ſºſ
،ſ^, ∞
¿?
|-º A
& 1
º ， º,
\ （X\ ，* :\，\! \! \;
№ ae （* …）; ∞ ק§f } } } } } ſ \，
?* Í * * ， !&Nºķ ،§,
ſae· : ? .} !! % ！！ ſº， º, º.«Nº.
：ſ º|'ſį|į （Y#\ \ \^ ^^ ^?
. ，,.. ' ： '*A ，* · * !ſ.TAT°,** .T.§.
*** . .? … * *
| ， , ）.
* （ ` *）
ț¢ º ，,\ ，\ ！ , !
^'Nſ^
}~ :|
*ſº
;
§
Ģ
#
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
$
§ ， ， ， ， º." . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ !º 2° *
*（\'.\'，\,^,\,^,..，^ ^ ^'^^^'^^ ^^, ^.^, .
ººººººº^^^^^^^®*
}
ſ N ° ^----
ſº i
^, …,
）;，* ,·！-ſae-， ， ， ， ， ，·, ， , ， ， ， ， ，·Tº，：ſae،
。 、、3， ……..……………：…，\，\，}….….. -. . ………. »…• ••••••••， e º …g. ，
' ' ， ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ،ººſººº^^ ^ „ ' ，
?????
^^;^^^®^^
∞º',ſaeſ
\，\，\，\，\，\，^，\%
\ ^l; ： !Paeſ
, ' $*????????ſ.
'ſza º
8ſ^
§ ' ） {
i º ſae . .
º， &
¿
© （ ）
ſae|·Lº ·· :T.
ſº'º -ſººſ （ ）
***, … .^º\
^^^,^ ^Aſaea'~
§ （1）： º!
º！ſ',
| ,3（, , \! º | . “ ！ （Y_YA
| 2ſ.** （, ſ.-×}Ďis º T：aº
， ， ， ， ，0* } * :） …*¿ **“,∞
' _ ^ _ „ “， “ ”, **， ** ， \!-- 'ſ':· .. ?” ， “j ſr || ? || ... \; ，
º ſº:\ ： * * *）（ *）.، ;* . g.t.Œ œ
* ¿~| 1× × × × × × ×~--~
ſººsŒ œſººſ .º ،... “ș' ’ ”'.^ |-
„ ， ， ， ， ， ， ， ， ， ）
'. ,},…： | '';``.'->A^*}
^ ^ ^ ^
A^^^^^^^^^^^^،Ź...…
ſºſ * . .·---···
ºº ^ ^ ^^ !-
„~~~~）^^^^^^^^.
*** ;：^ ^ ^ ^ ;·
si: ||{
-ºſ - : *º ，ſ ≡ （**
; ºº , .%×
-ºſ g.,● n ° ）：§ ù *：· ·
}º, º~•| 8：&ſt ：m. ،&·
8 &،Fºſ （ ）،8* ſ; };* {•
8. º：· : » J* J！ºſº） -*： -
（ ） （ *\: {{ #i' . $ º. . . ， , , ,--º（ '） ?} } }~~~~）; *
| # # .. ''·* '', º į ）ſſ-，** \， ,！ AL · §~|{\ſ*（ )
*, ，·，، • … • ·،{-£~№ ſºy \\،
}·§ ' '·}~ſ º，：ºy,# ） ' .|3.||~0
∞|،*.ſ ſ ：--º :（ ' ' ： '*' ！º : *: *）{ }~ 5.|-№ß
º.0----º ，·; ： （ ）w:t.·~º-º-.* ：£º · .
t.， ！…ae*: ,*, ， ' ';§ , ！ſ ſ،： ：&% ） ，{-a_y ， ！ſº · · ·
' ， ， ，،į „ ” ',.…*... ; , , ， *~~- ， ， ，ſi-
----Ď·} 4.'.-：|- º.∞：§3º ：، ،¿ † ‡
wr.：* .ģ：-）.∞J}}' ， .-| º; ;w.：* ：# * · *į - į·„ ” ',
}'.،$ſ:=sae... ：s ≠ ≠ ≠：∞ }șſaeºſ ：t.·
t.^ ： ：’·}：
*…&!
~ ^* … v §§ſ!
º ·| , ، ، ،?*^}
^^^^ （^^^^^^^
ſ ſ, 2 + ' '^'^' ^'） ： • ſ）\[\
·* .
ſ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
）^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

:），xx** K’ \！ \， +\， * \）/ * \"”\]\\]）',
（VVU **\UVVV '^^^®^ ^^®^^
JºJº， , ， ， ， ）, （„Jºv~~~ （čº
--~~~~，~~~\~~~~）;
ſaev”），
\，（\，
| 1
（, , ，,,，,，， - - - ~）
|| || , }!\， ，
WWW，~
（ 2│ │ │ſJ '.ſ.|A j, .J0|V
Aſ ; , , º ~ （ºſ （ （ （ （ （（; *（\/?)Ūºvºjºj，
º.vº，º ,_■ * ， ,°′Nj
§），v.）, ， , , ,|（www）.| ， ، ، ، ، ،
----„, , , , ， , ， ） s „ . ） - vJºvvvv）， Ď， Ť， Ň （）, J| Lºſ A.
z gºgg， š， ž， ºvvJJV ^^^ ) ;| `º，（~~w（„vv4®3） jººvwºvºvºv，
Ļºøwww“， „www“ （）.
„L/N/,J , , v.„JJ v Jºvºv ſvº ， „ , , ， ， , , ， ,§ . . . . L
: ：） ;V.- ， , ， , , ， , , , ， ， , , , ， , , ， ， ) ÄðAj; .
№-3 ſºğ~~~ŮVŲJºvŲJŲJºvºv，
， , esºšºs gººgºººººš！！！！！ ¿JŠvč. （~~~~ （
§ ， ， , , ， ***wºw！*，vwºwº，KUU v\,\!)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~№vº,
( )į „ .
| + '~ \, g \， ，
}！ \，（）
, ，\，：
vi
- 2 J J 2 v vº į ~ ~ ~
· ·, ， ） vº v ， , ,
Mae ſaeiº. aº
º º.º.\,.
！： ×}}ſ.）
"Jy ）،y_'ſ\~\~\~'; ，
§.№∞
º'， , ， , , ， , ， ， ， , （ ）， ， ،! 2|×’,（2.“.
YÈ№wºſº ºººººv J. vwº，
* …J. L. Z.J. V.， JZ º
, ;º） ) {* ... … .í v . ， （ ~ ~ ~ | ¡ ¿ - , ， , º,ŪŮ, ， , ,¡ ¿ \v ）)| ZYÍ）,ſae, º ，№š§§vae? ?J
vyvývvvJ, ）, „№vý， čº （， ，,，，,，,,，,vvv,JUJ （，，，，,，，,，ºººººº，
ĻŪºv，（~~~~！）` （ywwww.º.（~~~~）;Jºvº，）·！º.
„žvyvųjų „gyvyšºvý， vývºv， （）, , , º
§§§§§§§~~ºººººººvvvºv
4×7，í3.« º*ģſ （ºrğ）-¿ſºſ，į º șiNy!|}\ ，|||į, į |}| , , ：|, , , -
*********、、，
·: „ ， ، ، ، ، ،Wāſ9 ）- !
∞3 #. ， ' ';';?：
}mV wſv .~ Z•
J~~~~~ （č~~~~ ·
{
\, ， ， ，
• Z： ,
..* * · ·：
ș，№.
}！ -
№[]
vººººººvvvvvvvvvvv， š， ž （）、”，\,）， ºººººÃvÉěšňºvýšºv，v（º）v（Jºſ）* UJ,
§ Ù, ºg, , , ， ， ， ， ， ， ， º， ， ， ， ， ， ， ， ， ， , ， , ， ， , , ， ;\,, j\！\！\?\）/ *\www.ºvºvvvvvvvººººººººººººº !\， （~~~~~ ~~ 3
\，
№º
· și （,，,，,，∞ √≠ √.| Aly , ， , , ， , , , ， ， ,J„ , ， , , ）;· ſ ſ，į ſºſ：47 ）.
ſjøºº& y ſe º wyº º ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, , ; ;\\_/\S?UU•U
！m „ºvº （| , ، ، ، ، ، ）, „VVVVVV '·
ºw ， ， ， „ - ， ， ， ， ， ， , ， ， , ， ， , - „ “, J.-UVJV ºvvº ºvvv, º
| ``vų
| || N-º 2, , , ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ، ،№ ſº v º, ， ， ;\ \/
， , ;） VVU/www，ºſ, - , : „- jį jį „1¿?|A || . |\, f0
ſºſ，ºvý，M|}VŲ." , v.Uvy.J
| .ſv.， ,y!| , | . ſy-§§ ¶ ¡ ¿（）b;ſaeſºſ·Ģº º|×|-ſae（VVV’ſ№VJUU’‘，| }（~~J.#
ºvvvvwww, , , , , , ,| Jv Jw J J ！ ！ ، ، ، ） ğ ， ， ， ， ， JºJº， včº， v ſv.
ſ į „ … … * * ſ;vvvvvvvvvvvvº （， ， ， ， ， ， ， žiſă， „ſ, ſºv， （）, º „vºvų, º, ， ，
！…ºv -| „ “ ， ， ）:y ff ; }! #vy،JŲv，(~~TVÅ?vvvvv,Á Á ,„vwv
， , ， ， , ， ， , , , , , ， .• * ， , , . . . . . ,，
ÖğžºVŲVý~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ºſº, ... », . \, ... …）, „vyſºſºſV
§ ， .J .jſ，Uvvv/y/： ， , ， !
ſ. }）
, , , , ， ， ）, J.| , |\， )ſvº （, * |* J, Ñ, , , J （VU） ſº w/ （\， ,„ ， ， , ， ）,
*º_š， * 3. ----' , , , , ,*| *, , ， , , , ， , ！ · · · · ·: Yº ， ,„ g \, ºg «º º.: ，į. ;
， ， š.SºğV， ºvvv > v，）vº,-”.º ., ，ºſ -* , ， ' ', ,' ~~' : ſ.· A , !„º s ≠'''{; ;ſºſŰVyvºv
！%ſº .…;~•\，∞fj ：）∞ √.Ķ·！”， “.Y º …， ...:-’J/.ſ ººº-|~ ！ ***| }, ）º !* ：și
» !! ！！ ... * t;
º ：**
' ， . ?，
; ;
; ºg
*
|?.* #" |
* …?
ſº ',...º
●‘, .„“ſ ºs
„º}yiſººſ
： -\， ，|\,.."', ; -% ! .|-ſý
∞



P R O P E R f Y C. F.
ſhifts,
* 8. § 7 *ś
| º º “ . .”.
KRFETEETENTTK VERTRs

4. S. Z z & **. z 26 4-2-3, y £4 4-/887.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
DE BATE
IN
SECONI) SESSION OF FORTY-NINTH (ONGRESS
ON THE
BILL TO ESTABLISH A BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON
INTERSTATE COMMERCE, AND TO REGULATE
SUCH COMMERCE, ETC.
COMPILED BY
U. H. PAINTER.
— —-º-º-º-º-º- ---
W A S H IN GT ON .
1887.
Iransportation
library
HE
2.7O 8
, T-33
A5
|237

i
FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS.
SECOND SESSION.
D E B A T E
IN THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
ON
IN T E R S T A T E O O M M E R C E.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1886.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, during the last days of the last ses-
sion of Congress a conference was appointed by the two Houses upon
the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce. The conferees on the part of
the Senate have instructed me to make a report, which I send to the
desk.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The conference report will be read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1532) to regulate
commerce having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend,
and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows—
Mr. CUULOM. The conferees report an amendment to the Senate
bill in the nature of a substitute, and, as the Senate will remember, the
bill is a pretty long one, and as it is not my purpose to ask the Senate
to vote upon it to-day, because I think it is due to the Senate that every
member should have an opportunity of seeing what it is, I do not know
that it is necessary to have it read. I ask, therefore, that the report be
printed and laid upon the table for action hereafter.
Mr. ALDRICH. I would like to suggest to the chairman of the
Committee that as this is an important bill, and contains important
provisions affecting vast material interests which have never been con-
sidered by the Senate, a day certain be fixed for its consideration after
the holiday recess.
Mr. HOAR. I hope the Senator from Illinois will not call it up be-
fore the holidays.
Mr. CULLOM. It is my purpose to ask that the report be printed,
as it is in the nature of a new bill, laid upon the table, and then to
2
call it up on Monday or Tuesday of next week. It may be possible, if
it is desired on the part of the Senate to discuss it at length, that it
may go over the holidays; I do not know how that may be. I hope
not, but I am perfectly willing to give fair opportunity for discussion,
as the Senate has a right to it whether I were willing or not, but I
hope no Senator will insist upon a motion to postpone until after the
holidays.
Mr. HOAR. The Senator will allow me to make a suggestion to him.
This is a matter in which my constituency as that of every other Sena-
tor—there is nothing peculiar in my condition—has a very deep interest
indeed, and it is a bill containing, as I understand, a new scheme in
part, which demands not only profound study on the part of the legis-
lators who are to vote upon it, but also demands that the business in-
terests of the country should have an opportunity to see it and to make
their communications to their representatives here, because everybody
knows that this is peculiarly one of those cases in which the sugges-
tions that will be made by practical business men will be extremely
instructive to legislators. Next week is a time when the holidays are
likely to begin, and a day or two before those holidays is always a bad
time for the consideration of important measures. I hope the Sena-
tor will now, in order to save any trouble, get the Senate to agree that
this measure may be assigned for the second day after the holidays.
Then we shall be sure of what is going to happen.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not know that Congress is going to have any
holidays, so far as an adjournment is considered. All I desire now is
to have this report laid upon the table and printed. It is within the
power of the Senate to postpone the consideration of it, if it desires to
do so, until the first part of next week, when I shall seek to call it up.
I think that the probability is that, if there is a desire for discussion,
it may then go over further, but I would prefer not to agree to that at this
time. I desire to add to my motion that the report be printed; also.
that the Senate bill, as it passed the Senate, shall be printed with the
amendment proposed by the conference committee to the Senate bill
in italics, so that every Senator can see exactly what changes are pro-
posed in the Senate bill.
Mr. JIARRIS. I desire to suggest to my colleague on the commit-
tee that he give notice at this time, the bill being printed as it will be
under the order of the Senate made this morning, that on Monday next
he will call up the report. Of course a majority of the Senate will de-
termine then whether it will consider it or not: but I think that will
give ample time to every Senator to examine the report, examine the
bill, and be prepared to act upon it as well then as at any later day.
Mr. CULLOM. That is my purpose.
Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, as this report—
Mr. CULLOM. My present motion is that this report be printed
and that the Senate bill as passed by the Senate be also printed again,
with the amendments proposed in italics, so that every Senator ean see
exactly the changes made in the Senate bill. I desire that motion to
be acted upon by the Senate, after which I shall ask the indulgence of
the Senate simply to make a statement of fact as to the changes in the
bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will have to make his
statement before that action is taken, or otherwise, the report being
laid on the table, it would not be debatable.
Mr. ALLISON. I wish to make a suggestion to the Senator from
Illinois respecting the printing of this bill and report.
3
I think the Senate is entitled to each successive step respecting this
important matter, and that the first thing to be printed is the Senate
bill, and that then the amendment the other House made, a single
amendment to that bill, should be printed, and then the Senate bill
should be printed with each and every amendment proposed by the
conference committee, these amendments being in capital letters, so
that we may not make a mistake in respect to what the conference com-
mittee propose. In that way we shall have the text of the original
bill, the amendment of the House in italics, and the Senate bill with
the amendments proposed by the conference committee in capital letters.
Then let us also have the substitute by itself, so that we may know ex-
actly how the bill will read if passed as reported by the conference
Committee.
Mr. CULLOM. In answer to the Senator’s suggestion I will say that
there is very little in the proposed bill that is the language of any part
of the House bill.
Mr. ALLISON. Very well,
Mr. CULLOM. I am not able to see myself that we should get very
much information by printing in any particular form the Senate bill as
it passed the Senate, and then the House bill as it passed the House, or
the substitute for the Senate bill now reported. My judgment is that
Senators will be able to know all about the changes that occur by
printing the Senate bill as it passed and then the proposed amendments
of the conference committee in italics.
I suggest to the Senator that printing in capital letters, as I under-
stand from some gentlemen who know something about printing,
would probably be a difficult matter to do. Hence I think it is not
necessary to have it printed in capitals because italics will answer just
as well.
Mr. ALLISON. Very well. I do not care about that; I presume
capital letters are scarce; but I think in connection with this bill we
want the House measure printed in some form.
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection to that.
Mr. ALLISON. That may be done by way of a supplement if you
please.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not want so much printed that you will never
find out what is before you.
... Mr. ALLISON. Very well.
Mr. CULLOM. . Before action on my motion, I desire to make a state-
ment of the changes in the bill. The following is a statement of the
changes in the bill as passed by the Senate which have been agreed to
and are recommended by the committee of conference:
Section 1 is amended by inserting the words “or the District of Co-
lumbia'' after the words “United States” where they occur in lines
8 and 9, to make it plain that the act will apply to transportation be-
tween the States and Territories and the District of Columbia, as well
as between the States and Territories.
I am making this statement that Senators may from the RECORD
immediately get an idea of the changes that are proposed; and hence I
ask their attention. *. -
The term “railroad” is defined in this section, beginning with line
24, as including “all bridges and ferries used or operated in connection
with any railroad; ” and to these words the following have been added:
“And also all the road in use by any corporation operating a railroad,
whether owned or operated under a contract, agreement, or lease.”
Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Senate bill, prohibiting discriminations,
4
contained provisions in relation to the recovery of damages. These
have been stricken out of said sections, and have been grouped together
in one section, which is made section 8 of the committee bill. Ex-
cept as to this rearrangement, substantially the only change made has
been the addition of the provision of the House bill that “a reasonable
counsel or attorney’s fee” shall be allowed by the court in every case
of the recovery of damages. The parts ofsaid sections which are stricken
out in consequence of the rearrangement referred to are all of section 2
after the word “unlawful,” in line 13, all of section 3 after the word
“business,” in line 18, and lines 23 to 27, both inclusive, in section 4.
No other change is made in section 2. !
Section 3 is also amended by striking out the words “and proper,”
in line 12, and substituting therefor the words “proper and equal, ‘‘so
as to require railroads to afford “equal” as well as “reasonable and
proper” facilities to connecting roads for the interchange of traffic. Also,
by striking out the words “but no such common carrier shall be re-
quired to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another car-
rier engaged in like business,” and by substituting therefor the follow-
ing: “And shall not discriminate in their rates and charges between
such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as requiring any
such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities
to another carrier engaged in like business.” -
Section 4 of the Senate bill is amended by striking out the words
“and from the same original point of departure or to the same point
of arrival,” in lines 7 and 8, and inserting in lieu thereof the words
“the shorter being included within the longer distance; ” also, by in-
serting after the words “in special cases,” in line 13, the words “after
investigation by the commission.” -
This section is further amended by striking out the following words
in relation to the power of the commission to suspend the operation of
the section, beginning in line 16: -
Make general rules exempting such designated common carrier in such spe-
cial cases from the operation of this section of this act; and when such excep-
tions shall have been made and published, they shall, until changed by the
commission or by law, have like force and effect as though the same had been
specified in this section.
And by substituting therefor the following words:
Prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be re-
lieved from the operation of this section of this act.
Section 19, requiring an immediate investigation by the commission
of the necessity of legislation upon the subject of pooling, has been
stricken out, and section 5 of the committee bill contains the provision
of the House bill prohibiting pooling, with some modifications of the
language.
Section 5 of the Senate bill has been replaced by section 6 of the com-
mittee bill, which combines most of the provisions of the Senate and
House bills upon the subject of publicity of rates. Section 5 made it
the duty of the commission to secure publicity of rates as far as might
be found practicable; not only the rates between points on each rail-
road, but rates over connecting lines as well. The new section re-
quires each railroad to make public the rates between points upon its
own line, and in addition the commission is directed to secure publicity
of rates over connecting lines so far as may be found practicable.
Section 9 of the committee bill is an addition to the Senate bill, and
provides that persons claiming to be damaged by the violation of the
act by any common carrier may either make complaint to the com-
mission as provided in the Senate bill, or may institute suits for the
5
recovery of damages in their own behalf in the district or circuit courts
of the United States.
For section 7 of the Senate bill, providing for the criminal penalty,
section 10 of the committee bill has been substituted, which, though
in different terms, is substantially the same in effect.
Section 8 of the Senate bill has been changed so as to provide that
the terms of the commissioners first appointed shall run for two, three,
four, five, and six years, respectively, from January 1, 1887, without
regard to the time of their appointment.
Section 9 of the Senate bill is amended by adding to the provisions
for compelling officers of railroads to testify, when summoned by the
commission, the following:
The claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the per-
son giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying ; but
such evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial
of any criminal proceeding.
Section 15 of the Senate bill is amended by making the words “all
necessary traveling expenses,” in line 16, read as follows: “all neces-
sary expenses for transportation.”
Nine'sections of the Senate bill have not been changed in any respect,
except as to the numbering, namely: Sections 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16,
17, and 18. ſ
Section 20 of the Senate bill has been amended by inserting the fol-
lowing after the word “religion” in line 8:
Nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent railroads from giving free
carriage to their officers and employés, or to prevent the principal officers of
any railroad company or companies from exchanging passes or tickets with
other railroad companies for their officers and employés.
Also, by striking out all after line 9, and substituting therefor the
following:
Existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this act are in
addition to such remedies : Provided, That no pending legislation shall in any
way be affected by this act.
The following has been added as a new section:
SEC. 24. That the provisions of sections 11 and 18 of this act, relating to the ap-
pointment and organization of the commission herein provided for, shall take
effect immediately, and the remaining provisions of this act shall take effect
sixty days after its passage.
This statement I have deemed it proper to make to go into the REC-
ORD, so that if Senators desire to look at it, so as to ascertain what
changes have been made from the Senate bill, it may be some help to
them in determining what they are. I yield now to the Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, as the report of the conference commit-
tee was not fully read, even the concluding formal part of it being omit-
ted in the reading, the Senate was not informed by the reading of the
report that I did not concur by my signature in the conclusions at which
the conferees arrived. It is therefore, perhaps, proper that I should say
at this time that I was unable to bring my mind to the signature of this
report, and it is also perhaps fair that I should state, to some extent,
the ground upon which I withheld my signature.
I think I should, though with great reluctance, have consented to all
the provisions and recommendations of the report but one. I should
have had great reluctance in subscribing to the recommendation for the
change of the Senate provision relating to short hauls and long hauls;
but if it had been necessary to get an agreement I think I would not
have withheld my assent to that change. But I was unable to agree
6
to the surrender of the provision in the Senate bill directing the com-
mission, when it should be appointed, to make an immediate investiga-
tion of what is known as pooling between railroads and to report their
conclusions and recommendations thereupon to Congress, and substitute
therefor the absolute prohibition under penalties of a thousand dollars
a day for non-compliance, with the provision which was contained in
the House bill or the House amendment to the Senate bill.
I do not at this time deem it necessary to give at length the reasons
which made it impossible for me to assent to this recommendation of
the committee of conference. If the matter should be discussed, as I
suppose it will be in the future, I should hope to be able to satisfy the
Senate that those reasons were weighty, and that they were such as
fully justified me in the somewhat unusual course of withholding my
signature to the report of the conference committee.
I will say now, however, that I think the public prejudice, if there
be one, existing against pooling by railroads is largely the result of
ignorance on the part of the public as to what railroad pools really are.
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDs] suggests “want of infor-
mation.” I do not know that the public is ever ignorant, but I do
believe that there exists a very great deal of misapprehension in the
public mind as to the nature, the effect, the result upon the general
welfare of the country of pooling contracts between railroads; and I
believe, as I thought the Senate believed, that the bill as it was passed
by the Senate was calculated to cure whatever evils had grown out of
the system of railroad pooling, so that before the report of the commis-
sion which was provided for in the Senate bill upon this subject should
be made, the people would have become convinced that the evils which
they supposed to result from the pooling of freights by railroads were
either imaginary or had been cured by the operation of the bill which
was passed by the Senate.
I was not unmindful of the fact that all interstate commerce, so far
as relates to freight, is to-day transacted under pooling arrangements
by the railroads, and that an absolute prohibition of pooling was to
break up at once, or, as the bill now reads, within sixty days after its
passage, every arrangement by which the interstate commerce business
of this country is at present conducted. It seemed to me, with my
knowledge of the history of the management of railroads, and with my
knowledge of legislation upon this subject, that the result would be an
immediate rate-war by all the railroads of the United States. At least
that was my apprehension, and I believed that the evils and conse-
quences which would result from that would be very much greater in
their injurious effects upon the public, upon the prosperity of the coun-
try, than any evils which now exist by reason of what are known as
pooling contracts. -
I do not desire to say more at this time.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I did not expect to say anything on
the general subject of the bill, and I shall only add a word to what has
been stated.
I think that my colleague on the committee is probably laboring un-.
der undue fear of the consequences of the passage of this bill on account
of the prohibition of pooling. One of the purposes of the bill itself by
requiring publicity of rates and preventing change of rates to a higher
schedule, except on ten days’ notice, is to bring about that stability of
rates which the railroad companies themselves are appealing to us to
have brought about, because under the system of pooling they have
not been able to bring it about.
7
So, in my judgment, the apprehension of the Senator from Connecti-
cut that it is going to be injurious to the business of the country will
prove to be unfounded; at least I hope and I believe so. I think every
Senator will bear me out in saying that I have not been disposed to
consent to anything going into this bill that was unreasonable, at least
in my own judgment. As I said a moment ago, I would not have
consented to the provision of the bill prohibiting pooling if I believed
that it would bring upon the country that sort of trouble which the
Senator from Connecticut indicates that he apprehends. Every one
knows that the railroad companies themselves have finally become rec-
onciled to some national legislation, because they have not been able to
protect themselves, one from another, and I think that the provisions
of this bill in relation to publicity, and the other provisions to guard
against various wrong-doings on their part, will have very great force
and effect in bringing about that sort of stability which it has been
the ostensible purpose at least of pooling to secure. I hope, my-
self, that when this bill comes up for consideration we shall have fair
consideration of it, fair discussion of it, and I believe that the Senate,
if it is going to agree to any bill at all on this subject, ought to take
the conference report.
Every one knows that this question has been bandied about here
from one Congress to another for many years, and Congress has never
yet done anything on the subject. The Supreme Court of the United
States, within the last two or three months, has made a decision which
throws upon Congress the unquestionable duty of legislation regulat-
ing interstate commerce if we believe it ought to have any regulation.
While the bill is not exactly as I wanted it, while it is not exactly the
bill of the Senate, yet except as to the provision in regard to pooling
it is practically the Senate bill, and I hope that Senators when the time
comes for its consideration will allow the report to be concurred in.
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I wish to express my surprise that
the chairman of the committee should refuse to accede to what seems
to me the reasonable request of Senators, that this bill may go over and
be set down for a day certain after the coming recess.
The proposition of the chairman of the committee is this, that this
bill shall be printed, which will take at least until Friday, and then
he proposes to call it up on Monday, which will give Senators one day .
to understand the elaborate and complex provisions of a bill affecting
every person in the United States. It will give us twenty-four hours
to consider the bill.
I do not propose at this time to discuss the bill, but I will say that
so far as I understand the report its essential provisions are such as the
Senate has refused to accede to, or they are propositions which have
never been discussed in the Senate at all. That being true, it seems to
me that in fairness to all the interests concerned the chairman of the
committee should assent to having the bill set down for a day certain
after the recess. As the Senator from Massachusetts has very well sug-
gested there are a great many important interests to be considered; the
representatives of those interests should have a right to see this billin
print more than twenty-four hours, as well as the members of Congress,
before we are called upon to vote on it.
Of course, I have no control over the action of the chairman of the
Committee, but it seems to me that he should not show what it seems
to me is undue haste in a matter of this importance.
Mr. McPHERSON. I should like to offer a resolution asking for
paperS.
*
8
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. This question has not yet been dis-
posed of.
Mr. CULLOM. I hope it will be disposed of before other business
is received.
Mr. SABIN. I desire to supplement the request and the statements
of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Rhode Island
in reference to this bill, and I appeal to the chairman of the committee
to consent to the setting of a day after the recess, and that that day
shall not be fixed sooner than at least four or five days or a week after
the proposed recess of Congress. It will be impossible for me to be
present here on Monday next, the day which he suggests, or to be pres-
ent from that day until after the recess; and I presume there is not a
constituency in this country that has more vital interests at stake in
the provisions of this bill than the constituency in Minnesota which I
have the honor in part to represent. I have already been flooded with
telegrams from shippers and carriers asking for copies of the report of
the conference committee. I expect to see a number of those interested
parties upon my visit to my home during the recess, and I wish to con-
fer with them in reference to the provisions agreed on by the confer-
ence committee. There probably has not been a bill before Congress
for many years that has elicited a warmer and deeper interest from the
business interests of the country than the bill which it is proposed to
consider at the time that may, be fixed.
I appeal again to the chairman to fix a day, and make it at least a
week after the reassembling of Congress on the expiration of the pro-
posed holiday recess, which I presume will be taken.
Mr. CULLOM. There is only one motion before the Senate, Mr.
President, and that is to lay on the table and print.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois moves
that the report of the committee of conference be printed with the bill
of the Senate, the amendment of the House, and the amendments now
reported by the conference committee, in the order named, and that
the report lie on the table.
Mr. McMILLAN. What number of copies will be printed under
the general motion ?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of
the Senator from IJlinois [Mr. CULLOM].
The motion was agreed to. -
Mr. CULLOM. I move now that 5,000 copies of the bill as reported
from the conference committee be printed for the use of the Senate.
Mr. ALDRICH. I would also suggest that the bill as reported be
printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion to print the extra copies
will be referred to the Committee on Printing. #
Mr. ALDRICH. I suggest that the bill as amended be printed in
to-morrow morning's RECORD.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island
moves that the bill as amended be printed in the RECORD. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and that order will be made.
The conference report is as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1532) to regulate
commerce, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recom-
mend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its amendment and agree to the bill of the Sen-
ate, with the following amendment thereto, in the nature of a substitute, and
that the Senate agree to the same: -
9
AMEND MENT.
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following:
That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers
engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad,
or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common
control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment,
from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to
any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or
from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any
place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the
United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped
from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such
place to a port of transshipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place
in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the
|United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the pro-
visions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or prop-
erty, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly
within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any
State or Territory as aforesaid.
The term “railroad '' as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries
used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a
contract, agreement, or lease; and the term “transportation ” shall include all
instrumentalities of shipment or carriage.
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivery, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reasonable
and just, and every unjust, unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited
and declared to be unlawful. --
SEC. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device,
charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less
compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation
of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges,
demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such
common carriershall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby
prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or
any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject
any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular
description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage
in ariy respect whatsoever.
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according to
their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for
the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving,
forwarding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several
lines and those connecting there with, and shall not discriminate in their rates
and charges between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as
requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal
facilities to another carrier engaged in like business.
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for alonger
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission,
be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the trans-
portation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act.
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different
and competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net pro-
ceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case
of an agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its contin-
uance shall be deemed a separate offense.
10
SEC. 6. That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall
print and keep for public inspection schedules showing the rates and fares and
charges for the transportation of passengers and property which any such com-
mon carrier has established and which are in force at the time upon its railroad,
as defined by the first section of this act. The schedules printed as aforesaid by
any such common carrier shall plainly state the places upon its railroad be-
tween which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the
classification of freight in force upon such railroad, and shall also state sepa-
rately the terminal charges and any rules or regulations which in any wise
change, affect, or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates and
fares and charges. Such schedules shall be plainly printed in large type, of at
least the size of ordinary pica, and copies for the use of the public shall be kept
in every depot or station upon any such railroad, in such places and in such
form that they can be conveniently inspected. }
Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act receiving freight in
the United States to be carried through a foreign country to any place in the
United States shall also in like manner print and keep for public inspection, at
every depot where such freight is received for shipment, schedules showing
the through rates established and charged by such common carrier to all points
in the United States beyond the foreign country to which it accepts freight for
shipment; and any freight shipped from the United States through a foreign
country into the United States, the through rate on which shall not have been
made public as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United
Sta es from said foreign country, be subject to customs duties as if said freight
were of foreign production; and any law in conflict with this section is hereby
repealed.
No advance shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges which have been
established and published as aforesaid by any common carrier in compliance with
the requirements of this section, except after ten days’ public notice, which shall
plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force, and
the time when the increased rates, fares, or charges will go into effect ; and the
proposed changes shall be shown by printing new schedules, or shall be plainly
indicated upon the schedules inforce at the time and kept for public inspection.
Reductions in such published rates, fares, or charges may be made without
previous public notice; but whenever any such reduction is made, notice of the
same shall immediately be publicly posted and the changes made shall imme-
diately be made public by printing new schedules, or shall immediately be plain-
ly indicated upon the schedules at the time in force and kept for public inspec-
tion. *
And when any such common carrier shall have established and published its
rates, fares, and charges, in compliance with the provisions of this section, it
shall be unlawful for such common carrier to charge, demand, collect, or receive
from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for the transportation
of passengers or property, or for any services in connection there with, than is
specified in such published schedule of rates, fares, and charges as may at the
time be in force.
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the
commission hereinafter provided for copies of its schedules of rates, fares, and
charges which have been established and published in compliance with the
requirements of this section, and shall promptly motify said commission of all
changes made in the same. Every such common carrier shall also file with said
commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other
counmon carriers in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this act
to which it may be a party. And in cases where passengers and freight pass
over continuous lines or routes Operated by more than one common carrier,
and the several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish
oint tariffs of rates or fares or charges for such continuous lines or routes,
copies of such joint tariffs shall also, in like manner, be filed with said com-
mission. Such joint rates, fares, and charges on such continuous lines so filed
as aforesaid shall be made public by such common carriers when directed by
said commission, in so far as may, in the judgment of the commission, be deemed
practicable; and said commission shall from time to time prescribe the measure
of publicity which shall be given to such rates, fares, and charges, or to such
part of them as it may deem it practicable for such connnnon carriers to publish,
and the places in which they shall be published; but no common carrier party
to any such joint tariff shall be liable for the failure of any other common car-
rier party thereto to observe and adhere to the rates, fares, or charges thus made
and published.
If any such common carrier shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its
schedules or tariffs of rates, fares, and charges as provided in this section, or
any part of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to other penalties
herein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit
court of the United States in the judicial district wherein the principal office of
said common carrier is situated or wherein such offense may be committed,
and if such common carrier be a foreign corporation, in the judicial circuit
11
wherein such common carrier accepts traffic and has an agent to perform such
service, to compel compliance with the aforesaid provisions of this section;
and such writ shall issue in the name of the people of the United States, at the
relation of the commissioners appointed under the provisions of this act; and
failure to comply with its requirements shall be punishable as and for a con-
tempt; and the said commissioners, as complainants, Inay also apply, in any
such circuit court of the United States, for a writ of injunction against such
common carrier, to restrain such common carrier from receiving or transporting
property among the several States and Territories of the United States, or be-
tween the United States and adjacent foreign countries, or between ports of
transshipment and of entry and the several States and Territories of the United
States, as mentioned in the first section of this act, until such common carrier
shall have complied with the aforesaid provisions of this section of this act.
SEC. 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or agreement, ex-
pressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time schedule, carriage in different
cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage of freights from being continuous
from the place of shipment to the place of destination ; and no break of bulk,
stoppage, or interruption made by such common carrier shall prevent the car-
riage of freights from being and being treated as one continuous carriage from
the place of shipment to the place of destination, unless such break, stoppage,
or interruption was made in good faith for some necessary purpose, and with-
out any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous carriage or
to evade any of the provisions of this act.
