. and |
that is its absolute and unqualified re-
lection.
Mr.. Hepburn attempted to refute the
contention that the Crawford amendment
had the effect of repeating the Sher
man antitrust law as affecting rail |
roads. Mr. Cummins challenged the cor
.ectness of Mr., Hepburn s position,
He asserted the purpose of the pro
vision was to render lawful that which
was not unlawful.
In response Mr. AIdrich conceded
with the views expressed by Mr.. Hey
burn to the extent of asserting that
under the proposed law any agreement
in lestraint OF trade would be unlawful,
the proposed law.
Mr. Cummins would not assent. dc
claring there had been no other idea
in framing the provision than TO render
the railroads immune from the anti
trust law: He declared the provision
would be of no avail if it did not
eealize acts now considered illecal-it
would be without object,