THE PERIOD FROM 1878 TO 1891 105 



the indignation expressed by certain senators at this "reflection on 

 Congress" and "on the profession of the law," is open to question. 



Although it would thus be unwise to attribute discreditable motives 

 to all who opposed Beck's measure, evidence seems to indicate that 

 some of the "distinguished senators" at least felt that this bill might 

 endanger them. Senator Mitchell admitted that he had once been 

 attorney for the Northern Pacific. Teller's opposition to this bill may 

 be considered in connection with some of the decisions which he made 

 while Secretary of the Interior. Hawley's speeches do not sound high 

 levels of political philosophy. He spoke of the bill as "harsh and 

 severe," and wondered if the offense aimed at was really a "crime, 

 a malum in s^," or whether it was merely "some proceeding in contra- 

 vention of public policy," which could be "reached by a milder form 

 of prohibition." If these men were absolutely free from railroad con- 

 nections, why did they object to the bill, anyhow.'' It is difficult to see 

 how the measure could have injured anyone whose skirts were clear, 

 yet it was fought day after day with a stubbornness which indicates 

 that more than a mere theoretical principle was at stake. 



It should furthermore be noted that the party opposing this bill 

 tried to avoid fighting in the open. Thus the first blow was Edmunds' 

 attempt to have the bill referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

 where it was understood the measure would be strangled. When the 

 motion to refer was under consideration, Senator Beck said, "It might 

 as well go to the tomb of the Capulets," and Senator Vance asked that 

 the bill be read once more, so that he could "take a farewell of it." 

 The next attempt was to have it referred to the Committee on Finance, 

 also apparently known to be hostile to such legislation. A great vari- 

 ety of amendments were pressed, obviously with no purpose but the 

 defeat of the bill ; and by such means its practical defeat was finally 

 accomplished.^^" 



Forestry and forest conservation were never mentioned in the 

 debates on the railroad attorney bill, yet this careful consideration 

 seems appropriate because it throws light on the failure of Congress 

 to forfeit the railroad grants. Railroad grants have been extremely 



150 Cong. Rec, XVII, 5095, 5494, 5514, 5643, 5693, 5842, 5991, 5995-5999, 6037- 

 6051, 6771, 8015; XVIII, 177-183, 210, 248, 278, 434, 952, 1004, 1038, 1047, 1065- 

 1067, 1127-1139, 1149, 1154, 1199, 1227, 1242, 1284, 1314-1321, 1344-1360. 