SEC. 8. That in case any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act
shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any act, matter, or thing in this
act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall omit to do any act, matter, or
thing in this act required to be done, such common carrier shall be liable to the
person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in
consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this act, together with a
reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of re-
covery, which attorney’s fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the costs in
the case. - -
SEC. 9. That any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act may either make complaint to the
commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring stuit in his or their own
behalf for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may
be liable under the provisions of this act, in any district or circuit court of
the United States of competent jurisdiction ; but such person or persons shall
not have the right to pursue both of said remedies, and must in each éase elect,
which one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will
adopt. In any such action brought for the recovery of damages the court be-
fore which the same shall be pending may compel any director, officer, receiver,
trustee, or agent of the corporation or company defendant in such suit to
attend, appear, and testify in such case, and may compel the production of the
books and papers of such corporation or company party to any such suit; the
claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person
giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying, but such
evidence or testimony shall not be used againt such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding. -
SEC, 10. That any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or, when-
ever such common carrier is a corporation, any director or officer thereof, or any
receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person acting for or employed by such cor-
poration, who, alone or with any other corporation, company, person, or party,
shall willfully do or cause to be done, or shall willingly suffer or permit to be
done, any act, matter, or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be unlaw-
ful, or who shall aid or abet therein, or shall willfully omit or fail to do any
act, matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or shall cause or willingly
suffer or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act to
be done not to be so dome, or shall aid or abet any such onission or failure, or
shall be guilty of any infraction of this act, or shall aid or abet therein, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any dis-
trict court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such offense was
committed, be subject to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 for each offense.
SEC. li. That a commission is hereby created and established, to be known as
the interstate commerce commission, which shall be composed of five commis-
Sioners, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The commissioners first appointed under this act shall
continue in office for the term of two, three, four, five, and six years, respectively,
from the 1st day of January, A. D. 1887, the term of each to be designated by the
President; but their successors shall be appointed for terms of six years, except
that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unex-
pired term of the commissioner whom he shall succeed. Any commissioner
may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance
in office. Not more than three of the commissioners shall be appointed from
12
the Saule political party. No person in the employ of, or holding any official
relation to, any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or owning
stock or bonds thereof, or who is in any way pecuniarily interested therein, shall
enter upon the duties of or hold such office. Said commissioners shall not engage
in any other business, vocation, or employment. No vacancy in the commis-
sion shall impair the right of the remaining commissioners to exercise all the
powers of the commission. -
SEC, 12. That the commission hereby created shall have authority to inquire
into the management of the business of all common carriers subject to the pro-
visions of this act, and shall keep itself informed as to the manner and method
in which the same is conducted, and shall have the right to obtain from such
common carriers full and complete information necessary to enable the com-
mission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created;
and for the purposes of this act the commission shall have power to require the
attendance nd testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers,
tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under in-
vestigation, and to that end may invoke the aid of any court of the United .
States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the produc-
tion of books, papers, and documents under the provisions of this section.
And any of the circuit courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of
which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey
a subpoena issued to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act,
or other person, issue an order requiring such common carrier or other person
to appear before said commission (and produce books and papers if so ordered)
and give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. The
claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person
giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but such
evidence or testinhony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding.
SEC. 13. That any person, firm, corporation, or association, or any mercantile,
agricultural, or manufacturing Society, or amy body politic or municipal organ-
ization, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act in contravention of the provisions
thereof, may apply to said commission by petition, which shall briefly state the
facts; whereupon a statement of the charges thus made shall be forwarded by
the commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the
complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time, to be
specified by the commission. If such common carrier, within the time specified,
shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, said carrier shall
be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular violation of law
thus complained of. If such carrier shall not satisfy the complaint within the
time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigat-
ing said complaint, it shall be the duty of the commission to investigate the mat-
ters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper.
Said commission shall in like manner investigate any complaint forwarded
by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any State or Territory,
at the request of such commissioner or commission, and may institute any in-
quiry on its own motion in the same nanner and to the same effect as though
complaint had been made. -
No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct
damage to the complainant. -
SEC. 14. That whenever an investigation shall be made by said commission,
it shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall
include the findings of fact upon which the conclusions of the commission are
based, together with its recommendation as to what reparation, if any, should
be made by the common carrier to any party or parties who may be found to
have been injured ; and such findings so made shall thereafter, in all judicial
proceedings, be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found.
All reports of investigations made by the commission shall be entered of rec-
ord, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the party who may have com-
plained, and to any common carrier that may have been complaimed of.
SEC. I5. That if in any case in which an investigation shall be made by Said
commission it shall be unade to appear to the satisfaction of the commission,
either by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence, that anything has been
done or omitted to be done in violation of the provisions of this act, or of any
law cognizable by said commission, by any common carrier, or that any injury
or damage has been sustained by the party or parties complaining, or by other
parties aggrieved in consequence of any such violation, it shall be the duty of
the commission to forth with cause a copy of its report in respect thereto to be
delivered to such common carrier, together with a notice to said common car-
rier to cease and desist from such violation, or to make reparation for the in-
jury so found to have been done, or both, within a reasonable time, to be speci-
fied by the commission; and if, within the time speciſie (, it sh;all be made to
appear to the commission that such common carrier lus ceased from such vio-
13
lation of law, and has made reparation for the injury found to have been done,
in compliance with the report and notice of the commission, or to the satisfac-
tion of the party complaining, a statement to that effect shall be entered of rec-
ord by the commission, and the said common carrier shall thereupon be relieved
from further liability or penalty for such particular violation of law.
SEC. 16. That whenever any common earrier, as defined in and subject to the
provisions of this act, shall violate or refuse or neglect to obey any lawful order
or requirement of the commission in this act named, it shall be the duty of the
commission. and lawful for any company or person interested in such order or
requirement, to apply, in a summary way, by petition, to the circuit court of the
United States sitting in equity in the judicial district in which the common car-
rier complained of has its principal office, or in which the violation or disobedi-
ence of such order or requirement shall happen, alleging such violation or dis-
obedience, as the case may be: and the said court shall h.lve power to hear and
determine the matter, on such short notice to the common carrier complained
of as the court shall deem reasonable; and such notice may be served on such
common carrier, his or its officers, agents, or servants, in such manner as the
court shall direct; and said court shall proceed to hear and determine the mat-
ter speedily as a court of equity and without the formal pleadings and proceed-
ings applicable to ordinary suits in equity, but in such manner as to do justice
in the premises; and to this end such court shall have power, if it think fit, to
direct and prosecute, in such mode and by such persons as it may appoint, all
such inquiries as the court may think needful to enable it to form a just judg-
ment in the matter of such petition; and on such hearing the report of said
commission shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated ; and if it
be made to appear to such court, on such hearing or on report of any such person
or persons, that the lawful order or requirement of said commission drawn in
question has been violated or disobeyed, it shall be lawful for such court to issue
a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain
such common carrier from further continuing such violation or disobedience of
such order or requirement of said commission, and enjoining obedience to the
same; and in case of any disobedience of any such writ of injunction or other
proper process, mandatory or otherwise, it shall be lawful for such court to issue
writs of attachment, or any other process of said court incident or applicable to
writs of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, against such
common carrier, and if a corporation, against one or more of the directors, of
ficers, or agents of the same, or against any owner, lessee, trustee, receiver, or
other person failing to obey such writ of injunction or other proper process,
mandatory or otherwise; and said court may, if it shall think fit, make an order
directing such common carrier or other person so disobeying such writ of in-
junction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to pay such sum of
money not exceeding for each carrier or person in default the sum of $500 for
every day after a day to be named in the order that such carrier or other per-
son shall fail to obey such injunction or other proper process, mandatory or
otherwise; and such money's shall be payable as the court shall direct, either
to the party complaining, or into court to abide the ultimate decision of the
court, or into the Treasury; and payment thereof may, without prejudice to
any other mode of recovering the same, be enforced by attachment or order
in the nature of a writ of execution, in like manuer as if the same had been
recovered by a final decree in personam in such court. When the subject in
dispute shall be of the value of $2,000 or more, either party to such proceeding
before said court may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States,
under the same regulations now provided by law in respect of security for
such appeal; but such appeal shall not operate to stay or supersede the order
of the court or the execution of any writ or process thereon ; and such court
may, in every such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as
shall be deemed reasonable. Whenever any such petition shall be filed or pre-
sented by the commission it shall be the duty of the district attorney, under the
direction of the Attorney-General of the United States, to prosecute the same :
and the costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropri-
ation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. For the purposes of
this act, excepting its penal provisions, the circuit courts of the United States
shall be deemed to be always in session.
SEC. 17. That the commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as
will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice. A
majority of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of busi-
ness, but no commissioner shall participate in any hearing or proceeding in
which he has any pecuniary interest. Sand commission may, from time to time,
make or amend such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the order
and regulation of proceedings before it, including forms of notices and the serv-
ice thereof, which shall conform, as nearly as may be, to those in use in the
courts of the United States. Any party may appear before said commission and
be heard, in person or by attorney. Every vote and official act of the commis-
sion shall be entered of record, and its proceedings shall be public upon the re-
quest of either party interested. Said commission shall have an official seal,
14
which shall be judicially noticed. Either of the members of the commission
may administer oaths and affirmations.
SEC. 18. That each commissioner shall receive an anuual salary of $7,500, pay-
able in the same manner as the salaries of judges of the courts of the United
States. The commission shall appoint a secretary, who shall receive an annual
salary of $3,500, payable in like manner The commission shall have authority
to employ and fix the compensation of such other employes as it may find neces-
sary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
The commission shall be furnished by the Secretary of the Interior with suit-
able offices and all necessary office supplies. Witnesses summoned before the
commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in
the courts of the United States. All of the expenses of the commission, including
all necessary expenses for transportation incurred by the commissioners, or by
their employés under their orders, in making any investigation in any other
places than in the city of Washington, shall be allowed and paid, on the presen-
tation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the chairman of the commis-
sion and the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 19. That the principal office of the commission shall be in the city of
Washington, where its general sessions shall be held ; but whenever the con-
venience of the public or of the parties may be promoted or delay or expense
prevented thereby, the commissuon may hold special sessions in any part of
the United States. It may, by one or more of the commissioners, prosecute
any inquiry necessary to its duties, in any part of the United States, into any
matter or qucstion of fact pertaining to the business of any common carrier
subject to the provisions of this act.
SEC. 20. That the commission is hereby authorized to require annual reports
from all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act, to fix the time and
prescribe the manner in which such reports shall be made, and to require from
such carriers specific answers to all questions upon which the commission may
need information. Such annual reports shall show in detail the amount of cap-
ital stock issued, the amounts paid therefor, and the manner of payment for
the same; the dividends paid, the surplus fund, if any, and the number of stock-
holders: the funded and floating debts, and the interest paid thereon ; the cost
and value of the carrier's property, franchises, and equipment ; the number of
employés, and the salary paid each class; the announts expended for improve-
ments each year, how experided, and the character of such improvements; the
earnings and receipts from each branch of business and from all sources; the
operating and other expenses; the balances of profit and loss; and a complete
exhibit of the financial operations of the carrier each year, including an annual
balance-sheet. Such reports shall also contain such information in relation to
rates or regulations, concerning fares or freights, or agreements, arrangements,
or contracts with other common carriers, as the commission may require; and
the said commission may, within its discretion, for the purpose of enabling it
the better to carry out the purposes of this act, prescribe (if in the opinion of the
commission it is practicable to prescribe such uniformity and methods of keep-
ing accounts) a period of time within which all common carriers subject to the
provisions of this act shall have, as near as may be, a uniform system of ae-
counts, and the manner in which such accounts shall be kept.
SEC, 21. That the commission shall, on or before the 1st day of December in
each year, make a report to the Secretary of the Interior, which shall be by him
transmitted to Congress, and copies of which shall be distributed as are the other
reports issued from the linterior Department. This report shall contain such in-
formation and data collected by the commission as may be considered of value
in the determination of questions connected with the regulation of commerce,
together with such recommendations as to additional legislation relating thereto
as the commission may deem necessary.
SEC. 22 That nothing in this act shall apply to the carriage, storage, or hand-
ling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States, State, or munici-
pal governments, or for charitable purposes, or to or from fairs and expositions
for exhibition thereat, or the issuance of mileage, excursion, or commutation
passenger tickets; nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any com-
mon carrier from giving reduced rates to ministers of religion; nothing in this
act shall be construed to prevent railroads from giving free carriage to their own
officers and croployés, or to prevent the principal officers of any railroad com-
pany or companies from exchanging passes or tickets, with other railroad com-
panies for their officers and employés; and nothing in this act contained shall
in any way a bridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by
statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies: Provided,
That no pending litigation shall in any way be affected by this act.
SEC. 23. That the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropriated for the use and pur-
poses of this act for the fiscal year ending June 30, A. D. 1888, and the inter-
vening time anterior thereto.
SEC. 24. That the provisions of sections 11 and 18 of this act, relating to the ap-
pointment and organization of the commission herein provided for, shall take
15
ar
effect immediately, and the remaining provisions of this act shall take effect
sixty days after its passage.
S. M. CUI,LOM
išHAM G. HARRIs,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
JOHN H. REAGAN,
CHARLES F. CRISP,
A. J. WEAVER,
Managers on the part of the House.
Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, the report of the committee of con-
ference on the interstate commerce bill now lies on the table, and I un-
derstand according to the practice of the Senate it is subject to be called
up at any time. It is unquestionably the most important subject that
has been before this session of Congress, and in its bearings upon com-
merce hereafter is entitled, I think, to very deliberate and free discus-
sion. I have not had the opportunity of examining the report, but I
understand that several of the positions that were taken by the Senate,
after protracted debate, have been abandoned by the report of the com-
mittee of conference, and I think there ought to be some definite under-
standing now as to the time when this report is to be called up for con-
sideration. And if I am authorized, or can obtain the floor for that
purpose now, I wish to submit a motion that the consideration of this
report be postponed until the second Monday in January next, which
will be a few days after the ordinary reassembling of Congress for the
customary holiday recess.
Mr. CULLOM. I gave notice that i would not call up the report
during this week, and not until Monday or Tuesday of next week. In
the mean time it will be printed, so that every Senator will have an
opportunity to see what it is. If, when the time comes for calling it
up, it is the judgment of the Senate that it can not be considered be-
fore the holidays, or only in part, so far as I am concerned I shall not
be disposed to undertake to crowd the measure through the Senate be-
fore giving the Senate ample time for proper consideration. But it
seems to me that the Senator’s motion could be made on Tuesday of
next week, when I shall hope to call the report up, if it shall be de-
termined in the mean time to call it up on that day. It may be that
the circumstances of the Senate will be such that I shall determine not
to call it up until after the holidays, but I prefer now to give notice to
the Senate that on Tuesday next at 2 o'clock I will call it up for con-
sideration. When that time comes, if the Senator insists or thinks it
ought to be postponed he can make his motion at that time. I think
that would be the better course.
Mr. JNGALLS. I presume that we all know now as well as we shall
on Tuesday next that this bill and the report of the committee of con-
ference will not be finally acted upon before the 1st of January.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not know whether that is so or not. Nobody
knows.
Mr. ING ALLS. My impression is that we do know that the ques-
tions nvolved are of such magnitude and importance that the action
of the committee of conference, if I am correctly informed, has been
so in opposition to the expressed determination of the Senate upon some
very important points involved in this subject, that with the waning
numbers that are liable to occur from this time onward there is no
human likelihood or probability that this matter will be considered be-
fore the 1st day of January.
The Senator from Illinois says it is not certain that we shall have a
holiday recess. Of course it is not, but it is more than probable; and
16
it is certain that, whether there is one or not, the members of this body
will in large numbers depart during that festal season. On Tuesday
next it is more than likely that I shall be absent myself. I know others
intend to be; and therefore I say it is wise and just aud proper, and
in accordance with justice, that this great measure should not be left
hanging up in the atmosphere in this way; that we should all be en-
abled to see definitely that nothing will be done about it until after
there has been time for debate and consideration, which will not occur
before the first day of January.
I wish, therefore, the Senator from Illinois—and I can not conceive
his reason to be contrary—would consent, for the convenience of us all,
for the advantage of debate which will occur in the public prints and
elsewhere that we may be enlightened and illuminated, to allow this
thing to pass over, as I think the concurrence of a majority of his asso-
ciates would suggest.
Mr. CULLOM. One word further, Mr. President. As I said a while
ago, this subject has been before Congress now for a great many years,
and session after session we have failed to pass any law relative to the
question until the country has got to believe that we do not-intend to
pass any law on the subject. This session, as the Senator knows, is a
short one. It is only necessary to defeat a measure to postpone its con-
sideration a few times and the session is gone by. I am perfectly
willing to consent to any understanding or agreement that will not
jeopardize the passage of the bill. After a decision of the Supreme
Court has been made throwing upon us the onus of regulating inter-
state commerce, if we pretend to be in favor of any regulation we can-
not afford to allow this session to go by without passing some proper
bill, and I say simply that I desire to call the bill up on next Tuesday
for consideration. I do not expect that we are going to pass it in a day;
but unless we begin its consideration nobody can tell whether we shall
ever pass it or not. If the bill is allowed to come up on next Tuesday,
let Senators who desire to talk upon it talk, and if we have a recess
that comes in before the proper consideration of the bill is disposed of
we can take the recess and the bill will go over until after the holidays
have passed by. But unless we do press the bill forward with a view
to getting it through this branch of Congress and allowing the other
branch to have an opportunity to consider it as well—and if we dis-
agree to it we have got to have another conference and perhaps a further
one—the result will be, if we do not go on with it as rapidly as possi-
ble, that we shall not reach a conclusion at all by which we shall get
any legislation.
So I trust any motion which is made now to set the report down for
the second Monday or whatever day the Senator names in January will
be voted upon with the understanding that I shall call it up on next
Tuesday, and if the Senate is prepared to go on and consider it we can
do so at that time.
Mr. CALL Mr. President, I hope the Senate will not postpone the
consideration of this bill until after the holidays. The country cer-
tainly demands the passage of this bill or something akin to it, and it
will not be passed if we postpone it until after the holidays, when there
will be not over two months of practical working time.
The bill is certainly one of the most important that could be pre-
sented to Congress and one of the most necessary to be passed, and
passed without delay. I am not prepared to say that I approve the
provisions of the conference report, and some time is needed to con-
sider it, but certainly not longer than the Senator from Illinois pro-
17
poses before a commencement of the consideration of this bill shall be
had. I hope, therefore, that the Senator from Illinois will insist on
taking up this bill and commencing the consideration of it at the earliest
possible day. g
Mr. SABIN. Mr. President, I am unqualifiedly in favor of press-
ing this bill or sonle other bill, having in view the objects which it is
intended to cover by the measure now before the Senate. It may be
that on consideration and examination I shall be unqualifiedly in favor
of this bill as agreed upon by the conference committee. But I do not
believe that the interests of this great country will suffer by a ten days'
postponement of this bill as much as they will suffer by a hasty and
ill-advised consideration of it.
I can not see why the chairman of the committee should insist upon
calling the bill up on next Tuesday, when certainly it is obvious to me,
as it must be to every member of the Senate, that it is going to elicit a
very warm and protracted discussion, and for myself I wish very much
to be present when that discussion commences, and to be here during
its continuance.
If there is any prospect of the bill being called up on Tuesday next,
I desire and propose to be here, but it would be a matter of very great
inconvenience to myself, and I think it would be to many other mem-
bers of the Senate. I do not believe that the bill will he hastened or
that the objects for which it is intended will be served by pressing the
consideration of it at this time. I certainly wish that the motion of
the Senator from Kansas may be adopted at this time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair did not understand the
Senator from Kansas as making any motion, but as making a sugges-
tion. Does the Senator make a motion?
Mr. ING ALLS. I submitted to the Chair the parliamentary ques-
tion whether in the present state of the bill I could make that motion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore The Chair is of opinion that the
Senate may proceed now to consider the bill. It is on the Calendar,
having been simply laid on the table, and is open to a motion.
Mr. ING ALLS. I understood the action of the Senate to be to lay
the bill on the table by motion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is laid on the table, but a motion
to proceed to its present consideration the Chair thinks is in order at
this time, it being between 1 and 2 o’clock.
Mr. ING ALLS. I think on deliberation I will let my motion lie
over until Tuesday.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Calendar is now in order.
Mr. HOAR. Before this matter passes—
Mr. PLUMB. I thought I had the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas has the
floor on the resolution offered this morning.
Mr. HOAR. I ask what number of copies is it proposed to print?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five thousand extra copies; and that
resolution has gone to the Committee on Printing.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER. 21, 1886.
* * 3. * * * *
ORDER OF BUSINESS—CONFERENCE REPORTS.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The morning business is now closed,
and the Calendar is in order.
I S C–2
18
Mr. WEST. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of
the bill (S. 2589) being Order of Business 1453.
( Mr. gºow I desire to call up the conference report on the bill
S. 1532).
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is not now in order until the
º is taken on the motion of the Senator from Missouri [Mr.
WEST].
Mr. EDMUNDS. Let the title of the bill be read for information.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The title of the bill the Senator
from Mississippi proposes to take up will be read,
The CHIEF CLERK. “A bill (S. 2589) authorizing the construction
of a bridge over the Mississippi River at Saint Louis, Mo.”
Mr. ALLISON. I hope the Senator from Missouri will not ask the
Senate to take up that bill to-day. There is a contest respecting the
manner of constructing this bridge, as the Senator knows, and many
people are interested in it. I understand an examination is now being
made by the engineers of the War Department respecting the proper
mode of constructing a bridge at this point, having reference to the
preservation of the navigation of the river. I think that report will
be in after the holidays. I trust the Senator will allow the bill to go
over without prejudice until after that time.
Mr. VEST. I can not agree to that. The bill has been pending
here now several months. It was reported by the Committee on Com-
merce months ago. I know there is a contest about it; but I want
that contest settled. If the bill is put off until after the holidays it
delays the construction of the bridge; there is no other result.
This is a bill of the very greatest importance to the people of the
West, not only to the city of Saint Louis but to the States beyond. It
is a proposition to construct a free bridge across the Mississippi River
at Saint Louis. I know the interest the Senator from Iowa speaks of
that is opposing it. All we want is a fair discussion and an immediate
decision. Therefore I insist on my motion. *
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion of
the Senator from Missouri. -
Mr. GEORGE. If that motion prevails, what effect will it have on
the unfinished business?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. None at all. The question is on the
motion of the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. ALLISON. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
Mr. MCMILLAN. I desire to say that I think this matter will lead
to a prolonged discussion. There is a report of the committee in favor
of this bill, but it is not a unanimous report. There was a decided
conflict and difference of opinion in regard to the matter in committee, .
so that it will lead to a long discussion, and on the eve of an adjourn-
ment for the holiday recess I think it had better not be taken up.
Mr. HARRIS. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will hear the Senator.
Mr. HARRIS. The question that I want to propound is, is not the
motion of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] a privileged ques-
tion, and does it not take precedence of the motion of the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. VEST]?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is of the opinion that
under the rules the motion to take up bills must be taken in their order
without debate. Debate is out of order.
Mr. HARRIS. The motion of the Senator from Illinois was to take
up the report of the conference committee on the interstate-commerce
19
.*.
bill. My opinion is that it is a privileged question, that he has a
right to call it up at any moment he chooses to do so.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will examine the rules.
[A pause.] The Chair will have Rule IX read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
RULE IX.
(). RDER OF BUSINESS.
Immediately after the consideration of cases not objected to upon the Calen-
dar is completed, and not later than 2 o'clock, if there shall be no special orders
for that time, the Calendar of General Orders shall be taken up and proceeded
with in its order, beginning with the first subject on the Calendar next after the
last subject disposed of in proceeding with the Calendar; and in such case the
following motions shall be in order at any time as privileged motions, save as
against a nuotion, to adjourn, or to proceed to the consideration of executive
business, or questions of privilege, to wit:
First. A motion to proceed to the consideration of an appropriation or
revenue bill,
Second. A motion to proceed to the consideration of any other bill on the
Calendar, which motion shall not be open to amendment.
Third. A motion to pass over the pending subject, which, if carried, shall
have the effect to leave such subject without plejudice in its place on the Cal-
endar. *
Fourth. A motion to place such subject at the foot of the Calendar.
Each of the foregoing motions shall be decided without debate, and shall
have precedence in the order above named, and may be submitted as in the nat-
ure and with all the rights of questions of order.
Mr. HARRIS. I ask the Chief Clerk to read the rule on the sub-
ject of conference reports. That is the rule to which I referred.
Mr. FRY E. Rule XXVII.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Rule XXVII will be read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
RULE XXVII
RELPORTS OF CONFERENCE COMIMITTEES
The presentation of repolts of committees of conference shall always be in or-
der, except when the Journal is being read or a question of order or a rhotion to
adjourn is pending, or while the Senate is dividing; and when received, the
question of proceeding to the consideration of the report, if raised, shall be imme-
diately put, and shall be determined without debate.
Mr. CULLOM. That indicates, I think, that I have a right to make
the motion whenever I can get the floor to do so; but it is in the power
of the Senate to determine whether it will consider the subject or not.
If I may be allowed to make a statement in reference to this subject
at this time, I will do so.
The PRESIDENT proteinpure. The Chair will determine the point of
order in the first place. The Chair is of opinion that pending a motion
to proceed to the consideration of a bill, under the last clause of the eighth
rule, it would be in order to move to proceed to the consideration of a
conference report. The two rules when construed together give to a
conference report the privilege of being taken up at the pleasure of the
Senate as against every other question except a motion to adjourn or
when the Senate is dividing. So when the Senator from Illinois shall
make such a motion—the Chair does not understand that the Senator
has yet made the motion—the Chair will put it. *
Mr. CULLOM. I rose to make the motion, and I only want to say,
if I may be allowed, that I desire to call up the report of the confer-
ence committee on the bill (S. 1532) for consideration to-day for the pur-
pose of giving the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] an opportunity to
make some remarks upon the bill, after which, in accordance with the
suggestion of very many Senators on both sides of the Chamber that it
would be impracticable to consider and vote upon the conference re-
20
*
port before the holidays, I have determined that, so far as I am con-
concerned, I shall consent, after the remarks of the Senator from Iowa,
to let the bill go over until after the holidays, with the annonncement
now that whenever the Senate shall resume its sessions I shall call up
the report again for consideration, and shall insist upon its considera-
tion from day to day until it is disposed of. 3.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator submit a motion
now to proceed to the consideration of the conference report?
Mr. CULLOM. I make the motion now to proceed to the consider-
ation of the conference report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is of opinion that the
motion is in order. The question is on the motion of the Senator from
Illinois to proceed to the consideration of the report of the committee
of conference on the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce. &
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The conference report is before the
Senate.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. President, it is more than a decade
since the agitation which finds a result in the report now commanding
our attention became active in Congress. It had moved upon the
minds of the people and made its presence felt by the instrumentalities
of State governments before it appeared here. At its inception it man-
ifested staying powers which portended ultimate success. It was an
assertion, by disturbed conditions and interests, of sections, localities,
business, of the forceful doctrine of equality on which our system of
government is founded. It was a cumulative declaration that that
doctrine is not confined in its application to the individual and his dis-
tinctive personal relations, but extends to all of the affairs, interests,
and relations that are evolved and established by organized communi-
ties and movements of government. It was an assertion that the
equality which has been our boast and pride from the beginning is a
principle of society applicable to all things upon which government
can act. Hence, the agitation, in the very nature of things, had staying
powers equal to all of the exactions which the struggle precedent to
Success might impose. -
A comparatively new system of transportation had, in effect and sub-
stantially, reversed all of our methods of domestic trade and commerce.
It had assaulted all of the doctrines of our long established law relative
to the duties and responsibilities of common carriers. It had asserted
a masterſul control of the doctrine of equal rights, and established in
its stead a practice of discrimination that at last shocked the people’s
sense of justice and fair play. It laid its usurping hand upon sections,
localities, associations, and individuals, and all of their interests of
trade, commerce, and business of whatsoever kind. It has steadily and
unreasonably refused to recognize the simplest business principles, and
marked out lines of action for itself, which have excited the resentment
of almost every interest it was created to serve. It has made itself an
intermeddler in almost every department of business and in almost
every detail thereof. It has refused to admit that it was created to
serve the proper purposes and interests of society, and has assumed to
direct and control them. Not the public interests, but its own have
been its study, forgetting that the true method of conserving the best
conditions of both is to recognize the equal rights of each.
The managers of this system, while admitting great defects in it in
respect of its own affairs, have resolutely opposed all efforts of the State
and National Governments to project and establish reforms which would
*2 i
ar
tend to assure justice and promote the common interest, and this ex-
plains why some conservative and proper legislation for the regulation
of the unsatisfactory conditions existing in the interstate commerce of
the country was not years ago enacted by Congress. There has been
no disposition on the part of the managers of our transportation sys-
tem to aid in the formulation of legislation which would tend to cor-
rect the abuses that they, in common with afflicted individuals and
communities, admit to exist. They have tried among themselves to
find remedies for some of these things in so far as they affect themselves
and the immediate interests committed to their charge, and have uni-
formly failed. They will neither keep faith with each other or allow
the public to aid them; and in all this they have done violence to their
own interests and have intensified the demand of the people for some
legislative remedy. It will not be wise to longer delay some affirma-
tive response to this demand.
Mr. President, the contest which has attended this subject has been
long and tedious. We have now reached a point in the movement when
something may be done. The adoption of the report of the confer-
ence committee which we are now considering, by both Houses of Con-
gress, while it will not accomplish all that I should like to have done,
will afford the country an opportunity to test a regulative remedy,
unless objections by the President be interposed by a veto of the bill.
That differences of opinion prevail relative to the various propositions
embodied in the report, we all know. But this is not a new phase of
the movement. From the very commencement of the agitation which
has culminated in the bill now before us, these differences bave existed.
The most earnest friends of legislative regulation of interstate com-
merce have never wholly agreed. But they have toilsomely pursued
the subject. Study, investigation, earnest effort they have pursued for
years. Both Houses of Congress have had their proper committees at
work on the subject for more than a decade. The public press has given
it prolonged attention and forceful discussion. All of these agencies
of information and effort, in so far as they have tended to affirmative
action, have been confronted by the opposition of the forces of the trans-
portation system of the country. These forces are active now, pleading
for further delay and more investigation. In the New York Tribune
of the 19th instant I read a reported interview with the president of
the New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad, and from it I make
the following extract. The question having been put to him, “What
do you suggest ?” he answered:
That Congress at once pass a bill sonnething like this, appointing five boards
of commissioners of three members each, to examine all questions involved and
clothed with all powers necessary to obtain thorough, accurate information, in-
cluding the examination of the books and accounts of the railroad companies,
one of these boards to act in the territory of the Pacific roads, one for the roads
northwest of Chicago, one for the States between the Mississippi and Ohio
Rivers, one for the Southern States, and one for the trunk lines; these commis-
sioners to assume their duties immediately upon their appointment by the
President and confirmation by the Senate, and be required to have their reports
ready by October 1, 1887. Then these fifteen commissioners, as a board, should
recommend to Congress when it reassembles next December suitable legisla-
tion to meet the requirements of the case and to settle this difficult problem.
No one need have any difficulty in arriving at the true meaning of
this statement. It simply means delay. For more than ten years this
has been the policy of the managers of the transporting companies of
the country. Their constant and ever repeated declaration has been
that Congress is not sufficiently informed in respect of the intricacies
of the transportation problem to act with due caution and wisdom
22
thereon. But Congress has for years been informing itself concerning
all of the phases of the question. Committees have spent months of
time in the investigation. They have visited various sections of the
country, examining hundreds of witnesses, and given to all parties and
interests ample opportunity to present their views. Report after re-
port has been made, accompanied by thousands of pages of printed
testimony, all of which have been open to the inspection of whomso-
ever cared to devote their time and give their attention thereto. There
is not a proposition either important or unimportant in the conference
report now before the Senate that has not been considered in the inves-
tigations of the committees of Congress time and again and year after
year. During all this time the demand has been for more delay, and
it has been allowed until the public has become tired of it and now de-
mands action.
But it is urged that there is great diversity of opinion relative to
what ought to be done in the premises. This is true. It has been true
from the beginning of the agitation. Will delay change this feature of
the case? Will the practices of the transporting companies in respect
of the things complained of by the people and concerning which this
report proposes remedies cease? Answering these questions in the light
of past experience, a negative must be given to each of them. How are
we to resolve this conflict of opinion except by doing something? The-
ories have been having free course of assertion for years. They are as
divergent now as ever. Delay will not change this fact. Another com-
mittee, whether it be composed of Senators and Representatives or of
Commissioners of inquiry, will bring us no more definite result than we
now have before us. And so, in my judgment, there is but one way to
an effective resolution of this conflict of opinion.
We must have affirmative action. We must enact a law for the reg-
ulation of interstate commerce, and by experience under its administra-
tion come to a knowledge of the right and wrong of the war of opinion
now obstructing our way. We may investigate and debate forever and
still be apart. But action and the experience it will enforce are sure to
bring an end to the contention that will conserve the true interests of
all concerned. If we elect the opposite course then will we invite into
the case the elements of danger; for a continuance of the many real
iniquities which have found lodgment in our transportation system
may induce a resentment on the part of the people that may not be
satisfied with the character of experiment it is now proposed to try.
Mr. President, no one who has studied the railroad problem and has
come to a knowledge of the men who manage our railroad corporations
can doubt its difficulties, nor dispute the very great aggregation of com-
manding ability found among those who handle the great interests in-
volved. But while these men possess very great ability and are marked
intellectual forces, they have, it seems to me, fallen short in one essen-
tial element. Had they possessed this at its best, I doubt if the rail-
road problem with its present involvements could have appeared in
this country. That one element is what is usually denominated com-
mon sense. Most of the facts on which the complaints of the people
relative to the management of the transportation of the country are
based may be accounted for by the absence of this essential element.
There is no other way by which to account for the present unfortunate
involvement of the transportation question. The average amount of
prudential action found in ordinary business affairs of men would, if
applied to railroad management, have avoided our present predica-
ment. This is apparent not only in their relations with the public but
23
also in those pertaining to the corporations themselves. Let a man step
out of active railroad management, though still retaining his invest-
ment interest, and he is very apt to acknowledge the truth of all that
I have said in this regard. I found such a case reported in the Chicago
Tribune a few days ago. An ex-railroad manager, still largely inter-
ested in Eastern and Western roads, in talking with a reporter of that
paper in respect of the very measure we are now considering, said:
It would prevent reckless competition between the various roads and stop the
craze for constructing useless lines in territory already sufficiently supplied with
railroad facilities. He was particularly enthusiastic about the provision pro-
hibiting pooling. This, he said, was the best feature of the bill, and he could not
see why any particular opposition should be shown toward it by Senator Platt.
The law itself would accomplish all and much more than was expected of the
pools. There being no longer any reckless competition, no unjust discrimina-
tion, and the publicity and uniformity of rates assured, there would no longer
be any use for pools. Those pools had proved a most expensive experiment,
and no adequate results were gained. Enough would be saved by having no
longer to support high-Salaried commissioners, assistant commissioners, arbi-
trators, armies of clerks, and from office reºts, advertising, commissions, rebates,
&c., to pay the dividends for many of the lines which are now barely able to
meet the interest on their indebtedness.
This statement of the case is forceful and true. It comes from a man
who has had experience as a railroad manager, and who, as such, doubt-
less participated in the very follies which, as an investor, he now de-
nounces. He sees how great reform would come from the enactment
of this bill. No one thing has given the railroads greater cost and more
trouble than the pool system. No one thing has done more to demoral-
ize railroad managers, officers, agents, and all involved either directly
or indirectly in its administration than the railroad pool. Indeed, it
has come to be expected that the pool of to-day will be disregarded by
some of its members to-morrow, and it has come to be the basis of the
hope of reward to railroad officers and agents to successfully enlarge
business in violation of such arrangements. But such practices can
not be kept under cover forever, and then comes the rate war and loss
of revenue from points of competition.
Under the present system, however, these losses are unloaded on to
the business of intermediate or local points. This practice, in itself
an outrage, is a most fruitful source of complaint on the part of the
people. But even when the obligations of the pool are observed the
traffic is often conducted on a basis of rates less than fairly remunera-
tive, when compared with those charged at the local stations. A vast
amount of the railroad traffic of the country is done from so-called
competing points at rates less than half those charged at local points
on the same lines. This is an inequity that ought not to be tolerated,
and which the bill we are now considering will prevent, if it shall
become a law. Let this be done, and no one can fail to see that it will
go very far towards correcting the bad state of feeling existing between
the railroads and the people. It will serve the true interests of the
railroads, because it will prevent the foolish, wasteful, and demoraliz-
ing rate wars; for no railroad company will grant a less than remuner-
ative rate for through freight if it can not unload its loss on the local
stations along its line. It will serve the interests of the people whose
business goes to and from the local stations, because it will assure
them at least as reasonable rates as are given to others, and this is one
of the most desirable results that can be found in the entire field covered
by the present controversy. If it can be reached and established it will
go far towards restoring that equality to localities that has been so
perfectly eliminated from our transportation system.
