Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

tion of the bill now before the House, and it may be proper to say that this resolution speaks the unanimous voice of the Committee on Commerce. The bill in its main features has been so often discussed here that its character and object are pretty well understood. The bill as now presented has been amended in several particulars, and some important amendments have been adopted. It relates to a subject which, perhaps, as much as any other has commanded the attention and excited the interest, the hopes, and the wishes of the people of this country. All I deem it necessary to say now is that, the subject being of so great general interest, the committee felt justified in asking the House to set a time for its consideration. It has been suggested to me by gentlemen on the floor that it would have been well to fix a limit to the discussion of the question; but gentlemen, I think, may trust that the friends of the measure, if the House should determine to set this bill for consideration, will place a proper limit on the discussion, and not allow it to run to any unreasonable extent so as to interfere with the consideration of other matters properly claiming the attention of the House.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I do not concur with the suggestion of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] as to limiting debate on this bill. Should it be reached upon the 13th of April I would be opposed to limiting debate. In the last Congress there was debate upon this subject extending through two or three weeks until the question really was exhausted, gentlemen favoring and those opposing the bill being allowed full latitude of discussion. It is now proposed to bring the question up again in this House, and I think the House will want to debate the measure extensively. Every gentleman desiring to speak upon it should be permitted to do so, because while on the one side it is considered a very important bill, I wish to state that on the other side, so far as I am concerned, I regard what is called "the Reagan bill," for the consideration of which this resolution proposes to fix a day, as an exceedingly unimportant measure. I, and others who think with me, desire to debate this question fully. A minority of the Committee on Commerce design bringing into the House within a very few days a report expressing their views, and also a bill intended as a substitute for the bill of the majority and containing provisions which the minority of the committee can sustain. On behalf of that minority I will say that I do not suppose any one gentleman of the minority desires not to have an interstate-commerce bill passed, but if legislation on this subject is needed, a bill should be passed which will meet the wants of the country at the present time and will not disturb vested rights-a bill which will control to a certain extent the manner of shipment, while giving carriers a voice as to what should or should not be done.

The committee has authorized the gentleman from Texas, its chairman, to make this motion for a suspension of the rules in order to fix a day to consider this subject. I desire, if it be in order now, to reserve all points of order upon this bill. At the same time I wish to say that I shall not vote to suspend the rules if I understand it is the design of the gentleman from Texas to check debate in any way, to close debate before every member of the House desiring to speak has given his views. I will ask the gentleman from Texas, if he will permit me, whether it is his design in any way to limit debate on this bill if it should be reached on the 13th of April?

Mr. REAGAN. So far as I am concerned I shall be disposed to allow reasonable debate; but I should not desire to see the debate run to an unreasonable extent. The subject has been so much discussed heretofore that I take it a very great length of time will not be required for its discussion. But I desire to see full and fair debate.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Well, Mr. Speaker, I desire to see debate until the question is exhausted by argument on both sides. I do not wish to see the debate limited; it was not limited in the last Congress. I hope that before many days the minority of the committee will bring before the House their report and a substitute bill, so that when members come to examine the Reagan bill," authorized to be reported by the Committee on Commerce, they may at the same time take into consideration the report of the minority of the committee and the measure which the minority are willing to vote for and hope to see this House sustain.

[ocr errors]

Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. BUCHANAN] so much of my time as he may desire.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I desire to make an inquiry. If this resolution be adopted and the consideration of the bill when it is reached should not be concluded on Thursday will it run into Friday, which is privatebill day? The resolution, as I understand, is absolute in its terms, and it seems to me to be obnoxious to that objection.

Mr. REAGAN. In drawing the resolution I did not think of private-bill day; but I will ask consent of the House to modify the resolution so as to except private-bill day from its operation.

The SPEAKER. The Chair will say to the gentleman from Texas it has been heretofore decided that when a bill is made a special order for a particular day and from day to day thereafter, the measure does not occupy the time of the House on Friday unless that be one of the days specially named. In the absence of any such express language, the rule of the House setting apart that day for the consideration of private bills is not interfered with.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Then the effect of this resolution, if adopted, will be to put this bill, which is now very near the foot of the Calendar, up to the head of the Calendar on the morning of April 13. Now I do not understand the propriety of giving precedence to the work of one committee in this way. I do not know that I have any particular objection to this bill; but there are other bills equally meritorious, equally important, which are farther up on the Calendar; and it seems to me they should not be displaced.

