The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-04-29
Senate Will Ballot Today on
Traffic Agreement Provisions
of Railroad Bill.
CUMMINS ONLY MAN
WHO Is STILL TALKING
BristOw of Kansas Keeps
Things Lively During the
Days Debate.

WASHINGTON, April 2S.-When the
senate adjourned tonight, there was n
general understanding a vote would be
reached tomorrow on the traffic agree
ment provision of the bill. AS far as
known, Mr.. Cummins was the only SEN
ator who desires to speak further on the
subject
The first vote Will be on the Cummins
substitute requiring approval of the
rates obtained in agreements in advance
of their effect. With this provision
defeated, as probably it will be, the
ballot then will recur on the Elkins
Crawford amendment. which has been
accepted as the committee provision
The supporters of the administration
are claiming majority of seven or
eight votes in favor of this section
Senator Bristow of Kansas today re-
sumed his decision of transcontinental
and interior rates, saying the railroads
Disseminated against interior points
and In favor of coast terminals.
Mr. Elkins said one cause of low
| transcontinental rates was the compcti-
| tion of the Canadian roads.
Resents the Reflection.
THAT s reflection on the American
| roads, promptly responded the Kan
sas senator, who asserted there should
be no good reason why the foreign
| roads could operate moro cheaply thnn
the American roads. When Mr. Elkins
| called attention to the connection of
the Canadian government with the Cn-
madam roads. Mr.. Bristow declared the
American government had built the
Union Pacific and had presented it 10
its owners,
Mr.. Smoot came to the assistance of
Mr.. Bristow In contcuding for the
adoption Of the long and short haul
amendment, whereupon Mr.. Elkins
charged the effect would be to raise,
rather than decrease local and uon-com-
! petitive rates. The Utah and Kansas
senators said their states were willing
to take their chances on that.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Bristow's
speech. Senator Clay took the floor
court feature Of the bill and the pro-
visions authorizing traffic agreements
between railroads and permitting COM
binations. Coutending the Crawford
Elkins traffic agreement provision
would nullifv the antitrust law in its
application to railroads, Mr.. Clay re-
ferred TO the prosecution of President
Gompers and other officials OF the
American Federation of Labor, and
asked;
Should Restrict Magnates.
>'If the labor organizations are
bound by the antitrust law, should the
railroad magnates be eyemptP'
Senator Borab amplified his previous
argument to show the Crawford -Elklns
provision vitiated the antitrust law.
He WAS followed by Mr.. Crawford,
who contenGed his section would only
exempt such agreements as are ap-
proved by the interstate commerce com.
mission.
Mcssrs Aldrich and Bailey engaged
in a prolonged controversy, during
which the Rhode Island senator asked
the Texan whether an agreement be-
tween two roads at the prescn5 time
would not be lawful. Mr. Bailey said
it would, provided tho agreement was
not in restraint of trade. Mr.. Aldrich-
contended this concession covered tho
whole case. and urging there was lit
tie difference among senators, said:
1.-The trouble is the senator from
Iowa (Mr. Cummins). is not willing to
let any other person write the pro-
vision, unless the writer uses his
language.