The two sections of the bill reported by the conference committee
‘24
which most tend to bring about this result are the fourth and fifth.
They read as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a
longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being
included within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as author-
izing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as.
great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however,
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances
for the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from
time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may
be relieved from the operation of this section of this act,
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different
and competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or met pro-
ceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and, in any case,
of an agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continu-
ance shall be deemed a separate offense.
The fourth section is a modification of the provision as it originally
passed the Senate. It preserves the clause of that bill which declared
that the provisión relative to the shorter and longer distances shall not
be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of the
act to charge and receive as great compensation for the former as for
the latter. It is also modified so as to make it more effective in respect
of the prohibition against greater charges being made for the shorter
than the longer distance; and it limits the power of the commissioners
to authorize the charging of less for a greater than a shorter distance
to special cases. Each one of these modifications is in the line of the
original bill as it passed the Senate, and, it seems to me, improves it.
The two sections quoted have been sharply criticised by the repre-
sentatives of the railroad companies by letters, in the public press and
by telegrams from the day they were first given to the country in the
report of the conference committee. It is objected that the provision
of the fourth section in respect of distances will, if enacted into law,
establish a rule of mileage rates; that it can only be obeyed by the com-
panies by charging the same rate per mile, no matter what the distance
may be. I shall not stop to discuss the subject presented by this ob-
jection. It is sufficient to say that the section presents no such propo-
sition, and I shall discuss what we have before us instead of wasting
time on what is not here. The language of the section is: .
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act to charge and receive for the transportation of passengers or of like
kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for
a shorter than a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the
shorter being included in the longer distance. -
What does this mean? Let me answer this question by an illustra-
tion. In round numbers it is, say, 500 miles from Omaha, Nebr.,
and Council Bluffs, Iowa, to Chicago, Ill. Suppose the railroad com-
panies operating lines between these points should, in the event of this
bill becoming a law, fix a rate on any particular class of freight at $40
percar for the entire 500-mile haul, what would result as to intermediate
points? Why, that each of such points could not be charged more than
$40 per car for a shorter haul of like class of freight over the same
line. . . . . .
The charge for the haul over the entire line would be the maximum
rate for carriage over a part of the line. If the charge be $40 per car
25
from Council Bluffs over the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy line,
then no more than that can be charged from Ited Oak; Chariton, Ot-
tumwa, Fairfield, or any other station on the line in Iowa to Chicago,
or from any of them to any station on the same road in the State of
Illinois. The establishment of this rule by law will be a great relief to
all of the people and business on all of said lines, and like results will
come to the people and business of every other State, and the Territo-
ries as well, on every railroad in the country within the terms of the
act. The experience of intermediate stations, under this rule, would
be very different from that which the practice of the railroad compa-
nies now inflicts them with. - - -
Now it is not uncommon for intermediate stations to be forced to pay
for the transportation of freight both to and from them double the
rates charged between the terminal points of the roads on which they
are situate. And this great wrong is one of the most forceful causes
of the complaints which have come up from the people relative to rail-
road management. While it exists there will be discontent, and there
ought to be, for the practice is in every sense wrong. It proceeds upon
the theory that it is the privilige of the railroad companies to unload
upon the hitherto helpless intermediate stations all of the losses and
burdens which have resulted from the bad management of the adminis-
trators of the affairs of the corporations. -
Another inquiry relative to the fourth section has been made in re-
spect of the rates which may be charged under its provisions. Does it
authorize a railroad company in all cases to charge as much for a shorter
as for a longer distance? If this question were directed against the bill
as it came from the House of Representatives it would admit of none
other than an affirmative answer; for it simply declared that no rail-
road company subject to its terms should charge and receive any greater
compensation for a shorter than for a longer distance, thus clearly rais-
ing the implied power to charge as much by virtue of the terms of the
bill itself. But when the question is applied to the bill as it passed
the Senate, and to the terms of the report now before us, the answer
must be in the negative; for the implication created by the House bill
is expressly avoided by the declaration of both the Senate bill and the
report that the language employed by them—
Shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms
of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a
longer distance.
Hence the charge fixed for the greater distance will not, by operation
of law, become the indisputable rate for the shorter carriage. The
question of the reasonableness of the rate is left just as it now exists.
So that, if the rate for the long haul of 500 miles be fixed at $40, as
put in the illustration I have used, it will not conclude the shipper
from contesting a charge of the same amount for a carriage of 200, or
100, or 50, or any other number of miles.
The first office of the section in respect of its limitation on rates is
to protect the people and business of intermediate points from being
forced, as they are under present practices, to make good the losses which
result from mismanagement or wrong practices, of whatsoever kind, of
the administrators of our railway system. The second is to preserve
to them the right to contest the reasonableness of the charges imposed
just as they now possess it. These are simply the proper rules of con-
servative business, and are not obnoxious to the criticisms aimed at
them by those who may have been engaged in their violation.
But it is objected that the fifth section, which I have already quoted,
26
is harsh, unreasonable, and unjust. Why? Is there anything in it that
applies to railroad management a new and exceptional business rule 2
Do not men get on well in other departments of business without re-
sorting to the practice of pooling? Suppose the managers of our rail-
roads should devote as much time, care, and ability in applying to their
affairs the ordinary and conservative business rules which other men
observe, could they not present the results of success which appear in
other fields of enterprise? Do they not all know from actual experience
that the railroad pool is a delusion and a snare? What is more com-
mon among them than violations of pooling agreements? What calls
them together oftener than these violations?
Do they not know that the whole system and the practices under it
tend to business demoralization, and to a sort of moral obliquity in
the management of affairs? And are not these things sufficient to
suggest to the really able and keen-witted men who control the rail-
roads of this country that it is quite time for them to abandon a prac-
tice which hurts quite as much as it helps, is unreliable, vexatious and
expensive; first to the corporations and finally to the public? If they
do not know these things, then it is quite time to establish a rule
of public law which shall not only instruct them but forbid their
further practice of the vicious system. I have already quoted from
one who has come to realize that the time has come for a change. The
fifth section of the bill before us will establish the change if it shall
become the law. And when the change shall have been effected, and
the strong, vigorous, practical minds in direction of our railroad com-
panies get down to the dutiful work of reforming the abuses which
they have too long fostered, I can but believe that they will approve
the wisdom of the action which I trust this body is about to take.
Mr. President, another section of the bill deserves special notice. It
is the third, and reads as follows:
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or
any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject
any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular
description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage
in any respect whatsoever.
This section, given the aid of the others I have noticed, is of very
great practical value. It asserts the doctrine of equality to which I
referred in the early portion of my remarks. It does not introduce a
new principle of law. It merely restates the old doctrine of equal
rights, which underlies and permeates our entire civil structure.
Persons, companies, firms, corporations, localities, and traffics are all
factors of our civil Society, and each is entitled to equality in rights
and treatment, so necessary to the maintenance of our institutions.
Neither the States nor the General Government may interfere with
this equality. Much less can it be rightfully interfered with by the
instrumentalities of Society and its progress created by public law,
But it has been interfered with by the railroad corporations in respect
of each and every one of the matters and things mentioned in this sec-
tion. Nothing has been more common in the practices of the railroad
companies than the perpetration of the things therein denounced. Pref-
erences and advantages therein prohibited have been common disburse-
ments by the railroad companies. With them the business interests of
persons, firms, companies, corporations, and localities have been made or
destroyed at will.
The special rates, rebates, drawbacks, and devices denounced as un-
27
lawful by the second section of the bill have assured prosperity or en-
forced disaster in instances almost beyond computation. This is all
wrong, and I can but hope that we have reached a time when these
things are to cease by command of law; and it is a cause of congratula-
tion, and will so be regarded by the people, that this command is to be
enforced by penal sanctions. In this regard the tenth section of the bill
is comprehensive, and can but receive general public commendation.
This section will make it the personal interest of all those who manage
our transportation system to obey the law, and I here direct special at-
tention to it by quoting it at length. It is as follows:
SEc. 14). That any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or,
whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any director or officer thereof,
or any receiver, truste , lessee, agent, or person acting for or employed by such
corporation, who, alone or with any other corporation, company, person, or
party, shall willfully do or cause to be done, or shall willingly suffer or permit
to be done, any act, matter, or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be un-
lawful, or who shall aid or abet therein, or shall willfully omit or fail to do any
act, matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or shall cause or willingly
suffer or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act to
be dome not to be so done, or shall aid or abet any such omission or failure, or
shall be guilty of any infraction of this act, or shall aid or abet therein, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any dis-
trict court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such offense was
committed, be subject to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 for each offense.
Taking this section in connection with the others I have noticed, it
seems to me that the enactment of this bill will assure substantial re-
forms in the respects named, and, indeed, I may say that the general
structure of the bill gives promise of an effective start in the matter of
regulating the great subject of which it treats. It is not a harsh and
vindictive bill, as some who will come under its regulative provision
in the event of its enactment have alleged. In some respects it is not
as radical as I would have wished; but I am willing to try it as it is,
and therefore will vote for its passage. It does not seem to me that it
will work the barm to the proper and legitimate interests of the car-
rier companies of the country that some seem to fear it will. No
one can be helped by doing injustice to them. Nor do the people ask
that this shall be done. They recognize the helpful aid the railroads
have given to the development and progress of the country, but they
insist on the enactment of a law which will aid them in recovering
some of their lost rights. They are willing that the railroad companies
shall prosper and be reasonably paid for their service, but they will
not recognize them as masters, for they know that they were created
to be servants; and it may be set down as one of the things irrevocably
resolved upon that the public demand which has induced the presence
of this bill here will not cease until justice shall be intrenched in the
transportation system of the country.
The progress made toward effecting the demand of the people for
proper regulative legislation does not seem to have impressed itself in
any considerable practical degree upon the minds of the railroad man-
agers of the country. They have thus far defeated all efforts for such
legislation. But they do not seem to have improved their methods.
An illustration of this statement may be found in Iowa at this time
relative to the agricultural interests of the State. The western portion
of the State produced a large corn crop this year. The eastern part of
the State had a very light yield of this cereal. The result is that corn
is selling at a low price in the western part of the State. The farmers
in the eastern section need this cheap corn to feed their stock; for they
have horses, cattle, and hogs without number.
Do the railroad companies take these facts into account, and adjust
28
their rates to harmonize with these exceptional conditions? Not at
all. On the contrary they go right on as though nothing out of the line
of ordinary agricultural events had transpired in Iowa. On the 16th
instant, corn was selling in Western Iowa at from 20 cents to 25 cents
per bushel. In Chicago it was quoted at from 36; cents to 36%. At
Ottumwa, in Southeastern Iowa, the price was 40 cents to 42 cents
per bushel. So that Western Iowa corn was selling in Chicago at from
3 to 6 cents cheaper per bushel than the Eastern Iowa farmer could
buy it for use on his farm; and these conditions have existed from the
day that corn crop matured down to the present time.
Mr. GEORGE. I should like to ask the Senator from Iowa to repeat
that statement. It is a very important one, and I did not catch it
fully.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There being po objection, the Senator
from Iowa will proceed with his remarks on the conference report on
the interstate-commerce bill.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. President, when this interruption
occurred I understood the Senator from Mississippi to ask me to repeat
the statement I had made relative to the conditions existing in Iowa,
as he said he had not distinctly heard my remark.
Mr. GEORGE. I made that request.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I had stated that somewhat peculiar condi-
tions were existing in Iowa with respect to the agricultural interests in
this, that in the western part of the State an abundant corn, crop had
been the result of the season; that in the eastern part of the State it had
been practically or largely a failure, and that the corn of Western Iowa
was needed for the use of the farmers of Eastern Iowa. Then I gave an
illustration of the unjust effect of the transportation rates by saying that
on the 16th of this month corn was selling in Western Iowa at from 20
to 25 cents per bushel, in Chicago it was quoted at from 363 to 36% cents
a bushel, while at Ottumwa, in Southeastern Iowa, the price was 40 to
42 cents per bushel. So that Western Iowa corn was selling in Chicago
at some 3 to 6 cents less than the Eastern Iowa farmer could buy it for
use on his farm to feed his stock; and these conditions have existed
from the day that that corn crop matured down to the present time.
What results have we from this state of facts? Why, that the farmers
have been forced to sell their horses, cattle, and hogs in a depressed
market, and at whatever prices they could get.
From Iowa newspapers I learn that this subject was brought to the
attention of the railroad companies. At a meeting of the Live-Stock
Breeders’ Association, held in the State, the subject was acted on by
the adoption of the following preamble and resolution, namely:
Whereas, on account of the unparalleled drought, the farmers in Eastern and
Central Iowa have a surplus of stock, while Western Iowa and Nebraska have a
surplus of corn; and
Whereas the present railroad tariff is driving to Chicago corn that is greatly
needed at home : Therefore, - -
Be it resolved, That we respectfully ask the railroads running through Iowa to
reduce their local freight rates, that farmers may be able to obtain grain to feed
out their stock.
This action has produced no result. Prices range at about the same
figures I have already stated, and the depression of agricultural in-
terests continues, and this in face of the fact that the railroad com-
panies could have extended relief without hurting themselves. If they
had given the farmers of Eastern Iowa even the Chicago rate on Nebraska
and Western Iowa corn, they would have tided them over the present
29
&
exceptional period of depression and loss. Can there be a more sug-
gestive illustration of the absence of the element of common sense in
business management than these facts present? But this is only one
illustration out of scores and even hundreds that might be cited; and
while these things are practiced we may be sure that the demand for
regulative legislation will not lower its tone nor reduce its exactions.
Let us give the response which the bill of the conference committee
presents. We will then have practiced the virtue of action, and the
future will tell us whether we have done too much or too little. If we
make mistakes in either the one direction or the other, we will learn
which it is and to what extent. We will then have knowledge which
comes from experience. This is a surer guide than all of the theories
which perplex the subject of which this bill treats can give to us. For
ten years and more we have debated; now let us act. *
Mr. CAMDEN. I now make the inquiry as to what position this
bill will occupy if it is allowed to go over until after the adjournment.
In making this inquiry I would remind the Senator [Mr. CULLOM] in
charge of the bill of the fact that two years ago a commission was ap-
pointed to investigate and report to Congress on this subject; that they
made a very elaborate and able report after spending much time and
labor on the subject. This report and the bill before Congress at the
last session occupied a very large portion of the time of the session.
That bill was matured and passed after due deliberation, and went to
a conference committee of the two Houses. The conference committee
has reported what I conceive to be a very wise and conservative bill on
this subject. t r
The country demands the passage of some bill. The country demands
relief on the questions involved in this bill, which it is the duty of Con-
gress to act upon. This is the short session. A very large proportion
of the time of the session after the holidays will be taken up in the
consideration and passage of the appropriation bills which have the
right of way over all other bills brought before the Senate. I wish in
making this inquiry to remind the Senator in charge of this bill of the
fact that unless this bill is acted upon promptly and in the early part
of the session it is likely not to be acted upon at all, and will go over
for want of time.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator suggests a point which I appreciate
evry fully. I desire to say that my own preference would be to pro-
ceed with the consideration of this bill until the last hour before the
recess, in the hope that we might get it disposed of; but there has seemed
to be so unanimous a desire that the bill should not be pressed for con-
sideration at this time in view of the fact that we adjourn to-morrow
for the holidays, many Senators desiring to go home this evening, that
I thought it wise and proper only to ask for the consideration of the
bill to-day that the Senator from Iowa might make his remarks upon
the subject.
I desire to add now that I appreciate the fact that we can very easily
allow this bill to fail for want of time; but so far as I am concerned it
shall not fail if I have the power to prevent it in the Senate. I shall
ask the Senate to again resume the consideration of the report of the
Committee of conference after the Senate resumes its session, and shall
insist upon its consideration from day to day until it is disposed of.
Mr. HARRIS. Immediately on the reassembling of the Senate?
Mr. CULLOM. Immediately on the reassembling of the Senate
after the recess.
Mr. PLATT. That is January 4.
30
Mr. CULLOM. I believe we have voted to take a recess until the
4th of January. I hope that Senators will be prepared, if they desire
to make any remarks upon the subject, to make them without delay,
so that we can get a vote upon the question as early as possible.
As I said some days ago, this is the short session; we have been upon
this subject now for eight or ten years, those of the Senators who have
been here that long, and we bave never before come so near to the
point of agreeing upon a bill as we seem to be to-day, and I hope that
we may be able to pass this bill through the Senate and let it go to
the other House for consideration there very early after the Senate re-
sumes its session in January. With these remarks I have no disposi-
tion to press the consideration of the report further until after the recess
of the Senate.
Mr. CAMDEN. I have but one word further to say in regard to
this matter.
I can appreciate that, as the Senate will adjourn to-morrow for the
holidays, there will be no opportunity of giving adequate considera-
tion to this bill before that time, and probably no delay will arise if
we have the distinct understanding that immediately upon the reas-
sembling of Congress after the recess this bill will be taken up and
pressed for consideration. That I understand to be the intention and
desire of the Senator having the bill in charge, and I have no doubt
that understanding will be satisfactory.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1887.
* % * * + + *
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour of 2 o’clock having ar-
rived, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business, being
the bill (S. 372) to establish agricultural-experiment stations in con-
nection with the colleges established in the several States under the
provisions of an act approved July 2, 1862, and of the acts supplement-
ing thereto.
Mr. CULLOM. I move that the conference report on the bill (S.
1532) be now taken up for consideration.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois moves
that the conference report on the interstate-commerce bill be now taken
up.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to consider the
report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses upon the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, when the conference report was
made by the committee the report was not read in full. I only desire
to call the attention of the Senate to that fact, but I do not propose at .
this moment to have it read, as the Senator from Connecticut [Mr.
PLATT] is prepared to address the Senate on the subject, and I will
waive the reading for the present.
Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, the utterances of Senators in this
Chamber are so liable to be misunderstood, I will not say misrepre
sented, that I takeoccasion to say before proceeding with my remarks,
and to say it with what emphasis I may, that I am in favor of legisla-
tion for the regulation of the business of the railroads of the country
within the extreme limits of the Constitution, which I understand to
be for the regulation of that portion of the business done upon the rail-
roads of the country which comes within the definition of “interstate
commerce.” I wish that it were so that Congress had power to go fur-
ther in the subject of railroad legislation.
31
More than that: I am in favor of this bill with one exception. I
have labored earnestly, with what diligence I might, conscientiously, to
endeavor to perfect the bill and to assist the chairman of the commit-
tee and the other members of the committee in coming to conclusions
upon this subject, and I am ready to agree with the report of the con-
ference committee upon all the points except the one to which I shall
call the attention of the Senate. -
It is not a question of whether we shall legislate for the regulation of
interstate commerce transacted by railroads, but it is a question of how
we shall legislate. It is a vast and complicated subject that we deal
with, waster and more complicated, I think, than any one apprehends
until he has made a careful and exhaustive study of the subject. The
very fact that there were moved upon the railroads of the United States
in the year 1885, 437,000,000 tons of freight, a very large proportion of
which, I suppose 60 per cent. at least, came under the definition of in-
terstate commerce, the fact that the entire receipts of the railroads of
this country in the year 1885 were $765,000,000, a sum more than twice
as great as the entire income of the Government, of which $519,000,000
were from freight receipts alone, shows how vast the question is. How
complicated it is no one can ever know except those who have been
practically engaged in the operation of railroads.
The basis upon which we must legislate, as it seems to me, is simple.
The justification for legislation is that the railroad business, unlike
other business, is of a mixed nature. It is partly private business and
partly public business. I think that we should refrain as far as pos-
sible from legislating to affect purely private business in this country.
But when a private business is “charged with a public use,” as the
phrase is, when the railroad undertakes to discharge a public duty as
well as to conduct its private business, it is eminently proper and
necessary that there should be legislation to make sure that the public
business is conducted for the public welfare; that its public duty is
faithfully discharged, and that no abuses are allowed to exist.
Isaid the basis of legislation was simple. It should be the enforcement
of the common law—that, and nothing more. Congress may not jus-
tify itself, in my judgment, in stepping outside of the well-defined prin-
ciples of the common law in legislation. Those principles affecting
interstate railway business have had a growth of centuries. They pro-
vide the remedy for every difficulty which can arise in the operation
of railroads. The application of those principles to every evil or abuse
which can be charged against railroads and railroad operations will
solve the difficulty and remedy the evil. The difficulty is only in the
application.
So then, I think, we should confine our legislation to the enforce-
ment of the common law. That is simple. It is only this; it can be
expressed in a word: The rates charged by common carriers must be
reasonable, and such carriers must only charge like rates for like serv-
ices. That is all. It has been the intention of this committee to
confine legislation within these limits. A careful study of the bill as
it was passed by the Senate will show that we did not go outside of
those limits, that we undertook to make no new law for the regulation
of railroads and the business of railroads and interstate commerce in
this country, but that we did undertake to hold the railroad manage-
ment of this country up to the strict letter of the common law.
We did this intentionally. We did it because in the light of expe-
rience in this and other countries we believed that that was the best
method of dealing with the railroad problem, because those State Leg-
32
islatures which had legislated thus and stopped there had done most
toward a favorable and satisfactory solution of the railroad problem
in the States. For instance, all the legislation of the State of Massa-
chusetts upon this subject is to be found in a single statute which is in
chapter 225 of the acts of May 16, 1882. I read it. It is an amend-
ment to a former statute which imposed penalties for violations of the
common law. It is this: ſe e
SECTION 1. Chapter 94 of the acts of the year 1882 is amended by striking out
the first and second sections thereof and inserting instead the following words:
“No railroad company shall in its charges for the transportation of freight or in
doing its freight business Inake or give any undue or unreasonable preference
or advantage to or in favor of any person, firm, or corporation, nor subject any
person, firm, or corporation to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disad-
vantage.”
That and a short-haul law upon which largely the short-haul pro-
vision of the Senate bill was modeled, and a single statute in rela-
tion to the transportation of milk, is all the remedial legislation which
has been resorted to in the State of Massachusetts.
In addition to that, they have a railroad commission. That commis-
sion has very little power. It has power to hear complaints and to
make report to the attorney-general of the State and to the Legisla-
ture. That simple legislation has been found to be the most effective
State legislation in the United States, and it is in that State where
the legislation has been most simple, where it has been strictly con-
fined to a declaration and enforcement of the common law, where the
fewest complaints against railroads now exist. It is in those States
which have legislated most severely and rigidly where the most nu-
merous complaints, and, in my judgment, the best-founded complaints,
of railroad abuses now exist.
The committee believed that it was not best in experimental legis-
lation to go too far, and this legislation is experimental. They be-
lieved that it was unwise to attempt to prescribe a remedy for every
alleged abuse in railroad management by specific legislation, by hard
and fast iron-bound statutes applying thereto. I think the committee
were right, and therefore I have great pleasure in standing by the com-
mittee bill with the single exception to which I am to-day to call the
attention of the Senate. *
The discussion upon this bill is narrowed to two issues, and I think
the committee and the Senate may be congratulated that the work of
the committee has been practically adopted by both branches of the
national legislature, with the exception of these two topics which still
excite discussion. These two questions are, first, whether the Senate
will adopt the modification proposed by the conference committee in
the short-haul section, and, second, will it prohibit pooling instead of
leaving it for the present to the investigation of the commission.
Now that these two issues come clearly before the Senate, I wish to
put in juxtaposition, side by side, the provisions of the Senate bill and
the provisions of the bill recommended by the conference committee
upon these topics. First, I read the short-haul clause of the Senate
bill, section 4:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, and from the same original
point of departure or to the same point of arrival; but this shall not be construed
as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and re-
ceive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, how-
ever, That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions
33
of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, be authorized to charge
less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or
property; and the commission may from time to time make general rules ex-
empting such designated common carrier in such special cases from the opera-
.tion of this section of this act; and when such exceptions shall have been made
and published they shall, until changed by the commission or by law, have like
force and effect as though the same had been specified in this section.
That is all there is of it except the penalty clause, which appears
elsewhere in the conference bill. The section in the conference bill is
this:
SEc. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a
longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being in-
cluded within the longer distance.
It will be seen that those words have been substituted for the words
“and from the same original point of departure or to the same point
of arrival.”
But this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within
the terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter
as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon application to the com-
mission appointed under the provisions of this act, such common carrier may,
in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized to charge
less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers
or property; and the commission may from time to time prescribe the extent
to which such designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation
of this section of this act.
The main change, as will be seen, recommended by the conference
committee is as I have indicated, the striking out in the Senate bill of
the words “and from the same original point of departure or to the
same point of arrival,” and substituting therefor the words “the
shorter being included within the longer distance.”
Now, I read the Senate bill provision with regard to the subject of
pooling. It is this:
SEC. 19. That the said commission shall specially inquire into that method
of railroad management or combination known as pooling, and shall report to
Congress what, if any, legislation is advisable and expedient upon that sub-
ject.
I read next the section in the bill proposed by the conference commit-
tee on the subject of pooling:
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and
competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds
of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an
agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance
shall be deemed a separate offense.
Elsewhere in the bill it is provided that the commission of any act
which it is provided shall be unlawful may be punished by a fine not
exceeding $5,000. . .
Now, with regard to the change in the short-haul clause, I have this
to say: I do not think as an original proposition the change was a wise
one. I do not think it is an improvement of the bill as it left the Sen-
ate. I think the Senate bill recognized a principle which was sound,
and that principle was that the question of what is a reasonable charge
upon freight to a station or from a station is not to be determined by
the question of what is charged for freight to or from another station.
In other words, the question of reasonable freight charges must vary
with the location of the place to or from which the freight is shipped,
I S C–3
34
the volume and character of the business to be transacted going to and
from that place. I believe that was a wise provision based upon a
sound principle, and I do not think it was wise to depart from it; and
I think that these words which have been inserted about the shorter
distance being included within the longer distance are uncertain and
ambiguous. I do not think any man knows to-day what they do
mean. I think it will greatly trouble courts and commission to decide
what they mean. -
It is certain that the introduction of these words makes an excep-
tion to the rule. It is certain that the bill, as it stands reported by
the conference committee, implies that there are some shorter dis-
tances for which more may be charged than for longer distances. It
is for courts and the commission to find out what those shorter dis-
tances are, for, mathematically speaking, every shorter distance is
included within the longer distance. But this bill says on this sub-
ject that it shall not be lawful to charge more on the same line in the
same direction, under similar conditions and circumstances, for a like
kind and amount of freights, for the shorter than for the longer dis-
tance which includes the shorter. Mathematically speaking, we should
say that was impossible. Speaking of the words when put into a
statute, we know they must have a construction, . I have never yet
seen the man who was able to say what those shorter distances were
in which railroads were to be permitted to charge more than for longer
distances. They are there in the bill if it passes, and the courts will
have to say what they mean. *
But, notwithstanding all this, I stand by the short-haul clause for
the purpose of getting legislation on this subject. I am willing to
surrender, so far, my judgment as to what is wise and best. Right here
I want to allude to an objection based upon a possible construction
which I have heard urged against this short-haul clause, -
I am told that there is fear in many quarters that this construction
will be put upon it: that where two or more independent lines of rail-
road (independent in ownership and operation) contract with each
other to forward freight over the entire line so made up, and for each
independent link the railroad company owning and operating it to ac-
cept a certain proportion of the through freight as its share, that por-
tion which it so agrees to accept under these circumstances will be
made the measure of the charge upon freight shipped over its own
road or any portion of it. I do not think that such can be the con-
struction of the bill.
Every road must stand by itself. It is upon the company’s own road
that the short-haul clause takes effect. If a number of independent
companies, having independent lines which together form a continuous
through route, contract as to the freights which shall go over those
routes, then they, as contracting parties, are bound as to freight which
is shipped over those roads as to the price, and may not charge more
on freight sent under contract between those points for the shorter than
for the longer distance; but the share which each road may receive for
carrying such through freight does not, in my judgment, furnish the
measure by which any one of those independent and independently-
operated companies is to measure the rate for other freight upon its
own road. -
I have said this much to explain the fact that, although I do not
think we have improved the Senate bill on this subject, I still take it
and stand by it.
But the section of the bill proposed by the conference committee
35
which prohibits pooling under criminal penalties I can not consent to.
I would for the sake of getting legislation assent to it if I did not be-
lieve in my inmost mind that it was impolitic, unjust, and calculated
to embarrass and possibly defeat the beneficial operation of the bill. "
I do not think that to justify my dissent I must hoid affirmatively
that pooling contracts are legal and right. I think the burden of proof
is upon them who would make such contracts criminal. Can it be that
in the Senate of the United States and in the House of Representatives
of the United States crimes are to be made and penalties of $5,000 a
day are to be inflicted, and the parties who propose it are not to show why
the contracts for which those fines are imposed are illegal or wrong?
And to give reasons why I can not assent to such legislation, must I
prove affirmatively that such contracts are right and are according to
the common law 2 It is for those who say that pooling between rail-
roads shall be criminal to show that such arrangements are either op-
posed to the common law, condemned by the common law, or they are
so far wrong in principle, as being opposed to public policy, that it is just
and wise legislation to make them criminal offenses.
Mr. President, we must get back to definitions. I apprehend that
these contracts, which are known as “pooling contracts,” are entirely
misunderstood in character, in purpose, in results, and it is the evil
significance "which attaches to this unfortunate word “pool,” which
railroads never apply to these contracts, which has created an unreason-
able prejudice in the minds of the people of the country, upon which
it is supposed that, without investigation and without affirmatively
showing anything wrong or improper in these contracts, we are to
brand the making of them as criminal. It is said that “that which
we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” but the con-
verse of that proposition does not hold true. These contracts under
other names would never be supposed to be against the public interest.
Railroad companies have tried to escape from the fateful influence of
that name. They have called such contracts what they more properly
are—co-operation—contracts for traffic unity—but without avail; that
unfortunate name is fastened upon these contracts. But I do not pro-
pose, therefore, to strike at what can not be shown to be wrong, im-
proper, or against the public welfare or opposed to public policy.
What is a pool? What is a pooling contract 2 It is simply an agree-
ment between competing railroads to apportion the competitive busi-
ness; that, and nothing more. I repeat it—it is an agreement between
competing railroads to apportion the competitive business. It does
not touch the local business; it does not reach it; it has no reference
to it. The local business is left to each individual company. It is
non-competitive. A pool has nothing to do per se with making rates.
And right here I want to call attention to a glaring inconsistency in
this proposed legislation. The proposed prohibition of pooling does
not prohibit the railroad companies from making rates. Indeed, the
whole bill compels agreements between competing roads for the making
of rates. The section does not propose to prohibit a hard and fast
agreement between railroads to maintain rates. Indeed, it almost com-
pels it. It does not propose to interfere with any other means which
railroads may adopt, which are inducements to the railroads themselves
to maintain rates. All that it does propose to do is to make criminal
the apportionment of freight between competing railroads, or the di-
vision of earnings by competing railroads. With that criminal clause
in the bill, it would still be open to railroads to enter into any other
kind of contracts which they might invent for the purpose of main-
3.36
taining rates agreed upon. It would be open to competing roads to put
a sum of money in the hands of a commissioner or an arbitrator to
be used as penalties, as liquidated damages to be recovered by the
other companies of any company that should violate the agreement to
maintain rates. It does not apply to a hundred means by which rail-
road companies may in some way make it for their interest to main-
tain the rates which they themselves have fixed and have legally agreed
to maintain under this bill. Is it not pretty remarkable legislation
that there should be left the right of competing roads to fix rates
jointly for competitive business; that there should be left the right to,
agree to maintain those rates and not cut or vary from them; that there
should be left free to them every means to protect themselves against
the violation of those agreements, except just this matter of apportion-
ing between them the competitive business of the roads or the division
of joint earnings?
It may be said that perhaps it is not so bad a measure after all if it
leaves all those things open to the railroads, but the inconsistency of
it is intensified many times.
Mr. MCPHERSON. Would it interfere with the Senator to ask a
question at that point? - -
Mr. PLATT. I think not, though I am making an argument which
rather requires a connected thread of thought in order to be intelligible,
not to say effective.
Mr. MCPHERSON. I shall not ask the question.
Mr. PLATT. I say, then, that the thing which it is proposed to
make criminal is contracts for the pooling of freights of different and
competitive railroads or the division between them of the aggregate or
met proceeds of the earnings of such railroads. Now, I want to read a
word from Mr. Nimmo's report, which is called the report on the In-
ternal Commerce of the United States in 1879, showing what a pool
really is. And I want to say a word about Mr. Nimmo, whom I shall
frequently quote during this discussion; I shall not quote railroad
presidents, with a single exception or two; I shall not quote pool com-
missioners. I propose to fortify what I have to say on this subject by
quotations from men who have studied this question from an independ-
ent standpoint and with no interest to favor railroads. Mr. Nimmo,
Chief of the Bureau of Statistics until 1884, is an able statistician and a
careful student of political problems, who in the nice adjustment of
offices to civil service reform principles by the present administration
was asked to make way for another man. Mr. Nimmo is certainly
good authority by reason of the attention which he has given to this
subject. As far back as 1879 he said:
The use of the term “pool ’’ as a designation of the agreements entered into
between railroad companies for the apportionment of traffic, or the receipts
from traffic, is of recent application. The term has usually been applied to a
game of chance, in which all the players contribute toward making up the
stake or pool, and the winner in the game gets the whole, whereas what is now
known as a railroad “pool” is simply an agreement entered into between com-
panies for the apportionment or division of the traffic between roads engaged
in competitive traffic. By this arrangement they take no chance, but seek to
escape the chances that, under unrestrained competition, they may be able to
secure less than what they deem to be their equitable share of traffic and reduce
to a certainty the share of the traffic which they shall secure. The main object,
however, is to avoid the great losses inevitably resulting from wars of rates. In
its application to the apportionment of division of railroad traffic, the meaning
of the word “pool ’’ appears to be, in a double sense, the reverse of its ordinary
significance in its application to games of chance. -
Again, in 1881, he said:
A railroad freight pool is simply an agreement that, at competing points, the
, several contestants for traffic shall be allowed a certain percentage of it, or of
the receipts therefrom, to be determined either by arbitration or by a conven-
tion of the representatives of all the competing roads. When such an agree-
ment is faithfully observed, it is found to be comparatively an easy matter to .
decide as to the rates which shall be charged and to maintain them. -
Sometimes the same authority agrees upon and fixes the rates, and
sometimes it does not—the same authority which apportions or divides.
the traffic. The maintenance of rates is in no sense per se part of the
pooling contract, and it is not so treated in the bill, as I have shown.
It is not so treated in the bill which prohibits and makes criminal only
a thing independent of and distinct from the making of rates and the
agreeing to maintain them. -
Now I call attention for a moment to Judge Cooley's explanation of
a pool, which is to be found upon page 2 of a pamphlet by Judge Cooley
in 1884, originally published in the Railway Age of Chicago, entitled,
“Popular and Legal Views of Traffic Pooling.” He says:
In this country the method of pooling seems to be for the several contracting
parties to create some common authority upon which will be conferred the
power to establish and change rates for the transportation of property within a
certain territory or over a certain line, and also to apportion the business be-,
tween them. The apportionment will be made upon a consideration of what the
companies severally would be likely to obtain under the operation of free com-
petition, and it will be changed from time to time if found to be relatively un-
just, The feature of arbitration upon eontroversies arising between the con-
tracting parties will also be prominent in the arrangement.
: sº SE * : : :
The avowed purpose in pooling is to avoid ruinous competition between the
several roads represented, and the unjust discrimination between shippers
which is found invariably to attend such competition.
Would you believe that in a bill largely and mainly aimed at the
prevention of unjust discrimination a clause would be found making
criminal that practice to which railroad companies have resorted to
prevent unjust discrimination ?
A pooling contract is based—that is to say, the percentage of freights.
or the portion of freights which each company agrees to be satisfied
with—is based upon the results of traffic for several years under free
competition; and it is a strange thing that, however fierce the compe-
tition, the amount of competitive traffic which a road secures remains
practically the same; whether competition be fierce or whether there
be little competition, the amount of traffic which a competing road se-
cures is practically the same. This apportionment of traffic, then, is
based upon what returns for some years under open competition -—when
competition has been fierce and when it has not been fierce—have been
secured by each competing road.
