Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-02-12
nate william E. Borah of Idaho I will

| regulaCl0n OF all puDIlc utlIItleS LII l1Ie
| public interest.
1t is difficult for me to believe that
! Mr.. Hughes will not be able, in the
! high and exalted Office of Chief Justice,
| completely to remove himsalf from the
| associations and environment which
| have led him to urge as judge in MS
| earlier career and recently as an advo-
| cate views that seem to be more favor
able to the rights of proprty than to the
rights of the public. I shall not pre-
Judge his future course to the extent
! OF withholding my vote for conflrma-
/ ton"
Senator Walsh added that he hoped
the debate in the Senate in connection
with Mr.. Hughes'S nomination would
indicate to Nj. Hughes the intense in
tereSt that the public has in this ques-
ton Of proper regulation of public utili-
ties in the interests of the public.
Leaders Confident of Approval.
Growing opposition to the confirma-
! ton of Hughes failed today to diminish
the confdtnce Of the administration
that the Senate would approve his
nomination by a substantial majority
Republican leaders, determined to
bring the question to vote before ad-
| journment this evening. counted upon
! almost solid support from the Demo-
cratic membership to offset the defec-
ton of the Western independent fac
ton of their own party and few ad-
verse votes expected to be cast by
Democrats.
The nomination was brought up in
the Senate late yesterday to encounter
determined opposition from Borah of
Idaho, independent Republican, and
Glass of Virginia, q Democrat The two
New York Democrats, Copeland and
Wagner. and Gillett of Massachusetts,,
a Republican. came to Hughes defense.
Borah centered his attack upon the
legal record of the nominee as express
ing the views which he would carry to
the supreme bench.
Senator Borah first called the atten-
ton Of the Senate to an opinion of the
Supreme Court, rendered on January 6
Of this year, in the Baltimore street
railway fare case.
THE sole question in this case," said
Senator Borah, before the Supreme
Court for decision was whether the
rate fixed by the rate-making body
amounted to conf1scation. The court
held that return of 626 per cent on
the valuation of the railroad property
amounted to confiscation. In the val
uation of the property was included
given to the street railway by the peo-
pie. This was 100000. The Supreme
Court held that the value Of the fran
chise might be included.
Three justices of the Supreme Court
dissented from the opinion of the ma
iority, Justices Brandeis, Holmes and
Stone. The dissenting opinion, written
by Justice Brandeis, held that 6.26
was a fair return on a railroad prop
erty and that this return really
amounted to $40 per cent if the value
~ he frorarh{co olI, aivoo faI 10
7.78 per cent If the annual depreciation
of the property was given considera-
ton.
Important Question.
''No one will contend" said Senator
Borah, that the judges rendering the
majority opinion were any the less
conscientious or had any less love
fpr their country than the judges rem
oering the dissenting opinion. But
: there was involved a most important
question, both legal and economic, hi
Guiding what was d reasonable rate
and what was a proper rate basis for
public utilities"
Senator Boral1 said that he did not
know Of matter of more concern to
the people of the United States. He
pointed out that the public utilities
corporations have succeeded in gaining
control of the great natural resources
OF the country. The problem Is, he
said, how the people shall have the
use of these facilities which God in
tended Tor them ALL
I'VE will have to have reasonable
rates under fair rule upon which to
base rates for these public utilities or
go to public ownership" said Senator
Borah.
Justice Hughes is associated with
thn yiaMfc nf he
views are maintained it will result in
great economic oppression of the people
Of the United States"
Senator Borah spoke in high terms of
Mr.. Hughes ability and character and
said he did not wish to reflect in any
way on his integrity.
Il am only concerned" said Senator
Borah, because his views are known
on these important questions, and 1 do
not think that such views should be
permanently adopted"
Senator Borah also cited the case of
former Senator Newberry of Michigan,
who was convicted of violating the cor
rupt practices act after he had won a
nomination and election to the Senate,
because of alleged excessive expendi-
lures and fraud in the primary period.
Senator Borah said that Mr.. Hughes
had appeared for Newberry when his
case was appealed to the Supreme
Court.
II do not complain of Mr.. Hughes
appearance on behalf of Mr.. Newberry,"
said Borah, but do complain of the
Kind of defense that Mr.. Hughes set
up for Newberry as the only means to
relieve him Of his conviction. Mr..
Hughes contended that the Congress of
the United States had no control over
party primaries in the States con-
oh fNs ftn 80
for the Senate. If Mr.. Hughes had sat
in the place of the late Chief Justice
White, the Senate would now be unable
to protect itself from corruption in
senatorial primaries. suppose that
he was giving his own views in his
argument which he made in support of
Newberry and that If he were render
ing an opinion he would hold such
opinions"
ASsails Radio View.
Senator Borah said that in a radio
case Mr.. Hughes commended that after
issuance of a license the licensee OBJ
tains vested right in perpetuity. The
Idaho Senator said that such a view
does not seem defensible to him.
Senator Borah also declared that Mr..
Hughes had represented the American
Petroleum Institute, which he described
dS an ASSOCIATION or combination upon
whose board of directors sat Doheny,
Sinclair and Stewart" He said that this
institute, under the counsel of Mr.
Hughes. was directing the oil policy of
the United States.
II take it that if Mr. Hogan's name
had been sent here the fact that he
had appeared as counsel for Sinclair
would not have advanced his cause"
Senator Borah declared, presumably re-
ferring to the chief of counsel for the
oil man.