Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1914-10-01

troll of the railroads. The gentlemen VINO
It, with their pockets stured
with railroad passes and their campaign
expenses financed from railroad treas
uries. were not receptive to arguments Tor
railroad control There was but one way
to my mind In which this question could
be dealt with. and that was by awakinS
public sentiment among their constitu'
ents which would either require diner
ent course OF action from them or woul1
put somebody else in their places
Acting upon that idea, l began myself
In a feeble way campaign of enlighten-
ment wrote articles for the magazines
and gave talks whenever the opportunity
offered. The commission itself began a
series of Investigations which showed IN
very forceable way actual conditions.
At first, this was rather lonesome ana
discoura cling work. for at that time the
railroads largely controlled the press and
II was impossible to get to the people, but
gradually n change came about Other
supporters appeared upon our side, and
the drift OF public opinion began to be
our way. BY 1903, there had come to he
very earnest demand for legislation
which should alter existing conditions
Senator Elkins was chairman of the In
terstate commerce committee In the Sen
ate. Bill after bill had been referred to
that committee and had been allowed to
peacefully die there. OF some hundreds
Of measures which had gone in, not ono
of any importance had come out But
the time was at hand when these tactics
could no longer be followed. Something
effective must be done, and the Elltns
bill WINS reDortpd and passed
This bill was q sop to public opinion
It was good as far as It went but did
not strike the vital evils. It produced but
little practical effect and the public still,
demanded further and more drastic leg
isation. Finally in 1906, the Hepburn bill
was passed. This bill embodied most Of
the ideas for which had been contend
Ing. 1t passed the House with but six
dissenting votes and went to the Senate.
1t was understood that there was a
strong element in the Senate opposed to
legisla ton of this kind and the friends
OF this bill looked towards It's treatment
by that body with the livest solicitude.
There was no expectation that the bill
would be thrown out altogether, for that
would not be tolerated by the public, but
1t was feared that 1t might be so amend
point Of fact many attempts were made
to that end.
1t would not be profitable for me to un.
dertake any discussion of these proposed
amendments with a view to showing the
attitude of Senator Dillingham; by his vote
from time TO time. with respect to the
passage of the bill through the Senate,
make two general remarks.
/ ahnt g.,
that body for nearly four months. TIL,
Senate at that time consisted of So per
sons of whom several by reason Of ag,
and other inflrmities took little part II
the proceedings Nevertheless. &c differ
ent persons spoke in the course Of thes
debates or that CO, Senator Dillingham;
was not one. I cannot tell you what nj
attitude upon this momentous question
was from anything which he said, for h
said nothing.
Second In the course of these debate
there were SO roll calls. Neither Dilling
ham, Elkins or Aldrich voted upon al
the calls. Dillingham; voted with Elkin
26 times with Aldrtch % times agains
Elkins times, against Aldrich 4 times
and against both Elkins and Aldric
once. Several of these roll calls We're up
on mere questions of procedure. I hav
not the time to analyze them, but l be
lieve 1t will be found that Dillingham;
vote, when opposed to that of Aldric
of Flkins, was usually wrong. For eX
ample. Elkins voted In favor Of the free
pass amendment, while Dillingham; vote
against 1t. These votes show that dur
ing this debate, Mr. Dillingham; stoo
shoulder to shoulder with those men VIII
were opposed to effective railroad regu
lation
But to me the most conclusive evidenc
of his real attitude is found in the per
sonal incident to which MIR. Dillinghar
refers in his letter and of which | may
therefore, properly make mention.
The senators from New England wer
nearly all upon the side Of the enemy
and as the debates proceeded, It occurre
to me that possibly a good effect nigh
, be produced by the execution Of a qua!
, flank movement / accordingly accepte
, an invitation Of some commercial bod!
, I believe the board of trade OF the Stat
n Of Massachusetts, to deliver an addres
upon this subject in the city of BostoI
in which l pointed out the fact that tn
senators from New England We're OF
, posed TO the pending measure and thu
this opposition. as ! saw It, was agains
the true interest of New England.
The address was Of no merit, but
: struck a popular chord. When l pickle
Z up the Transcript that evening in Bot
, ton. 7 noted that the entire front pas
had been devoted to a verbatim repol
Of that speech in large type, and II wa
given prominent place in all the leat
% EN-
result was that the senators from Ne
England, especially from Massachusetts
|. speedily began to hear from their col
= stituents. This naturally irritated Their
, and Senator Lodge, after taking time
h prepare himself. attacked me upon Il
o floor of the Senate in a set speech. I
also introduced an amendment to the b
: for the y rpose Of legislating me out
: office.
Il His speech was very unfair on
8 quoting isolated passages from what
g had said and misrepresenting entire
: the effect I was extremely anxious
y some way to reply to him and ! wro
y an open letter to Senator Lodge. Befo
/, publishing this | thought best to show
l. to Senator Proctor, who was against +
= on railroad regulation, but who did n
Ia particularly IKE Lodge. me senator pr
l. nounced the letter classic, but ask
leave to show It to President Roosev'
IT before It was published The Preside
m in lis turn pronounced 1t a success frc
l. polemic view point, but forbade
10 publication, | call attention to the
Sc things to show that this was no X
N glove contest, Men upon both sides we
IN in earnest and feeling was intense.