The fact to which I have alluded shows that there is for every com-
peting railroad its natural, normal share of the competitive business,
business which will come to it whatever the competition may be. A
competing railroad company may be justified in saying that such share
of the competitive business belongs to it so long as it maintains only
reasonable rates for doing it. It is upon that theory that the apportion-
ment is made. If it constitutes an agreement for the prevention of
competition, for non-competition, it is this, that the railroad company
will not fight for more than its natural share of the business. Its
object is, as I have shown by the quotation from Judge Cooley, to re-
move the inducement which exists for railroads to enter into ruinous
competition orinto unnatural strife for business which does not belong
to them. i
It may be said that the purpose of pooling is to maintain and estab-
lisia equal alid stable rates. What is this bill for? What has been
38
the purpose of the committee in this bill? They have heard from all
over this land that one of the chief and greatest causes of complaint
againstrailroads was the fluctuation of rates, rates which were up to-day
and down to-morrow, up for the retailer and down for the wholesaler,
and fluctuating up or down as the caprice of the railroads or the emer-
gencies of the competitive strife should require. Look at the report of
the committee, look at the testimony before the committee, and you
find that one of the main objects of this bill is to makerates stable and
permanent when they have been found to be reasonable. I challenge
any man to show that the object or purpose or faithful observance of a
pooling contract—by which I mean the apportionment of the competi-
tive traffic, or of the earnings derived from such competitive traffic—
can be anything else except the maintenance of stable rates. It is sup-
posed, I think, on the part of the public, that in some way these rail-
road pools fix unreasonable rates.
I challenge proof of it. I heard petitions presented at that desk
this morning praying for the passage of this bill. For what purpose?
To prevent excessive rates, discriminations, and pooling. It shows the
utter and lamentable ignorance of what pooling contracts really are.
There is not a man who ever studied them, there is not a man who
ever investigated their operation, but what will tell you that the main
purpose of them is to prevent discriminations; and yet here we have a
bill in which we propose to make criminal the means which the rail-
road companies adopt to prevent discrimination. Others may agree
to it for the sake of getting legislation. I will not.
I know this is no place to discuss a legal question thoroughly and
exhaustively, but I say the advocates of the prohibition of pooling can
not maintain that these contracts are objectionable under the common
law, certainly not that they are illegal at common law; nay, more, I
would with confidence stand before the Supreme Court of the United
States, or the supreme court of any of the great States of this country,
and undertake to maintain that, one thing being assumed, such con-
tracts are legal and would be enforced by the courts, and that one thing
to be assumed is that the rates shall be reasonable.
A pooling contract—a contract to apportion between competing roads
the competitive business for which reasonable rates have been agreed
on—I undertake to say, in my judgment, will be held valid at common
law.
I am not unmindful of the general principle that contracts in re-
straint of trade are held to be illegal—that is, in the sense that they
will not be enforced by the courts. I am not unmindful of the fact
that combinations wholly to prevent competition in trade would be held
illegal by the courts to the extent that they would not be enforced, that
courts would say to the parties to such contracts, “these are volum-
tary agreements of yours; you can get no sanction from the courts, be-
cause we think they are against public policy.” That is what is meant
when it is said such contracts are illegal.
But contracts in partial restraint of trade have been held to be valid
for the last one hundred and sixty years in all the courts of England
and America. And I hold that combinations for the partial prevention .
of competition are governed by the same rules as govern contracts for
the restraint of trade, and that contracts only for the partial restraint
of competition will never be declared to be illegal and void unless it
clearly appears that they are injurious to the public interest. The law
of this country is well stated by the commentator in Smith's Leading
39
Cases, commenting on the great case of Mitchell vs. Reynolds, decided,
I think, in 1711, thus:
The present doctrine is that while contracts in total restraint of trade are
void, yet if the restraints imposed be partial, reasonable, and founded on good
consideration they are valid and will be enforced.
And Judge Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the United States,
held in that very same language, in a case reported in 20 Wallace, that
that was the doctrine of the common law as it exists in this country.
You can not, therefore, jump to the conclusion, because a contract for
the division and apportionment of freights between competing roads
may in some sense to some extent regulate or limit competition, that
it is illegal. I undertake to say that, with the exception of one or two
cases to which I will allude, in this country there can not be a case
found where such contracts have been held to be illegal unless they
were for the total prevention of trade within certain limits, or unless
they related to the control of a production like coal or iron, as well as
the carrying of the same. It depends on whether the prevention aimed
at is total, unreasonable, and injurious.
As I said, the common law of England certainly is that such con-
tracts are legal. The common law of England and America is the
same. And yet the English courts, law and chancery, each hold just
such contracts as it is proposed to declare illegal and criminal to be
valid, and enforce them. I want to put this question to the Senate of
the United States: England has had as much experience in railroads as
we have; it has had the experience of thirty years of legislation it;
has experienced all the evils; it has tried all the remedies for abuses;
and does the Senate of the United States propose deliberately to-day to
say that arrangements which English courts with all this experience
hold to be legal and valid shall subject the parties practicing them to
criminal penalties of $5,000 a day ? I cite from the last legal treatise
on railway law, Wood’s Railway Law, volume 1, published in 1885.
The authoris an approved law-writer both in this and other branches
of the law. I read from section 207, page 590:
SEC. 207. Pooling arrangements. In England it is held that “pooling ” con-
tracts, or arrangements between competing roads by which they agree to divide
their joint earnings upon certain classes of business, or even their entire earn-
ings, are legal and valid, where it does not appear that the interests of the share-
holders or of the public are prejudiced thereby. But the English authorities
upon many questions connected with railway law are hardly safe guides upon
similar questions in this country, for the reason that their railway system is
essentially different from ours, and such companies are under the direct and
inn mediate supervision of a court of railway commissioners, which by statute
is invested with authority to hear complaints and make orders, which relieve
the public against any particular oppression or illegal action of the counpanies;
yet upon this question such authorities are entitled to weight. because they are
predicated upon the common law, and not upon statutory grounds.
The two leading cases in which the English courts held that such
contracts were legal are on all-fours with the contracts which it is pro-
posed to prohibit and make criminal by this bill. One was for a di-
vision of earnings; one for a division of traffic between competing roads
running between two great points. Now I want to read what, when the
case was tried at law, Judge Campbell said to the Court of Queen's Bench:
The question, then, is whether the agreement is void in law.
That agreement was this:
Here two groups of railway companies, being respectively the owners of inde-
pendent conterminous routes from London to Edinburgh, the west route and
the east coast route, agreed to divide the profits of the whole traffic in certain
fixed proportions, calculated on the experience of the past course of traffic.
They agreed to divide the whole traffic.
*
4()
Lord Campbell says:
The question, then, is, whether the agreement is void in law. As it has been
clearly settled that an agreement to withdraw opposition to a railway bill for a
pecuniary or other consideration is not illegal, the agreement in question would
only be void in case it was illegal upon other grounds, such as those suggested
on the part of the defendants—that it was injurious to, and therefore in a legal
sense a fraud upon, the public or the shareholders. The defendant’s counsel
contended that it was injurious to the public by giving, in effect, a monopoly to
the plaintiffs, and thereby depriving the public of the benefit that might be de-
rived from competition.
That bugbear of free competition was invoked there as here.
If this were so, and the parties proposed by their agreement to endeavor to
prevent competition generally, there might be weight in the objection; but the
effect of the agreement is only that the one company shall not compete or in-
terfere with the other upon the particular line mentioned in the agreement;
this is no more illegal than it would be for two persons engaged in trade to
agree that one shall not exercise his trade nor compete with the other within a
particular district.
I shall not read further, but I will say that it having been settled
that such contracts are valid in England, are held to be not injurious
to the public, not against public policy, this law-writer reviewing the
whole question of decisions in America comes to this conclusion:
It is believed that, except when prohibited by statute, contracts for “pool-
ing” earnings by rival lines, when made in good faith for self-protection, and
which do not result in the creation of a monopoly injurious to the public, are
valid and not obnoxious to the charge of being opposed to public policy.
Judge Stevenson Burke (I said Ishould quote but few railroad author-
ities, and I quote Judge Burke because he was an eminent judge before
he became a railroad man) says:
In England, Parliament has established a railway commission and sanctioned
by law contracts of the character and kind under consideration, but before
Parliament acted upon this subject the English courts held such contracts valid.
And he closes his argument for the legality of legal pooling contracts
in these words:
Many similar quotations might be made, but the single point which I set out
to maintain is that such traffic contracts or arrangements honestly and fairly
made in the interest of the public and of the shareholders of railway companies,
are not only not void as again -t, public policy, but they are in all respects com-
mendable, promotive of public and private interest, and conducive in all respects
to the public welfare, and, therefore, of necessity lawful.
Judge Cooley, in a very exhaustive work, from which I have already
quoted, “Popular and Legal Views of Traffic Pooling,” goes thoroughly
into the question. He says:
The suggestion of pooling, though likely, perhaps, to occur anywhere,
comes to us from England, where pooling contracts in the railroad business
and others of a semi-public nature have been held not to be illegal, both when
they were made on the basis of an equal division of profits and where the basis
was a division of business between the contracting parties.
Judge Cooley in his argument clearly maintains that such contracts
ought not to be held illegal in this country, but he says it is impossible
to tell what the courts may do on the subject, as the question is still
an open question.
I should not be treating this subject fairly if I did not admit that
there were two cases decided in the State of New York in 1847 which
seem to be conclusive so far as the law of that State is concerned, and
until they are overruled it is there held that such contracts are against
public policy and therefore void. Those are the only two cases. They
have not escaped criticism. They have been very severely handled by
other courts, and it is more than probable that they would not be
followed.
I will read what Judge Cooley says about those cases. First, let me
say, however, that such contracts when executed have always been
41
held to be good by the courts of the United States. Judge Nelson, in
the circuit court in Massachusetts, and Judge Matthews, in the circuit
court in Ohio, have explicitly decided that when once executed the
law would compel a party who had in his hands any money which,
under the contract, should be paid to another party, to pay it over. It
may be said that the doctrine of estoppel comes in there, but the doc-
trine of the legality of contracts was raised in those cases, although it
was not specifically passed upon by the judges who decided them.
Contracts for the pooling of business and receipts between continuous
roads—roads forming a continuous line—have been repeatedly held to
be good in this country.
Now, I come to what Judge Cooley says about the two New York
cases, referring to the class of cases to which I have just been allud-
ing. He says:
Before either of these cases was decided it had been held by the supreme court
of New York (in 1847) that a contract between the proprietors of canal-boats
for fixing rates and for a division of net earnings was void, though the object
was expressed to be “to establish and maintain fair and uniform rates of freight
and to equalize the business of forwarding on the Erie and Oswego Canals annong
themselves, and to avoid all unnecessary expenses in doing the same.” . The
argument of the court is brief, and is summed up in two short sentences: “The
object of this combination was obviously to destroy competition between the
several lin's in the business engaged in. It was a conspiracy, between the in-
dividuals contracting, to pre. ent a free competition among themselves, in the
business of transporting merchandise, property, and passengers upon the pub-
lic canals.” “It is a familiar maxim that competition is the life of trade. It
follows that whatever destroys or even relaxes competition in trade is injurious
if not fatal to it.”
I will not stop to read the decision in the other case because it fol-
lowed the decision already referred to. Judge Cooley continues:
These cases have not passed entirely without criticism in this country. They
were cited to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin not long after they were made,
and were there dissented from in very vigorous terms. Referring to the maxim
that competition is the life of trade, Judge Howe, speaking for the court, Said
that it “is one of the least reliable of the host that may be picked up in every
market place. It is, in fact, the shibboleth of mere gambling speculation ; and is
hardly entitled to take rank as an axiom in the jurisprudence of this country.
I believe universal observation will attest that for the last quarter of a century
competition in the trade has caused more individual distress, if not more public
injury, than the want of competition. Indeed, by reducing prices below or rais-
ing them above values—as the nature of the trade prompted—competition has
done more to monopolize trade, or to secure exelusive advantages in it, than
has been done by contract. Rivalry in trade will destroy itself, and rival trades-
men, seeking to remove each other, rarely resort to contract, unless they find it
the cheapest mode of putting an end to the strife. And it seems to me not a
little remarkable that in the case of Stanton vs. Allen—
In which I did not read the opinion of the court—
it should have been urged against the agreement that its object was to exempt
the standard of freights, &c., from the wholesome influence of rivalry and
competition. For it is very certain that because of that very purpose—because
they did tend to protect the party against the influence of rivalry and competi-
tion—courts of law have upheld like agreements in partial restraint of trade
ever since the case of Mitchell vs. Reynolds.
Judge Howe was afterward Senator Howe, and I need not say to
Senators who served with him that he was an exceptionally good
lawyer.
Those New York cases decided in 1847, thus criticised and dissented
from by Judge Howe, may have been cited in the English cases; at
least they were decided long before the English courts held precisely
the opposite doctrine. Those two New York cases are the only ones
in this country on which, as it seems to me, any expectation that our
courts will hold such contracts illegal can be based.
Contracts for the division of competitive business of railroads, or of
*
42
the earnings thereof, are not agreements to enhance or depress prices—
are not agreements to control production, or the market for certain
products—as in case of agreements to limit the output of coal or iron,
or the supply of coal, or iron, or salt, or other commodities. Contracts
for the apportionment of traffic between competing roads are easily dis-
tinguishable from the class of cases to which I have just referred.
I must not omit a dictum of Judge Deady in the circuit court in Oregon
upon this very point, for although a dictum it, is significant. The case
is stated and his opinion quoted in full in the report of the Committe
on Interstate Commerce, pages 121, 122. f
The State of Oregon passed a law conforming as nearly as the circum-
stances of the case would admit—that is, as State jurisdiction would
admit—to what is known as the Reagan bill in Congress. It was called
in Oregon the “Hoult law.” A receiver who was to manage a road
in Oregon went to Judge Deady, of the circuit court, to know what he
was to do in view of that law. *
The Senators from Oregon will recollect the case undoubtedly. Judge
Deady was the judge who held the court to which the receiver applied.
He said that, as regarded this matter of not making any pooling ar-
rangements, he did not think that the law was applicable, because the
roads which the receiver was managing were not “different and com-
peting roads,” the language being the same which is used in this con-
ference report bill, but that one was a supporting road to the other,
and therefore he did not think that the receiver need trouble himself
as to what the construction of that clause of the statute should be.
But he said more—he went out of the way to say it, showing what
Judge Deady would decide when such a contract was brought before
him: -
Pooling freights or dividing earnings is resorted to by rival and competing
lines of railway as a means of avoiding the cutting of rates, which, if persisted
in, must result in corporate suicide. It is not apparent how a division of the
earnings of two such roads can concern or affect the public so long as the rate
of transportation on them is reasonable.
Sound common sense, if not sound law. I apprehend it will be found
to be sound law.
But I want to refer to the report of this very Committee on Inter-
state Commerce on the subject of pooling. It is not very long since
this report was made. What did the Committee on Interstate Com-
merce think on this subject as to whether pooling should be prohibited
under criminal penalties? When they reported the bill originally to
the Senate, on page 200 of the report, they said:
In view, however, of the active competition which exists at the great com-
mercial centers, the successful enforcement of legislation requiring the opera-
tion of the entire transportation system upon a basis of fixed rates would seem
to depend upon a general predetermination of the rates to be established by
the carriers interested. It seems necessary, therefore—
“Necessary,” the committee said then—
to leave a way open by which such agreements can be made, in order to avoid
the constant friction that would otherwise be occasioned.
They said it in view of this very bill and of its provisions, which it
is now claimed may do away perhaps with the necessity of pooling.
If competition is to have full sway, as it does now, the constant changes it
would necessitate would render it in possible to maintain fixed rates, just as it
is now. It should be understood, therefore, that a statute requiring the posting
of rates and prohibiting changes without notice must of necessity operate in
restraint of competition if enforced.
i.
43
I commend to those who believe that competition must not be in-
terfered with, what this committee say on the subject of competition:
It would not destroy the benefits of legitimate competition, but it would place
a wholesome restraint upon reckless competition, and in that way lessen un-
just discrimination, which is developed in its most objectionable forms under
the nourishing influence of unrestricted competition.
- tº: it: 2}: 2: 2, : 3:
But, in any event—
They go on to say— -
the evils to be attributed to pooling are not those which most need correc-
tion, and, if agreements between carriers should prove necessary to the success
of a system of established and public rates, it would seem wiser to permit such
agreements rather than, by prohibiting them, to render the enforcement and
maintenance of agreed rates inapracticable. The majority of the committee are
not disposed to endanger the success of the methods of regulation proposed for
the prevention of unjust discrimination by recommending the prohibition of
pooling, but prefer to leave that subject for investigation by a commission when
the effects of the legislation herein suggested shall have been developed and
made apparent.
The majority of the committee when this report was made believed
that to prohibit pooling would endanger the success of the methods of
regulation proposed in the bill. What new light has dawned since 2
How is it that the views of the minority of that committee come now
to be the recommendation of a majority of the conference upon the
bill? There is but one answer, and that is, that what has been believed
to be a wise principle has been surrendered for the sake of not imperiling
legislation on this subject.
I have taken the testimony of the witnesses before the Interstate
Commerce Committee; I have analyzed the testimony of two hundred
of them who testified on the subject of pooling, and with what result?
About three-fourths of the witnesses examined say: “Do not prohibit-
but legalize pooling.” I agree that a good many of them were rail,
road men, men of vast experience in railroad business. I agree that
some of them were men like Mr. Albert Fink and Mr. George R.
Blanchard, men like President King of the Erie Railroad, and other
railroad presidents, some then being in and some being out of the busi-
IlêSS.
I agree that they were unanimous in favor of legalizing pooling
arrangements, but I do not ask you to rely upon their opinion, not
that I think a man’s judgment becomes impaired or warped neces-
sarily because he is a railroad president or manager, not because I think
he has become dishonest, not because I have not respect for him my-
self, but because I know that whatever a railroad president may say
in this country, no matter how justly it reflects the light of his expe-
rience, will go for nothing with a certain portion of the people. But
every railroad commissioner and every ex-railroad commissioner who
testified before the committee, with one single exception, said, “Do
not prohibit, but legalize and regulate pooling.” A large proportion
of shippers and business men said the same.
Now, take the one-fourth of the witnesses (about that proportion)
who said, “prohibit.” Mark this fact. Out of the two hundred about
one hundred and fifty men said, “do not prohibit, but legalize.” Among
the fifty men, more or less, who said, “prohibit,” there are not three
to be found who claimed that pools resulted in unreasonably high rates,
and it was manifest that they did not know very much about it when
they claimed it. The reasons given were diverse. The reasons of the
witnesses who wish to have pooling prohibited may be divided in this
way, and about equally divided:
First, pooling prevents competition.
44.
Second, it encourages the building of new railroads.
Third, it produces unjust discrimination.
The latter may be dismissed; for surely we cannot strike at pools be-
cause unjust discriminations have been the result of not observing the
pooling contract. What we propose to do in the future, if investiga-
tion shall develop that to be the wisest thing, is to legalize and to reg-
ulate pools. That will compel their observance, and I undertake to
say that there was never discrimination in this country by parties to
a pooling contract when the contract was observed. It is only when
the contract is broken that the discrimination comes. We lay aside,
then, that objection; it is not a valid objection. The fact is that the
non-observance of the practice results in discrimination.
Then these two reasons—one that they prevent competition and one
that they encourage the building of new railroads—do not agree very
well, because the building of new railroads is competition, the fiercest
kind of competition, the worst kind of competition, competition which
the Government, if it had the power, ought to put its hand upon; and
ºbody who will think a moment about it will agree with me in
this.
Take this instance: Here are two railroads, we will say—I do not
know whether there are, if not there soon will be—between here and
New York. We will say, for illustration, that each one of them cost
$10,000,000 to build. What is the result 2 There is so much business
between Washington and New York. That business must pay, if the
railroad is to be fairly remunerative—and I apprehend it is for the
welfare of this whole country that railroads should be fairly remunera-
tive—that business must pay enough to pay operating expenses, all fixed
charges on both roads, and reasonable dividends upon the stock capital
of each road. Say it is $20,000,000, each road costing $10,000,000,
and all represented in capital stock, so that after the operating expenses
and fixed charges are paid it takes $800,000 to pay an 8 per cent. divi-
dend on the stock of each. Then you have got to have out of that
business, net, $1,600,000.
Now, suppose another ten million dollar road is built between here
and New York, what then? That is competition. Competition must
not be restrained, no matter in what form it comes. What is the re-
sult 2 There is another ten million dollar capital on which $800,000
more must be paid, in dividends, in addition to paying the operating
expenses, and fixed charges out of a business which could just as well .
have been done by the two roads. There is no more ruinous kind of
competition in the world, none more against the public welfare, than
the building of competing railroads where none are needed. It is that
evil which has led to the necessity of these contracts for the apportion-
ment of competitive business.
But about a third of these, fifty men out of the two hundred, who
said prohibit pooling, put it on the ground that it was against public
policy to restrain competition, that the pooling contracts were in re-
straint of competition, and therefore they were against public policy
and should be declared criminal.
As I have suggested, there is a class of people in this country who
hold that any competition between railroads is for the public interest.
It comes from men usually who want this whole railroad question to
revolve around their city or their farm, or their store, their mine, their
manufactory, or their bank. There are men who would be glad to have
their wheat and their cattle and their coal carried for nothing. There
are shippers who would rejoice to get Secret rates, or pass-rates, if I may
45
use the word, for their freight, and they welcome all competition which
puts down prices to unremunerative points. Such individuals gain by
such competition, but it is to the injury of every other citizen of the
United States; it is to the demoralization of all business; it is the
breaking down of all business honesty and lawful trade. There is a
competition which is worse than the combination and co-operation of
railroads.
I said I assumed in discussing these pooling contracts that the rates
were always reasonable, and I challenge proof or fact to show that a
competitive rate in this country is unreasonable unless it be relatively
so. I agree that there are some cities which say they do not get as low
rates as others do in proportion, but that would be a matter for a com-
mission to fix. However, on a question of what is reasonable in any
man’s estimation, I challenge denial when I say that the competitive
rates, the rates for competitive business in this country, are not un-
reasonably high. Indeed, all rates have gone down under pooling ar-
rangements, both competitive rates and local rates. It is not true, as
the petitions presented this morning stated, that pooling makes exces-
sive rates, any more than it is true that it makes unjust discrimination.
There is a world of figures which might be introduced for the pur-
pose of proving the fact that under pooling arrangements all kinds of
rates have steadily on the average diminished in this country. I
remember in the testimony before the Interstate Commerce Committee
that question came up as to the Union Pacific. It was admitted that
the through rate, the competitive rate, was as low, perhaps, as could
be asked. It was shown that it had been going down steadily, year by
year, until the managers of the road said they did not know what they
were going to do. But it was urged that the local rate had not been
reduced as the competitive rate had been reduced. The superintend-
ent of that road, by figures, showed that about the same ratio of
reduction had taken place in local freight as in competitive freight. .
I take a single table, which I propose to put into my remarks, and
only one, and to get it I confess that I called upon the terrible trunk-
line commission in New York. I asked them to answer one question,
and they did. I say that because it is headed, “Trunk Line Commis-
sion, New York, December 29, 1886.”
TRUNK LINE COMMIssroN, New York, December 29, 1886.
Statement showing the average earnings per ton per mile by the following roads dur-
ing the years 1876 and 1885; also showing decrease in earnings per ton per mile
dwring 1885 as compared with, 1876.

i Decrease
Road. 1876. 1885. “. 1885.
º-º-º-º- - - - * ~ * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — —
Cents. Cents. Cents.
New York Central and Hudson River........................ 1. 051 0. 680 0.37 Ł
New York, Lake Erie and Western..............................! 1.099 || 0. 656 0.443
Pennsylvania. ..... ........................................................ O. 892 || 0. 627 0.265
Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago........................... .0. 930 0.580 0.350
Lake Shore and Michigan Southern............. .............. 0.817 0.553 0.264
Michigan Central..........................................................] 0.878 0.560 0.318
Average six roads. ... ............ & 0.957 || 0. 625 0.332
It is not competitive business alone, mind you, that this table refers
to. It is all the business of these roads, competitive and non-competi-
tive, through and local, the New York Central and Hudson River, the
New York, Lake Erie and Western, the Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh,
46
Fort Wayne and Chicago, the Lake Shore and Michigan Southern, and
the Michigan Central. I take those roads because they are roads most
directly interested in the movement of freight between New York and
Chicago. There are other roads in what is called the trunk-line com-
mission, but these are the ones which I think fairly illustrate the in-
fluence of pooling managements upon the price of freight,
From this table it will be seen that the average earnings per ton per
mile, or what is the same, the average charges perton per mile of these
roads in 1876 was 93 mills, almost 1 cent per ton per mile; while in
1885, the time during which this trunk-line commission has been in
operation, the average had been reduced to 63 mills per ton per mile
upon all the business of these roads, competitive, non-competitive,
through and local, and the reduction is equal to 33% per cent.
Mr. PLUMB. Can the Senator supplement that statement by say-
ing how evenly that reduced rate was distributed among the trans-
porters on the various lines of railroads?
Mr. PLATT. Of course I can not. I am not saying that there are
not abuses in railway management, but I say that you will not reach
them by declaring these pooling contracts criminal. I say pooling con-
tracts are in aid of remedying the abuses of which you complain, and
I shall show it before I get through, if I have not already shown it.
I might turn the attention of Senators to the statement of Mr.
Edward Atkinson in the Century for the present month, where he gives
in a table the charge per ton per mile for moving merchandise over
the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad in each year from
1855 to 1885. In 1855 it was 3} cents perton per mile in gold. In 1885
it was 61% mills per ton per mile. This, of course, includes non-com-
petitive as well as competitive business.
I do not deny that discriminations exist. It is one of the reasons
why this bill should be passed. Discriminations exist in spite of pools
by the breaking of pooling contracts, not by the observance of them.
Do not, in the name of common sense, declare that criminal which has
for its end the purpose which you avow is one of the main purposes of
the bill.
I want to look this bugbear of so-called free competition, which it is
claimed must not be limited, in the eyes for a few minutes. I have
heard the maxim that “competition is the life of trade.” I have heard
much talk of the so-called law of nature and social life and economic
life, “the law of competition and the survival of the fittest.” In the
sense in which they are invoked, I deny and repudiate them both.
There is a competition which is not lawful, which is not legal, which
is not honest. There is a competition which degenerates from true com-
petition, and becomes simply war and strife—war carried on and con-
ducted upon the old maxim that “all is fair in love and war.” If by
“competition and the survival of the fittest” is meant competition
and destruction of the weakest, I say it is anti-Christian; it is anti-re-
publican. I say that that kind of competition which results in the
destruction of the weakest, the survival of the fittest, if permitted,
would lapse us into barbarism. It would be the old pagan idea—the
old despotic idea—that “might makes right;" that men are ruled by
the strong hand, and not by regard for the moral law. It is expressed
in that common phrase, “Every man for himself and the devil take
the hind most.” Talk about such competition being demanded on the
grounds of public policy The sooner Governments put an end to such
competition the sooner humanity will be free to advance along that
upward pathway by which it is to reach its final glorious elevation; the
47
sooner Governments will come to that beneficent standard designed by
the Creator for the happiness of mankind.
I shall show pretty soon that you cannot stop competition. Pooling
arrangements do not tend to stop it. Their only province is to regu-
late it. The regulation of competition is not only not against public
policy, but is really in furtherance of the public welfare. But I wish
to verify what I have been saying by reference to the opinions of some
other men. As I said, I am not going to quote railroad men, except
in one instance, on this subject. I want to quote on the subject of
what competition is, this free competition which it is said must not be
prevented by pooling contracts—on the subject of what it is and what
it accomplishes, I wish to quote some men who I think will be
listened to in the Senate even if I am not. I quote from the report of
Messrs. Thurman, Washburne, and Cooley, constituting an advisory
commission on differential rates by railroads between the West and
the seaboard. I think no man will accuse Mr. Thurman of being a
subsidized railroad attorney, or Mr. Washburne, or Mr. Cooley, and I
think what they have to say on this subject of competition will have
some weight.
Mr. EDMUNDS. What is the date of that ?
Mr. PLATT. The date of this is 1882. They say:
We have found, Inowever, in the course of our investigations, that a species
of competition has prevailed from time to time which has brought satisfaction
to few persons, if any, and which has resulted in inequalities and disorders
greatly detrimental to trade. Such competition exists when the railroad com-
panies, or those who are permitted to solicit business and to make contracts on
their behalf, set out with the determination to withdraw freights from their ri-
vals and secure them for themselves at all hazards and regardless of gain or
loss; and when acting upon this determination they throw to the winds all settled
rates, and in the desperate strife for business offer any inducement in their
power which will secure it. The country not long since had experience of such
a season, and everywhere we listened to complaints of the injury which legiti-
mate business suffered from it.
Again—
Under such circumstances persons were favored, and localities were favored,
when the object to be immediately accomplished seemed to require it—regard-
less of the just maxims of legitimate business, and of the rules of the common
law, which enjoin upon common carriers that they shall deal with all customers
upon principles of equity and relative fairness. Legitimate business, it was
said, necessarily passes into an unsettled and speculative state while this con-
dition of things exists; safe and close calculations are impossible; transporta-
tion becomes cheap, but neither producer nor consumer is certain to reap the
profit, for the middleman can not calculate upon the steadiness in low rates.
and as he takes the risk of their being raised upon him, so he is in the best posi-
tion to appropriate the benefit while they continue. Meantime, railroad profits
disappear, and dividends cease to be paid, to the great distress of thousands
who rely upon them for their living ; and every interest in any degree depend-
ent on railroad prosperity must participate in the depression and disaster
which accompanies the ownership of railroad shares.
The mere statement of these results is sufficient to show that this is not winat
in other business is known and designated as competition. Competition is the
life of trade, but this is its destruction; competition brings health and vigor,
and secures equality and fairness, but this paralyzes strength and makes con-
tracts a matter of secrecy and double dealing. -
In the light of that are you going to declare as criminal these con-
tracts, these arrangements, which nobody will deny have been resorted
to by the railroads simply for the purpose of preventing this kind of
competition described by Judge Thurman and Washburne and Cooley?
I am going to venture to quote a little from what Mr. Charles
Francis Adams says on the subject of competition. He is a railroad
president. Do not believe him if you do not want to, but I quote him
because before he became a railroad president he was a most approved
student of the railroad problem from a scientific stan point. Now, in
48
the light of his added experience, if you please, he said, in an argument
before the Committee on Commerce of the United States House of
Representatives on the bills to regulate interstate railroad traffic:
What, then, is this mysterious underlying cause of which the railroad abuses
I have referred to as so notorious are the outward manifestations? With all
possible confidence I assert that it is excessive and unregulated railroad com-
petition. This, and nothing else. In saying what I am about to say, let me
first premise that I have no intention of making myself ridiculous to you by
attempting any general attack on the great laws of trade. I fully recognize
their efficiency; and, as respects railroads, I concede at once all the wonderful
results that have been accomplished through the free operation in this country
of the particular law of competition. But all that has nothing to do with the
present question. Competition is a great thing, but it works in rough ways.
In other words, every abuse in the railroad system, so far as the interstate com-
merce of this country is concerned, can be shown to be the direct, the logical,
the inevitable outcome of unregulated and desperate competition, and a mere
outward skin symptom of it.
Oh, yes, prohibit these arrangements by which the railroads seek to
prevent this illegitimate competition, declare them criminal, if you will,
but do it with your eyes open.
I wish to take Mr. Nimmo's report and see what he says about it.
Mr. Nimmo has made this an eight years' study. If anybody wants
to get full information on the history and effect of pooling all he has
to do is to read Mr. Nimmo's reports. He will find an almost exhaust-
less storehouse of facts. Mr. Nimmo says:
During the struggles referred to success waited upon intrigue and false répre-
sentations. The freight agents deceived the merchants, and the merchants
deceived the freight agents. For several years the railroad transportation in-
terests of the country ran at loose ends. The contest, being carried on inde-
pendently of leadership and without method, lost the name of competition and
ended in demoralization.
And to-day it may be said that in some parts of this country, owing
to the non-observance of apportionment contracts, just that condition
of things exists which calls most loudly for the interposition of legis-
lation.
Going on, Mr. Nimmo says:
It appears hardly necessary to observe that such a contest, involving results
in the highest degree detrimental to the interests of productive industry, of com-
merce, and of transportation, had in it none of those conservative elements of
legitimate connpetition which attach to ownership and to personal responsibil-
ity for results.
Let me quote a gentleman whom I regard to be the most thoroughly
informed student of the railroad problem in the United States, a man
who is beyond the suspicion of having an interest in railroads, a man
who is so close to the industrial interests of this country that he was
selected as labor commissioner of the State of Connecticut. I refer to
Professor Hadley, of Yale College. I wish to read a little of what he
says about this kind of competition. I read from the May number of
The Popular Science Monthly, from an article entitled “The Difficul-
ties of Railroad Regulation:” -
While railroad competition has been in some respects a beneficent force it can-
not be trusted to act unchecked. To the business community regularity and
publicity of rates are more important than mere average cheapness. Business
can adjust itself to high rates easier than to fluctuating ones. And railroad
competition of necessity makes rates fluctuate. It tends to bring them down to
the level of operating expenses regardless of fixed charges. If it acts every-
where as in the case of the New York Central and West Shore it leaves little or
nothing to pay fixed charges, and means ruin to the investor, followed by con-
solidation. If it acts at some points and not at others, those points which have
the benefit of competition have rates based on operating expenses, while the
less fortunate points pay the fixed charges. Then we have discrimination in a
dangerous form.
49
As long as competition exists, there is no escape from this alternative. If
it exists at all points, it means ruin; if it exists at some points, it means dis-
crimination. *
I read from Professor Hadley’s book on Railroad Transportation,
published in 1886, a book which I commend to every student of the
railroad question. Referring to combinations to prevent competition,
mainly of combinations among laborers, and incidentally of combina-
tions by way of pools to prevent indiscriminate and illegal railroad
competitions, he says:
While the experiments in State socialism have been so often bad, there has
been a tendency in a great many cases to go too far to the opposite extreme,
and to call everything bad which restricted competition in any way.
That is the only ground upon which you propose to make these pool-
ing contracts illegal.
Courts and legislators have tried to stop the growth of industrial monopoly
by shutting their eyes to industrial facts. They have tried to prohibit such
combinations altogether, the courts saying that they would not enforce con-
tracts in restraint of trade, the legislators trying to render it illegal to make
such contracts. e *
They could not stop such combinations because they were a necessity of busi-
ness. The result of trying to prohibit them was what always happens when
you try to prohibit a necessity; the worse features of the system were intensi-
fied. Secret combination was substituted for open ; short-sighted and arbitrary
policy was encouraged. By prohibiting the whole system the courts deprived
themselves of the power of dealing with specific evils, such as secret favors or
arbitrary discriminations. -
I repeat what I said a little while ago: the only competition which
these contracts for the apportionment of competitive business seek to
prevent is the competition which discriminates between individuals,
by which railroads cheat one another, and by which they violate the
common law of England and America.
Competition in railroad transportation differs from every other kind
of competition in the world. I do not say that it is not to be judged
by the same legal rule, but I say in essence and in character it is differ-
ent from competition in any other business. In the first place, it is
not competition in trade. The railroad buys nothing of the producer;
it sells nothing to the consumer. It simply carries—it distributes; that
is all. Contracts in restraint of trade may operate the same with refer-
ence to contracts between common carriers as hetween merchants; but
the two kinds of business differ in character. It differs from every
other business, because whatever the result of the competition and
the rivalry the railroad stays. Ricardo is a great advocate of the
doctrine that competition is the life of trade; but he writes from a
banker's standpoint. In banking, capital is circulatory. If competition
drives it out of the banking business it may go into the manufactur-
ing business. But the railroad stays, whatever the result of the com-
petition. If “ competition and the survival of the fittest º' means the
physical removal of the weakest, the pretended law is inapplicable,
for you can not remove the railroad. When its iron rails are laid
down from point to point, there it stays; and however many com-
panies may be bankrupted by competition, there stands another com-
pany ready to take its place and to be bankrupted in turn. It is not
so on the highways. It is not so on the water-ways. If two rival
coach proprietors disagree and one is bankrupted, the coaches can go
elsewhere and run on other roads. If rival steamboat lines disagree
and by competition one is bankrupted, the boats can go elsewhere.