A MEMBER. What are they?

Mr. BUCHANAN. We have four bills from the Committee on Labor; and the other day, after having used seven minutes of the hour, when we asked for an additional fifty-three minutes it was denied to us. When we asked that Thursday night be set apart for the consideration of our business, that was denied us. When we asked that on Saturday we should have this time, it was denied us; and one of those objections came from a member of the Committee on Commerce. These are bills demanded by the voice of the laboring men of this country; and we ask that nothing shall be done to displace them upon the Calendar.

Mr. REAGAN. I yield now for three minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. HENLEY].

Mr. HENLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'NEILL] says this interstate-commerce bill is an unimportant measure. Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. No, I did not exactly say that.

Mr. HENLEY. I do not yield.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. What I said was that the bill which was presented by the committee and which is called the Reagan bill is an unimportant measure.

Mr. HENLEY. Mr. Speaker, I understood the gentleman, and I think the House did, to speak as I have quoted him, but at all events I am quite certain the gentleman said something the tendency of which was to belittle the Reagan bill. That was the substance of his observation, and he was followed in that by the gentleman who succeeded him in the debate.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I do not wish to be quoted as saying this was not an important question.

Mr. HENLEY. I decline to yield further. Mr. Speaker, there is no piece of legislation now before this Congress, or which has come before antecedent Congresses, which has more profoundly stirred the pulses of the American people and created a more widespread solicitude than this same matter of the regulation of interstate commerce. And it has been by reason of just such measures of antagonism as we now see on this floor that it has been hitherto retarded, delayed, or defeated; that is, by dilatory means and by belittling the bill itself by saying that other measures are of greater importance and the like. Why, sir, the importance of this bill to the people upon the Pacific coast, whom I in part represent, is beyond calculation. It is seen in the present condition of affairs, because for the first time in the history of these railroads we find a person can go from here to San Francisco for $50, which is as much as the fare should ever have been. This results from the fact that the pools have been broken and some measure of justice is being meted out to the people at this time. Pass this Reagan bill, respond to the public sentiment throughout the nation demanding its passage, and then we may have some means, some facilities for transportation, for getting from one side of this continent to the other, commensurate with its cost. Forbid, break up this iniquitous pooling which destroys competition, and the people will be the beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. BUCHANAN] deprecates putting this bill at the top of the Calendar. A friend near me says that is the very place where it ought to go. It ought to be there, Mr. Speaker, because the people have said in convention, they have said in every available way, through every avenue by which public opinion can be formulated or expressed, that interstate commerce should and ought to be regulated, and regulated as I believe in the method and by the manner provided by the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] who, if he transmits nothing else to posterity, the association of his name with this interstate-commerce measure will exalt him in the estimation of generations to come.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Before the gentleman takes his seat I desire to say this

Mr. REAGAN. Not in my time.

Mr. BINGHAM. I will yield the time to my colleague.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from California has not yet had an opportunity to see the report which will come from the minority of the Committee on Commerce. He has not had the opportunity to see the bill which will be recommended for passage by the minority of that committee. It is the bill which it is proposed to pass instead of the Reagan bill, as it is called.

Mr. HENLEY. I saw it at the last session of Congress.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. But the gentleman has not seen the bill recommended by the minority of the Committee on Commerce at this session.

Mr. HENLEY. It necessarily must be similar to the minority report of the last session.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. All I have to say is this: That however important it may be to have the regulation of interstate commerce, and however necessary to pass such a bill for that purpose, it will be found the measure recommended by the minority of the committee is in every way superior to that presented by the majority of the committee.

Mr. HENLEY. That minority report comes from the identical source from which the minority report came at the last Congress, and I surmise it is about the same. We can readily judge what it is.

Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I rise for the purpose of making a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. ADAMS, of Illinois. Is it in order now to move an amendment to the resolution?

