The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1924-09-09

Haven Railroad. which had acquired
control not only OF all means OF
transportation by rail, but had bank
rupted or bought in practically all
IF the steamship and trolley lines.
That whole speech was specifically
aimed against that provision Of the
law which gave the attorney general
exclusive power in connection with
the prosecution Of cases.
1t was aimed to sound a warning
in the ears OF the Senate when we
came TO consider the question OF
clothing tho Department Of Justice
with the sole power OF saying the
final word with reference to litiga-
ton between the people and the rail
roads.
Nice Speech
And I think my speech had much
to do in, preventing the adoption Of
this provision OF the law.
The reception Of my Views by the
Senate in 1910 was markedly in con
trast with the reception given IN
1905.
In the tight made on the Presi-
dents railroad bill Senator Clapp
and Cummins took very active parts.
Senator CumTins. particularly dur
ing the earlier weeks OF the contest,
was almost constantly in the debate.
The entire progressive group car
fied the burden OF the contest
against the administration bill, and
so strong and so effective was their
attack. and so reasonable their argu-
ments. that the Administration
Senators on the floor We're compelled
to abandon entire sections Of the bill
to avoid the humiliation Of being
overwhelmingly voted down in the
Senate.
Several sections Of the bill were
put forward in the beginning under
the guise OF reforming abuses in
watering and over capitalizing rail
road properties. These sections. un.
der the mask OF preventing over.
apitalization, were, in fact. designed
to legalize every dollar Of the rail
road capitalization OF the country
and under cover Of ingenious phrase
ology would have made possible I'M
limited railroad stock -jobbing for all
future time.
Mr.. Taft, in an interview published
in Outlook Dec. 2. 1911, takes to him
self credit for the railroad legisla
ton as it finally passed. AS h mat
ter of fact. the fangs in this bill as
originally introduced were, with the
exception OF tho Commerce Court
provisions, all drawn by the fight OF
the progressives. 1t is scarcely pos
sible to speak OF the course Of the
administration upon this legislation
in temperate language.
wish in this place to refer more
briefly than the matter deserves to
another fight I made in which I had
to meet the railroad interests as they
had entrenched themselves in the In.
terstate Commerce Committee.
The Railroad Brotherhood Of En-.
.gineers. Firemen and Trainmen, a re-
markedly intelligent body Of men
had long maintained q very efficient
and faithful legislative representa-.
tive, Hugh Fuller, at the national
capital, but they had found 1t i'm.
possible even to get a record vote on
important measures In which they
were interested.
No bill in their interest relating
to hours OF service or liability Of the
employer for negligence was per.
n Of hn
L took up the matter of an employ
ers' liability law and atteup I'd in
1906 to have it adopted as an amend
ment TO the Interstate Commerce
act.
Failing in this, by an unexpected
move 1 got a bill before the Senate
where l could force q record vote.
Now, no Senator wanted to put him
self wrong with the railway en-
ployes, and SO after fencing for de-
lay I finally got 1t passed with a
roll call.
This law, having been held uncon-
stitutional by the Supreme Court (by
vote of 5 to a, I introduced an
other employers liability bill in the
next session, and had it referred to
the Committee on Education and
Labor, instead of the Committee on
Interstate Commerce. The bill was
reported out by Chairman Dolliver,
was passed and is now the law.
Copyright, 1924, NEA aService, Incl
Continued in Our Next Issue)