The world is full of free highways, but the railroad is not a free high-
way.
I S C–4
50}}
Mr. HARRIS. I desire to ask the Senator:from Connecticut if he
wishes to conclude his remarks this evening or would he prefer to finish
them to morrow morning.
Mr. PIATT. I would prefer to finish to-morrow if I could do so.
Mr. HARRIS. I move then, if the Senator from Connecticut yields
for that purpose, that the Senate proceed to the consideration of execu-
tive business.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 1887.
* -X- * * * * *
Mr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration
of the conference report on the interstate-commerce bill.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration
of the report of the committee of conference upon the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce.
Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, I regret that I consumed as much time
as I did yesterday, and yet perhaps there is no reason why I should
apologize in view of the fact that probably never in the history of gov-
ernments was a bill under consideration which would inevitably affect,
either directly or remotely, so great financial and industrial interests
as this bill. It will reach every hamlet, every industry, every labor-
ing man, and every laboring man's family in the United States with
its results, either for evil or for good; and therefore I think that I
need not apologize for the time which I have already taken and shall
take in discussing it. I will endeavor, however, this morning to be
Torief.
I endeavored to show yesterday that contracts which are called pool-
ing contracts were much misunderstood. I undertook to show that,
though abuses may have attended the administration and performance
of those contracts, there was nothing inherently wrong in them, noth-
ing inherently injurious to the public welfare. I maintained, that,
before the Senate and House of Irepresentatives should stamp and
brand them as criminal, somebody should show that they were inher-
ently wrong, and that any evils or mistakes which had arisen in con-
nection with their execution were merely incidental and not a neces-
sary result of the system.
I undertook to show that they were recognized, sanctioned, and en-
forced by the decisions of English courts, and that it was at least an
-open question in this country whether they would not be sanctioned
by our own courts upon full consideration. I undertook to show that
they were not injurious to public policy, not injurious to the public
interests, by combating the doctrine that every kind of competition
in trade and business is for the public welfare and the public interest.
I tried to say—not expressing it as well as I would like to have ex-
pressed it—that unnatural, illegal competition is always opposed to the
public interests, and that if there is any such law as has found popu-
lar expression in the phrase “counpetition and the survival of the fit-
test,” it is a law which encourages only that competition which results
in the best and the permanence of the best. I claimed that these con-
tracts in their nature and in their proper execution were not opposed
to the competition which has for its object the encouragement of the
best and the permanence of the best.
When I gave way to a motion to proceed to executive business I
was speaking upon this proposition: That the business of the railroad
carrier was unlike any other business so far as it was governed and in-
fluenced by the law of competition. I had shown that the railroad was
51.
inot a free highway, not a highway upon which all the citizens of the
United States are free to put their carriages and transport goods; that
for that very reason the law of competition and the survivalship of
the fittest was not applicable to it, for that involves the physical re-
moval of the weakest, and you can not remove the railroad.
You may bankrupt the management of the road, but in other busi-
ness when you bankrupt the management the capital is destroyed and
•other capital goes on relieved for the time from the pressure of compe-
tition; but when you destroy the business management of a railroad
the capital is not destroyed. The capital is mainly invested in the
road. There it remains. There comes to take the place of the bank-
rupt corporation another corporation which utilizes the capital already
invested; and the result is, differing from results in any other kind of
business (and the history and experience of railroad management in
this country shows it), that the newcomer inflates the capital, and after
bankruptcy there is more capital upon which dividends must be paid
than there was before competition produced the bankruptcy; that rail-
road capital always grows with what it feeds upon. It is probably not
out of place in this discussion to speak of this evil which results from
the inflation of railroad capital.
I refer only to the acknowledged fact that when competition has de-
stroyed one competitive railroad corporation another takes the place of
the vanquished with a larger capital, to be in turn destroyed or to be
in turn the master of the other competitor.
There is another sense in which interstate commerce is not like any
other business so far as it is affected by the law of competition. The
business is largely of a public nature. As I said yesterday, it is the
discharge of a public duty which the railroad engages in, certainly in
the building of its road. It follows as a matter of course that the rail-
road company, in so far as it is discharging that part of its duty which
is public, must discharge it as the state would discharge it; that in that
respect it is properly limited to the same laws of competition, the same
laws of business, the same methods of regulation and of doing business
to which the state would in justice be limited and to which it would
in justice be subjected. e”
The railroad company assumes in this business a portion of the
power and duty of the state. Now, suppose the United States was
operating the railroads, as they are operated in Germany, and to some
extent in other countries of Furope, will any Senator say that the
United States should enter into the kind of competition which rail-
road companies are inevitably forced into when there are competing
roads and competing traffic and no pooling? Will any Senator say that
a state operating railroads should under any circumstances allow rates
to be put down to a point where they are ruinously low or practically
unremunerative?
I apprehend that the Senator who should claim that it was for the
public welfare and the public advantage that a state operating a rail-
road should carry freight for less than cost or for a sum which barely
paid cost, operating expenses, and fixed charges, would be told that
while certain favored citizens who wanted to ship certain commodities
over the state railroads might be benefited by such a policy, the
remainder of the public was taxed for the benefit of the few. And that
argument holds just as good when private corporations are managing
the railroads as it would if they were managed by the state.
There seems to be a great misapprehension in some portion of the pub-
lic mind as to the question of what are unreasonable rates. Some peo-
ple never apply that term except when the rates are too high. They
have no idea that the rates can be too low. I maintain that a rate for
carrying freight which only pays operating expense and fixed charges.
is as much unreasonable as a rate which is too high, and which will
pay too large a dividend upon railroad property. We are here to do
justice by the railroads and by the people. We are, like judges, to
hold the scales of justice with even hand, and not act from prejudice or
act wantonly. An unremunerative rate is just as unreasonable and
just as injurious, though in a different direction, as an unreasonably
high rate. >.
The railroads of this country must see to it, if the public welfare is.
to be promoted, that remunerative returns are received from freights
and passengers. I do not stop to say what remunerative rates are. I
do not stop to speak of the great question which comes up when that
is to be considered as to whether remunerative rates mean such rates.
as will pay dividends upon the inflated capital of the railroads of the
country. That is out of this discussion. I mean to say that it is the
duty of railroads discharging a public duty as well as a private duty
to see to it that iſ possible the business which they do yields remumer-
ative returns to the capital investment, and that you can not endanger
the public prosperity or destroy the public welfare any quicker than to
establish rates or to let rates be established by competition which will
not give fair remuneration to the capital invested in railroad enter-
prises. The whole history of the country shows it. I have seen two
railroad-rate wars which resulted in such demoralization of business in
this country as produced what might have been called two years' con-
tinuous panic.
Unremunerative rates injure, first, the investors in railroad securities;
next, railroad employés; next, corelated industries; and, lastly, all in-
dustries; and it is the last wave of the enlarging circle of disturbance
that is most disastrously felt. The injury produced by unreasonably
low rates is finally felt by every citizen. The toiler in remote ham-
lets feels the baneful effects of the general depression, but usually
ascribes the result to every cause but the primary one, which is the
railroad-rate war and the unreasonably low rates produced thereby.
The interests of the people are so closely united that an injury to one
branch of business is felt by all. Here, truly, an injury to one is the
concern of all. How appropriate in this, connection the language of in-
spiration: “We are many members, yet but one body; and the eye
can not say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; or again the head
to the feet, I have no need of thee.”
I think people misapprehend the question in this respect. It is
within the power of one railroad president to practically depress the
entire business of the nation; and the West Shore Railroad and its
management is a recent example and illustration of what I say. For
this reason railroads are not subject to the same law of competition as
other kinds of business are.
There is another reason, which is seldom alluded to. The competi-
tion, mark you, which it is claimed must not be prevented is the com-
petition between competing railroads for competitive business. The
proposition is that no matter what that competition is, no matter what
the result of it is as to the lowering of rates or the discriminations
which ensue, it must not be prevented, and therefore pooling must be
prohibited. It is to that proposition that I desire to hold the discus-
sion of this question. •
The reason which I last alluded to is this: When rates are forced be—
53
How the remunerative point, how does the railroad manager and the
railroad president attempt to make money? Not from the legitimate
business of the railroad, but by stock gambling. Unremunerative rates
inevitably substitute stock gambling for the legitimate profit of busi-
ness, substitute the effort to get money by stock gambling for the effort
to earn it legitimately by railroad business. It is inevitable; it is in
the nature of things.
It is not the remunerative railroad that furnishes the business for
the stock exchange. It is not dealing in the remunerative railroad
securities that produces panic, that makes millionaires and makes
paupers,in this country. The inducement to this business comes from
the fact that by strife for competing business railroad managers are
tunable to make profit in a legitimate way. And so I say that the law
of competition claimed, though it may be just as to other business, is
inapplicable to the business of the management of railroads.
But, Mr. President, contracts such as I have described, arrangements
such as this bill proposes to prohibit, can not essentially interfere with
or prevent competition between railroads. That kind of competition,
which it is supposed is prevented by such contracts, is the mere speck
which floats upon the mighty current of competition always flowing.
There are a thousand forces which compete in rivalry for the reduction
of the rates of transportation, and you can no more stop those forces,
no more stop the competition that goes brm by the clash of rival com-
mercial interests in this country and the world than you can sweep
back the ocean with a broom.
The Mississippi River, the Welland Canal, great cities at different
parts of the country forming commercial centers with different interests
to be subserved, the ocean, the Canadian lines, the transit of the Isth-
mus, the ever-clashing interests of diversified business—all these are
potent factors, continually, by their rivalry competing for the reduction
of railroad freights. Cotton in the South, and in Egypt; wheat in Da-
kota and in India; petroleum in the United States and in Russia; coal
in Pennsylvania; iron in Spain, all these things, and a thousand others,
form an anti-monopoly league stronger than individuals or boards of
trade, or commercial exchanges can form. They make it impossible that
this purely competitive business can be done at excessive rates charged
by common carriers. These contracts for division of business or ap-
portionment of freight are but a trifle among the great forces which carry
on the great war of competition which has so materially reduced the
charges for the transportation of freight, and which will go on unuil the
lowest limit possible with remunerative returns is reached.
If I had time I should like to stop here for a moment to speak of
my belief that the limit has not yet been reached. The capacity of
freight-cars has been increased from 10 tons to 20 tons; Bessemer
steel rails have taken the place of iron rails; improvements in ma-
chinery, in locomotives—all these things have marvelously reduced the
cost of transportation. Sometimes we feel that the end is reached, but
I am told that freight-cars are now in process of construction which
will carry 25 tons, or 50,000 pounds, in place of the original cars with
a capacity of 20,000 pounds; that engines are being built whose ten
driving wheels will wonderfully increase the power of locomotion, and
that these improvements in engines and cars will necessitate the relay-
ing of the iron rail, substituting a heavier rail, perhaps a 100-pound
rail for 60-pound rails. The limit of the cheapening of the cost of
transportation has not begun to be reached, and these little arrangements
between railroad companies, adopted for their self-protection and for
*54
the protection of the public as well, have very little part to play in
this great competition which is going on and must go on in relation to
this business.
But there is another ground on which I ask the Senate to pause before
it declares such arrangements between railroad companies to be crimi-
nal. I want them to consider a question which takes hold of the future
of this country. These contracts alud agreements and arrangements,
between railroad companies are in the nature of business combinations.
between different railroad corporations. Admit, if you please, that
there is something bad about them, for the sake of argument; they
must be tolerated, or the alternative is consolidation of railroad cap-
ital. I dread that result. Some political economists, some railroad
men, and some men interested in what they think they see in the
future, the grand co-operative commonwealth, believe that that is the
best outcome of the railroad problem.
º & * * -
I wish to emphasize this point: George Stephenson said that where
combination was possible, competition was impossible; and no man ever
said a truer thing. This bili leaves open and invites the worst kind of
combination which this country may fear; that is, the combination
and consolidation of railroad corporate capital.
What are the railroads to do it forbidden from making these arrange-
ments? Experience teaches that the old rate war will begin; the bill
encourages it. It requires no notice from a railroad company to put
down its rates, but notice in order to advance its rates. The whole.
bill is an invitation to the individual railroad company to put down its.
rates without public notice, and that means private notice in advance
for the purpose of securing business. The war is to go on if it is not re-
strained by those arrangements which the railroad companies believe:
best for themselves in the interest of protection, and the result will be,
as it always is, consolidation—capitalistic consolidation.
Why, Mr. President, the monopolies of this country are built on
the graves of weak competitors, and this bill invites that grand mo-
nopoly of railroad tapital in this country which will be built upon
the graves of railroads that are not able to stand in the competition,
which railroad monopoly will be the master of the people. I have not.
learned that such results are to be regarded with favor. I can not
unlearn all the teachings of my youth at the demand of these econo-
mists, these professors of political economy, these railroad men, and
these socialists. I believe that it is better to keep business in a good
many hands, if you can, than to concentrate it in a few hands. I
believe it is better to let the jittle stores in the country live than to
build up the great mercantile establishments at their expense. I
believe it is better to let the little factories live than to build up the
great manufacturing corporations at their expense. I believe it is.
better to let the weak railroads live in this country than it is to build
up one gigantic railroad corporation which shall occupy to the railroad
business of the country the same position which the Western Union
Telegraph Company occupies to the telegraph business of the country.
I believe we are holding up a false standard to our young men. I be-
lieve that the “little arm well tilled ” is better than many leagues of
land in one ownership tilled by capitalists whose laborers come and go,
and who have little sympathy with the proprietors; that a “little house
well filled ” is better thaf, the marble palace with its interior decorations.
of gold, its hangings of silk, and artistic carpets from the marts of foreign
nations, better in their tendency to the advancement of the prosperity
{)0
of the nation and the welfare of its people. Lut this bill presents these
alternatives.
Senators may feel, perhaps, that I am overstating this matter. I
want to turn them for a moment to history.
The railroads of this country have not had a long life. What has
been the history with regard to consolidation—I mean a consolidation
of capital, not combination by these business arrangements. which I
defy any man to say are inherently wrong? I turn to Mr. Hadley’s.
book, and I find that since 1853 the New York Central Railroad Com-
pany, then composed of fifteen or sixteen separate organizations, has.
consolidated and consolidated, until now it has a system including
more than 4,000 miles of railroad line.
I find that the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, originally composed
of local roads, has under one system and one management 7,000 miles.
of railroad track. I find that what is called the Wabash system, orig-
inally composed of many small railroads, is now welded into one gi-
gantic management of 9,500 miles. Where is this to stop? It is the
dream and vision of the railroad man that it shall go on. That is the
outcome of the problem for him. It is only a temporary check that
he supposes is put upon it by these pooling arrangements.
Let me turn for a moment to the testimony of one railroad man on
this subject. I read from Charles Francis Adams's testimony before the
Interstate Commerce Committee on the subject of pooling, page 1204 of
the report:
So far as pooling is concerned—a subject I see a good deal discussed—pool—
ing, as I regard it, is a mere makeshift. It is an attempt on the part of the rail-
roads to hold in check a natural law whicle would result in the survivalship of
the fittest. If competition worked with its full severity and legislation put a
stop to all pooling, saying absolutely to the railroads, “There you are, and you.
have got to compete ’’—and this I take to be the object of the proposed law—I
do not suppose there would be at the end of two years more than three or four
leading corporations in the country that would not be in the hands of receivers.
It would be the condition of affairs now temporarily existing in New York
between the Central and West Shore roads perpetuated and made chronic by
force of law. Everlasting warfare annong railroads would be provided for by
statute. The thing is absurd and unworthy of discussion. Of course the rail-
roads would in some way agree to divide traffic, and to divide traffic is to pool
it. But supposing the pooling or division of the traffic effectually forbidden by
law; then, so far as I can judge, the natural result would follow, a result which
I for one do not object to at all, though it would be attended with inn mense
waste of wealth and would wipe out of existence forms of securities which in
amount probably would far exceed the national debt of the country.
The result would be that, as the connpanies becaume bankrupt, those who got
possession of their properties would combine and consolidate then, and you
would have one railroad corporation in the country in the course of a few years
which, as compared with the corporations you now have, would occupy about
the position the Western Union Telegraph Company occupies among telegraph
connpanies; that is, one wholly predominating company. In other words, the
legislation intended to prevent the pooling of traffic and insure competition
would produce exactly what it was meant to prohibit. The railroads would be
E. themselves, and competition would be done away with through consol-
jdation.
Then he goes on to say:
In order to secure so far as may be what you desire—that is, to preserve com—
petition and prevent this consolidation into great corporations—the course that
Congress should, pursue would be the exact opposite of what is now suggested.
Congress should legalize pooling, and impose a heavy penalty on any violation
of pooling agreements. That would keep the weaker corporations alive and
prevent their being absorbed by the large ones, as they inevitably soon must
be the way things are now going on.
It will be observed that this bill does not in any line of it prohibit
the consolidation of railroad capital, and in my judgment by prohibit-
ing pooling and making it criminal it invites that result.
Now, I desire, Mr. President, to answer in advance, if I can, an
argument which I know will surely be made in reply to what I say.
It is that when the bill prohibits discrimination the necessity of pool-
ing will be done away with. Suppose that to be so, for a moment. It
is rather hard, even in that case, to say that a practice which has been
resorted to with the avowed purpose, and only for the purpose, what-
ever its results may have been, of preventing discrimination, shall be
declared criminal because the bill declares that discrimination must
cease. I maintain that that is illogical *
But I do not believe that this bill unaided and alone will do away
with discrimination, and I say so because it is the experience of foreign
countries that rigid laws aimed against discrimination have been in-
effectual except as aided by the efforts of the railroads themselves by
pooling. The experience of foreign countries is worth something, and
I want here to state what is said on that subject by Mr. Hadley. I do
not know but that I read it yesterday, but I wish to emphasize what
he says in these few words:
We are thus reduced to the sinnple alternative, pooling or discrimination.
Each effort to prohibit both at the same time only makes the necessity more
clear. The governments of continental Europe have ceased to struggle against
it. Rightly judging that discrimination is the main evil, they recognize pools
as the most effective met lºod of connbating it,
And yet for years and years they have had these anti-discrimination
statutes which they can not euſorce, and it was only by a resort to a
system of pooling that they were able to enforce their laws. Is it not
a strange thing, a solecism, that it should be urged here that an effort
among railroad companies to secure the same thing which you say is to
be accomplished by this bill should be declared criminal? Is it wise
to discard any aid or agency which may help to carry out and make
effective in its operation so important a bill as this and the removal of
which may throw discredit upon the whole legislation and render it
absolutely ineffectual?
I wish to read what the real situation with regard to pooling is in
foreign countries.
Believing Professor Hadley, to whom I have so frequently referred
in this discussion, to be the most thoroughly informed and thoroughly
independent student of the railroad problem in the country, I wrote him
asking for information as to the present status of pooling arrangements
in Europe. &
--- NEW HAvRN, December 25, 1886.
l MY DEAR MR. PLATT : Please excuse the unavoidable delay in answering your
etter.
The most conspicuous examples of the public use of pooling are found in Bel-
gium, Germany, and Austria. Fifteen years ago all these countries had a good
deal of active railroad competition; and it was found in each country that un-
der any such active competition it was impossible to secure obedience to any
law against discrimination. The reckless and speculatively managed roads
were able to force not merely the sounder private roads but the state roads
themselves into discriminations of the worst kind. *
f You know the general history, and I will only mention one or two recent
acts:
I. The Belgian state railroads have within the last two years concluded a
pooling agreement with the only private system of importance, which provides
for an almost permanent division of traffic and is intended to render connpeti-
tion forever inn possible.
II. Although nearly all the railroads in Germany are State owned, the rivalry
between different systems is so strong that a pool is necessary to regulate the
action of the officials themselves; and in order that the system may be thor-
oughly carried out, a recent inn perial ordinance forbids the shipper tº select the
rowte over which his goods are to be sent.
III. In Austria not merely do the state roads divide traffic with the private
roads, but also with competing water-routes; and the government authorities
say explicitly that they regard this as the only possible method of securing jus-
57
tice to local points. There has been no recent change in legislation, bitt the
practice is becoming more fully established every day.
These are the countries where the most positive authority is given to pools;
they are also those where railroads are the best managed, rates on the whole
lowest, and traffic developing most harmoniously. The other countries may be
divided into two classes. In one class are France and Italy, where the country
is districted between different railroads, and competition thus rendered impos-
sible—a division of the field instead of a division of the traffic. Yet these coun-
tries pool their international traffic, which can not be thus districted.
The second class includes those countries where pooling is merely tolerated
rather than encouraged—Switzerland, Russia, Holland, or England. It is no-
ticeable, 1, that these countries suffer from more abuses and discriminations
than those previously mentioned; 2, that they are worst where natural causes
have hindered the growth of pools, as shown by a recent investigation in Hol-
land; 3, that government authority over rates, however great, is ineffective to
prevent discrimination. Russia being a strong instance in point.
As far as I know, no European country directly prohibits pools.
Sincerely yours,
* ARTHUR T. KIADH, HEY.
I do not think that we can afford to overlook the importance of the
experience of these countries in this respect.
There is a single other feature of this bill to which I wish to refer in
this connection. It contains a short-haul clause or law. Why? Why
the necessity for it 2 The inexorable logic of the case is that the com-
petitive rate is too low and the railroads are attempting to earn remu-
nerative rates by putting unreasonable charges upon local traffic. Is
there any other reason for a short-haul law 2 What is to be the effect
of the prohibition of pooling? To make the competing rates still lower,
they being now too low, and to force the railroad company, if it be pos-
sible, to raise its local rates.
How a man who insists upon the necessity and justice of a short-haul
law can also insist upon the necessity and justice of a prohibition of
pooling, I am unable to see. You propose to remedy the already too
low competitive rates by saying that the railroads shall not recoup for
their losses upon the local traffic, and yet you propose to prohibit that
very thing which the railroad companies have adopted as the only means
known to them to prevent competitive rates from going still lower. You
put the railroad companies in the condition of a man under what was
claimed to be the old Calvinistic theology, of which it was wittily rather
than truly said that under its doctrine a man is ‘‘damned if he does,
and damned if he don’t.” That is precisely what this bill proposes to
do with the railroad companies of the country. In my judgment, a more
glaring inconsistency in legislation was never attempted than in this
proposal to insert a short-haul law and the prohibition of pooling in the
same bill. -
But there is another point to which I did not allude at length when
I was speaking of the competition which exists, that it seems to me
makes pooling necessary and makes its prevention entirely improper.
The American railroads which are competing between the West and
the East under this bill with pooling prohibited will be absolutely at
the mercy of the Grand Trunk Railroad of Canada. Whatever effect
a short-haul and long-haul clause may have upon that traffic as di-
verting it to Canada, you may rest certain, I think—and I think expe-
rience justifies me in the assertion—that if pooling is prohibited the
traffic of the West comes to the seaboard through Canada and not over
American roads. Why? Because by this bill you invite the Grand
Trunk road to put down its rates without notice. It desires first of all
things to insure business. Then it can put them up, probably.
It is to-day making its arrangements, by the outlay of great amounts
of money in securing improved cars and engines and the improvement
58
A
of its track, to do a greater through business. Now, prohibit pooling,
put the bill in operation, and what will be the result? The Grand
Trunk road may put all through business from the West to the sea-
board down to an unremunerative point and make up for it by recoup-
ing upon the local traffi.; through. Canada, and we are powerless to pre-
vent it. You may say that pooling would not prevent it; but it is the
only means which the American roads have to secure any terms with
the Grand Trunk road which shall give them any considerable share
of the traffic which shall pass from the West to the seaboard.
I have already occupied more time than I desired, and, instead of
stating my own conclusion as to what pooling has accomplished, I pre-
fer to state the conclusions of Mr. Nimmo, from whom I have frequently
quoted during this argument and whom I quote with the more satis-
faction because I think he has given the matter as careful study per-
haps as any man investigating it outside of railroad circles. As will
be seen by his reports, he devoted at least eight years to a scientific
and practical study of this problem. The history of every pool, the
results of every pooling arrangement almost, are to be found in the
tables and statistics of his internal commerce reports from 1879 to 1884.
The conclusions of such an investigator are entitled to weight, and as
they are clearly and tersely stated and coincide entirely with my own,
I wish to adopt them:
In conclusion, the following general observations may be made in regard to
railroad federations or pooling organizations:
First. They have been instrumental in preventing unjust discriminations
through special secret rates to favored shippers, and the consequent demorali-
zation of trade. -
Second. They have prevented many unjust and ruinous discriminations
against towns and cities, and against particular States or sections of the coun-
try.
Third. They have put a stop to violently fluctuating rates. -
Fourth. They have had the effect of protecting the weaker lines and of pre-
venting their absorption by the stronger lines, and thus of conserving elements
of competition in transportation.
Fifth By preventing the absorption of the weaker by the stronger lines, they
have prevented the threatened danger to the country of its being districted
annong a few great corporations, by which means the regulating influence of the
competition of trade forces would have been eliminated, and transportation
would have gotten the mastery of trade.
Sixth. They have tended to prevent those shocks to the financial interests of
the country which generally accompany the bankruptcy of great railroad cor-
porations. -
Seventh. Since they have been adopted the railroad transportation facilities
of the country have been greatly extended. The volume of traffic has also
enormously increased, and rates have constantly fallen. These facts seem to
prove that railroad federation has not had the effect of obstructing the bene-
ficial operation of the connpetition of trade forces and of the direct competition
between transportation lines. Statistics hereinbefore presented clearly indi-
cats' this fact,
Eighth. The most hopeful aspect of federations for the division or pooling of
traffic is that thereby the railroads have been brought to a condition in which
their accountability to the public interests may be more clearly defined, and in
which any departure from undoubted principles of right can be observed and
the responsibility therefor located. It is believed to be much easier to regulate
great federations of railroads with respect to matters relating to commerce
annong the States than to regulate a great number of railroads acting inde-
pendently, for the reason that these federations constitute concrete expressions
of relationships and antagonisms both among railroads and among trade cem-
ters, and tend to illustrate the relative force of the same.
Ninth. Railroad pools have not proved to be rigid compacts, but they have
been constantly subject to change. Occasional and even protracted wars of
rates render their requirements at times almost entirely inoperative. This
must, in the light of public interests, be regarded as a favorable sympton) of their
practical workings. The conditions surrounding and governing the com-
mercial and transportation interests of the country are constantly subject to
change, and it is in practicable that any fixed rules or set of rules should be
formulated which in practice would tend to prevent such changes.
a º
#59
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR] asks me if I have in
my mind statistics bearing on the point as to whether the net receipts
of the railroad companies pay more on the average than a fair rate
upon the capital invested. I think that was the question. I have not
the exact figures. I sent home to Connecticut, my own State; I found
this to be true of Connecticut, that the amount paid as dividends upon
railroad stock in the State of Connecticut during the past year would
average upon the whole capital stock of Connecticut railroads about
4% per cent. Of course some roads do not pay any, and one pays as
high as 10 per cent., but the average upon the capital stock of all rail-
roads in the State would be 4} per cent. The statistics for the whole
country are not accurately in my mind at this time, but I think I will
venture upon my recollection to say that the entire railroad dividends
of the United States in the year 1885 applied to the entire capital stock
of the railroad companies of the United States would produce a divi-
dend of about 2% per cent. -
Mr. HOAR. Do you mean stock unwatered ?
Mr. PLATT. I mean the stock as it stands, watered, if it has been
watered, and undoubtedly it has been. The Senator from Colorado.
[Mr. TELLERJ says that is true in all cases. I think it is not univer-
sally true. Here is a railroad running into Washington—the Baltimore
and Ohio–that has notincreased its capital stock in many years, which
has to-day, as I remember, only twenty millions of capital stock,
though its property equals in value the property of roads whose capital
is three or four times as much. It is not true in a good many instances.
that might be mentioned. It is lamentable that it is too true in this
country; but, as I said, the discussion of what rate of interest shall be
paid upon the capital as it stands, including water, is outside of this.
discussion which I am now carrying on. I should say as severe things
on that subject, probably, as any member of the Senate. I should be
glad if there were some way to eliminate fictitious capital. I might
regard competition as a blessing if when it bankrupted a railroad man-
agement the water should be eliminated before another management
was set on foot; but that never will be.
Mr. President,...I have heard it suggested in reply to all this that we
can pass this law and then pass another law directing the commission
to investigate; and if the commission shall, on the whole, conclude on
its investigations that pooling arrangements are not injurious to the pub-
lic welfare, then we can repeal the section prohibiting pooling. That is
after the fashion of what is known in Scotland as Jedburgh justice, for
border marauders, “hang them first, try them afterwards.” That is
not a correct principle in legislation. We had better investigate first.
All investigation so far, the weight of all testimony, the weight of all
the testimony of students who have given the most attention to this.
problem, and the weight of the best informed railroad officers and rail-
road commissioners, shows the wisdom of legalizing and regulating,
rather than prohibiting, pooling.
I suppose that Senators will rise and tell me of specific instances
where justice has not been done to localities or to individuals under
pools. I reply, first, legalize them and then regulate them by this
commission and the evils will disappear. They are not inherent in
the system. I reply, second, those evils would not be remedied by
prohibitions of pooling. They would exist still and be intensified. Do
not charge upon the pool that for which it is not responsible. Do not
make it criminal to engage in such contracts because certain things oc-
cur, not chargeable to them, which you do not like.
( 60
The issue here, however, is not between legalizing immediately and
prohibiting. It is between the proposition now before the Senate and
the Senate bill, which, very properly in my judgment, sought to refer
this matter for further investigation to the commission to be appointed
under the bill. I submit to the Senate that a majority of its Senators
to-day believe that it is the wise thing to do; that the intelligent judg-
ment of Senators must bring them to this conclusion. If it is wise,
why surrender it?' Shall we surrender it for the fear that if we do the
wise thing here there may be obstimacy elsewhere which shall prevent
any legislation at all? If that principle is to be adopted, then we are
driven to this in the Senate, that whenever legislation upon any sub-
ject is desirable and we have determined what legislation is wise and
politic and just, we are to surrender our views as to that and agree to
legislation which we deem impolitic, unwise, and unjust, because
otherwise we cannot get any legislation at all.
Mr. President, others may yield their judgment upon what they
consider vital matters for the purpose of getting some kind of legisla-
tion, but for one I am content to stand and take the judgment of the
country upon my action when I vote only for what upon mature de-
liberation I believe is the best legislation. I do not believe that the
legislation will fail if this bill goes back to a conference with an indi-
cation that the Senate will not consent to brand as criminal practices
those arrangements which railroads have made to accomplish the pre-
cise object which is intended to be accomplished by legislation in this
bill. I believe we may trust to the good judgment of conferees and of
legislators not to do a thing which, upon reflection and investigation,
they must be satisfied will probably, I may say almost inevitably,
break up and demoralize the existing conditions of railroad service in
this country. wº -
Nine-tenths of all the interstate-commerce business done to-day is
done under those arrangements which are sought to be damned be-
cause of the evil meaning which has been given to the word “pooling.”
Whatever of stability has been given to the railroad business, and
through it to other business of the country, has been secured by these
traffic arrangements, and in my judgment a bill which breaks them all
up ruthlessly within sixty days, which invites the competition which is
to demoralize business, will be far-reaching in its injurious results.
For one, I prefer to stand by my judgment. I will try to have the
courage of my convictions. I will try to do what I believe to be right,
and I can not assent to a bill which, though I accept its other provisions,
contains a provision which I regard as positively vicious and wrong.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, it is very late in this debate, after
it has occupied the attention of both Houses now for several years, for
any one to attempt to advance an argument that has not already been
sifted and winnowed thoroughly, and I shall not attempt to convince
the Senate of anything to-day by arguing this question before them,
but shall merely state the reasons which influence my own vote against .
this bill. -
I am not content with the bill in respect of its practical effects upon
the people of my own State, for Alabama is at the farther southern
margin of the United States, and the markets in which we buy our dry
goods and a large portion of our groceries are in the far northeast, and
there is a broad intervening area of country between them. The mar-
kets in which we buy our supplies are also far distant from Alabama;
they are in Chicago, Saint Louis, and Cincinnati chiefly. The markets
in which we sell our products are all distant from our homes, and we
61
have a vast tract of country to cross with transportation in getting over
to the market of purchase or the market of sale. , ,
So I think that any bill which forces the railroads of this country
to raise the price of charges of freights for long hauls is necessarily
inimical to the best interests of all the different business occupations
in my State. That practical statement of the reasons why I might op-
pose this bill will be quite sufficient Ithink to justify me in the course
that I feel compelled to take toward it, but I have other reasons which
I will proceed to state as briefly as I may.
I deprecate the task which the decisions of the Supreme Court seem
to have imposed upon Congress, of taking control of all internal com-
merce under the guise of regulating interstate commerce. -
Had that court left to the States the field of jurisdiction, clearly open
to them (in the absence of legislation by Congress), they would have
dealt with the great lines of transportation in a way to benefit every
community, and that, of course, would have benefited the whole
country.
Every State can be trusted to take care of its own people, and their
concurrent endeavors to restrain common carriers within due bounds
would have been far more effectual than anything Congress can do,
looking to this result. But the Supreme Court is about to force Con-
gress into reluctant action, by having declared that the States can not
regulate, within their own limits, the transportation of commerce des-
tined to reach other States or countries. Congress has long resisted this
demand upon its alleged powers and duties, by silence and inaction,
until how it is declared by the Supreme Court that the States cannot
constitutionally exert any of these powers, because they are expressly
conferred upon Congress.
They hold that all commerce becomes interstate that is destined to
cross a State line, though it might traverse hundreds of miles within
the State of its origin and only a few feet in the State where it is de-
livered. -
For example, a car-load of merchandise shipped at Alexandria, Va.,
for Bristol, would be interstate commerce if it is delivered on the south
side of a street in Bristol through which the line between Virginia and
Tennessee runs. It would be Virginia commerce if delivered on the
north side of that street.
A question of disputed jurisdiction between two governments, in
which the most important questions are involved, would be made in
such a case to hang upon the accident whether the delivery of the
freight is made in Virginia or Tennessee. Or if the point of shipment
and destimation of the goods are to determine this question of jurisdic-
tion, the matter would be quite as uncertain, for the shipper has the
right with the consent of the carrier to end the transit of goods des-
tined for Bristol in Tennessee at the State line. I do not present this
to show upon how narrow a margin of territory may hang this grave
question of jurisdiction, but to bring into view the question whether
the jurisdiction of either government to regulate the commerce that
may be in the transit of the goods can be rationally determined alone,
as is done in this bill by the location on the map of the points of ship-
ment and of delivery. -
As the purpose of all regulation of interstate commerce must be to
control the transit among the States, the ſaw that regulates it must
operate upon the goods, the vehicle of transportation, the carrier, the
shipper, and all concerned in the transportation at the time the journey
is begun, and must continue its control until the destination is reached.
62. *.
Once the power of the United States has attached to the subject it,
can not be displaced in favor of the State by the act of the parties en-
gaged in the transportation of the goods.
If the criminal law proposed in this bill is violated in respect of a
shipment of goods to Bristol in Tennessee, the crime can not beacon-
doned, not can the criminal escape punishment by cutting short the
journey by a matter of ten feet, and delivering the goods in Bristol,
Virginia.
The crime in such cases would consist in the intent to transport
goods into Tennessee contrary to this act of Congress, although a lawful
agreement was afterwards made between the culprits that they should
stop in Virginia 10 feet short of the Tennessee line.
The intent is the crime, if its execution is entered upon, although
the thing to be done is not in itself criminal, and although it is never
done, but is prevented by a lawful agreement.
I am not attempting to illustrate my point by presenting a difficulty
in the execution of the law as proposed in this bill. I am endeavoring.
to show that it is a mistake, if not a legal impossibility, to measure
the constitutional power of Congress to regulate commerce among the
several States by the mere fact that the points of delivery and ship-
ment of goods were in different States. This power of Congress rests
on quite different grounds than these narrow and embarrassing views.
of the subject.
If commerce gains a national character because it is shipped from one
State to or through another, and in virtue of that character falls within
the exclusive protection of Congress, to the exclusion of the right of any
State to regulate it, what would be the character of commerce shipped
from Buffalo to New York city on a line of railroad running through
Pennsylvania? The points of shipment and destination are in the same
State; would that fact make it State commerce while it is passing
through Pennsylvania? New York could not protect this commerce
while it is beyond her borders, and the United States could not protect
it because it was State commerce when it was shipped and when it was
delivered, and could not change this character while it was in transit.
