I can hardly add more to all that has been said, but I agree with the assertion that there are some of our ablest members on the committee. Unfortunately, two of them are in Europe, and are not able now to speak for themselves. I trust that the resolution will not pass. Andrew A. Bruce, of North Dakota: I should like to ask for information a single question. Mr. Allen made a strong presentation of the point that this amendment would give to Congress the exclusive control of these classes of matters in interstate commerce, and he said that if Congress once spoke on the subject, then it would assume exclusive control. Now, the question I want to ask is this: Under the original Sherman Act, is it, or is it not, the fact that the act already provides that threefold damages can be recovered; and, if that is so, is it not the fact that Congress has already spoken, and, if Mr. Allen's point is true, Congress already has exclusive control? Frank Harvey Field, of New York: Mr. President, I rise for information. Does not the form of the present resolution approve of the minority report? The President: The Chair so understands. Frank Harvey Field: If it does approve the minority report, then the minority report approves of the recommendation to Congress of these two propositions: First, the proposition in regard to the Sherman law; and, secondly, a proposition in regard to the taxation of corporations engaged in interstate commerce, as shown on the third page of the report where the minority member of the committee says, "I am still firmly of the opinion that these two remedies would be beneficent legislation and should be recommended to Congress by the American Bar Association." The President: I think the gentleman from New York is mistaken as to the form of the resolution. I will ask the Secretary to read it once more. The resolution was again read by the Secretary. Frank Harvey Field: I have not yet heard any ruling by the Chair upon the objection made by Mr. Judson this morning that the rule of the Constitution has not been observed, which provides for the consideration by the entire committee of the precise question now before the Association. I desire to have a ruling upon that, because I read on the third page of the report that the proposed amendment to section 7 of the Sherman Act was not proposed as an amendment to the Sherman law at all last year, but that the minority member of the committee now proposes it as an amendment to the Sherman law. Nor was the wording of the proposition before the committee in its report last year. So that we have an entirely new proposition differently worded, and it is now proposed to recommend this as an amendment to the Sherman law, which is one of the most important acts on the statute books. The President: The Chair rules that the question before the house is the resolution which has just been read by the Secretary. Frank Harvey Field: Then I rise to a point of order. It is that the proposition before the house, not having been considered by the entire committee in its present form in accordance with the by-laws of the Association, cannot now be passed upon by this body. William Hepburn Russell, of New York: I rise to the point of order that the point of order made by the gentleman who has last spoken is not well taken, because the resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana is, in effect, an amendment of the majority report, and the house has so ordered by the action which has been taken. George E. Price, of West Virginia: If that is the fact, then the point of order should have been made before that resolution was adopted. The President: The language of the rule is that "no legislation shall be recommended or approved except upon the report of a committee." The language set forth in this resolution is part of the language incorporated in a minority report of this body. The Chair rules that the language in a minority report is part of the report of a committee, and that, although there is only one member constituting the minority of the committee, nevertheless the minority report is part of the report of the committee and has, therefore, been considered by the committee. Accordingly, the Chair overrules the point of order and holds that the resolution is in order before the house and is now to be voted upon. Frank Harvey Field: That is, the Chair holds that the minority report handed up by one member of a committee, without ever having been submitted to the other members of the committee, is entitled to be considered as having been considered by the committee? The President: The Chair cannot undertake to decide moot questions. The decision of the Chair already announced stands unless it is appealed from. Edmund Wetmore, of New York: I would call attention to the fact that under this amendment, as I understand it, any defendant who may be served with process, for example, in a sleeping car one thousand miles away from his home where his witnesses and his means of defense may be located, is called upon to defend a suit in a distant jurisdiction. William A. Ketcham, of Indiana: I ask Mr. Wetmore whether that same objection would not apply to a punitive action for treble damages? Edmund Wetmore: I think not. William A. Ketcham : I think it would. The reading of the resolution was called for and it was read again by the Secretary. Edward Q. Keasbey, of New Jersey: In answer to the question asked by Mr. Ketcham of Mr. Wetmore respecting an action for punitive damages being brought in that same way, I would state that that would not be so because the federal statutes expressly provide that no action shall be brought of that kind in the circuit courts except in the district wherein the defendant has his residence. The question was then put upon the resolution and the result being in doubt a division was ordered. The President: The Chair and the Secretary are in doubt as to the count, and, in order to avoid confusion, the Chair would, if there is no objection, appoint tellers to count the vote. The vote was then taken by Walter S. Logan and Frederick N. Judson as tellers, and they reported sixty-eight votes in the affirmative and seventy votes in the negative. The President: The report of the tellers is as follows: Ayes, 68; noes, 70. The resolution is therefore lost. Edward B. Whitney, of New York: Mr. President, I am one of those who voted against this resolution, but I want the committee to have a full and fair opportunity to consider the minority report, and I therefore move to reconsider the vote just taken; then, if it is reconsidered, that the subject matter be postponed until the next meeting of the Association in 1906. Walter S. Logan, of New York: I second that motion. J. M. Dickinson, of Illinois: I move to lay the motion of the gentleman from New York on the table. George Whitelock, of Maryland: I second that motion. The motion to reconsider was laid on the table. The Association then adjourned until Friday, August 25, 1905, at 10 A. M. The President: THIRD DAY. Friday, August 25, 1905, 10 A. M. The Association is aware that a special order has been set for this morning, but before we take it up I would ask the indulgence of the house in order to dispose of some business, which will take only a few moments. Ferdinand Shack, of New York: As Chairman of the Special Committee on Title to Real Estate, I have a very brief report that I should like to present at this time. It requires no action, and is simply a report for the information of the Association. (See the Report in the Appendix.) Ferdinand Shack: This report is signed by all the members of the committee except Mr. Ewing, who is not present, and I move that the report be received and filed and the committee continued. Walter S. Logan, of New York : I second the motion. The motion was adopted. William A. Ketcham, of Indiana : Would it be in order at this time to present the report of the Auditing Committee? |