Page images
PDF
EPUB

of the first. Thereupon the House transacted some unimportant business and adjourned for the day. That night representatives of the city declined an invitation by Mr. Lorimer to another conference.

All now anxiously awaited the morrow. Would the Speaker obey his oath of office, permitting a roll call? Was the will of William Lorimer to be more potent than the Constitution of Illinois ? Was the Speaker's gavel to be used to make a minority equivalent to a major ity? The action of the Speaker would plainly demonstrate to an entire people whether the public service corporation regards its wants superior to all law, whether corporate influence has become the supreme law of a great state. The opponents of the Lindley Bill believed that the Speaker would finally observe his oath. Even they had not fathomed corporate and political insolence.

The next morning, when the House met with packed galleries, "the organization "made a final effort to break the ranks of the majority. The "Child Labor Bill," the most popular measure on the calendar, was called on final passage. The vote disclosed the exact strength of the opposing forces. Fifty members voted aye. Ninety-six sat mute. The majority against the Lindley Bill was almost two to one. Had William Lorimer been present, he might have changed the programme; but, having given his Speaker orders for the day, he awaited results at his hotel. No one having authority was there.

The crisis now came. The Lindley Bill was called on second reading. The Speaker, deathly pale, stood at his desk, gavel in hand. Behind him were several ladies. Massed about his desk were twenty or more strong men prepared to defend him. Mr. Lindley offered his first amendment. The opposition leader moved to lay it on the table. Ninetysix members rose in their seats and shouted, "Roll call! Roll call!" The

Speaker, refusing to hear them, declared the amendment adopted by viva voce vote. "You lie!" shouted Representative Allen of the minority. Then amid the utmost confusion and excitement, with the majority members standing on their desks shouting, "Roll call! Roll call!" Mr. Lindley hastily offered his six other amendments. The Speaker, without the formality of reading or, a vote, declared them all adopted. Without motion, he also declared the bill passed to its third reading, beyond the reach of further amendments.

cape

It is impossible to describe the scene or to convey an adequate idea of its intensely dramatic interest. The pale and trembling Speaker, protected from flying inkstands by the women placed for that purpose at his back, hastily executed his orders. his orders. But he was not thus to esthe utmost personal humiliation. While in the act of declaring the bill passed to a third reading, Representative Burke of Chicago, unsupported, made a rush for him, only to be roughly thrown to the floor. This was the extent of the so-called "riot" in the House. There was a rush of members to the support of Burke; but the cowardice of the Speaker averted a general fight. The rush of one outraged member was quite enough for him. Without waiting for more, he precipitately fled to his room, declaring that the House had taken a recess until after

noon.

All this took place in much less time than it has taken to describe it. The turmoil and excitement at this point are indescribable. The Speaker's hasty flight led to a quick transformation. Representative Murray of Springfield, standing on his seat near the Speaker's desk, solemnly called the House to order and said: "It appears that the House is without a presiding officer; I move that Mr. Allen of Vermilion be chosen Speaker pro tem." The motion carried, Mr. Allen took the deserted chair, and the confusion quickly subsided. Within per

haps a minute after the Speaker fled, the reorganization was perfected, and a roll call of the House was in progress.

The manner in which the ninety-six members, whose high duty it was to restore constitutional government in Illinois, performed their unexpected task left nothing to be desired. Their action on that memorable day and in the remaining days of the session will forever remain conspicuous among the landmarks on the difficult road to really representative government. There are men in our public life who are not the creatures of the corporations, men who care for something higher than spoils.

The House now proceeded to recall the Lindley Bill from its third reading. When each amendment had been reconsidered and laid on the table, the Senate bill was substituted, and the Lindley Bill became in fact, if not in name, Senate Bill No. 40. Meanwhile the leaders of the majority, in conference in an adjoining committee room, prepared the following preamble and resolution :

"Whereas, The Speaker of this House has by revolutionary and unconstitutional methods denied a hearing in this House on a roll call constitutionally demanded upon measures of grave import, prepared by those not members of this House, and has attempted by the same methods to force the same beyond the point where they can be amended or calmly considered upon their merits,

"Therefore, be it resolved, That, until the House records shall show a reconsideration of the action of this House on House Bill No. 864 [Lindley Bill] and all amendments thereto, and shall show the adoption of this resolution, and the House shall be assured of the continuous observance during the remainder of this session of the constitutional right of a roll call on all questions and the due consideration of the business of this House, no further votes be cast upon any pending bill by the members of this

House without a permanent reorganization of this House."