The geography of the United States was not made the foundation
plan on which the power of Congress to regulate commerce annong the
several States was land. It was placed on a higher plane of reason than
that, and it can never be justly measured by so low and artificial a
standard. If goods are shipped at Knoxville, Tenn., by steamboat to
Nashville, which must traverse the Tennessee, Ohio, and Cumberland
Rivers, passing a long distance of the route through Alabama, the points
of shipment and destination being both in Tennessee, the commerce
would not be national in its character, according to this bill, and Con-
gress could not regulate it. Yet for more than half the journey it was
beyond the borders of Tennessee. -
If there is any case in which the power of Congress to protect this
commerce ought to exist it is in the case I have stated, where the
State of its origin and delivery can not protect it. Yet the geograph-
ical definition of the power of Congress to regulate commerce among
the States deprives this commerce of all protection while it is not
within the State of Tennessee. If this cargo, while passing through
Alabama, should meet with some law of that State that imposed upon
it any unjust tax, restriction, or burden, or some person, acting under
color of such law, to impose such burden, a law of Congress remov-
ing such impediments and punishing persons engaged in imposing
63
them on this commerce would find its full warrant in the Constitu-
tion and would protect it.
If a thief should steal a part of this cargo while the boat was in
Alabama the laws of that State would punish him, whether the com-
merce on which his raid was directed was State or national in its char-
acter. These illustrations sufficiently indicate my view of the nature
of the regulations that Congress may enforce in respect of the com-
merce among the several States and that the points of shipment and
delivery are not the proper tests of the limits of this jurisdiction or
of the cases to which it is applicable.
I regard it as a deplorable mistake that the decisions of the Supreme
Court have rested on this erroneous ground, in which the physical and
political geography of the United States is made to define the limits of
a power delegated to Congress.
The assumption of this bill is the same that the Supreme Court have
made that all articles of commerce intended to be carried from one
State to another are, when in transit, subject to the United States
laws that regulate the transit. The deduction they make from this
premise is that the State laws do not apply to such articles while in
transit or to the persons engaged in moving them. --
Admitting, as they do, the plenary jurisdiction of the States over
all regulations of the transit of commerce completed within their
limits, they omit to give any effect to the fact that the laws of the
United States in every case must encroach on this State jurisdiction
to the extent that they control the transit of articles of commerce
within a State. -
It may be assumed, without any irreverence or any n glect of filial
duty, that it is just as wrong for Congress to interfere with commerce
in the States as it is for any Svate to interfere with the commerce be-
tween it and any other State. We ought, if we can, to find some
proper and useful field of operation for the power of Congress to reg-
ulate commerce between the States that will not bring Congress and
the State governments into constant and irreconcileable controversy
.0ver these delicate and important subjects.
In the case I have mentioned, of the transportation of goods 400 miles,
from Alexandria, Va., to the Tennessee line and 20 feet across that line
to the point of delivery, it is a patent absurdity to say that a law of
the United States that controls the price of the freight through Vir-
ginia is not a law that controls and regulates commerce within Vir-
ginia. Such an act of Congress is quite as open to question upon con-
stitutional grounds as a law of Virginia would be that provided a fixed
rate per ton per mile on freight for the whole distance it is carried
within that State.
But under this bill the national character imparted to the freight
by consigning it to Bristol in Tennessee rides down and defies the
power of Virginia over her own people, her railroads that the State
may own, and over commerce and trade in articles grown on her soil,
and relegates the entire control of all these to Congress on a margin of
ten feet of Tennessee soil included in the designated line of transit.
The supremacy of the laws of Congress over those of Virginia in such
a case ought to have a more rational basis. On this basis, no matter
which of these laws gives the greatest security, justice, equality, and
freedom to commerce, the supremacy is accorded to geography. Con-
gress can not create nor can it prohibit commerce between the States in
time of peace.
It can not repress commerce between the States by embargo, nor by
64
any other means, except to prevent or repress crime. Its duty is to fos-
ter commerce, and to this end it may regulate it by the prevention and
surpression of all improper obstructions by State laws that abridge its
freedom.
It was the preservation of the freedom of commerce that caused the
framers of the Constitution to give to Congress the power to regulate
it among the States. The freedom of commerce between the States is
as sacred in American policy and constitutional law as the freedom of
speech, and, for a better reason, it should not be controlled by statutes,
except to prevent the growth of abuses which will in the end destroy
its freedom. *
These are personal rights which the law may regulate, so as to pre-
serve them and protect their proper enjoyment; but none of them has
been placed under the power of any Government, State or Federal, to
be admeasured to the people by statutes, or to be clipped and curtailed,
from time to time, so as to conform the freedom of their enjoyment to
the legislative will,
All our personal liberties came to us under the sheltering wing of
the common law, which was wide enough to protect them in the courts
without the aid of statutes. But, in forming our more perfect Govern-
ment, the liberty of unrestricted trade among the States needed to be
guarded by special provisions in the Constitution, which gave to them
a more cautious security and a plainer recognition than our other per-
sonal rights, for the following reasons:
When the States were colonies they had the right, as the dominion
of Canada now has, to levy duties on all-goods coming into or passing
through their respective borders. As to each other they were foreign
countries in this respect. After their independence was achieved, when
they met in the confederacy, they expressly reserved to each of the
States this same power, in the following language, found in the “Ar-
ticles of Confederation:” .
ARTICLE III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of
friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liber-
ties, and their mutual and general welfare; binding themselves to assist each
other a gainst all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on
account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other preteuse whatever.
ARTICLE IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and inter-
course among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhab-
itants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice
excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and inamunities of free citizens in the
several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress
to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade
and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions, as the
inhabitants thereof respectively: Provided. That such restrictions shall not
extend so lar as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State to
any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant: Provided, That no impo-
sition, duties, or restriction shall be laid by any State on the property of the
United States or either of them, - *
The next reference to this general topic in the articles of confedera-
tion is found in Article IX:
ARTICLE IX. The United States in Congress assembled shall have the sole
and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the
cases mentioned in the sixth article; of sending and receiving embassadors;
entering into treaties and alliances: Provided, That no treaty of commerce shall
be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be re-
strained from inn posing such innposts and duties on foreigners as their own
people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of
any species of goods or commodities whatsoever, &c. -
The next reference I find is in the same article further on:
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclu-
sive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their
own authority, or by that of the respective States; fixing the standard of
65
weights and measures throughout the United States; regulating the trade and
managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States: Pro-
vided, That the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not in-
fringed or violated. tº ;
The powers thus reserved to the States in the articles of confedera-
tion were sovereign attributes, inherent in every independent State.
They were the chief barriers to the formation of the “more perfect
union;” and the change of these powers and the relations between the
States that they created was the chief purpose of the constitutional
'convention. The subject was considered with the most careful atten-
tion. Three most important matters were to be cared for:
1. The privileges and immunities of citizens in each of the States.
2. The powers to be reserved to the States in respect of commerce.
3. The powers to be conferred on Congress over the States and their
citizens.
As to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,
they were preserved in the Constitution as they were declared in the
articles of confederation, and almost in the same words. -
As to the powers reserved to the States in respect of commerce, their
general designation was declared in the tenth amendment of the Con-
stitution, which was only an expression of the true meaning of that
instrument, as it was understood by its framers, namely:
The Pºyº not delegated to the United States by the Coustitution, nor pro-
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.
There were reserved to the people in the articles of confederation the
following distinct rights:
The people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any
other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce,
subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants
thereof respectively. *
Under the tenth amendment, which I have just quoted, it is not pos-
sible to argue, logically, that the power of Congress “to regulate com-
merce among the several States '' includes this right of the people as
to the freedom and privileges of trade and commerce within the States.
These rights were reserved to the people, and their protection was
left to the States, as they were under the articles of confederation.
They were not couferred upon Congress, nor were they destroyed.
They remain, with many others of like kind, under the guardianship
of the States. In construing, therefore, the nature and extent of the
power conferred upon Congress “to regulate commerce among the
several States,” we are not permitted to disregard the history of its
origin, nor to assume that it was intended to include within its scope
the regulation of every right of the citizen connected with or relating
to interstate commerce.
While it is admitted by the Supreme Court and by everybody that
commerce within a State is a matter over which Congress has no power
to legislate, it is not conceded by many that Congress has an equally
exclusive right to regulate commerce between the people of the several
States.
The instance I have just cited from the Articles of Confederation pre-
sents in distinct form a great right of the people that was never given
up to the power of Congress, a right so important that the States placed
it in their first solemn compact of union as one that should be inviola-
ble. That right survived the formation of the more perfect Union, was
I S C–5
66
placed under the shelter of the tenth amendment, and still exists as
strong and distinct as it did when it was guaranteed to the people in
express terms in the Articles of Confederation.
If this is a right of the people that we are still bound to respect,
while we are regulating commerce among the States it is worth our
while to examine it and to see whether Congress is about to ignore or
to destroy it.
What is it worth to the people of Minnesota that they shall enjoy
in the State of New York “all the privileges of trade and commerce,
subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabit-
ants of '’ New York 2 The value of the freedom to commerce of the
Erie Canal is one significant answer to that question.
A low rate of freight fixed by a law of New York on wheat con-
veyed on cars from Buffalo to New York city would be an important.
matter to the people of Minnesota.
If Congress, in fixing or limiting or controlling or regulating the
rates of freight from Saint Paul to New York city, should take the
whole subject out of the legislative control of the State of New York
because commerce between those cities is interstate commerce, and
should give to the canals and railroads in that State the right to charge
higher rates on such commerce than they could on commerce that is
local, within the State, would not the people of Minnesota be thereby
made subject to different “duties, impositions, and restrictions” within
the State of New York from those that the people of the latter State
would suffer in respect of their local traffic?
The people of Minnesota have the right to every advantage and fa-
cility given to commerce by the laws of New York when they are
transporting their property through that State or into it, that the
people of New York enjoy when transporting their property from place
to place within that State. *
Congress can neither depreciate nor destroy any right gained by any
man under any State law relating to interstate commerce that does
not discriminate against the people of another State, or, in some way,
injuriously affect their business.
It must be remembered that neither Indian tribes nor foreign na-
tions have the same rights and privileges that our Constitution secures
to our own people, and in regulating-commerce among our States we
must look to the powers of the States and the rights of our people as so
many checks and limitations upon the powers of Congress. A commer-
cial regulation of the United States in respect of foreign people or gov-
ernments can not raise a question in their behalf as to the power of the
Government to make it, but the States and the citizens of the United
States have a basis of solid rights on which to stand and question the
powers of Congress.
These rights are what every power of the Federal Government was
intended to secure, and all its powers of legislation are made subordi-
nate to them. -
What, then, is included within the power of Congress to “regulate
commerce among the several States?” The answer is, whatever is done
under color of authority of the laws of any State that taxes, or impedes,
or restricts, or in any way discriminates to the disadvantage of the
commerce coming from, or through, another State, or that is entering
another State, Congress has the right to prohibit and to punish by
statute. \
The rights of a citizen to the freedom of the markets in other States,
and to transport his property into, or through, another State, must be
67
protected by laws that operate among the States to prevent any State
from interfering with them. Laws of Congress are needed to protect
these rights because the Constitution is not, in these respects, self-exe-
cuting; and not because the Constitution created the rights, nor because
an act of Congress can create them, for it can Inot create them.
The rights of the people as to the freedom and security of commerce
are so important to each individual and to every community, that the
framers of our Constitution had the strongest reason to expect that the
States, having formerly enjoyed the privilege of regulating commerce
with other States, would continue to discriminate in their laws and
commercial regulations in favor of their own people. They had to
yield the power thus to make discriminations in favor of their own
people in respect of duties, charges, and restrictions upon trade, in
order to form the more perfect union under the Constitution. They
did this reluctantly, and are not yet quite satisfied about it. Continual
efforts are now being made by State Legislatures to tax commercial
agents, insurance companies, and other commercial agencies of other
States. It was the intention of the framers of the Constitution to pre-
vent any such exercise of power by the States, and to aid them in Se-
curing to commerce among the States absolute equality and freedom.
To accomplish this it was not necessary that Congress should take
hold of the regulation of commerce between man and man, and enact
laws to define and settle the infinite variety of questions that arise be-
tween common-carriers and the persons who employ them. The States
were perfectly competent to do this, as far as the law-making power can
do such things, and they never yielded to Congress this wide range of
powers. They did yield to Congress as to interstate commerce the full
power to regulate it, so as to prevent the States from discriminating in
their laws against the people of other States.
In this view of the powers of Congress they are national; in the view
that includes within those powers the control of all articles of com-
merce, all vehicles of commerce, and all persons engaged in commerce
or travel that pass from State to State, they become local and lose their
national character. Congress should never assume to itself under such
a grant of power the right to regulate the charges of warehousemen,
commission merchants, wagoners, and draymen, or water-craft that
haul or store or sell goods brought from Jersey City to New York,
when it is admitted that no such power exists as to goods brought
from Brooklyn to New York.
This absurd category was never necessary. The common law covered
our whole country, as the air does, and regulated these matters alike
in every State. It was never intended to supersede this splendid sys-
tem of law with all its principles rooted in the experience of our race,
and with.its intricate adaptation to the protection of every personal and
property right connected with commerce by substituting in its place
acts of Congress for the regulation of men in their infinitely varied
relations to the conduct of commercial affairs. The rights of men,
connected with commerce, were as well understood and were as dis-
tinct when our Constitution was adopted as they are now. We shall
never make them plainer to the courts than they are now. The prin-
ciples on which they are founded have not been changed or enlarged
by the construction of railroads and telegraphs. Neither has the Con-
stitution of the United States been amended by the invention of all
these new vehicles of commerce.
The power of Congress to regulate commerce was opposed, in the Con-
stitution, to the selfish greed of the States, and was not given to Con-
68
.gress to aid the citizen in compelling other citizens engaged in com-
mercial pursuits, such as carriers, commission merchants, or bankers,
to haul his freights at a rate fixed by law, or to sell them for a com-
mission fixed by law, or to discount his bills drawn against the cargo
at a rate fixed by law. If the power to regulate commerce implies, as
it must of necessity, the power to regulate all its proximate incidents,
we shall find our task, that we are now beginning, endless in its labors,
with no stopping place or place of rest short of commercial anarchy.
As we progress with our work of legislating upon the personal rights.
and duties of men engaged in commerce we shall amend and repeal the
common law until our system will be entirely artificial, awaiting every
change of competitive railroad lines for the enactment of a new law to.
meet a new emergency, not of matural trade, but of trade that we have
forced into new and unexpected channels. Every new law will be, as
this one is, a merely tentative experiment, enacted to find some hoped-
for relief from the confusion and trouble we are now about to inflict upon
the whole people of the country. We will deprive every shipper of
goods, every creator of values in articles of commerce, of the personal
right to make a fair contract with a carrier for a fair rate of transpor-
tation.
We will substitute commissions, deriving their powers and instruc-
tions from the legislative and executive branches of the Government,
for the courts, which are the constitutional tribunals for the settlement.
of the private rights and the redress of wrongs of the citizen.
It seems to me that this bill makes a distinct inroad upon a field
that is forbidden to Congress, which will lead to other and further in-
vasions, until the management of railroads must become one of the
most absorbing labors of Congress. I dread to enter this field, and will
not do it voluntarily. -
The States have enough of power, and they have the will, as appears.
in many instances in their legislation, to handle the railroads, which
owe to them their existence and their continued life, so that they shall
not abuse the people with extortion, cheat them with unjust discrim-
inations, and bribe their patronage and favor with rebates and other
favoritism. I know that it is held by the Supreme Court that their
powers are limited to State commerce as distinguished from interstate
commerce. I bow to the decision as a citizen. As a legislator I ques-
tion it with a sense of duty that will not permit me to adopt it as the
guide to my vote.
I admit that Congress can overcome all State laws and all the agents
empowered to enforce them, and all claiming rights under them, that.
aid a common carrier to inflict injustice on the people of another State.
I go further, and declare that it is the duty of every State to repress
and prevent by law within its borders all such wrongs to the people of
other States. -
The States, almost all of them, have done this; and none of them
give the shelter of their laws to any wrong or extortion, discrimination
or favoritism, as against their own people, or the people of any other
State, in favor of railroad or river carriers.
Laws exist in all the principal railroad States that deal with these
wrongs with wise precaution and merited severity of punishments.
If these laws were permitted to operate as they are entitled to do
the evil we use now trying to suppress would not have appeared.
The States can not deal with commerce within their own borders
carried upon railroads or rivers that reach them, without affecting
in some important way interstate commerce. Neither can Congress
69
deal with interstate commerce so as to avoid touching, in a material
way, State commerce.
Friction and conflict will occur in a large percentage of the cases,
involving at once the grave questions of power and jurisdiction that
often arise in our dual system of government. If this can be avoided
by a reasonable construction of the Constitution, I earnestly plead that
Congress will adopt it, and so declare. This is a political question,
involving the right of Congress to refuse to go beyond the limits of its
legislative power, and if Congress, following the broad road of construc-
tion, now become a highway for the guidance of the States and the people,
will plant their decision firmly on that, and deny to themselves a power
that is doubtful, obscure, and ill-defined, dangerous, and leading to licen-
tious abuses, rather than adopt a construction of the Constitution that
is technical and is confined to the letter of the text, to the destruction
of its spirit, its right to declare this to be a political question will be
conceded; and the States will be free in their efforts to throttle the rail-
roads in their persecutions of the people.
Congress has power to pass uniform laws of bankruptcy, yet such
laws may be enacted by the States to operate upon their own citizens,
‘or upon non-residents when they appear in the proceedings, without any
grant of power for that purpose in the Constitution. If the United
States occupy the field, however, with a general bankrupt law, while
it is so occupied the States can not act in this matter. *
Congress can improve the bay of Mobile, but when no law of the
United States for that purpose is in operation, though such laws existed
before and after the State began a work of like improvement, the State
law authorizing such work in that bay is valid, and such a law was
enforced by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kimball vs. The
City of Mobile.
Why the States may not, in the absence of laws enacted by Congress,
pass laws to facilitate all commerce, State and interstate, by repressing
all extortionate and discriminative conduct of public carriers, when
they can facilitate commerce by deepening bays and channels, I can
not understand. Counterfeiting the coins, money, bonds, and other
securities of the United States may be punished by the States although
they are prohibited from coining money or emitting bills of credit. In
every crime against the Federal Government, and in every impedi-
ment to its lawful authority, the people of the States are deeply con-
cerned, and the States may aid in the duty of removing the one and
punishing the other. §
Their laws, adapted to these ends, may have extra-territorial effect,
in the consequences resulting from their enforcement, but they do not
operate, as laws, beyond the boundaries of the States enacting them.
Their effect, if they aid the common law in repressing wrongs done to
the people, are precisely in line with the purposes of legislation that
are at the foundation of this bill. If the effect is otherwise, they are
in restraint of free commerce, and Congress can annul them by its
powers of legislation rightfully included in the power to regulate com-
merce among the several States. y
I can not subscribe to the doctrine that interstate commerce can only
receive protection against the wrongful acts of private persons, or pub-
lic and private corporations, through the action of Congress in pro-
viding laws and tribunals for their regulation or punishment. *
This bill is based solely on that false premise. It opens the door to
the interference of Congress with every regulation of trade and com-
merce, whether Sanctioned by universal custom or by express or im-
70
plied agreements between the parties concerned. It exposes the char-
ter rights of every railroad company, given by the States, to modifica-
tion and repeal by acts of Congress.
It multiplies indefinitely the list of crimes punishable by statute ,
in the Federal courts, and correspondingly narrows the power of the
States to punish their own citizens for crimes committed within their
borders, because the commerée against which the crime is directed is
interstate commerce, and is therefore within the exclusive jurisdiction
of Congress.
This claim of the exclusive power of Congress to legislate, whether
for the freedom of commerce or against it, is made in this bill to de-
pend on the interstate character of the traffic, and that is made to de-
pend on the will of the shipper. The States can make no regulations
touching the subject, or objects of interstate commerce, according to
the theory of this bill and of the Supreme Court. If they should en-
act statutes for the punishment of crimes against interstate commerce
committed by their own people, in the very language of this bill their
laws would fall to the ground because, as this bill assumes, they could
not touch the subject.
The States, it appears, can take an officer from the Army or Navy
or from one of the civil Departments of the United States and hang
him for murder; but they can not, on the theory of this bill, punish
a man for killing an engine or kidnapping an engineer who is about to
cross the line of a State and enter another State if he is engaged in
interstate commerce, and is for that reason under the sole jurisdiction
of the United States.
Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce, but there is a
limit to this power, and it is not so far an exclusive power as to annul
all acts of the State Legislature, as well in the absence as in the pres-
ence of laws of Congress, through which this power may be exerted.
For a hundred years the States have assisted and protected interstate
commerce by their many statutes and by many hundreds of judgments
in their courts. Congress, doubting the extent of its powers, has per-
mitted this assistance and protection on the part of the States, and, in
doing so, has blessed the country by its silence and inaction. In that
time commerce has hewn its own highways through the mountains
and built its grand structures across great rivers and chasms; the arid
deserts have bloomed under its footsteps, the wilderness has bowed a
welcome to its coming, and every river and bay opening into lakes or
oceans has floated the burden of its wealth out among the nations of
the earth.
The States have done all this, so far as legislation has been required
to assist commerce in its wonderful struggle for freedom and expan-
sion. They granted the charters to the railroads; they protected the
railroads and those who dealt with them by State laws; they did it
all, knowing that the purpose of all these great enterprises was to
create and conduct interstate commerce.
The States consented to the consolidation of railroad lines leading
into other States, and so made of them lines for interstate commerce.
Without that consent, Congress could have had no jurisdiction over a
foot of these lines according to the theory of the Supreme Court; with
it, Congress claims exclusive jurisdiction over the entire lines of rail-
way thus consolidated and the power to repeal every State law ex-
isting when the consolidation was made that was intended to protect
commerce over them.
When these laws were enacted they were valid, because the com-
71
*
merce over these lines was, as to the railroads, necessarily commerce
within the States; when the lines of railway were extended by consol-
idation the laws became invalid according to the theory of this bill,
because they then applied to interstate commerce. Thus, if the theory
of this bill is true the States, by consenting to such consolidation, gave
new powers to Congress and made sudden bavoc of all laws enacted
by them for the protection of their railways and the commercial traffic
they were engaged in. I do not accept the verity of this legislative
TOIſlan Ce. s:
In legislating to regulate commerce it is impossible to follow a line
that will truly demark the limits of the power to regulate it so as to dis-
tinguish between the subject and the object, the traffic and the things
that are transported, bought, or sold; or between the traffic and the per-
sons engaged in it. . The power to regulate commerce includes the regu-
lation of all of these. - -
If there is any limit upon the power of Congress to regulate com-
merce among the States, it is not to be found in the nature of the com-
merce, the points of shipment and destination, or the special character
of the business in which the carrier is engaged; for every regulation
by Congress based on these circumstances detracts from the power of
the States reserved to them in the Constitution, as I think I have shown,
over their own people and over their commerce, while they are yet
within their own limits.
But there is a limit to this power of Congress, and it is found in the
purpose for which the power was given. That purpose, I repeat, was
to protect interstate commerce in absolute freedom from the power of
the States to control it within their own limits by any law or regula-
tion that would operate to the detriment of the people of other States.
A State law that imposed no such restraints or burdens on interstate
commerce, but increased its freedom and security, is a valid law; but
a State law that does impose any such burdens or restraints upon in-
terstate commerce would fall under the denunciation of the Constitu-
tion; and Congress would have the power, as well as the courts, to an-
nul the law and free commerce from its burdens.
The power of Congress under such limitations is benign and useful.
Without such limitations it is dangerous, and will become aggressive
and uncontrollable. It will end in making merchandise of politics,
while it rules and ruins the commerce of trade.
I dread to set in motion a doubtful and dangerous power which will
soon become a factor of immense influence in the party politics of this
Republic. It is urged that the railroads will absorb and corrupt the
State Legislatures if we leave to them the duty of checking their enor-
mous powers. The thirty-eight Legislatures number more than four
thousand men.
Is it easier to corrupt four thousand men, scattered through thirty-
eight States, than it is to corrupt four hundred who are assembled in
Washington? Or, is it easier to corrupt these four hundred represent-
atives than it is to corrupt five commissioners intrusted with very
broad discretionary powers? I believe it is not. -
It is urged that the States are too weak to encounter these railroad
barons and their retainers—these vast corporations and their em-
ployés. The States, I think, can be safely trusted to take care of their
own people. If they ever exhibit any weakness, it will not be the
weakness of indifference to the rights, or wrongs, of their people.
The same sentiment that will influence one State will impel all of
them to use their full powers to protect their people against extortion,
72
discrimination, favoritism, and any form of oppression that the rail-
roads may attempt to practice upon them. - &
The States will oppose the powers of thirty-eight great sovereignties
—the same that created the railroad corporations—against that of the
timid owners of great accumulations of capital. That contest can not s,
be doubtful if the State governments are honest. If the people are
honest, as they are free, they will have honest State governments.
If Congress, instead of holding the States in check by a constant dis-
trust or denial of their powers, will open their way to the full and free
control of the men and corporations engaged in domestic commerce,
through civil and criminal laws, and will hold over the States its cor-
rective authority, so as to prevent any of them from doing injustice to.
the other States or their people, the States will soon settle all the
knotty problems about long and short hauls, pools, drawbacks, bribes,
and bonuses, and will close the doors of their penitentiaries upon those
who offend against their laws made to secure the people against wrong
and the honest freedom of commerce against injustice and obstruction.
If we will respect the rights reserved to the people under the ninth
and tenth amendments of the Constitution and the protection of which
was reserved to the States because they were not placed under the
powers delegated to Congress, the description of which I have already
quoted from the language of the Articles of Confederation, we need
give ourselves no concern about the care with which the States will
guard these rights of the people.
I admit all that has been said about the wrongs and injustice that
the people have suffered through the overbearing insolence and op-
pression of the railroad companies. Their greed is destructive to the
people and the governments from whom they derived their powers, but
in finding a remedy for this evil I neither wish to find for the people a
new master, remote from them and their influence, in the Congress of
the United States, nor to place in the hands of that master a power
over their trade and traffic more dangerous than the power of the rail-
road companies.
In Alabama we have four great staples of commerce. They are cot-
ton, timber, coal, and iron. Each of them must find a market far dis-
tant from home. Iron, coal, and lumber must find their market by
rail in the interior of the United States, at least for the present. High
prices for long hauls on railroads are the best inventions for the de-
struction of these industries. If I had no other reason for disagreeing
to this bill that one would determine my vote; but I have stated
others in which everybody is equally concerned.
True, it must be that this bill would drive all our heavy produc-
tions to the coast, and the Alabama River would float them to the sea
at Mobile as the cheapest line of transportation. This will come after
a while in spite of railroads and the rates of long hauls or short hauls.
I will greatly rejoice when that day arrives. But to force it now by
cutting off our mines, forests, and cotton fields from the benefits of fair
rates of railroad transportation and from the advantages of fair rates of
freight on the return shipments of food products of the Northwest, on
which their industries must rely, would be to them and to the country
an incalculable evil against which I must protest.
As I read this bill, the interpretation of which is so uncertain that
every one must needs adopt his own, it necessitates an increase of rates
on long hauls of freight in every case where the roads can not sacrifice
a large part of their income and still live. I am convinced that the
roads leading to our mineral fields in Alabama can not do this, and the
#
, 3
burden will fall very heavily upon our new industries and probably
destroy them.
Mr. CAMERON. I move that the Senate proceed to the considera-
tion of executive business.
Mr. CULLOM. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania to withdraw
that motion to allow me to make a statement.
Mr. CAMERON. Certainly.
. Mr. CULLOM. I desire to state to the Senate that I am exceedingly
anxious to have the interstate commerce bill disposed of at as early a
day as is practicable consistent with deliberate discussion. I there-
fore wish to announce that on Tuesday or Wednesday, at the furthest,
of next week I shall ask the Senate to remain in session until the subject
is disposed of. *:
Mr. HOAR. I hope that will not be done. Here is a proposition
which, in my judgment, would be destructive to great business interests
in the country, especially to the export business of the principal city of
the State which I represent. I hope the public interests affected will
have a full opportunity to be heard. We shall do very little business
on Saturday, and I hope the Senator from Illinois will not undertake
to shorten the discussion.
Mr. CULLOM. In answer to that I will state that I think the Sen-
ate and country have had quite a period of time since the conference
report was made, and it does not in very many particulars differ from
the bill which passed the Senate a year ago.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I hope the Senator from Illinois will insist on
finishing the bill to-morrow. *
Mr. CULLOM. I wish to say to the Senator from Massachusetts
that in my judgment, with due reference to the Senator's greater ability,
the bill if passed will not interfere with foreign commerce at all or the
interests of the city and State he represents.
Mr. CAMERON. I renew my motion that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of executive business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CockRELL in the chair). Pend-
ing that motion the Chair will lay before the Senate bills from the
House of Representatives for reference.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 7, 1887.
Mr. PLATT. Let me inquire of the Senator from Illinois whether he
thinks the Senate is prepared to go on to-day with the discussion of
the interstate-commerce bill? *. s
Mr. CULLO M. So far as I am concerned I am anxious that the
Senate shall proceed with the consideration of that bill. If there is
any gentleman, who desires to talk upon it I should like to know it.
If not I should like to have a vote upon it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The hour of two o'clock having ar-
rived the unfinished business is before the Senate.
Mr. HOAR. I hope the Senator will allow that bill to belaid aside.
informally. I suppose the Senators who oppose as well as those who
favor the passage of the Allin bill would be willing that it should be
determined by the Senate at once rather than be called up another
day. ;
"The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is the duty of the Chair to lay
before the Senate the unfinished business.
Mr. HOAR. I understand the Chair has performed that duty.
74
The Secretary read the title of the bill (S. 1532) to regulate com-
IſlerCé.
Mr. HOAR. Now I ask unanimous consent, with the leave of the
Senator from Illinois, that that may lie aside informally for the time
being until the Senate disposes of the bill (S. 1359).
Mr. CULLOM. I have no objection.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the suggestion of
the Senator from Massachusetts to lay aside informally the unfinished
business and continue the consideration of the bill (S. 1359). The
Chair hears no objection.
• Mr. MANDERSON. I should like to make a report from the Com-
mittee on Military Affairs, and ask for the consideration of a bill.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Nebraska will allow me to say
that the report of the committee of conference on the bill in relation
to interstate commerce is entitled to be taken up and considered on
motion.
Mr. PLATT. It was only laid aside informally. -
Mr. CULLOM. It was laid aside informally and is entitled to the
right of way. I should like to have the consideration of that bill con-
tinued to-day. I am informed, however, by four Senators who are
anxious to address the Senate upon the bill that they are not pre-
pared to go on to-day. I therefore have been disposed to give way to
other business, and I will say now that I shall not call up the report
to-day with the understanding that immediately after the morning
business on Monday next I shall ask the Senate to proceed to its con-
sideration; and I shall ask the Senate on Wednesday next to remain
in session until it is disposed of. -
Mr. HARRIS. I suggest to the Senator that he also ask that it be
informally laid aside now with the distinct understanding that it shall
be the unfinished business on Monday. That is its position now, and
I would not prejudice it by letting it go over without such an under-
standing.
Mr. CULLOM. I will ask that if it is necessary to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois asks that
the report of the committee of conference on the bill known as the
interstate-commerce bill be laid aside informally and that it be con-
sidered the unfinished business for Monday next. Is there objection ?
The Chair hears none.
3& %. % 3& + * *
Mr. MCPHERSON. I desire consent to submit an amendment to a
bill now before the Senate, which in its present stage is not properly
amendable; but, at the same time, as the Senate may insist upon its
former action touching that bill and certain facts are necessary to be
before the conference, and also that that committee shall be instructed,
I desire to offer this amendment simply for the information of the Sen-
ate, that it my be printed and laid before the Senate pending action on
the conference report. -
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the proposed
amendment will be received and printed.
Mr. MCPHERSON. I should like to have it read.
Mr. HARRIS. I suppose it relates to the interstate-commerce bill.
Mr. MCPHERSON. It is the interstate commerce bill to which I
have alluded.
Mr. HARRIS. It is not in order to present an amendment to that
W.
f
75
bill, but I shall be glad to allow the Senator to haye his proposition
printed, but not in the form of an amendment offered to the bill.
Mr. MCPHERSON. I.simply offer it that it may be printed, and I
desire to state in this connection that it is my intention
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order. If there be
no objection the order to print will be made. The Senator from Ver-
mont moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive
business. tº a tº s *
Mr. MCPHERSON, I ask that my proposition be printed in the
RECORD. tº *
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection to the
suggestion of the Senator from New Jersey.
The amendments proposed by Mr. MCPHERSON to the conference re-
port are as follows:
At the end of section 5 add : * s * *
“Provided, however, That after full investigation the commission or a majority
thereof are of the opinion that the interests of both shippers and carriers will
be best promoted by an equitable division of the traffic, or of the proceeds thereof,
between the carriers, the provisions of this section may not be enforced prior
to January 1, 1888; and it shall be the duty of the commission to report their
action with the reasons therefor to Congress in December next.”
In line 3, section 11, strike out “five” and insert “nine.”
In line 17, section 11, strike out “three '' and insert “six.”
MONDAY. JANUARY 10, 1887.
+ * * * * * *
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair presents a memorial of
the Minneapolis (Minn.) Board of Trade, remonstrating against sec-
tions 4 and 5 of the interstate-commerce bill, as agreed upon by the
conference committee, with the request that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the memorial was ordered to lie on the
table and to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
- THE INTERSTATE-COMMERCE BILL.
To the Senators and Representatives in Congress from Minnesota:
GENTLEMEN: The Minneapolis Board of Trade, at its regular meeting of De-
cember 22, 1886, unanimously adopted the following resolutions:
“Resolved, That while this board of trade fully approves the general principle
of national legislation for the control and regulation of our interstate carrying
trade, and while in the main it concurs in the provisions of the compromise bill
now pending before Congress, it thoroughly disapproves and deprecates the
provisions of section 4, relating to what is known as the long and short haul, and
of section 5, relating to pooling arrangements between parallel or competing
railway lines. In the judgment of this board, section 4, if enacted, would give
to the proposed national commission powers whose exercise would always be
dangerous and might easily become destructive to the interests of the distinct-
ively agricultural sections of the country.
“Resolved, That a committee be appointed with instructions to forward the
foregoing resolution to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, accom-
panied with a letter of transmission which shall more fully set forth the views
of this board.”
In forwarding these resolutions to you, permit the undersigned, as the corn-
mittee appointed for the purpose, to call your attention to the following brief
summary of objections, which, in the judgment of our board of trade, lie against
sections 4 and 5 of the pending interstate-commerce bill, and respectfully to ex-
press the opinion that you can in no way render a more important or timely
service to your constituents than by aggressively helping to secure the omission
of these sections from the measure before it becomes a law. Allow us also, in
passing, to remind you of the fact that, of the entire membership of the Minne-
apolis Board of Trade, representing all leading branches of legitimate business
and productive industry, not half a dozen have any pecuniary interest in rail-
roads, direct or indirect, and we do not know of haif that number who are so in-
terested. The board speaks for the producers and shippers of the Northwest.
Further, it is fully recognized that national supervision of our railway system
is necessary and best, in the interest both of the people and of the railways them-
76
selves; that this supervision has already been too long delayed; that there are
wrongs to be righted and corporate abuses to be corrected, and that the pending
interstate-commerce bill, when duly amended, will constitute a wise first step in
the right direction. It is simply insisted that a measure which is necessarily.
experimental and which deals with the most complicated and far-reaching com-
mercial problems known to mankind, vitally affecting toe interests of every
class and of every section, should not go so far, or attempt so much, at the out-
set, as to eause infinite damage where it might accomplish unmeasured good.
OBJECTIONS: THE “LONG AND SHORT HAUL.”
(1) Section 4, relating to the ‘‘ long and short haul,” is, intentionally or unin-
tentionally, vague and ambiguous in its language. If enacted into law its inter-
pretation by the courts must, therefore, be wholly uncertain, its practical ap-
plication doubtful, and some of its effects impossible to predict. This is sufti-
ciently shown beforehand by the known fact that scarcely two persons under-
stand the section alike—even zealous advocates of the bill, as it stands, differing
widely as to the real meaning and intent of the words enaployed. .*
(2) Assuming that the section means what its language naturally imports, the
consequence of enforcing such a law would, we believe, be gravely injurious to
many important interests in all parts of the country, but especially would such
enforcement prove destructive in its effect upon the great agricultural section,
of which our own State forms so important a part.
