Page images
PDF
EPUB

Walter S. Logan :
That is the only amendment.
William Hepburn Russell :

Then I understand that is the substance of the minority report, and the majority report was in opposition to that proposed amendment.

Walter S. Logan :
Yes, sir.
William Hepburn Russell :

Then I second the motion that the gentleman has just made, that the majority report be disagreed to and the minority report adopted.

Robert D. Benedict, of New York:

I think that Mr. Logan in the minority report which he has now presented to this body, has modified very decidedly the minority report of last year. I do not think that the minority report of last year should be adopted, but I should be in favor of the change in legislation which is recommended in the report of this year.

. Walter S. Logan :

With the permission of the Chair, I will change my motion to meet Mr. Benedict's objection, and I will move that the minority report of this year be adopted in place of the majority report of last

year. If there is any change, I want to stand by this year's report.

Theodore Sutro, of New York:

I understand, then, that this report recommends only the amendment of section 7 and does not recommend the an act or the amendment of the Sherman Act to the effect that this Association is in favor of a graded franchise tax. Is that correct?

Walter S. Logan :

The report covers both. I am willing that that question should be divided, if need be; but the only amendment to the Sherman Act which is proposed is the one giving a court of

passage of

equity jurisdiction at the instance of a private citizen whose rights are specially affected by it. The other is an affirmative act, which appears in full in the report of last year, and which I still recommend; but I am quite willing that the report should be divided if some gentleman is in favor of one and not in favor of the other.

Frederick N. Judson, of Missouri:

I should like to ask the Chairman of the committee of which I am a member whether the matters included in his present report, printed for this year's meeting, have been submitted to the committee?

Walter S. Logan:

The resolution of last year was that the majority and minority reports of the committee be received and filed, and, inasmuch as the reports were not printed and distributed the requisite number of days before the meeting, their consideration should be postponed until this meeting. That left it to the committee to amend or supplement its reports. This report of the minority of the committee has been printed and distributed, as required by the by-laws. As to the supplemental part of the minority part it is true that I did not submit it to the majority of the committee.

Frederick N. Judson :

Now, Mr. President, I think we are confronted with another proposition. I have the honor to be a member of this committee. We filed a majority report last year, to which the Chairman of the committee filed a dissenting report. That dissenting report included certain specific recommendations. They were not printed in time for consideration at that meeting, and were therefore laid over; and I believe, as the Chairman of the committee states, for the purpose of allowing the committee to make other and further report. But I do not understand that that action gave authority to individual members of the committee to make up their own report, and, without conference with their associates on the committee, bring them in here. You will find by a comparison of the distinguished Chairman's report—which I must call his individual report, for he did not favor his associates on the committee with an invitation nor an opportunity to consider it—that it very materially differs from the report submitted by him last year as a minority report. It embodies two very important matters of legislation. One of them proposes changing the jurisdiction of the federal courts, as compared with the jurisdiction of state courts, so as to include controversies between citizens of the same state. The other adopts a scheme of progressive taxation in corporations dealing under interstate commerce. Without discussing the merits of those two propositions, I desire to state that it seems to me that it is vital, in order to secure intelligent discussion in a body of this sort, that reports purporting to come from a committee should first have been considered by the committee. As it is now, the members of the committee-Senator Manderson, Mr. Whitelock, Mr. Hensel and myself—had no intimation that our distinguished Chairman was going to make any other or different report now than he made last year.

The President:

For the purpose of enlightening the Chair, will the gentleman from Missouri state whether the minority report filed this year contains recommendations for legislation different from the minority report of last year?

Frederick N. Judson :
Most certainly it does.
Walter S. Logan :
I do not agree with that.
Frederick N. Judson :

The very fact that we disagree shows that the matter is a subject of disagreement in the committee. The gentleman last year proposed a bill which he now proposes with some modification—not as a separate bill, but as an amendment to the Sherman Act. In his report of last

In his report of last year he recommended a scheme of federal incorporation, and this year he recommends something else. But the point remains that the Association is confronted with a specific rule which provides (section XII of by-laws) that, “No legislation shall be recommended or approved except upon the report of a committee.” Now this report, I maintain, has not been considered by the committee. I have no doubt that the considerations brought forward in it by the distinguished Chairman of the committee are very weighty, but I submit that the Association is entitled to the benefit of a report of the committee upon them, and that has not been had. Therefore, Mr. President, I make the point of order that, under the rule, this report cannot be considered by the Association at this time.

Walter S. Logan :

I desire to correct the gentleman from Missouri, who is a member of the committee. The minority report this year recommends precisely the same thing that it recommended last year; one feature of the report of last year being in exactly the same words. As to the other feature of the report, that is, the amendment of the Sherman Act, I thought, upon reflection and further consideration, that the statute which I proposed last year would be better if proposed as an amendment to the Sherman Act. So it is now proposed as an amendment to the Sherman Act. That is what is proposed and nothing else. There was some criticism made last year as to the language of the proposed statute, and to avoid that criticism this year I ask that it be in the form of an amendment to the Sherman Act. In other words, legislation which gave a court of equity jurisdiction was what I proposed last year. I propose now that the courts of equity be given such jurisdiction by an amendment to section 7 of the Sherman Act rather than by a special act. There is nothing proposed in this report this year which was not proposed and advocated in the report of last year. The substance is entirely the same. I have simply changed one of the recommendations in language by adding it as an amendment to the Sherman law itself rather than as a

separate act referring to the Sherman law. I submit that there has been no change in the substance of the report, and I think I had a right, under the resolution adopted last year, to make the change in form that I have made. I submit that the point made by Mr. Judson that there must be a report by the majority of the committee is not well taken. There must be a report from the committee bringing the subject matter before the Association. Then when it is before the Association it may be considered and the Association can adopt the majority report or the minority report as they think proper. I should be very sorry to have the precedent established here that this Association has no power in law to adopt a minority report when the majority report does not agree with the sentiments of the members of the Association. The reason why this proposition is not reported by the committee is because the majority of the committee did not approve of it.

Frederick N. Judson :

I would like to ask Mr. Logan a question. Did not your second recommendation of last year contain something different from this, and have you not very materially changed that in your report this year?

Walter S. Logan :
No, sir.
The President:

Gentlemen, the hour of twelve o'clock having arrived, under the resolution adopted last evening, we must adjourn. I, therefore, declare a recess until 8.30 o'clock this evening.

EVENING SESSION.

Thursday, August 24, 1905, 8.30 P. M. The President called the meeting to order. Everett P. Wheeler, of New York:

The paper that we are all hoping to hear from Mr. Hand this evening is one of great interest, and I can hardly expect

« PreviousContinue »