« 이전계속 »
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE
Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate Commerce
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
MOSES E. CLAPP, Minnesota, Chairmin. SHELBY M.CULLOM, Illinois.
BENJAMIN R. TILLMAN, South Carolina. W. MURRAY CRANE, Massachusetts.
MURPHY J. FOSTER, Louisiana. GEORGE S. NIXON, Nevada.
FRANCIS G. NEWLANDS, Nevada. ALBERT B. CUMMINS, Iowa.
JAMES P. CLARKE, Arkansas. FRANK B. BRANDEGEE, Connecticut. TAOMAS P. GORE, Oklahoma. GEORGE T. OLIVER, Pennsylvania.
CLARENCE W. WATSON, West Virginia. HENRY F. LIPPITT, Rhode Island.
ATLEE POMERENE, Ohio.
LEE F. WARNER, Clerk.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 1912.
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10.30 o'clock a. m., for the purpose of further considering the bill (S. 2941) entitled “A bill to create an interstate trade commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," introduced by Mr. Newlands July 5, 1911.
Present: Senators Cummins (acting chairman), Crane, Brandegee, Nixon, Lippitt, Newlands, Watson, and Pomerene. STATEMENT OF L. C. KRAUTHOFF, LAWYER, NEW YORK CITY.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN. Mr. Krauthoff, the resolution under which the committee is inquiring states that we are to inquire into and report what changes are necessary or desirable in the laws of the United States relating to the creation and control of corporations engaged in interstate commerce, and what changes are necessary or desirable in the laws of the United States relating to persons or firms engaged in interstate commerce.
Under a rule of order adopted by the committee, persons who appear before it are requested to make their statements, and may make them without interruption, and after the statement is concluded any member of the committee who so desires may interrogate. If, therefore, you will proceed and make any statement that occurs to you, within the limits of the inquiry that I have just outlined, we will be obliged to you.
Mr. KRAUTHOFF. I may say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I have no prepared statement, so that what I shall say to the committee, under the chairman's invitation, will be extemporaneous.
I appreciate the courtesy of being asked to come here. I am one of those who believe that it is the duty of an American citizen to contribute, whenever opportunity arises, to the solution of problems affecting public interests. I lead no propaganda, nor am I an emissary of one; and I have no panacea to offer of a solution of the ills that beset the public. I hold no brief, and have no personal interest in this matter. The invitation, no doubt, came from the fact that in the course of my professional career—now extending over a period of 35 years—I have come in contact with this question in its various phases, and I was of counsel for the defendants in United States v. Hopkins (171 U. S., 578), argued and decided contemporaneously with the Joint Traffic Association case (171 U. S., 505).
Prior to that time I had been connected with litigation which resulted in the dissolution of the organization that was probably succeeded by the Trans-Missouri Freight Association. I have, in an