It would very greatly increase the cost to our people of heavy commodities of
all kinds which are brought in from Eastern sections, including coal, without
which our prairie farms could not be occupied.
It would ruinously depreciate the value of every bushel of wheat and every.
pound of beef produced in Minnesota, by compelling the railroads to adopt a
freight tariff on through shipments eastward, which, if not prohibitory, would
leave to our farmers no reward for their labor and invested means. 2.
It would depress manufacturing industries and deprive many workingmen
of employment.
It would reduce to a minimum the trade of the Northwest by largely destroy-
ing the purchasing ability of our producers.
It would drive a large share of the long-distance traffic from American to Ca-
nadian, lines. -
It would cripple, if it did not bankrupt, many railroads, by compelling them
to relinquish a large part of either their through or their local traffic—both of
which are essential to their solvency. -
The very people who ought to derive most benefit from legislation of this gen-
eral character—the farmers and wage-earners of the country—would be the first
and greatest sufferers from its injurious effects.
(3) It is not a sufficient answer to say that the bill gives to the proposed com-
mission discretionary power to avert these otherwise inevitable calannities.
The ambiguity of language, already mentioned, renders it doubtful whether this
power is fully given; and even if it is conferred, its exercise would be a most
unnecessary and dangerous prerogative to be vested in any untried commission,
llowever able and disinterested, under an untried statute, in a difficult field,
where national legislation is now making its first tentative venture. At best,
it gives to five men, about whose competency, experience, and integrity notb-
ing can be known in advance, almost autocratie power over the market value
of hundreds of millions of dollars of railway stocks and bonds, over the market
Zalue of the agricultural products of half a continent, as well as of the lands
upon which these products are grown.
So great a power and so tremendous a temptation to its abuse ought not to be
presented unnecessarily to any committee of citizens or be made the foot-ball
of politics. Besides, so enormous would be the task undertaken, and so exten-
sive its domain, that no commission, however capable, could successively con-
sider and adjust the inevitable frictions and controversies in time to prevent
the predicted evils, if those evils in fact impend.
THE PROHIBITION OF RAILWAY POOLING.
(4) Section 5, which arbitrarily prohibits the pooling of railway earnings, is not
less objectionable than section 4. It proceeds upon the assumption that an ami-
cable apportionment of traffic among substantially parallel railway lines de-
stroys wholesonne competition, creates a ‘' monopoly,” results in exorbitant
transportation charges, and thus wrongs the general body of producers, ship-
pers, and consumers, who constitute the people. With exceptions so rare as only
to prove the rule, this, assumption is a fallacy, and legislation based upon it
must prove a hurtful blunder. The facts are that such apportion ments of traffic
are a natural and necess Ary outgrowth of the development of our national trans-
portation system; that they constitute the only plan of self-preservation for rail-
roads which time and t'rought and experience have been able to evolve from a
most difficult and perplexing situation; that they are the only known and fea-
sible alternative for that system of cut-throat competition which foments chronic
“rate wars,” and which, unless held in check, would end in the bankruptcy. first.
77
of the weak lines, and then of the strong ones—for a bankrupt railway, having
no responsibility to bondholders or shareholders, is the most reckless and de-
structive of competitors. These adjustments and divisions of traffic, known as
railway pools, do not raise transportation charges above a reasonable level. Al- ,
most without exception thcy have resulted in holding rates steadily at the lowest
point at which the business can be done at a living profit. This is notably illus-
trated just now, as you are aware, in our own section. Never was there a closer
pooling arrangement between trunk lines than that which now exists between
the six roads leading from Minneapolis to Chicago, yet never were freight tariffs
so low as at the present time, and never were the people better accommodated.
The well-known fact that, concurrently with the development of the railway
pooling system, railway rates have steadily, greatly. and every where decreased
is a summary refutation of the whole theory on which section 5 is founded.
The pooling or apportionment system, besides preserving railways from insol-
vency, and railway investments from destruction, directly benefits every busi-
ness community by giving sonne degree of uniformity and stability to transpor-
tation charges,and thus enabling business men to shape their course with greater
certainty and safety. A railway rate war, although it temporarily reduces the
market price of transportation below actual cost, is universally and justly re-
garded as a misfortune to all legitimate lines of trade. Obviously it is of no
advantage to the public to enjoy any service at less than its reasonable cost, in-
cluding a fair return upon the capital invested in rendering that service. The
rule of unregulated and unreasoning competition, followed by the “survival of
the fittest,” when applied to railroads, means their own ruin, with resulting
calamity to every other business interest which is worth preserving.
The railway pool, honestly administered, is the natural balance-wheel of
interstate commerce. Secton 5 of the pending bill does not provide or suggest
any substitute for this regulative and conservative agency. On the contrary, it
would seen to render commercial chaos legally obligatory.
(5) It is not a sufficient answer to say that if found to be injurious in their
working, these provisions may be repealed at the next session of Congress.
The nuischief that can be accomplished by their operation during a single busi-
ness season is simply immeasurable, and there is not the slightest necessity for
assuming the risk.
The interstate-commerce bill has adequate scope for its initial purpose with-
out including the sections to which objection is here made. Omitting these,
the bill lays the broad foundation of a system of salutary legislation, which a
little time and experience will develop and perfect. It is evolution, and not
revolution. that the situation calls for. Such a policy will avoid the risk of
serious and disastrous mistakes; at least it will not invite that demoralization
of now reviving business, that shock to commercial confidence, that stagnation
of enterprise, that aggravation of the labor difficulties, that wholesale depre-
ciation and destruction of values which many competent and disinterested
students of the problem foresee in case the bill becomes a law in its present
form. The panic of 1873 was precipitated and intensified, if it was not jargely
caused, by injurious State legislation affecting railroads, hastily enacted in re-
sponse to unreasoning clamor. It would seem to be hardly the part of wisdom
or of statesmanship to incur even the liability of repeating that experience,
and on a larger scale, during the present century.
With great respect, your obedient servants,
A. B. NETTLETON,
H. A. TOWNE, w
EDMIUND J. PHELPS,
T. B. WALKER, .
Committee,
MIN NEAPOLIS, MINN., January 5, 1887.
Mr. EVARTS. I present a memorial of the Chamber of Commerce
of New York, embracing a report and resolutions of that body unani-
mously adopted on the 6th instant, on the subject of interstate com-
merce, now pending. q
The results to which this important commercial body came on this
very serious question were unanimous, and the memorial is accom-
panied with some statements and explanations of the reasons from a
practical point of view by the merchants of the city of New York. They
favor the general system of having a commission and of having the pend-
ing bill adopted; but on the subject of the fourth and fifth sections, re-
lating to the long and short hauls and the pools, they present their
reasons against the permanent adoption of any such regulations without
78
further investigation, and suggest very grave reasons why they should
not be adopted at all. \
The considerations which are embraced in this examination by these
intelligent representatives of the great city of New York, give a very.
concise and perfect statement of the views of the business community.
I ask that the memorial may lie upon the table, and that it may be
printed and appear in the RECORD to morrow. I may desire to make
some comment upon the measure and should be glad to have the text
of the memorial before the Senate that it may be understood.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York asks
the unanimous consent of the Senate to have printed in the RECORD
the memorial presented by him from the Chamber of Commerce of
New York. Is there objection? The Chair hears mone, and it will be
so ordered. The memorial will lie on the table.
The memorial is as follows:
THE INTERSTATE-COMMERCE BILL.
At the monthly meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New
York, heid January 6, 1887, the following report and resolutions in regard to the
interstate-con) merce bill, before the United States Senate, were unanimously
adopted :
To the Chamber of Commerce :
The undersigned committee, requested by the executive committee of this
chamber to examine the bill known as the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce,
beg leave repectfully to report that, upon analysis of the bill in question, the
following provisions are found to be embodied therein :
ANA I, YSIS OR THE BII, L.
Section 1: The bill is not to apply to the transportation of passengers or prop-
erty wholly within any one State. It declares that all charges made for or in
connection with any transportation (covered by the bill) shall be reasonable
and just, and all others are prohibited, and declared to be unlawful.
Sections 2 and 3 probibit, directly or indirectly, any special rebate or draw-
back, and any discrimination in charges against any person, firm, or locality, or
against any particular description of traffic, in transportation of passengers or
property, under like or substantially like circumstanees and conditions; and
also require that every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act
shall accord all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of
traffic between their respective lines, but provides “this shall not be construed
as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal
facilities to another carrier engaged in like business.”
Section 4 makes it unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive any
greater compensation for the transportation of passengers or property, under
substantially like circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
haul over the same line in the same direction, unless the common carrier re-
ceive in special cases, after investigation, authority from the connnnission to
charge less for the longer than for the shorter haul; and the commission is em-
powered to prescribe the extent to which the common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of the act.
Section 5 is an absolute prohibition against pooling in any form.
Section 6 obliges the common carrier to plainly print in large type, and keep
for public inspection, schedules showing the rates and fares, including terminal
charges, for the transportation of passengers and property, and which shall also
include the classification of freight in force upon such railroad. It also provides
that no change in rates shall be made without ten days’ previous public notice
thereof; and, further, that every common carrier shall file with the commission
copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other common carriers
in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this act; it also provides
for the enforcement of these provisions by the circuit courts of the United
States.
Section 7 makes it unlawful for a common carrier to enter into any contract
or agreement, express or implied, or, by other means and devices, to prevent the
carriage of freights from being continuous from the place of shipment to the
place of destination.
Sections 8, 9, and 10 prescribe the damages for a violation of this act, and
methods of legal procedure. -
Sections 11 to 17 provide for a commission of five persons, to be appointed by
the President; regulates their terms of office; defines their qualifications, one
of which is, that they shall not hold stock or bonds of any carrier embraced
.*
79
**
within the bill; also their powers and duties, and prescribes their relations to
the courts, and further outlines the legal proceedings connected with the en-
forcement of this act.
Section 18 fixes the annual salary of each commissioner at $7,500, and provides
for a secretary at $3,500 per annum, and allows mileage to commissioners when
traveling. -
Section 19 establishes the office of the commission at Washington city, but
permits commissioners to prosecute inquiries and hold special sessions in any
part of the United States, when so required by circumstances or necessity.
Section 20 requires full annual reports from all conmon carriers, subject to
the provisions of this act. -- -
Section 21 requires a report to be annually made to the Secretary of the In-
terior, to be by him transmitted to Congress; said report to contain any informa-
tion and data collected by the commission, with such recommendations for
additional legislation as they may deem necessary.
Section 22 exeludes from operation of this law property carried free for the
United States, the States, or municipal governments, or for charity.
Section 23 appropriates $100,000 for the purposes of this act for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1888.
Your committee believe that the national welfare requires that an interstate
commissiou should be appointed, and they are of the opinion that this bill, in
its main feature-, has been carefully considered and wisely framed.
They believe that the absolute publicity and uniformity required by this bill
will largely cure the evils of which the public have in former years had good
reason to complain. They believe that experience has demonstrated that Secret
rates, drawbacks, and like devices for concealing discriminations, on the part
of the common carriers, to favored persons, firms, or localities. have been the
principal cause of the public dissatisfaction with railroad management.
Your committee believe that rates on the railroads should be as uniform,
i. like circumstances, and as well known to the public as eustom-house
uties.
Your committee are of opinion that (section 4) the prohibition to charge more
for a shorter haul than a longer one is objectionable and certain to work against
the public welfare. If enacted, it would do little good to any one. Local rates
would not be thereby reduced, but “through traffic,” which, on the average,
furnishes not to exdeed one-quarter of the revenues of the trunk lines, would be
either refused, or raised to a standard of local rates—thus obstructing and ma-
terially decreasing the moving and exportation of cotton, grain, petroleum, and
other products. Upon the utmost freedom in making through contracts from
the West to the seaboard depends the development of the entire West and its
farming lands. The gigantic results already witnessed, due to the fortuitous.
combinations of railroads and water transportation and the ability to carry
this through traffic for trifling additional cost, and so far at very moderate rates
of freight, has produced a wealth to the whole nation so far exceeding any pos-
sible local benefits to be gained by the proposed prohibition as to forbid its
consideration. Nor is this provision 11ecessary to protect the local resident from
imposition; his remedy is provided in, the bill, quite independent of the through
traffic. If a local rate is unjust it must be remedied; but the consideration
thereof must depend upon the particular surroundings and circumstances of
that individual case, and not upon that of others further on the line, who may
have competing roads, water transportation, and many other things affecting
rates of freight not at all applicable to the case in question. One inn mediate
and inevitable effect of such a prohibition would be to divert most important
volumes of freight to competing Canadian roads running to the seaboard.
As to section 5, your committee is also of opinion that the absolute prohibition
against pooling is unwise, and much more likely to work injuriously to the
public than beneficially. If it be considered, it will be evident that most if not all
of the evils of unequal rates, discriminations, and partiality have arisen from
unrestricted competition, the only result aimed at by the proposed prohibition,
while a uniform tariff between all competing lines, arranged upon planes of
equity to all shippers, and enforced by an agreed volume of tonnage apportioned
to each road, is the very end to be accomplished by the bill itself—and this is
“pooling.” Its actual operation has been to do away with discriminations
against individuals and localities; it has secured greater uniformity of rates;
it has loeen found of greater advantage to shippers to deal with a “pool ’’ com-
missioner, representing all the trunk lines, than to be compelled to confer with
many officials in detail—as instanced in the late dry-goods classification agree-
ment—its existence has secured a steadily decreasing average rate of freight,
which has developed during the whole period of “pooling.” In get.eral the sys-
tem seems to have been productive of good to the public, and in many instances
where injustice has arisen it has been from lack of good faith to keep its condi-
tions on the part of the common carrier. While, on the other hand, its ten-
dency has been to avoid disastrous railroad wars, entailing upon the investors
serious loss, and always productive of disastrous effects upon the laboring classes
and the commerce of the country.
80
For these reasons this committee would urge that any action looking to pro-
hibition of pooling be at least deferred, and the subject referred (as was origi-
nally proposed by the Senate bill on this subject) to the connmission to be estab-
lished by this bill, for full investigation, report, and suggested legislation, if they
deem any needed, in the future.
It is true that the framers of this bill, evidently fearing the strict operation of
section 4 (as it regards the long and short haul), have lodged the discretion with
the commissioners to limit or suspend, after investigation, its operation in cer-
tain cases. And if it be wise to confide to then) so great a power, it can not be
unreasonable to leave the whole subject (affected by sections 4 and 5) to them
and their discretion, which would be the case were no clauses of this character
contained in the bill. If any discrimin-ition of an unjust character a rises, the
commissioners are fully vested with power to investigate and correct the same,
and this seems to be all that is required at present, and until more experience is
gained by the commission.
To this chamber the public are largely indebted for the investigation of the
Hepburn committee, which led to the appointment of the railroad commission
of this State. This commission has proved eminently satisfactory both to the
public and the railroads, and has performed great public service.
The experience of our State railroad commission should furnish a valuable
guide and precedent for the larger and more important duties of an interstate
commission. When a law was passed creating a railroad commission in this
State the powers and duties of the State commission were largely advisory.
This clamber was of the opinion that the powers of this commission were too
limited, but experience has demonstrated that the law was wise and salutary.
The advice of the commission to the railroad managers has been followed in .
most instances, in spirit if not in letter. Publicity and public opinion have
satisfactorily supplied the place of mandatory provisions of the law in this
State.
In conclusion, your committee beg leave to offer the following resolutions : .
Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce approve of Senate bill known as
1532, with the exceptions of section 4, prohibiting greater charges for the shorter
than the longer haul, and also section 5, which contains an absolute provision
against pooling They believe these sections, for reasons stated in above re-
port, should be stricken out or annended as suggested hereim.
2. Resolved, That as the commissioners under the proposed law.will be charged
with important and intricate business duties, they should, as far as the political
and non-partisan considerations mentioned in the bill will admit, be selected
with reference to their experience and knowledge of the business interests of
the country, and that the agricultural, commercial, and railroad interests should:
all be represented upon such a commission.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
CHARLES S. SMITH,
CORN ELIUS N. BLISS,
A. FOSTER HIGGINS,
Committee.
NEw York, January 4, 1887.
JAS. M. BROWN, President.
A true copy. Attest : &
[SEAL.] GEORGE WILSON, Secretary.
* * % % 3: 3: *
Mr. CULLOM. I renew my motion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois moves
that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report
on the interstate-commerce bill. -
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report is before the Senate.
Mr. BECK. Mr. President, I desire to be as brief as possible, and
herefore I will ask not to be interrupted during my remarks, as I am
sometimes led off into other matters in that way.
* * * * % * *
The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee
of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (S.
1532) to regulate commerce. -
Mr. BECK, Mr. President, the report of the committee of conference,
wheih we must either adopt or reject as a whole, presents the issue fairly
between those of us who believe that the great interstate railways aré,
and of right ought to be, subject to law, and those who think that they
!
81
are and ought to be a law unto themselves; that is the question, dis-
guise it as we may.
After a struggle of more than ten years the committees of the two
Houses have for the first time agreed on a bill which they submit as
the very best that can be had, saying it is that or nothing, Of course
the railroads want nothing. No bill could be framed which their ad-
vocates would not oppose, and because this bill is not perfect and some
of its provisions may hereafter need modification they insist that the
railroads shall continue to exercise unlimited control over interstate
commerce, discriminating in rates and classifications in charges for short
hauls far greater than for hauling over the whole line, in granting re-
bates to favored shippers; in short, that they shall carry on their busi-
ness as though the public had no rights which they are bound to respect.
The defeat of the pending measure, either directly or by annendment,
accomplishes their purpose. *,
As long as the House and Senate moved in diverging lines they felt
safe. When the two Houses come together, as their conferees have done,
the railroads feel the importance of exerting all their power to defeat
this measure, as they would any measure which subjected them to the
control of Congress. Not being a member of the committee having this
bill in charge, I am not as familiar with its details as some Senators
who have studied them, but I think I understand its general scope
and purpose. My long service on the Committee on Transportation
. Routes to the Seaboard bróught before me the complaints against the
discriminations by the railroad pools in favor of the Standard Oil Com-
pany; the Pacific Railroad extortions on way freights; the anthracite
coal combinations; the unjust rates imposed on shippers of dressed beef
in the interest of the stock-yard rings, and other kindred evils which
Congress alone can remedy. I have never doubted that it is not only
the right but the duty of Congress to prevent by well-defined and care-
fully-guarded laws all discriminations, extortions, and combinations on
the part of the great corporations engaged as common carriers of our
interstate and foreign commerce over the public highways, which Con-
gress and the States have authorized to be constructed for the common
good and equal use of all the people. The Supreme Court has conclu-
sively settled the question that Congress, and Congress alone, can pro-
tect the people against extortions of that character, and that the States.
are powerless.
It has done so in the most emphatic manner within the last four
months in a case about which there was no dispute as to the facts, and
no difference of opinion as to the wrong inflicted, or as to the propriety
of punishing the railroad company as a wrong doer. I refer to the case
of the Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific Railway Company vs. The State.
of Illinois, decided by the Supreme Court at the October term, 1886,
in which Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court, and
Mr. Justice Bradley the dissenting opinion. The record presents the
whole question so fully and fairly that I need only quote briefly the
facts and conclusions of law as shown by it It shows that—
The Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific Railway Company, an Illinois corpora-
tion, plaintiff in error, was sued by the State of Illinois to recover a penalty for
the breach of its laws, passed to prevent extortion and unjust discrimination:
in the rates charged for the transportation of passengers and freight on railroads.
in the State.
The law sued on was originally passed in 1871, and revised in 1873.
The declaration alleged, in substance, that the company charged certain parties
15 cents per 100 pounds for carrying a load of freight from Peoria, in the State
I S C 6
S2
A
of Illinois, to New York, 109 miles of the distance being in Illinois, whilst at the
same time it charged certain other parties 25 cents per 100 pounds for carrying
a like load of the same class of freight from Gilman, also in the State of Illinois,
to New York, 23 miles of the distance being in Illinois, both places being on
the line of the road. This allegation was substantially admitted, and judgment).
was finally ren idered in favor of the State, and was sustained by the supreme
‘court of the State, to which the present writ of error was directed. -
The main point insisted on by the railway company in its defense was, that
the law on which the action was founded is unconstitutional, in its application
to their case, as being a regulation of interstate commerce. -
Among other things, the railroad company asked for the following
instruction : :
The court further holds as matter of law that the transportation in question
falls within the proper description of “ commerce among the States,” and as
such can only be regulated by the Coungress of the United States under the terms
g the third clause of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United
tates. -
Ail of these propositions were denied by the court, and judgment rendered
tºº. the defendant, which judgment was affirmined by the Supreme Court on
appeal.
Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United
States, alter a full citation of authorities closes thus: r
Of the justice or propriety of the principle which lies at the foundation of
the Illinois statute, it is not the province of this court to speak. As restricted to
a transportation w lich begins and ends w thin the limits of the State, it may be
very just and equitable, and it certainly is the provinee of the State Legislature
to determine that question. But when it is atten ºpted to apply to transportation
through an entire series of States a principle of this kind, and each one of the
.States shall attempt to establish its own rates of transportation, its own methods
to prevent discrimination in rates, or to p-rmit it, the deleterious influence upon
the freedom of commerce among the States and upon the transit of goods through
those States, can not be overestimated. That this species of regulation is one
which must be, if established at all, of a general and national character, and
can not be safely and wisely remitted to local rules and local regulations, we
think is clear from what has already been said. And if it be a regulation of
conn interce, as we think we have demonstrated it is, and as the Illinois court
concedes it to be, it must be of that national character, and the regulation can
only appropriately exist by general rules and principles, which demand that it
should be done by the Cougress of the United States under the commerce clause
of the Constitution. The judgmenu of the supreme conrt of Illinois is therefore
reversed, and the case remanded to that court for.further proceedings in con-
formity with this opinion.
The State courts are rapidly conforming their action to this decision,
and are surrendering all the jurisdiction they had attempted to assume
in this class of cases, so that Congress must act, or by its refusal declare
that the railroads are beyond the reach of law. I find the following
among the late dispatches:
A QUESTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE DIECIDED BY THE BOSTON COURTS.
- BOSTON, January 8.
The full court has given an important decision in the case of the Common-
wealth vs. Housatonic Railroad Company, which involves a question of inter-
state commerce. On July 25, 1885, the Massachusetts railroad commissioners,
acting under the statute of 1885, chapter 33S, passed order fixing the maximum
rate which the IIousa, onic road might charge for transporting certain kinds of
freight between points in Massachusetts and Connecticut. The plaintiff alleged
that the defendant company had unlawſully violated this order by charging a
higher nate than the commissioners allow. -
The defendant contended that section 2 of the statute named, under which the
order was nade, is iuvalid because in confiict with the Constitution of the
United States. Article I, which gives Congress the exclusive right to regulate in-
terstate commerce. The court sustains the defendant, citing the recent decision
of the United States Supreme Court in the Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific Rail-
road Company rs. The People of Illinois, in which a statute against unjust dis-
crimination was involved The decision is written by Chief-Justice Morton,
and of course invalidates the order of the railroad commissioner.
It will be observed that in the Wabash case there was no dispute
as to the act of the railway company being wronglul, as an unjust dis-
83
crimination in favor of one citizen against another; it was conceded that
the offending corporation ought to be punished. The court, after full
hearing, decided that the duty of protecting the people against that and
‘other wrongs of like character devolved upon Congress, bocause it was
beyond the jurisdiction or control of any State. So that, if we fail to
provide means of redress, the people of all the States are without rem-
edy against the discriminations, extortions, and combinations of the
railroad companies engaged in the interstate or foreign carrying trade.
. The laws of Illinois could and would have punished the Wabash Com-
pany for its unjust discrimination in this cise, but the State courts were
powerless, because Congress alone has the constitutional authority to
do so. Yet we are told that we will ruin the business of the railroads
if we subject them to the same rules in interstate commerce that the
States have subjected them to in the carrying of State commerce. The
distinguished Senator from Alabama ſ Mr. MoRGAN], while opposing
this bill, concedes that it carries out the law as decided by the Supreme
Court. He opposes the principles of law as settled by that tribunal,
as shown by the following extracts from his speech on this floor:
He said:
I can not subscribe to the doctrine that interstate commerce can only receive
protection against the wrongful acts of private persons, or public and private
corporations, through the action of Congress in providing laws and tribunals
for their regulation or punishment. -
This bill is based solely on that false premise. It opens the door to the inter-
ference of Congress with every regulation of trade and commerce, whether
sanctioned by universal custom or by express or implied agreements between
the parties concerned. It exposes the charter rights of every railroad company,
given by the States, to modification and repeal by acts of Congress.
It multiplies indefinitely the list of crimes punishable by statute in the Federal
courts, and correspondingly narrows the power of the States to punish their own
citizens for crimes committed within their borders, becau-e the commerce against
which the crime is directed is interstate commerce, and is therefore within the
-exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. -
This claim of the exclusive power of Congress to legislate, whether for the free-
dom of commerce or against it, is made in this bill to depend on the interstate
character of the traffic, and that is made to depend on the will of the shipper.
The States can make no regulations touching the subjects or objects of inter-
state commerce, according to the theory of this bill and of the Supreme Court.
All I care to say in answer to that criticism of the law, as he con-
cedes it to be, is that it must be apparent that our ſailure to pass laws
punishing railroad officials who are guilty of such discriminations and
extortions is obviously to license them to continue practices, which
no Senator will venture to justify, or even assert ought to be tol-
erated. The bill before us simply asserts that the railroads are pub-
lic highways, and that their managers are common carriers, and as such
that their rates must be reasonable, and that they shall not discrimi-
nate between individuals or corporations, either by differences in charges
or by rebates or drawbacks, and that their rates of charges shall be
made public. It does not attempt to prescribe rates ſurther than to
prohibit a higher charge for hauling over any part of their line than is
made for hauling over the whole length of it. It does not legalize as
high a rate for a short haul as may be charged for hauling over the
whole length of the line. It leaves the carriers to justify, if they can,
the charges they make for short hauls under the provision that they
must be reasonable, only declaring that it is per se unreasonable to
charge more for hauling over part of a line than for hauling over the
whole length of it. The only other provision, and that the commission
may on certain conditions modify or suspend, is that they shall not
form pools or combinations among themselves to maintain arbitrary
people the benefit of the reduction of charges which competition al-
- 84
rates, but shall compete for business fairly and honestly, giving the
ways secures. I believe the country will accept this bill as an honest,
earnest effort to break up the favoritism, the extortion, the unwar-
ranted control over interstate and foreign commerce which many of
the railroad managers have exercised and maintained for the last twenty
years. -
It is only within the last few years that the railroad advocates would
admit that Congress could interfere to prevent discriminations in their
rates or extortions in their charges, as the arguments filed before the
committees of the Senate and House show. It was only when the
unjust charges and flagrant extortions of the Pacific railroads on way
freights were exposed, and facts which the managers could not deny
were made manifest, such as charges of $800 a car to Ogden, Vir-
ginia City, or Reno, when a like car similarly laden would be hauled
on the same train past these places to San Francisco, many hundreds.
of miles farther, for $300, that the railroad attorneys had to admit that
there must be a power somewhere to prevent and punish such out-
rages on the people along the lines. They had to abate the arrogance
of their demands for unlimited control over interstate and foreign com-
merce when it was proved before State and Congressional committees,
and admitted by their own agents, that the leading railroads of the
country, embracing the New York Central, the Erie, and the Pennsyl-
vania system, had, by their pools and other illegal combinations, de-
stroyed all competition of the producers of petroleum with the Stand-
ard Oil Company, and had built up that monster monopoly in fifteen
years from an insignificant organization, with less than $1,000,000 of
capital, to a mammoth monopoly with over $100,000,000, not less than
$50,000,000 of which was stolen—no milder word will express the
truth—by the railroads and Standard Oil conspirators, through their
pools, by discriminations, rebates, and extortions from the people of the
country and their competitors in trade.
As a complete windication of my assertions, I ask Senators and all
others who doubt the truth of my statements to read the third chapter
of a work entitled “The Railways and the Republic,” published in
1886, by J. F. Hudson. The chapter is headed “The History of a Com-
mercial Crime.” I commend its c \reful perusal, especially to the boards.
of trade and chambers of commerce now so earnestly protesting against
the passage of this bill, venturing this assertion, that if the facts therein
stated were laid before any commercial board in America not one of
them would vote for a continuance of the system under which such
monstrous outrages have been committed with impunity, and may be
repeated. As it may not suit the advocates of the continuance of abso-
lute power in our railroad magnates to read the chapter referred to, I
will read a few extracts from it to the Senate. After showing in detail
the processes by which all competition was destroyed, Mr. Hudson, on
page 83, says:
This made the monopoly absolute master of the refining trade. It controkled
every avenue of transportation, managed all the largest refineries in the land
and was able to shut off every competitor from either receiving supplies or
shipping its product. If any refineries in any part of the land were permitted
to run they owed their immunity to their insignificance. The Pittsburgh re-
finers, who had struggled for four years against the domination of the Standard,
were left without any avenue of escape, and the rigor of their fate can be
perceived from the fact that at the beginning of 1878, nearly every firm of the
original refining interest of Pittsburgh had either made the best terms practica-
ble with the Sta. Idard or accepted the alternative of the bankrupt courts.
From its original common-place proportions the Standard had at this time
swelled to a corporation whose wealth was estimated to exceed $30,000,000. The
sources from which most of this wealth is drawn may be understood from.
85 {}
the disclosures afterwards made of the discriminations in its favor. Up to that
time these favors could only be inferred from the fact that the Standard could
ship oil over the trunk lines when none of its competitors could do so at pre-
vailing rates. The first legal avowal of its rates was in the case of H. L. Taylor
et al. vs. The Standard Oil Company, in which it was alleged by the plaintiff that
a rebate of $1 per barrel had been paid by the railways to the Standard. The
reply of the Standard admitted a payr ent of a rebate, but denied that it was of
the amount named. Subsequently Mr. A. J. Cassett, of the Pennsylvania road,
testified before the New York legislative investigating committee that in
eighteen months the railways had paid to the Standard the sum of $10,000,000
in rebates. The period covered by the testimony was a year or two later
than the time now under consideration; but the inference is plain that the
rebates paid the Standard during the period of its growth from an ordinary
corporation to a complete monopoly were equal to its entire increase of wealth
for that time. In other words, its entire profits were comprised within the dis-
criminations made in its favor by the railways.
The compact by which the railways surrendered themselves and the public
interests to the rule of the Standard was well understood to be vital and hind-
ing; but of its exact and shameful details the public was kept in ignorance
until two years later, when the correspondence, comprising the contract, was
brought out by legislative investigation. In this contract the Standard assumed
the power of parceling out the traffic not only between the different trunk lines
but between the different cities. Of the shipments to the seaboard 63 per cent.
should go to New York, of which the New York Central, the Pennsylvania
Railroad, and Erie were each to carry one-third ; of the remaining 37 per cent.
the Pennsylvania Railroad was to be given twenty-six shares and the Balti-
more and Ohio eleven. For guaranteeing this division of the traffic the Stand-
ard received a “commission ” (as it was called in this document) of not less
than 10 per cent. of the rate. This commission was stipulated to be subject to
indefinite increase, but under no circumstances to reduction. It was also rein-
forced by the important provision that no other shipper of oil should have any
commission or rebate whatever, unless his shipraents were as large as those of
* Standard.—Correspondence of William Rockafellar and Thomas A. Scott, Octo-
er 17, 1877.
As the railways had already raised the Standard to the position of controlling
over 95 per cent. of the trade, and had crushed out nearly all its rivals, it will
be seen that the probability of finding such a shipper to enjoy equal terms with
the monopoly was very remote. Nor with the Standard in control of the
trade was it likely to have any difficulty in carrying out its guarantee of the
percentages which it had parceled out among the railways. The compact was
a league and covenant between the railways and the Standard, that no inde-
pendent competition in the petroleum tradeshould be permitted by the railways.
It bound the corporations to the principle that competition was to be abºlished,
and handed over the producers and consumers alike to the tender mercies of
the monopoly which was established by the power of the railways.
That is a specimen of the condition of railroad management which
we are told it is ruinous to interfere with or to attempt to control.
The Standard Oil Company’s extortion is only one phase of the system.
It reaches every branch of industry; the coal, iron, wheat, livestock, and
dressed beef transportation from State to State are all at the mercy of
like combinations and pools if Congress fails to prohibit them, because
the Supreme Court has decided, as I have already shown, that the States
are powerless to do so. I would like the managers of the boards of
trade, who are so fearful just now that Congress will cripple the rail-
roads by this law, to take a vote of their members as to whether such
combinations as I have just laid before the Senate ought orought not to
be prohibited by law, as the bill under consideration proposes. The
people of Pittsburgh and elsewhere tried to obtain relief by law, and by
laying competing pipe lines, but the railroad and Standard Oil combi-
nation was too strong for them even before the Pennsylvania Legisla-
ture. I read from the chapter referred to, page 88:
An attempt was made to bring a new pipe line to Pittsburgh, which produced
another movement for a free-pipe law. The oil regions united with a few refin-
ers in asking for that measure; but in vain. Even the attennpts to hold a pub-
lic meeting in favor of the new bill were smothered by the Standard. To pre-
vent the expression of independent public opinion, a meeting called for that
purpose, in Pittsburgh, was packed by the workmen of the Standard refineries,
who howled down every speaker advocating commercial freedom in the oil
trade. Paid articles in the press asserted that the measure would take the re-
85
- ~~~~
fining trade from Pittsburgh and carry the whole business to other S.ates. As,
this was just what the Standard was doing—the oil lousiness at Pittsburgh hav-
ing at that time clini nished 50 per cent.—only those who wished tº earn the
Standard’s wages were affected by such a plea. But that class, especially among
the lawmakers of Pennsylvania, was numerous enough to secure the defeat of
the free-pipe bill. That measure was again voted down, and the attempts to se—
cure an independent line of transportation were abandoned.
There was one small city that had pluck enough to hold out, and it
is the only one known to me that had. My friend from Mississippi
[Mr. GEORGE] says we ought to be proud of it. That was Columbus,
Miss. sº
Even at such a distant point as Columbus, Miss., when the grocers claimed
the right to sell independent petroleum that had reached them by the river
route, the monopoly established a grocery store and sold goods below cost in
order to drive the merchants into submission. In this case, happily, the mon-
opoly was defeated, as the merchants unitedly refused to buy the oil of the
Standard Company until it retracted its claim of dictation ; and, perhaps, be-
cause of the small iness of their trade and their location they were successful.
That was the only case he could furnish. He adds:
In Baltimore the rebellious merchants were punished by the sale of petroleum.
at retail from these wagons at a price lower than that which the Standard
charged to jobbers; but the difference was made up by raising the price to the
people after the local merchants had been driven out of the trade. In short, for
the seven years since the establishment of its absolute empire, the Standard
Company, as a journalist puts it, has “bullied the trade of the country, whole-
sale and retail a like.” With its power to control the retail trade, at one time
checking shipments and glutting the market with crude oil, at another taking
exactly the opposite course, accompanied by its almost unlimited resources for
manipulating the speculative exchanges and by the constant reloates through.
which it monopolizes the export trade, the accumulation of wealth by the
Standard has been unchecked. Its resources, which in 1873 were $1,000,000, and
in 1878 had grown to $30,000,000, are now rated at the enormous sum of $100,-
000,000; and as the capital stock of the Standard Trust Company and the Anner-
ican Transfer Company at par annount to nearly that sum the estimate is prob-
ably not excessive.