The SPEAKER. It is not in order. It is a motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution,

Mr. REAGAN. I yield for two minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BAYNE].

Mr. BAYNE. I shall vote for this resolution to fix a date to consider this bill. It is an important bill to the whole country. It is a measure demanded by the people, and one we must consider sooner or later. Opposition to the bill, in my opinion, comes from influences which are inimical to the best interests of the people.

Mr. BINGHAM. Are there any petitions on file for the passage of this bill?

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Not one.

Mr. BAYNE. It is recommended by the boards of trade. It is asked for by shippers and by the public press. The demand for such a measure has been made on all hands.

Mr. BINGHAM. I am informed there is not one petition on file in this Congress asking for any such measure.

Mr. BAYNE. I do not know whether there has been or not, but I know shippers from one end of the country to the other ask Congress shall take some action in favor of doing away with unjust discrimination.

Mr. LONG. It may be, but it has all died out.

Mr. DUNHAM. I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania to name a board of trade that has asked the passage of this Reagan bill.

Reso

Mr. BAYNE. I do not know that I can name one specially. lutions, however, have been presented here coming from boards of trade; and I know they have passed upon the question. I know too that the appeal is made by the shippers of this country and by the people generally to Congress to have some action taken to regulate this matter. Mr. REAGAN. I now yield two minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVER].

Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, the question of interstate commerce, next to the currency question, is the greatest question agitating the minds of the people of this country to-day, and both are labor questions in the broadest possible sense of the term. This bill affects

every village and hamlet in the land, and should for a score of valid reasons have a regular and speedy hearing in this House, during which it may be discussed and voted on by the representatives of the people. Let us place ourselves squarely on record concerning this important bill. Mr. REAGAN. I reserve the remainder of my time.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman has six minutes of his time remaining.

Mr. REAGAN. While I am on the floor I would like to ask a parliamentary question.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.

Mr. REAGAN. If this order is made will it interfere with the introduction of bills or the suspension of the rules on Mondays?

The SPEAKER. The rules of the House, while they set apart Friday, as stated by the Chair a few moments ago, for the consideration of private bills, do not specifically set apart Monday for the suspension of the rules, but simply provide that it shall be in order on that day to move to suspend the rules. If the gentleman from Texas will call up his bill on Monday the question of consideration could be raised against it, as has been frequently decided heretofore, and it is then for the House to determine whether it will go on with the bill on Monday or whether it will proceed with the other order of business which is in order on that day, namely, the motion to suspend the rules.

Mr. REAGAN. If I can have the consent of the House I will modify the resolution so as not to embrace Monday to interfere with the regular business on that day.

The SPEAKER. The matter rests entirely under the control of the gentleman if this resolution shall be adopted. If the gentleman does not call up the bill on Monday there will be no conflict.

Mr. REAGAN. Then I will inform the House that I will not call it up on Monday.

Mr. DUNHAM.

Mr. DINGLEY.

Or on any Monday.

I desire to know, Mr. Speaker, if this resolution should be adopted if it will not deprive the House of the two morning hours, one for the call of committees and one for the consideration of bills, while this bill is under consideration?

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks, from the terms of this resolution, if adopted, that the gentleman from Texas might call this bill up immediately after the reading of the Journal if he saw proper to do so, in which case, as the Chair has just stated, the question of consideration could be raised, and the House would determine which business it preferred to go on with; whether the bill to which this resolution refers or the regular order of business fixed in the morning hour. Mr. DINGLEY. If the gentleman from Texas will give me his attention a moment, I would like to know if we can not have the assurance from him that this bill will not be called up at a time to antagonize the morning hour?

Mr. REAGAN. I will say to the gentleman from Maine that I will not, in the event of the adoption of this resolution, interfere with the morning hour.

The SPEAKER.

The Chair will state that the morning hour is one thing and the hour for the consideration of bills quite another. Mr. REAGAN, I will embrace both hours in this statement. The SPEAKER. If there be no further debate, the question is on the motion of the gentleman from Texas to suspend the rules and adopt the resolution.

« ForrigeFortsett »