OCR Text |
Show HOW ACCOUNTS DIFFER! It is really curious to see what different dif-ferent impressions rre given at times by tho mero difference in the way of reporting a plain occurrence. A caee was- .illustrnted yesterday morning in tho dispatches from Washington. The Senate had up for consideration the question of passing a measure to supersede super-sede tho employors' linbility bill which was decided by the United States .Supreme .Su-preme Court, lo be unconstitutional. The Associated Press report, in a matter-of-fact way, stated that Senator Dolliver undertook lo substitute for the House measure which was before the Senate, a measure of his own on this subiect, and failed; the Senate would not allow the Dolliver substitution, and passed the House bill. A special dispatch, however, lo a pro-Sutherland fake newspaper represented Sutherland as the hero of the occasion, as the man who presented the Llousc bill to the Senate as opposed to the Dolliver bill, and that the Senate followed his lead, substituting the House bill for the measure proposed by Mr. Dollivor. The result is the same, you see. but the manner of reaching it is entirely different. differ-ent. At the same time, the impartial reader cannot fail to give preference to the Associated Press account, because be-cause it is evident that the House bill was the matter before the Senate and that it was Dolliver Avho undertook to break into the regular order with his oubstitute bill, aud the Senate refused to allow him to do so. In the other account ac-count the Dolliver bill was impliedly before the Senate, and Sutherland, hy the vehemence, urgeuc3 and ability of his presentation of the case, butted the Dolliver bill lo one side and had the House bill substituted in place of it. This, of course, is a fanciful pretense, a false showing of the case. But anything any-thing to boost the Smoot gang and to bring the delegation and every member of it prominently ' before the public just now, in order thai, the opposition to sending them as delegates to tho National convention may be squelched. There wns evidently no disposition on the part of the Senate to displace the House measure in favor of the personal measure from Senator Dolliver. Every Senator understood full well that; the substitution would mean indefinite delay de-lay and perhaps prevent action altogether, alto-gether, and so Dolliver was shut out. And this reminds us of the original proposition, that Congress appear?, in this case to be legislating a good deal at random. It has not laid the proper j foundation for enactments of this kiud. ' In order lo give Congress the needed j foothold for such legislation, there should jc first a national incorporation act which would allow railroads doing an interstate commerce business to incorporate in-corporate under the laws of Congiess, and so far as that sort of traffic is concerned con-cerned being independent of State "laws and Slate -.pirisdistion in interstate business. busi-ness. Congress, however, persistently refuses to lay down this necessary basis for tho employers' liability bill, aud other . measures, such as the origiual package transportation, applied to liquors, li-quors, and other matters. As to all these, the paramount, consideration should be the assumption on the part of Congress of jurisdiction in interstate commerce, and the national incorpora- j Hon of companies doing interstate business. Without this, the detailed legislation is very much in tho air. And the failure to la.y down the proper basis for these ' special acts imperils their validity all the time when they are considered con-sidered in the Supreme Court. It would seem that the decision of the highest court invalidating the employers' liability lia-bility bill ought to have been a sufficient suffi-cient hint to Cougrees to proceed regularly regu-larly in assuming supervision of the interstate in-terstate commerce bnsiuesa before undertaking un-dertaking to impose penalties on account ac-count of liabilities arising iu such com- ! merce. Heretofore all these liabilities and causes of action have been left with fhe States. And naturally there is reluctance re-luctance on the pare of the Foderal courts to take the jurisdiction of such I penalty and damage cases in the absence ab-sence of the national incorporation law for tho government of concerns doing an interstate business. Until this primary pri-mary groundwork is established by the proper statute, all these subsidiary acts or laws of detail arc in danger of being discredited in the Federal courts as fast as they are brought into them. |