The foregoing preamble and resolution were thereupon signed by the ninety-six opposition members and spread on the Journal of the House. The Speaker pro tem. was also instructed to read it to the Speaker in the presence of the House on his return to the chair. This was done by Mr. Allen with great solemnity that afternoon. Whereupon the House took a recess, during which the Speaker conferred with Mr. Lorimer, Mr. Hinman, the Governor, Mr. Lindley, and a few others. Upon his reappearance he presented the following written statement to the House:

[ocr errors]

"I have been approached at different times by parties who intimated to me that I could make money by allowing a roll call on what is known as the Mueller Bill or permitting its passage. I do not know whether the parties making the statements were authorized to make them or not, but the statements having been made to me, and some of them recently, fully convinced me that there was something wrong with this effort on the part of outside parties to push this bill. For this reason, I denied the roll call, and have stood firm on this proposition up to the very limit. A majority of the House having signified their desire to have a roll call on this proposition, I wash my hands of the entire matter, and will permit a roll call to be had."

Thereupon Mr. Rinaker, the able leader of the majority, promptly moved the appointment by the Speaker himself of a committee of five members to investigate his charges. Upon Mr. Rinaker's suggestion it was determined that no action should be taken on traction or any other important legislation pending the investigation of the charges made by the Speaker reflecting on the House, and that the time of adjournment, already agreed upon, should be postponed as long as might be necessary for a thorough investigation of the charges, and for the

consideration thereafter of the pending street railway measures.

The next morning the press contained a statement from Governor Yates, in which he said: :

"As to Speaker Miller's action in opposing a roll call on the Mueller Bill, ... I am glad to have the opportunity to say that I believe him to be a brave and honest man, pursuing the only course such a man can pursue under the circumstances. . . . I repeat, that I believe that in opposing what he believed to be corruption, his action is honest and brave, and entitles him to the thanks of every good citizen of Illinois."

The following morning Representative Schlagenhauf of the majority called the attention of the House to a recent editorial published by Mr. Hinman in the Chicago Inter-Ocean, which was in part as follows: "And the boodle is ready. And it is in use. And some members already have been bought. And others are negotiating for it. . . . Can money buy the Forty-Third General Assembly of the State of Illinois?" Thereupon the House voted to call Mr. Hinman before its bar to give such information as he might have in support of his charges. Afterwards the House referred this matter to the investigating committee. The Speaker in appointing the committee passed over Mr. Rinaker, placing on it members a majority of whom it was feared could be depended upon to make a whitewashing report. Thereupon Representative Darrow of Chicago, after a hasty consultation, moved to amend by adding six names of leading members, including Mr. Rinaker. This motion was carried on roll call. This committee on April 30 made its report, finding in part as follows: "1. That the evidence produced before us does not establish any real attempt to corruptly influence the action of the Speaker of this House.

:

"2. That there was no reasonable or substantial ground for the editorial en

titled 'Boodle,' published in the Chicago Inter-Ocean on April 21, 1903, and recited in the resolution introduced by Representative Schlagenhauf; and that the charges therein contained, and as specified further in the testimony of Mr. Hinman, were wholly without truth or foundation as to any member or officer of this House, so far as we have been able to discover. Your committee feels it due to it to say, in view of the publication by Mr. Hinman of his statement read before it, that it regarded the 'rumors' so frequently referred to by him, and the jocular remarks attributed to members and others, as utterly unworthy of notice, and the charges reflecting upon citizens of Chicago, employed or selected to represent it, who, in the opinion of your committee, deservedly stand high in the estimation of its best citizens, as wholly outside the purposes of this investigation. It also, in the light of the evidence before it, upon the specific charges made by him, placed no credence upon any of his charges of improper conduct or motives upon their part in connection with the subject of this investigation."

The report of the committee was adopted by a unanimous vote of the House on roll call. Messrs. Lorimer and Hinman, at the close of Mr. Hinman's testimony before the committee, had left Springfield, not to return during the session. Upon the adoption of the report of the committee, the House by unanimous vote directed its Municipal Committee to report Senate Bill No. 40. Mr. Lindley at once complied, and the bill was promptly passed, with certain amendments proposed and accepted by the representatives of the city, by both houses. It went to the Governor the day before final adjournment. He promptly called on the Attorney-General for an opinion as to its constitutionality, meanwhile requesting both houses of the General Assembly not to adjourn until he had had time fully to consider its terms. The Attorney-General on the last night of the

session gave his opinion to the effect that the constitutional objections to the measure were not well founded. The friends of the bill in both houses, believing that to comply with the Governor's request would lead to a veto, and that if the whole responsibility was thrown on him he would approve it, adjourned sine die.

