suppose the Senate is prepared either to express its opinion or not to express it. I do not care which way so that we have a definite expression.

Mr. EDMUNDS. This bill confers upon these commissioners powers, much or little, great or small; and to undertake to say that they shall exercise no power of one kind or another is entirely unique in the history of legislation. I should suppose that an amendment of this kind would be offered in order to trammel the exertion of the powers that we confer upon the President of the United States all the time and upon the Secretary of the Treasury and everybody else, to exert in respect to executive and administrative affairs a discretion applied to circumstances. I think, therefore, that the amendment ought not to

be adopted.

Mr. MORGAN. A distinction is taken between the right of an executive officer to judge what his duty is and to judge of the extent of his powers, and the exercise by him of powers that are judicial under our Constitution. I do not understand that the President of the United States, the Chief Executive, though he may have a right to cause a man's arrest for a certain offense against the law, can sit as a magistrate to hear the cause and commit that man to jail. He exercises his executive power and must have some discretion, of course, that is the power and discretion of making up his judgment for himself to control his own conduct, but that does not convert him into a judicial officer.

Now, if these commissioners have a right to exercise any judicial function, to sit in judgment on the rights of men, then they are judicial officers, and I want to know merely whether we are conferring that power upon them. If they have the right to change the rights of men by their decrees, whether arbitrary or not, whether just or not, then they are legislative officers. Perhaps they are even more than that; they are autocrats. But we ought to know what they are.

The Senator from Vermont says we have given them powers. Well, we have given them powers, a large admixture of powers, quite a voluminous array of powers. We have given them contradictory powers, I am afraid. I believe we have, and I think it is our duty to be able to expound what is our view of their authority that we are conferring in this bill, and not to leave it as a matter of litigation and dispute to be fought out at the expense of people who go before these commissioners hereafter. It is the first bill I have ever known to be brought into the Senateand in that respect this bill is unique-where the authors of it were not willing to enter into a definition as to whether the powers they conferred by the bill were conferred upon officers of the executive department, officers of the legislative department, or officers of the judicial department of the United States.

Mr. MAXEY. I only want to say that it is not a matter of the slightest consequence to me whether the powers are called executive, judicial, legislative, or ministerial. We have defined on the face of the bill the powers which are to be exercised by the commissioners, and if those powers are not constitutional, that fact ought to be pointed out. Therefore I see no necessity whatever for the amendment proposed by the Senator from Alabama.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN].

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CAMDEN. Is it in order now to move an amendment, on page

4, section 4, line 6, by striking out the word "original;" so as to make it read:

For a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direc tion and from the same point of departure?

The word "original" before "departure" is surplusage.

Mr. EDMUNDS. We have refused to strike out the fourth section, and therefore voted that the words of the fourth section shall stand. Hence, I submit, the amendment is not in order.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks that it is in order to strike out one word.

Mr. EDMUNDS. But the Senate has voted that it will not strike out the fourth section.

Mr. KENNA. Suppose the vote was taken on a motion to strike out all after the enacting clause?

Mr. EDMUNDS. That includes more than the fourth section. Mr. KENNA. Of course it does, but it is the same proposition. Mr. EDMUNDS. No; quite a different proposition.

Mr. ALLISON. I desire

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will correct the impression he formed and expressed. The word "original" is in the very clause that was once stricken out and restored again by order of the Senate. Mr. ALLISON. That is what I desired to call attention to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Therefore it is not open to amendment. The Chair supposed the word "original" was in another part of the section, or the ruling would have been different. That word being in the clause stricken out and reinserted by action of the Senate, it is not now amendable. The question is on ordering the bill to be engrossed for a third reading.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was read the third time.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Shall the bill pass? Mr. MCPHERSON and others called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. ALDRICH (when his name was called). Upon this bill I am paired with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. VAN WYCK]. If he were present, I should vote "nay" and he would vote "yea."

Mr. ALLISON (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES], as I was reminded a few moments ago.

Mr. KENNA. I do not doubt but that the Senator from Indiana would vote for the bill.

Mr. ALLISON. Then I shall vote "yea."

Mr. PALMER (when Mr. CONGER's name was called). My colleague [Mr. CONGER] is absent, but he wanted it announced that he would vote "yea."

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARRISON], but I am informed he would vote for the bill if present, and therefore I record my vote in the affirmative.

Mr. MANDERSON (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BLACKBURN], but understanding that he would vote for this bill if present, I vote "yea."

Mr. VANCE (when his name was called). On this question I am paired with the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CONGER]. If he were present, I should vote "nay."

Mr. VEST (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB], but I understand that if present he would vote "yea," and I vote "yea.'

The roll-call was concluded.

Mr. COCKRELL. I am relieved from my pair with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES], as his colleague tells me how he would probably vote, and I vote " yea."

Mr. HOAR. My colleague [Mr. DAWES] is absent in the service of the Senate visiting an important public institution with which his committee is specially connected. I do not know how he would vote upon the bill as the fourth section now stands, therefore I have not felt at liberty to arrange his pair for him, as I otherwise should and as he requested me to do when he went away.

I desire also permission to say in regard to myself that I should vote against this bill as the fourth section now stands, believing the bill to inflict a very serious injury on our foreign commerce, were it not for my belief that in its passage through Congress that section will in some way be materially modified before it becomes a law, and I do not desire to prevent the opportunity to pass a bill.

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I am paired with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. HAMPTON], but as I understand he would vote for this bill, I vote "yea."

Mr. HARRIS. I desire to announce that the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] is paired with the Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE]. The Senator from Kentucky requested me to announce that if present. he would vote for the passage of this bill. I so announce.

Mr. BLAIR. My colleague [Mr. PIKE] is absent from the Senate by reason of illness. I am not informed how he would vote upon this question, and I am not aware that he is paired. I can not announce how he would vote.

The result was announced-yeas 46, nays 4; as follows:

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker, under instruction of the Committee on Commerce, I offer the resolution which I send to the desk. The resolution was read, as follows:

Resolved, That the rules of the House be suspended, and that Tuesday the 13th day of April be fixed for the consideration of House bill 902, to regulate interstate commerce and to prevent unjust discrimination by common carriers, and that its consideration be continued from day to day until finally disposed of, not to interfere with revenue or appropriation bills, and that said bill be considered in the House as in Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER. Is a second demanded?

Mr. BINGHAM. I demand a second, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER.

A second is demanded, and the Chair will appoint the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BINGHAM] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] to act as tellers.

Mr. REAGAN. Mr Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a second be considered as ordered.

The

The SPEAKER. If there be no objection it will be so ordered. Chair hears none. Thirty minutes will be allowed for debate, fifteen minutes in support of the resolution and fifteen minutes against it. The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. BINGHAM] to control the time in opposition to the resolution, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] to control the time in support of it.

Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if any gentleman on this side of the House desires time to speak on this question I am willing to yield it, but in the mean time let the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] proceed.

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker, the object of the committee in offering this resolution is to secure the setting of a day for the considera