That comes from the distinguished governor of Iowa-Governor Cummins. It is a sentiment that pervades all sections of our country. We must have genuine workno dodging behind the bush now. I read again from the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. Dolliver]: For years we have been telling the people that we would do something toward broadening trade by means of reciprocity treaties. We have had the power in all branches of the Government, but we have done nothing. The Republican party has got to stop a lot of its conversation or to take up these treaties and some of the tariff schedules and do something toward satisfying expectations. The Republican party on this question is like a ship with all sail set and anchor fast. It is time to take in sail or pull in the anchor. In common parlance, that means to "shoot, Luke, or give up the gun." You have been aiming at the trusts long enough; fire now or give the Democrats the gun. That is what it means in 1904, and if you adopt this homeopathic, diluted concoction of the Nelson substitute the sentiments of Senator Dolliver, uttered in his own State, will come back to annoy you and harass you. Now, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the parliamentary situation of this matter, it is that the conference report will have to be voted down in order to reach this subdivision 6. I know there is great difficulty in that. I know there are gentlemen on both sides of this House who are interested in the establishment of the Department of Commerce and Labor which this bill proposes to establish. I have frankly given my views upon the Nelson substitute. I do not believe that anything good for the people against the trusts can come out of it. I was anxious to have and requested a separate vote on this substitute. This was declined or refused. I think that there is nothing whatever in it to alarm the trusts, and I do not think they are alarmed. The Republican party is responsible. No one should be allowed hereafter to say to us that we obstructed or hindered any legislation that promised or claimed to check the trusts. In that spirit I shall vote for the conference report. Surely no man who is honest and sincere in advocating the broad, conservative, legal, and just principles enunciated in the Littlefield bill can say for a moment that this Nelson substitute ought in justice to take the place of such a bill. If the Littlefield bill fails, then the people will answer in 1904. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for leave to extend my remarks in the Record. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record. Is there objection? There was no objection. Mr. HEPBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ball]. Mr. BALL, of Texas. Mr. Speaker, The four first acts already past, A fifth shall close the drama with the day: First. In the closing hours of the Fifty-sixth Congress the Republican party presented, as a means to destroy the trusts, a constitutional amendment to confer added power upon Congress. The Democrats opposed that amendment, insisting that there was ample constitutional power in the Congress of the United States to destroy every trust in the Union. The Republicans have receded from the position which they took at that time, and the President and a Republican Attorney-General are now agreed that Congress has the necessary power. Second. We had in the closing hours of that Congress what was known as the Littlefield bill, which was a measure calculated at least to seriously embarrass the trusts. That went through this House with a whoop and died, because there were but four days, as all the members of Congress knew, in which the Senate could consider it, and it had been held back for that purpose. Third. We had heralded in the newspapers during the past summer the fact that the eminent gentleman from Maine [Mr. Littlefield] was preparing a "trust buster" under the auspices and direction of the President of the United States, who had promised "to shackle the cunning of the trusts." After consultation with the powers that be the gentleman from Maine brought in a bill, and it was submitted in this House, and in the language, forceful but true, of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Cannon], when the committee brought that bill back they had "cut the dog's tail off right behind the ears." Fourth. We had the emasculated Littlefield bill, which was passed in this House a few days ago with apparent seriousness and good faith, voted for by every member upon both sides of the Chamber, although its authors knew and the members upon that side of the House knew that it was not the intention of the Republican party at this session or any future session of Congress that even as mild a bill as that should become law or to pass any effective trust legislation. Fifth. Mr. Speaker, we have had trumpeted from the White House the fact that the Administration has changed its programme; that it is now anxious to get through what is known as the Nelson bill and the Elkins bill, which passed the Senate of the United States without any discussion or consideration whatever; and the newspapers are pretending to say that the Standard Oil Company is sending in telegrams and protests against the passage of these homeopathic doses to the trusts. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that John D. Rockefeller has sent any message to any Senator of the United States, or anybody else, in opposition to these measures, which are hardly equal to a dose of “soothing sirup,” much less calculated to destroy the trusts. These bills are mere makeshifts, a hippodrome, to help get the Administration out of the hole into which its pretended trust-destroying efforts have placed it. If the President is sincere he is powerless, because he finds behind him a subseryient Republican party which it not honest in its efforts to destroy the trusts. It is now the purpose of the Republican party to rush through the Nelson and Elkins bills to deceive the public and cover up the Administration's failure to get through legislation proposed by it and defeated by the trusts. Vote down this report, because if you adopt it, and then the Elkins bill, there will be a flourish of trumpets that, over the opposition of the Standard Oil and other trust concerns, the Administration has secured trust legislation. There is nothing in this amendment of any value whatever. It creates a Bureau of Corporations at a considerable expense to gather information for the President, who makes public such as he sees proper. It is, in fact, no legislation whatever. When passed the suppression of trusts will be as far off as ever. Vote down the conference report and instruct the conferees to insist upon an amendment containing at least the publicity features of the House bill passed a few days ago, which is being smothered at the other end of the Capitol. In this way only will it be possible to have any legislation of value passed at this session of Congress. [Applause.] Mr. HEPBURN. Mr. Speaker, I yield five or ten minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Maun], if he desires the time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for ten minutes. Mr. MANN. I shall not use all the time that is allotted to me, Mr. Speaker, principally because my physical condition is such that I am not able to speak without great effort. The purpose of the House in inserting in the bill the section for the Bureau of Corporations is most fully justified by the Nelson amendment, which we have before us in the conference report. I may say, in reply to the suggestions which have been made by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Richardson] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ball] in reference to the so-called Nelson substitute, that the statements made by them are not borne out by the wording of the substitute; and I say, Mr. Speaker, without question, that the Nelson substitute confers a greater power upon the Commissioner of Corporations to make investigations of so-called trusts than has been proposed in any other bill or in any other proposition brought before Congress. The objection was made by one of the gentlemen interested in trust legislation that the Nelson amendment was too drastic, that it went too far. Mr. Speaker, it confers upon the Executive an absolute power to make complete investigation in reference to all phases, all conditions, all control of any corporation engaged in interstate commerce which the Secretary may desire to have investigated. That information and that investigation are public. It is true that the Nelson amendment does not propose to punish violations of any law which we create. The Nelson amendment proposes investigation in order to obtain information. I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the other side of this House, which has always talked for trust legislation, now when it comes to the point where we can actually enact legislation, draws back afraid to put upon the statute books any legislation upon the subject. So long, Mr. Speaker, as the House is engaged in passing a bill, the gentlemen on the other side urge it. While the Senate is engaged in passing another bill, the gentlemen on the other side urge it; but when it comes to having the House and the Senate join in passing the same bill, and the question is presented to the gentlemen, they hesitate and gag. Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Illinois yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. MANN. Yes, Mr. THAYER. I should like to ask the gentleman the question that I asked the gentleman from Alabama. Do you believe that if this bill passes you could, under the provisions of section 6, compel any officer of any corporation to reveal what is demanded of him in the antitrust bill, namely, whether they are overcapitalized; rebates, whether they have paid or received any; and the manner of the con duct of their business? Mr. MANN. Mr. Speaker, I have hardly any belief on that. It is so plain that I think I may say I know if Congress has the constitutional authority under any circumstances to ask these questions of a corporation, that authority is conferred to the fullest extent by this bill upon the Commissioner of Corporations, and all the power Congress can confer upon anyone to make investigations of corporations is conferred upon the Commissioner of Corporations by the Nelson amendment. Mr. THAYER. One question further. Mr. MANN. Certainly. Mr. THAYER. The only authority conferred in this bill is the authority that is conferred in the Interstate Commerce Commission in dealing with railroads and common carriers. Is there any provision in the statute to which this refers to compel a corporation to reveal the conditions I have stated? Mr. MANN. Oh, well, the gentleman knows that the authority conferred upon the Commissioner of Corporations, in reference to these corporations, is that conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commissioners now in reference to railway corporations. The authority is full and complete. The authority in the interstate-commerce act covers the question which the gentleman has asked about, and the authority conferred upon the Interstate Commerce Commissioners is absolutely as full as can be conferred by language. Mr. THAYER. Why did they not put it in, then, in the same language as the language in the antitrust bill, so that something definite and substantial could be discerned? Mr. MANN. Well, if the gentleman will provisions in the act to regulate commerce. to copy all of these provisions over again. head. Perhaps he has not read the bill. Mr. THAYER. O, yes, I have. notice, the antitrust bill refers to certain It never has been the custom of anybody The gentleman laughs and shakes his Mr. MANN. Perhaps the gentleman has not read the law. If he has read the law, then I suspect that he knows that the question he asks is answered completely by the law. The authority conferred upon the Commissioner by the Nelson amendment is definite and certain. He will possess all the power which Congress has as to making investigations of corporations. The manner and method of exercising that power are now indicated by the interstate-commerce act. The language we have used is plain and unambiguous. Mr. ROBINSON, of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, may I not ask the gentleman in the interest of fairness to withdraw the statement he made against the Democratic side of the House upon this subject of trust legislation in view of the record of hypocrisy made by the other side in the Fifty-sixth Congress. Mr. MANN. Well, Mr. Speaker, whenever I withdraw any statement made in reference to my friends on the other side on the basis of the truth of their claim of hypocrisy on this side I hope I may land in a lower and not an upper world. [Laughter.] We all have become used to the argument that is made by gentlemen on the other side, which simply is abuse. I never heard one of you make a speech upon the floor of this House in reference to trust legislation that did not denounce the Republicans as a band of robbers and thieves. Mr. FLEMING. You have not been in your seat all the time, then. Mr. MANN. I am glad to except the gentleman from Georgia, who is always fair and courteous in his language; and there are other exceptions, I am glad to say. But your speakers usually say that the Republicans are a band of robbers and thieves. They say we act at the behest of the trusts. And yet I do not know a gentleman on that side of the aisle who believes it. There is no gentleman on that side who believes gentlemen on this side of the aisle are not actuated by purposes as honest, as noble, as truthful as theirs; and I would not claim that gentlemen on the Democratic side of the House are not earnest and sincere in their work against the trusts. They are now only seeking political capital. We are responsible for what we do; they are not held responsible for what they say. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky. May I ask the gentleman a question before he sits down? Mr. MANN. Well, if it is a question in reference to the bill, I will take time to answer it; if it is a mere political question Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky. I would like to know if the gentleman has ever seen me ask any other question since my service in this House? Mr. MANN. I think that is true. The gentleman is sincere. Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky. What I want to know is if the gentleman does not think it would have been better to have required the Commissioner of Corporations to lay his report before Congress rather than before the President; because it is not so important, as I view the matter, that the President should be enabled to make recommendations as that Congress should be enabled to enact some intelligent effective legislation. Mr. MANN. I would call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the Commissioner of Corporations is under the Department of Commerce and Labor, which has a Secretary, and the Secretary is required to make an annual report, which of course means that the statement that the Commissioner of Corporations makes in his report to the Secretary would be included as a part of his report. Mr. SMITH, of Kentucky. In that same connection I apprehend that this provision of the amendment which says it shall lie in the discretion of the President as to what shall be made public of these reports would preclude the Commissioner from laying before Congress what the official report developed in his investigation. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MANN. I wish I had time; I think I could explain that to the gentleman's satisfaction. Mr. HEPBURN. I yield four minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee. Mr. ADAMSON. Mr. Speaker, I do not like to appear in antagonism to my distinguished friend on the committee, the gentleman from Alabama, who was one of the managers on the part of the House. However, I do not desire that any vote that I may cast shall be construed into an indication of lack of knowledge that the provision discussed by the gentleman from Alabama, known as the Nelson substitute, is a delusion and a snare, a hollow mockery, thinner than thin air, weaker than water, the meanest sham, the most contemptible fraud and false pretense, because it seeks to deceive constituents who send members here. But we are put upon notice, at least by the newspapers, which everybody knows are always truthful, that this is the only antitrust measure that the "trust busters" are going to permit to pass at all. I do not propose to go before the country in the attitude of opposing the only antitrust legislation that we are served with notice can be enacted. I shall not oppose the report of the managers on the part of the House on that account. I know the managers on the part of the House have been diligent and patient. I know something of the difficulties they encountered. I accept their report as the best that can be secured under the circumstances, and shall contribute with great pleasure to creating the Department of Commerce and Labor by voting for the adoption of this report. [Applause.] Mr. HEPBURN. Mr. Speaker, I move the adoption of the conference report, and on that demand the previous question. Mr. BARTLETT. May I ask the gentleman one question before he demands the previous question? The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman yield? Mr. BARTLETT. I desire to ask the gentlemen if this report-and I have read it very carefully-in reference to insurance companies does anything more than to authorize the Commissioner to gather statistics in reference to insurance companies? Mr. HEPBURN. Nothing in the world, so far as I understand. Mr. BARTLETT. Then there is nothing in this measure that contravenes the votes of the House on that subject. Mr. HEPBURN. All I mean to say is this, that it simply authorizes information being secured. Now, Mr. Speaker, I demand the previous question. Mr. RICHARDSON, of Tennessee. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? I do not want to debate. Mr. HEPBURN. I prefer not to yield. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman declines to yield. Mr. RICHARDSON, of Tennessee. Does the gentleman decline to yield for a question? Mr. HEPBURN. Yes, sir. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa asks for the previous question on agreeing to the conference report. The question was taken; and the previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the conference report. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 252, nays 10, answered "present" 4, not voting 85; as follows: Yeas: Adams, Adamson, Alexander, Allen of Kentucky, Allen of Maine, Aplin, Bankhead, Barney, Bartholdt, Bartlett, Bates, Beidler, Bell, Bellamy, Billmeyer, Blakeney, Boreing, Boutell, Bowersock, Bowie, Brandegee, Brantley, Breazeale, Brick, Bromwell, Brown, Brownlow, Brundidge, Burgess, Burke of South Dakota, Burkett, Burleigh, Burleson, Burton, Butler of Missouri, Butler of Pennsylvania, Calderhead, Caldwell, Candler, Cannon, Capron, Cassel, Cassingham, Clark, Clayton, Conner, Coombs, Cooper of Texas, Cooper of Wisconsin, Corliss, Cowherd, Creamer, Cromer, Crumpacker, Currier, Curtis, Cushman, Dalzell, Darragh, Davey of Louisiana, Davidson, Davis of Florida, Deemer, Dick, Dinsmore, Dougherty, Douglas, Dovener, Draper, Eddy, Emerson, Esch, Evans, Feely, Finley, Fitzgerald, Flanagan, Fletcher, Flood, Foerderer, Fordney, Foster of Vermont, Fox, Gaines of Tennessee, Gaines of West Virginia, Gardner of Massachusetts, Gardner of Michigan, Gardner of New Jersey, Gibson, Gilbert, Gill, Gillett of Massachusetts, Glass, Gooch, Gordon, Graff, Graham, Green of Pennsylvania, Greene of Massachusetts, Griffith, Griggs, Grosvenor, Grow, Hamilton, Hanbury, Haugen, Heatwole, Hedge, Hemenway, Henry of Connecticut, Henry of Mississippi, Henry of Texas, Hepburn, Hildebrant, Hill, Hitt, Hooker, Howard, Hughes, Hull, Irwin, Jackson of Maryland, Jenkins, Johnson, Jones of Washington, Joy, Kahn, Kehoe, Kern, Kleberg, Knapp, Kyle, Lacey, Lamb, Landis, Latimer, Lawrence, Lessler, Lever, Lewis of Georgia, Littauer, Livingston, Lloyd, Long, Lovering, McAndrews, McCleary, McCulloch, McDermott. McLachlan, McLain, McRae, Maddox, Mahon, Mann, Marshall, Martin, Metcalf, Mickey, Miller, Minor, Mondell, Moody, Moon, Morgan, Morrell, Morris, Mudd, Mutchler, Needham, Norton, Olmsted, Otjen, Overstreet, Padgett, Palmer, Parker, Patterson of Pensyl vania, Patterson of Tennessee, Payne, Pearre, Perkins, Pou, Powers of Maine, Powers of Massachusetts, Randell of Texas, Reeder, Reeves, Rhea, Richardson of Alabama, Richardson of Tennessee, Rixey, Robb, Roberts, Robinson of Indiana, Rucker, Russell, Ryan, Schirm, Scott, Shallenberger, Shattuc, Shelden, Sheppard, Sherman, Showalter, Sibley, Sims, Skiles, Slayden, Smith of Illinois, Smith of Iowa, Smith of Kentucky, H. C. Smith, Snodgrass, Sncok, Southard, Sperry, Spight, Stark, Steele, Stephens of Texas, Stevens of Minnesota, Stewart of New Jersey, Stewart of New York, Storm, Sulloway, Sulzer, Talbert, Tate, Tawney, Tayler of Ohio, Taylor of Alabama, Thayer, Thomas of Iowa, Thompson, Underwood, Van Voorhis, Wanger, Warner, Warnock, Watson, Weeks, Wheeler, White, Wiley, Williams of Illinois, Williams of Mississippi, Woods, Wright, Young, and Zenor. Nays: Ball of Texas, De Armond, Fleming, Lester, Little, Littlefield, Reid, Robertson of Louisiana, Shackleford, and Vandiver. Answered "present:" Dayton, Haskins, Hopkins, and McClellan. Not voting: Acheson, Babcock, Ball of Delaware, Belmont, Benton, Bingham, Bishop, Blackburn, Bristow, Broussard, Bull, Burk of Pennsylvania, Burnett, Cochran, Connell, Conry, Cooney, Cousins, Crowley, Dahle, Driscoll, Dwight, Edwards, Elliott, Foss, Foster of Illinois, Fowler, Gillet of New York, Glenn, Goldfogle, Hay, Holliday, Howell, Jack, Jackson of Kansas, Jett, Jones of Virginia, Ketcham, Claude Kitchin, William W. Kitchin, Kluttz, Knox, Lassiter, Lewis of Pennsylvania, Lindsay, Loud, Loudenslager, McCall, Mahoney, Maynard, Mercer, Meyer of Louisiana, Miers of Indiana, Moss, Naphen, Neville, Nevin, Newlands, Pierce, Prince, Pugsley, Ransdell of Louisiana, Robinson of Nebraska, Ruppert, Scarborough, Selby, Shafroth, Small, S. W. Smith, Wm. Alden Smith, Southwick, Sparkman, Sutherland, Swann, Swanson, Thomas of North Carolina, Tirrell, Tompkins of New York, Tompkins of Ohio, Trimble, Vreeland, Wachter, Wadsworth, Wilson, and Wooten. So the conference report was agreed to. The following pairs were announced: For the session: Mr. Dayton with Mr. Meyer, of Louisiana. Mr. McCall with Mr. McClellan. Until further notice: Mr. Tirrell with Mr. Conry. Mr. Driscoll with Mr. Scarborough. Mr. Ball, of Delaware, with Mr. Ransdell, of Louisiana. Mr. Bingham with Mr. Elliott. Mr. Hopkins with Mr. Swanson. Mr. Jack with Mr. Robinson, of Nebraska. Mr. Haskins with Mr. Fox. Mr. Vreeland with Mr. Wilson. For one week: Mr. Acheson with Mr. Sparkman. For the day: Mr. Samuel W. Smith with Mr. Kluttz. Mr. Connell with Mr. Shafroth. Mr. Gillet, of New York, with Mr. Jett. Mr. William Alden Smith with Mr. Belmont. Mr. Mercer with Mr. Newlands. Mr. Cousins with Mr. Hay. 27628-04-42 |