The Governor took the full ten days allowed by the Constitution to determine whether to veto or sign the bill. After two public hearings, and after receiving much advice, both public and private, he finally on the last day approved it with extreme reluctance. How difficult it was for him to do so appears from the memorandum explaining his action, which he filed with the Secretary of State. In that remarkable document, he said:

[ocr errors]

"I would veto this bill, were it not that I have great confidence in the City Council of 1903, and great confidence in the people.

"It has been urged against this bill by the one man in Illinois who was so courageous as to argue for its veto after it

was passed . . . that this bill was passed

...

under the whip and spur of a few newspapers in the city of Chicago. This is true. Worse than that, it was passed by default in the Senate and by riot in the House. Intimidation of every possible kind has been resorted to, and within the ten days during which the Governor has the right, under the wise and wholesome and hitherto unquestioned veto power of the Constitution, to consider and examine a bill, these same newspapers have endeavored to complete their usurpation of governmental functions — their 'govern

ment by newspapers' and abusing the executive.

by ridiculing

"I approve the bill in spite of this clamor, because the real question is, shall the city councils of cities, and the people thereof, be permitted to do a right thing, and not, has the right thing been brought about in the wrong way?

66 I believe that this bill should be vetoed, were the General Assembly in session, and that then either this bill should be amended, or a new bill passed without the faults of this bill."

Thus after six years of strenuous conflict between public and private interests, Senate Bill No. 40 became a law of the State of Illinois. This struggle, if it be as significant as it seems to the writer, means that the employment of private capital in the conduct of the public business has led us to the brink of gov ernment by corporations. If the public service corporation is permanently to participate in the public administration, it must submit to public control. Some basis other than that of vested right must be sought for the security of private capital employed in the public business. That, however, is another story.

It is sufficient here to add that present conditions are intolerable. By means of the Act of 1903 the people of Chicago have sought to create conditions that will make the interests of the city and of the companies much more nearly identical, and lead to greatly improved relations, with adequate public control. Conservative men hope that this attempt will succeed. If other solution of the problem be not found, and that speedily, public ownership is inevitable and desirable. Edwin Burritt Smith.

[ocr errors]

I.

BOOKS NEW AND OLD.

STOPS OF VARIOUS QUILLS.

She

THE present commentator wishes to offer for consideration several books of verse which seem to him to merit more than ordinary attention. It is always interesting to examine a first book of verse by a writer who has won a reputation in prose. Who knows but it may bring us into a new and more intimate relation with an old acquaintance? Who knows — and human nature faces this possibility with almost equal complaisance-but the verse may bring into clear outline certain suspected limitations, and so settle the question once for all. In taking up the first collection of Josephine Daskam's poems,1 one is struck anew with the remarkable flexibility of her talent. touches with no little adroitness the stops of various quills; she satisfies the ear with metres and the taste with images. Once or twice she stirs the imagination. In short, she writes excellent verse, most of which seems the product of an inspiration from without. She has written, one surmises, from some motive other than the desire for self-expression; perhaps from a private wish to prove herself possessed of something more than the worldly cleverness upon which her popularity is founded. As a result, her verse, skillful and interesting as it is, lacks personal distinction; it is not her right-hand mode of expression; " it is not, perhaps, in the very strictest sense, poetry.

This is high ground, but one is excused for taking it by the quality of several other new books of verse which seem to possess both spontaneity and distinction.

1 Poems. By JOSEPHINE DASKAM. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1903.

2 The Singing Leaves. A Book of Songs and

Young persons still dream dreams of startling the world by some outburst of metrical frenzy which shall write their names upon the skies. Few persons of any age are ready to devote themselves, for better or worse, to "the homely slighted shepherd's trade." Few of us are worthy to be so slighted; we do not deserve the tribute of contempt which the vulgar world is ready to pay to those who brazenly pursue the best. No American writer of verse is now moved by a more sincere poetic impulse than Miss Peabody. Among her lesser qualities is a cleverness which might easily have been employed to win popular success in some of the forms of literature now most sure of a wide, and casual, audience. It has not been cultivated to that end, and the writer's reward is to have produced, in a period during which good versifying has become the rule, not a little true poetry. As" a book of songs and spells " The Singing Leaves differs in some evident respects from Miss Peabody's former books of verse; but its essential qualities are the same. This is to say that they are the reverse of commonplace. Her poetry has a delicate savor of its own, a mystical sweetness, a purity of ways untrodden and apart, yet not remote from the common field of this our strife. I am almost sorry to have used the word "mystical," lest some brethren of robust sense, who connect the word with a vague condition of inspired foolishness, should mistake my meaning. It means nothing of the sort to me. However simple the diction, one cannot always be sure, on first reading, of the distinct "meaning " of some of Miss Peabody's songs. Very Spells. By JOSEPHINE PRESTON PEABODY. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1903.

2

« PreviousContinue »