Again he says:
If the Standard had not been raised to its present tyrannical power there
would have been in its place an independent interest of fifty or a hundred firms,
shipping, in the aggregate, as great or a greater amount of freight. Aside from
the public aspect of the question, there is no doubt that it would have been better
for the railways to carry the natural shipments of such a legitimate business
than to depend upon the dictates and favors of a monopoly. It has often been
shown, and notably in the report of the Hepburn committee to the New York
Ilegislature, that in endowing the Standard with railway favors, out of which
it has made a hundred millions of dollars in ten years, the policy of the railway
managers was practically no less a lyetrayal of the interests of their shareholders,
than it was an assault on public right and justice. &
* §: Sk Sk §: #: . 2:
Gloss over the methods used by whatever specious argument the railway ad-
vocates please, they built up a great monopoly and crushed out an independent
trade. They were conceived in favoritism) and dishonesty, brought fortin with
the aid of corruption and conspiracy, and in full growth and maturity are a curse
to the independence and integrity of the nation. If the Western bandits whose
career has been so, sensational had been able to amass as great wealth as the
Standard, by highway robbery, their riches would not have demoralized the
public more than the success of this corporation. They would at least have se—
cured their gains at the risk of their lives. But the wealth of the Standard rep-
resents no such courageous dishonesty. It represents the reward which can be
obtained by securing the favor of the railways to crush out open and honest
competition ; by bribing legislators to prevent equitable laws, and by employ-
ing all the powers of corruption and intimidation which immense lioards of
money possess, to maintain arbitrary power and illegal monopoly. A part from
the encouragement it gives to siunilar attacks upon the independence of other
industries, the success of greedy and unscrupulous wealth can not fail to be de-
moralizing in all its influence. When gigantic dishonesty meets with such
gigantic success, what wonder is it that more ordinary forms of the same evil
prevail? In all its direct and indirect results as the wrecker and destroyer of
legitimately obtained prosperity, as a monopoly of an essential inclustry, and as
a corrupter of public and business morals, the Standard Oil Company is an un-
mitigated evil and a public curse.
87
The infliction of that curse upon the nation must be charged to the policy
which unites the railways in efforts to suppress competition among themselves.
and to give favored shippers a monopoly of the ſame by discriminating rates.
t : £º .# *
These four corporations—
Referring to the New York Central, the Erie, the Pennsylvania, and
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroads—
the exemplars and leaders of the railway system of the country, furnished to:
that conspiracy against independent commerce and free competition the active
strength and support which made its success possible. Without their steady
and persistent violation of the great rule of equal privileges to all shippers the
project for the subjugation of the petroleum trade would have died still-born.
In assigning to them the responsibility for such an attack upon commercial lib-
erties, is it too severe to declare that the four leading railways of the country
are gi tilty of the great commercial crime of the last decade 2 ~3
I hope the boards of trade of the country will publish that exhibit
to the world, and advise the people whether it is a system that com-
mends itself to them as one that ought to be perpetuated.
Mr. President, it is impossible for the representatives of the States
and people to sit supinely by and see the whole power vested by the
Constitution in Congress to regulate commerce among the States and
with foreign nations usurped by railroad corporations acting in combi-
nation under the pooling system. Even Congress can not impose a tax
on exports. Yet the railroad pool can not only impose an export tax
in the form of a double rate on transportation, but they can do it
without a moment’s warning, when the crops of the country must be
moved to the seaboard. They not only apply all the taxes so imposed
to their own use, but under the “pool” system they divide the plun-
der with roads that carried little or none of the freight in order to pre-
vent them from carrying it at a cheaper rate than the managers of the
pool have determined to exact. Worse than all, they can, and as I
have shown do, haul for one customer or set of customers for one-half
the tax or charge they impose on others. So that, not only the com-
merce of the country, but the fortunes of all engaged in it are at the
mercy of a few railroad magnates. Yet we are told by boards of trade,
professing to be the guardians of our commerce, that we will ruin the
country if we prevent combinations, discriminations, rebates, and
drawbacks, and require equal rates, publicly advertised, to be given to
all shippers alike.
There can be no higher evidence of the omnipotence of the railroad pool
than its ability to obtain from respectable boards of trade such resolutions
as are daily sent to us, urging us not to interfere with this railroad des-
potism. I deny that railroads have any right to “regulate commerce
among the States,” or to grant favors to or impose penalties on either
persons or localities on their lines. Their roads are public highways,
and they are common carriers for hire. They should be protected by
law in the enjoyment of all their rights as such, and each should be
required to compete for business with the others. Whenever they under-
take to charge one customer more than another for the same service or
to interfere with the commercial operations of the people, they should
be prohibited from doing so and punished if they disobey. Congress
has the sole constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, as
the State Legislatures have of the commerce of each State, and the com-
mon carriers under each system must be required to treat all who use
their roads equally, and work for a reasonable compensation, giving
public notice of any increase of their rates long enough in advance of
the change for men to regulate their transportation and their pur-
chases accordingly. The great fundamental principle which the pas-
88
|
sage of this bill will establish is that Congress not only proposes here-
after to regulate interstate commerce, but it proposes to require the
carriers of it to do equal and exact justice to all people dealing with
them.
We do not assume that all or indeed any of the railway managers
will be guilty of unjust discriminations or extortions by passing this
bill, any more than we assume that men are murderers and robbers.
because we pass laws punishing murder and robbery. We assume it
to be our duty to prescribe in advance what shall be the punishment
for such offenses, so that no one can plead ignorance of the law or of
the punishment which will follow its violation. But I must hurry on.
One of the ablest advocates of the railroads said:
The necessities of modern progress rendered a modification of old theories
and even old principles inevitable; and since the introduction of railroads the
idea thitt private property taken for the purpose of travel in a peculiar manner
and under new conditions is a public highway is no longer tenable and in prac-
tice is not recogn zed. The old theory of the rights of the public in such a road
was necessarily modified in practice, though it still litigered in the minds of
some jurists.-W. F. Crafts, Scribner's Monthly, October, 1881.
That was for a long time the general tone of all the advocates of these
corporations, even before the committees of Congress. Indeed all the
railroads have tried to maintain that their lines are their private prop-
erty, to be used as best suited their interests, but the courts—State
and Federal—have uniformly decided against all their assumptions,
and maintained that they are created by sovereign powers which
could only be exercised for public uses, and that the right of each
citizen to use the road on equal terms with every other citizen is the
supreme and controlling obligation of the managers of each of them.
Even Congress can not authorize private property to be taken except for
public use. It may, by bad laws, accumulate half, or even all, the cur-
rency needed for circulation in the Treasury, and there may be no way
to pay it out, yet it can not require any holder of our bonds not yet due
to surrender them or to take the money for them, even with 50 per cent.
premium added. Yet it can by a railroad charter authorize the homes
of the people, that no money could buy, or their graveyards, sacred
to the dearest memories, to be torn down and desecrated in order to es-
tablish a public highway for the equal use of all the people. Congress
could not conſer such power for any private purpose, however impor-
tant. That fact effectually disposes of all pretense of private rights or
interests in railroads being either superior or even being allowed to
conflict with the fair, equal, reasonable use of these highways by all
the people.
What would be thought of a turnpike company that undertook to
charge one man a dollar and another twenty-five cents at its toll-gates
for wagons exactly alike, laden with an equal quantity of similar freight,
or which refused to allow any wagons but those of its managers to pass
its toll-gates at all if engaged in hauling coal, upon the ground that
the turnpike company had made arrangements to control the coal trade,
as the railroad companies have done time and again in regard to the
express and special freight business over their lines; and what would
be thought of boards of trade protesting against an act of the legisla-
ture requiring the highways to be kept open for the use of all the peo-
ple at “a stipulated, reasonable, uniform toll,” which is all we pro-
pose to do by this bill? -
Redfield on Railways, chapter 11, page 229, says: -
That railways are but improved public highways, and are of such public use
as to justify the right of eminent domain by the sovereign in their construction
is now almost universally conceded. .
89
He supports this statement by a long list of authorities, State and
Federal. The railroad is no more private property than the turnpike;
on one the freighter runs his own wagon, on the other the common
carrier furnishes it; but the principle of public right, uniform charges,
and impartiality in use relates equally to both. *
The advocates of the railroads have been driven to admit the truth
of these principles after years of resistance; their last refuge is that the
principle is founded on an “obsolete theory, not now applicable to
their complicated and important system.” I can not better answer
that argument than by again reading from Mr. Hudson’s work, page
150. He says:
But it is worthy of notice that the constitutional provisions of the leading
States in the Union are fully as explicit as the common law in declaring the pub-
lic character of the railways and in asserting their subordination to the legisla-
tive power in all matters affecting the public interests. The “obsolete theory”
that the railways are public highways finds direct enunciation in the most re-
eently enacted State constitutions. In Arkansas, Alabama. Colorado, Indiana,
Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Texas the constitutions
adopted within the last decade all declare that the railways are public highways.
The constitutions of California, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wis-
consin affirm the right of the Legislature to regulate the operations of the rail-
ways, while many other States have practically asserted that right by its actual
exercise, and it has never been successfully denied. Of the fifteen constitutions
referred to, twelve explicitly forbid discriminations between shippers or pas-
sengers, while in other States a similar prohibition is implied by the constitution
or by laws made under its authority. Pools or eombinations between different
railroads to the prejudice of other railroads are forbidden by the constitutions
of Arkansas, Illinois, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsyl-
vania, and Ohio. Rebates and drawbacks are prohibited by constitutional enact-
ments in Arkansas, California, Georgia, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, while the
much-defended practice of charging more for a short haul than for a longer haul
over the same line is forbidden by the constitutions of Pennsylvania, Missouri,
Arkansas, and California, and by the highly-lauded statute law of Massachusetts.
25 *: $: >k : :: Sk
To sum up, the railway is created by law to fulfill a public purpose—that of
affording improved transportation on equal terms to all persons whom it can
serve. Whatever is necessary for the honest and impartial discharge of that
None function it has a right to do. It can make such charges as will yield it a
profit on the investment of its capital; but it must distribute the burden of its
charges evenly among all its patrons in proportion to the service rendered. It
is designed to overcome the obstacle of distance; but it should overcome that
obstacle for the benefit of all, and it is not within its objects to bring one locality
nearer to market than another and to make the latter support it in doing so. It
is a public servant, and not a public tyrant which can enrich and magnify its fa-
vorites at the general expense. It may own and control a franchise in its tracks
and rights of way, but it has no right to control legislatures, or to compel courts
and public officers to do its bidding. It is not a commercial providence to exalt
one vessel to honor and condemn another to dishonor. It is not a political guild
to sway by its capital, its commercial power, and the work of its employés, the
business of the people. It is not a modern baron with supreme power over the
property and prosperity of its subjects. It is not endowed by the State with the
power to rule the business of the nation, dictating in what manner or over what
routes the people shall carry on their commerce, or the amount of business that
they shall transact. A creature of the State, it unust not become a conspirator
against conºmerce, either by building up monopolies for its favorites, or by or-
ganizing them for its own profit.
The necessity for Congressional action was made so apparent that
the bill now before us, in the shape it then was, passed the Senate at
the last session of this Congress on a call of the yeas and nays by a
vote of 47 to 4, and it passed the House as amended in that body on
the 30th of July last, by a vote of 192 to 41. Now, when the Conferees
on the part of the two Houses have agreed on a bill satisfactory to both,
it seems to me that it ought to become a law. The subject had been
referred to a committee, and full opportunity for objection to its pro-
visions had been given to the railroads and all their adherents before it
was acted on, as the report of the committee shows.
:: ()
No man can justify the conduct of many of the great railroad, cor-
porations in their treatment of the vast interests necessarily confided
to their care and management. Take the anthracite-coal railroad pool,
which is perhaps the oldest and best maintained, and therefore the
most atrocious. of this system of “pools;” its discriminations, extor-
tions, and combinations to limit production in order to increase the
price of the product have become So outrageous that the governor of
Pennsylvania had to order the attorney-general to proceed against
them in the name of the commonwealth. I again read Îrom Mr. Hud-
son’s work, page 211 :
In this case the evils of combination —
Referring to the anthracite-coal trade—
have been increased by the direct interest of the companies in the business which
furnishes their chief traffic. The legislative iuvestigation referred to showed
that excessive and outrageous discrimina, ions against shippers had been made
of the coal roads. After a thirty days' strike—
The interests of labor are carefully guarded by them
After a thirty days’ strike the private in ine-owners had eonsented to the
wages demanded by the miners, and would have supplied a large trade, but the
railways, which were also miners as well as earriers, an were determined not
to yield to their men, raised the freight rates of the private firms to three times
their former standard. By this means the price of coal was brought up to $12
a ton, and the private operators, their workmen, and the consumers of coal
were made to feel the power of the great railway and mining companies. It is
not necessary to follow out in detail the steps by which the railways established
their absolute power in all branëhes of the coal trade. Enough that the result,
is that of 270,000 acres of anthracite-coal, lands in Pennsylvania, 195,000 are now
owned by six railways. One effect of uniting, in the same corporations, the busi-
mess of shippers and that of carriers is the enormous inflation of their capital.
I ask Senators to pay attention to what I shall now read, as I shall
refer to it hereafter. . -
Their aggregate capitalization announts to $500,000,000, while the actual cost of
the roads and equipment for transportation is $114,000,000.
For the purpose of securing a profit on this stupendous amount of inflated
capital, the policy of combination has been carried to an unequaled extent. Not
only was competition in transportation suspended by a division of traffic between
the railways, but the competition of the mines was stopped, as far as possil 'le,
by agreements which limited the output of anthracite coal to an arbitrary total
fixed by the combination. -
This amounted to 30,000,000 tons only during the past two years.
These agreements are enforced by ordering the suspension of mining at
such time as the railway combination determines; sometimes for one-quarter
of the working time in a year. • *
God save the protected laboring man from such friends!
We have seen that the combination contends as vigorously to prevent an ad-
vance of miners' wages as to naintain the price of coal ; and hence the artificial
advance of price brings no corresponding increase of pay to the labor el úployed.
In fact statistics show that the average wages paid to the mu ºn engaged in this
severe and arduous work ranges from $350 to $100 per year. The restrictive
powers of the combination are extended over the distribution of the product.
No wholesale dealer can engage in the anthracite coal business wit out the con-
sent of one or the other of the lines forming the combination, or without con-
forming to the fixetl and turbitrary wholesale prices prescribed by the compa-
nies. Some of the eccentricities of the artificial means used to sustain prices have
been exposed in a previous cha) ter. The burdºn of the control estal) ished over
both producers and consumers, by the anth racite and bitumino s coal colubi-
nations, has been estimated at $31,000,000 annually. Whatever may be thought
of the accuracy of this calculation, there is no doubt that the combination con-
trolling the coal trade of Pennsylvania has, by restrictions upon that industry
and artificial prices for its products, inflicted a vast and wholly unjustifiable bur-
den upon the producers and the public. -
I again ask, ought such things to be possible and Congress be told
that they can not and ought not be regulated and controlled by law 2
The statement that their aggregate capitalization amounts to $500,000,-
91
000, while the actual cost of the roads and equipment for transportation
is $114,000,000, is a startling one, and would seem incredible but for the
incontrovertible proof that has been furnished to State and Congres-
sional committees of the methods employed to produce these results.
Some very striking examples are given by Mr. Hudson to illustrate the
system. For example, he says (see page 270):
The South Pennsylvania Railroad project illustrates, in many striking feat-
ures, the great railway abuses of the times. The projectors of this enterprise,
in itself legitimate and desirable, had an offer to build and equip the road for
$10,000,000, and they planned a liberal inflation by raising that sum on bonds,
and making the stock capital wholly fictitious. But the project fell into the
hands of the Vanderbilt interest, and the plan was found to be wholly insuffi-
cient. The stock was placed at $20,000,000, and the bonds at the same amount.
A contract was made with a construction company, said to consist of Mr. Van-
deri)ilt’s clerks and brokers, to do for $15,000,000 the work which a responsible
contractor had offered to do for $6,500.000. The $15,000.000 were to be furnished
by a syndicate of capitalists from New York, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and
Pittsburgh, who were to roceive for their subscriptions the $40,000,000 of securi-
ties. It is now asserted on good authority that the sum of $10,000,000 is an ann-
ple estimate of the legitimate investment represented by the $40,000.000. Upon
this basis of $4 in capitalization for one of cost the greatest railway capitalists.
of the country conducted this enterprise, until, in pursuance of a broader pol-
icy, they sold out to the Pennsylvania Railroad, deserting the men who had put
the money into the project in good faith to secure a competing line, that they
might establish the monopoly of the New York Central and Pennsylvania roads
over their respective districts.
In regard to the New York road, which was held up as an exemplar
of freedom from inflation, and one of them is enough. After telling how
the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad watered its stock,
he says:
It is sufficient for tre present purpose to cite the conclusion of the New York
legislative committee, from the testimony of experts, that the property of the
company, capitalized at $155,000,000, could be replaced for $65,000,000; that the
most moderate estimate of the actual “water” in its securities was $53,163,881,
not including a loss of $10,800,000 by discounts in the sale of $25,600,000 of bonds.
The capital stock of the company is $85,000,000, representing, according to this.
most moderate view, $22,0 K),000 of actual investment; while others estimate
that the bonded securities of the company alone represent the entire amount
invested in the property, and $10,000,000 more; so that the entire share capital
and part of the bonds are a stupendous mixture of wind and water.
. The report of the New York legislative committee puts it in this.
language:
It matters little for the purposes of this report whether $50,000,000 or $70,000,000,
representing nothing save mismanagement, prodigality, and pilfering, have
been injected into the capitalization of this road, and are now seeking to drain.
interest and dividends from the commerce of the country. In either ease the:
wrong is equally glaring and the demand for a remedy equally imperative.
One more extract and I am done with that branch of the question:
A still nnore notorious and flagrant example of stock inflation is that of the
Pacific railroads. The public are familiar with the record of this creation of
stupendous wealth out of the loan of a governinent subsidy and the gift of an
empire of land. It has been told by Mr. Charles Francis Adams in detail, and
with an authority that is emphasized by his present position at the head of one of
the companies. The story of the construction company, the “Credit Mobilier,”
upon whose stock, the it vestment in which was nominal, the greater portion
of the shares and debt of the Union Pacific Railway was distributed as divi-
dends, is part of the record of national polities. It is also well known how the
Central Pacific Railway was built. A company of capitalists whose resources at
the beginning of the enterprise were $195,000, with the aid of loans from the city
of Sacramento and Placer County to the extent of $550,000, built enough road to
draw $848,00.) from the United States Treasury as the subsidy for the first section,
and ly repeating the process constructed the entire road; with which, as a
nucleus, they have now gathered a total capitalization of $139,000,000.
Similar illustrations might be found in the financial “ ballooning” of the North-
ern Pacific, the Texas Pacifie, and the Atlantic and Pacific; but an outline of the
history of the two older corporations is sufficient for our present purpose. Their
aggregate capital is $120,000,000; their funded debt, apart from the Government
subsidy, is $136,000,000; and the contribution of the United States to their con-
92
‘struction was $61,000,000, in the form of a loan, on which less than half the in-
terest has been repaid by the companies. It is well known that of this capi-
talization, the stock does not represent a dollar of actual investment; that a
large portion of the debt was pocketed by the constructors of the roads in the
-shape of contracts, which they made with themselves, to build the tracks at two
or three times the legitimate cost; that the roads were almost, if not wholly,
paid for by the Government subsidy; and that of the $259,000,000 of additional
stock and bonds issued upon the properties, an estimate that one-third repre-
sents invested cash will be too liberal.
Little wonder that Mr. Poor, who is the highest authority known to
me on railroad statistics, said that the actual cost in money of all the
railroads in the United States in 1883 did not exceed their funded and
floating debts, an aggregate of $3,787,000,000, and that the fictitious
capitalization was $3,708,000,000. This is his language:
If it be assumed that the cost in money of all the roads in operation in the
United States in 1883 did not exceed, as it certainly did not, the amount of their
funded and floating debts, $3,787,410,728, the actual investment was a most prof-
itable one. The net earnings for the year were $336,911,884, a sum equaling
about 9 per cent. on their cost. If the fictitious capital could be eliminated from
their accounts, their success, as investments, would have no parallel.
It is in this immense increase of fictitious capital that is to be found the cause
of the general distress which prevails, and the enormous decline in the price of
railroad securities. From 1879 to near the close of 1883 a most singular delusion
rested upon the public as to their value, and this delusion was taken advantage
of on a vast seale by able and unscrupulous adventurers. Whatever was manu-
factured and put afloat was seized with avidity by an eager and uninformed
public. The delusion was increased and prolonged by payments on a very large
scale of interest and dividends from capital. In this delusion the most loud-
mouthed and unscrupulous promoters usually had the greatest success.
As I have said, Mr. Poor’s work is the best railroad authority, and
his statements are entitled to the highest consideration. I can add
nothing to their weight or to strengthen their claim to reliability.
So much for that. While the provisions of the bill as to uniformity of
charges, publicity of rates, and even the reasonableness of the provision
in regard to the long and short haul are not seriously controverted, the
tentative provision as to the pooling system is made the subject of se-
rious complaint. The fact that “pools” are prohibited by the consti-
tutions of nine States—Arkansas, Illinois, Colorado, Georgia, Ohio,
Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania—ought to be strongly
persuasive evidence that the principle is vicious in practice, while the
fact that all the wrongs committed under the Standard Oil monopoly
were perpetrated under the pooling system, and all the outrages perpe-
trated by the anthracite railroad combination were the workings of the
pool, ought to make Congress set its face against it. Mr. Hudson, at
page 244 of his work, gives this case, which shows how Judge Baxter
regarded pools:
An agreement, in the common form of money pools, existed between the
roads engaged in the transportation of coal from the Hocking Valley regions,
by which one of them, conducting a large traffic, was to pay a considerable
share of its earnings to other companies, a draft upon its life blood which event-
ually sent it into the hands of a receiver. The receiver, after operating the road
for some time, accumulated $100,000 of earnings, which, by the terms of the
agreement, was to go to the other pooling companies. Hesitating to make a
gift of funds to the competitors of the road while the bondholders were wait-
ing for their interest, he submitted the matter to the court which had appointed
him, the district court of the United States for Northern Ohio. Judge Baxter,
with some of the indignation of the old fifteenth century judge already referred
to, ordered that he should “ not only not pay out this money, but to pay no
money whatever for any such purpose while the road is in the custody of
this court; ” adding, “such contracts as these are no more to be respected by the
law than any other gambling contracts.” - -
Judge Baxter's form of expressionis, to say the least, “pungent.” A
pool is simply a combination between railroad managers engaged in com-
petition with each other for traffic to maintain such rates as they agree
*;
93
on by suspending competition and placing the trade and earnings of all;
in a common “pool” from which the business or its proceeds is divided
among the confederated companies in fixed percentages. They never
apply it to the local traffic, of which each has its own monopoly; each
squeezes all it can out of that, and keeps it. When the States and the
United States granted railroad charters, made grants of public lands.
and subsidies from the public Treasury, and cities, counties, and indi-
viduals aided by taxation and subscription of money, as was often done,
to build these roads, it was on the assumption that the roads would
compete honestly and fairly for business, and would carry freight and
passengers at such rates as would pay to the stockholders a reason-
able interest on the money actually invested in their construction and
equipment, treating all their customers alike. Watering stock to create
fictitious capital on which to claim that interest must be earned, form-
ing pools to control business at rates which enable them to pay divi-
dends on fictitious stock, and all devices to prevent honest, fair com-
petition are unjust and sliould be declared illegal. Pooling is against
public policy in other regards besides destroying the competition which,
the people have a right to the benefit of. It destroys all inducements
for the roads to offer the best services or other accommodations to se–
cure patronage, as the worst get their allotted proportion.for the poorest
service, the same as the best, whether they are patronized or not. When
the pool protects its members against loss by the reduction of traffic-
that naturally follows mean accommodation; the public interest is
always prejudiced. The result of such protection must inevitably be
poor service, and the courts have always declared such combinations.
illegal on common-law principles.
The New York court of appeals had that question before them in
regard to pools formed by the boatmen on the Erie Canal, and in de-
claring a pooling combination of the canal-boat owners to be illegal the
court pointed out the inevitable tendency of such a system, as follows:
The association being thus secure against internal defections and external en-
croachments, and the members llaving thus thrown their concerns into stock to.
derive an income in proportion to the number of shares they hold, and not ac-
cording to their merit and activity in business, and safe against the reduction
that would otherwise follow mean accommodations and want of skill and at-
tention, the public interests must necessarily suffer grievous loss. Indeed, the
consequence of such a state of things would be that freighters and passengers
would be ill-served just in proportion that carriers would be well paid. (Stanton.
vs. Allen, 5 Denio, 534).
Perhaps the most arbitrary and unjust discrimination which the man-
agers of the pool have been able lately to perfect and maintain in the
interest of the railroad managers who own and control the stock yards.
along their lines is the charge of nearly double as much for hauling
dressed beef as is charged for the same weight of live stock. There is
not one-tenth part of the risk in hauling dressed beef that there is in
hauling live animals. If accidents happen it is hardly possible to in-
jure dressed beef seriously, and hardly possible to save live animals;
but the stock yards make nothing out of dressed beef and they make
what they please out of the hauling of live animals. In a note to page
221 Mr. Hudson says:
Before the Hepburn committee Mr. Fink correctly said: “The proper basis of
railroad tariffs is the cost of transportation.” With regard to the live-stock and
dressed-beef rates, he stated the principle on which the matter was settled to be
that of putting “ the dressed-beef and live-stock shippers on the same footing
as regards the cost of transportation (which in this instance means freight
charges) of the product of the animal to Eastern markets.” In other words, the
economy of the dressed-beef shipments was to be destroyed for the benefit of
the live-stock interests of the New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroad.
managerS. -
94
That is about all there is of it. -
Mr. President, I will not occupy the time of the Senate any longer
in the discussion of this question. I had intended to vote for the report
of the conference committee without saying a word; but when I was
urged by intelligent boards of trade in Kentucky and elsewhere to vote
against this measure, I thought it was due to myself and respectful to
them to give the reasons why I can not comply with their requests. I
am not an enemy of railroads. I would not knowingly do anything to
impair their usefulness or deprive them of any legitimate rights to
which they are entitled. They have done more than all other agencies
to develop the resources of this continent. They have enabled us to
control and almost settle the Indian problem. Without them, nine-
tenths of the country west of the Mississippi would be a wilderness to-
day. But for the cheap transportation they furnish, our exports would
be a mere bagatelle, and the comforts of every man's home would be
immeasurably lessened; but with all my high appreciation of their
importance, and of the wisdom of sustaining and encouraging them in
the developments they are making, I would require them to do equal
and exact justice to all men, regardless of race, color, or previous con-
dition. The bale of cotton shipped by the humblest negro, or the can
of oil he had purchased to light his humble home, should be trans-
ported over the public railroad highways on precisely the same terms
that Mr. Vanderbilt, Mr. Gould, or the Standard Oil Company could
have it hauled for. I seek to substitute the undoubted authority of
Congress over interstate commerce for the greed of interested railroad
managers in regulating commerce among the States, and in Securing
equal rights to their citizens; and believing that the bill submitted to
us by the intelligent conferees of the two Houses goes far toward secur-
ing these results without injury to any of the legitimate rights of the
railroad companies, I shall vote for it.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I have not risen for the purpose of
making ageneral speech upon this subject. I have been more inclined
to say nothing on the subject than to occupy any time whatever; but
certain portions of the bill as reported by the conference committee
have been very fiercely attacked, and seem to be in a measure misun-
derstood, in my judgment, so that I have felt called upon to give expres-
sion to my views on one section of the bill alone at present. What I
shall say to-day will be confined substantially to a discussion of the
meaning of the fourth section of the bill. It may be that before the
discussion is closed I shall have something to say upon other portions
of the bill, but at present I shall confine my remarks to the fourth
section. - - .
Mr. President, the regulation of interstate railroad transportation is
a subject that occupies a very conspicuous place in the thoughts of the
American people. The magnitude of the vast interests to be affected by
such regulation makes it necessary that the legislation proposed on the
subject should receive the most thoughtful and deliberate considera-
tion, for the commerce and prosperity of the entire country may be
affected favorably or unfavorably, as the case may be, by the character
of the regulations which Congress, in the exercise of its undoubted
right to regulate, may see fit to impose upon interstate transportation
by railroad. I recognize the importance and the great propriety of a
full and free discussion of the measure now before the Senate, which
may be so far-reaching in its consequences, and I am anxious that the
effect and meaning of the provisions of the bill shall be fully under-
stood, in order that the Senate may act upon it intelligently.
95
Since the report of the conference committee was made public the
bill as it now stands has been critically analyzed by the ablest repre-
sentatives of the various interests that will be most affected by its pass-
age, in case it shall become a law, and has received a great deal of at-
tention from the press and from the general public. It seems to me .
that the bill has stood the test of this general and critical scrutiny re-
markably well. Its general provisions seem, for the most part, to have
met with approval, while the feature which has been most strongly ob-
jected to seems to have been misunderstood, if not misrepresented, and
it is this feature only which I desire now to undertake to explain.
I have not had time to carefully read all the numerous expressions
of opinion upon the bill that have come under my notice, but, so far
as I have been able to do so, it appears that the railroad managers and
others prominently identified with railroad interests who have ex-
pressed their views publicly have directed their attacks almost wholly
upon the “short-haul’’ section and the one prohibiting pooling. For
the most part they criticise these sections and express alarm at their
supposed effect upon the country, but take pains to explain with more
or less qualification that they approve the general scope of the bill, or,
at least, that they do not seriously object to its other provisions.
If the very abie gentlemen who manage the railroads of the United
States find only two points of serious attack in a measure which is in-
tended to bring about, in many important particulars, a reversal of ex-
isting railway practices and methods of management, we have a right
to assume that the bill is not, aside from the features which they spe-
cially criticise, unduly oppressive toward the railroads, or very far from
right in its main provisions and regulations. And if these gentlemen
are mistaken in their view of the probable effect of the two features
which they attack, their objections to the enactment of the proposed
law fall to the ground. I think they are mistaken, and that this will
be made to appear during the course of the present debate; but, if I am
mistaken and they are correct, I would be unwilling to give the meas-
ure my support.
It must be borne in mind, however, that any measure which Con-
gress can enact upon this subject may prove to some extent ineffective
and unsatisfactory until it has been supplemented by similar State
legislation, just as the State legislation now in force in many of the
States has been found ineffective and unsatisfactory in some respects
because of the absence of national legislation. There is no way in
which the entire internal commerce of the country can be subjected at
once to the same uniform plan of regulation under the Constitution as
it stands. Much of this commerce is beyond the jurisdiction of Uon-
gress, but if we will apply just and proper regulations to the interstate
commerce now subject to our control under the Constitution, I am sat-
isfied that within a few years the States which have not already done
so will enact similar regulations, and that eventually the entire internal
&ommerce of the country will be placed under a substantially uniform
plan of regulation.
Until that time comes, however, it may be possible for the railroads
to obstruct and interfere with the successful operation of the law to
some extent, because of the divided jurisdiction of the States and the
General Government over the subject, in case the railroads should not
be disposed to accept in good faith the regulations Congress may im-
pose upon them. But I do not look for factious or unreasonable oppo-
sition on the part of the leading railroads of the country. When once.
the bill goes into force, if it should become a law, I believe that the
96
railroads will as a rule seek to give the law a fair interpretation and
endeavor to live up to it. Y-,
But, however that may prove to be, we must expect a great deal of
friction in attempting to put into practical operation a new and here-
tofore untried system of regulation—untried at least as to the interstate
commerce of the United States. The questions that may arise can not
possibly all be foreseen or guarded against. The requirements of the
bill against unjust discrimination and favoritism as between persons,
places, and particular classes of traffic will pinch very hard in a good
many quarters. The “big fish” will be placed upon an equality with
the little ones, or more nearly so, and we must be prepared to hear very
energetic and very vigorous protests from those who have been enjoy-
ing all kinds of special privileges and advantages at the expense of the
general public, and who will be convinced that the country is going to
everlasting smash if their privileges are cut off. But I take it that it
is our duty to legislate here with a view to securing the greatest good
to the greatest number, and I have faith that, if the legislation now
proposed can be fairly tested, its enactment will prove beneficial alike
to the railroads and to the general public when it is once fairly in oper-
ation, and when business has adjusted itself to the changed conditions.
which it will bring about.
I come now to the consideration of the much-debated “short-haul ?”
section.
The objection made to this section as it now stands which, if it were
well founded, I should regard as the most serious, is that it is indefinite
and ambiguous, that it is open to more than one construction. Of
course, we can not undertake to say positively what construction will
be put upon the language used by the courts if they shall be called
upon to determine the meaning of the section. It seems to me, how-
ever, that but one construction can be reasonably and properly placed
upon this section, especially when it is considered, as it must be, in
connection with the other provisions of the bili, and that its meaning
is perfectly clear. But in view of the erroneous construction that seems
to have been put upon this section in some quarters I deem it proper
to state that there seems to be no difference of opinion as to its mean-
ing among the conferees on the part of the Senate. I do not know that
I ought to say this, but I venture to do so; and yet it may be that as
to the minutiae of my statement the other conferees of the Senate may
not agree with me. º
I think the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT) and the Senator
from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIs] understand the section as I do, and I
think I am justified in saying that we would not approve it if we sup-
posed or believed it to mean what some have claimed that it does mean
or may be made to mean. * -
The short-haul section simply undertakes to lay down in specific
terms a rule or principle which, as I have always contended, is already
in effect contained in other provisions of the bill. The first require-
ment of the bill on the subject of rates is found in the first section, and
is that all rates shall be “reasonable and just.” This is, in effect, a
declaration that under similar circumstances and conditions a greater
sum shall not be charged for a shorter than for a longer distance, be-
cause under such circumstances it would not be “reasonable and just ''
to make such a charge. The next requirement of the bill that affects
this question is found in the first part of the third section, which de-
clares— . -
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
97
this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to
any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particu-
lar description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular
person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of
traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect
whatsoever. -
This is likewise a declaration that a greater sum shall not be charged
for a shorter than for a longer haul under similar circumstances and
conditions, because such a charge.would be the making or giving of an
“undue or unreasonable preference or advantage” to one particular
“locality,” or would subject some other particular “locality” to an
“undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” -
Now let us see what section 4 says and means. It reads as follows:
SEC.4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provis-
ions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate
for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however. That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the trans-
portation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to
time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be re-
lieved from the operation of this section of this act. . .
As I understand it, this section as it now stands simply prohibits a
railroad corporation from charging a greater aggregate sum—not a
higher rate—for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line,
in the same direction, and under substantially similar circumstances
and conditions, when the shorter is included within the longer distance.
There is no other prohibition made in positive terms. The declaration
that “this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier
within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensa-
tion for a shorter as for a longer distance” does not in terms prohibit
the charging as much for a shorter as for a longer distance, but simply
withholds the legislative sanction from the making of such a charge.
This qualifying clause negatives the inference that might possibly be
drawn from the language of the section without these words, namely:
that an equal charge for a shorter distance is authorized by inference
because only a greater charge is prohibited. This qualification, there-
fore, leaves the question of whether an equal amount can be charged
for the shorter distance to be determined by the provisions of the bill
to which I have already referred, requiring all charges to be reasonable,
and forbidding the giving of an unreasonable preference or advantage
to any particular locality.
Mr. HOAR. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Illinois,
with his permission, if he understands that the interpretation of the
language of this bill that it only prohibits the charging a larger gross
sum for the shorter than for the longer distance, and does not prohibit
a larger proportionate charge for the shorter than the longer distance,
is the sense in which the House of Representatives, as represented by
their conferees, understand the bill, so far as he is informed 2
Mr. CULLOM. I have no question but that every member of the
conference committees of both Houses unqualifiedly and without mis-
take understands this not to be a prorate-per-ton-per-mile law, but that
the corporations shall not be allowed to charge in the aggregate, in the
Is C—7
sum total, the same amount for the short as for the long distance, unless,
under certain circumstances. - . .
The requirement of the fourth section, then, is that as between ship-
ments of the same kind in the same direction over the same line, and
made under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, a greater
sum shall not be charged for a shorter than for a longer haul when the
shorter comprises part of the longer haul—not that a higher rate shall not
be charged per mile, but that a greater aggregate sum shall not be charged.
And I desire to say here, Mr. President, that one of the elements of op-
position to this bill throughout the country has been the result of a mis-
representation of the meaning of the fourth section of the bill. There
has seemed to be, on the part of those who want no legislation, a deter-
mination that that section of the bill shall be construed into a pro-rate-
per-mile section, when I undertake to say that no man who has been on
the committee ever dreamed that the language which is used in that
section, and which has been used in it from the beginning since the
select committee reported the bill to the Senate, could have that con-
struction placed on the words used.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. May I ask the Senator a question ?
Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Section 4 reads:
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the
transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially.
similar circumstances and conditions, &c.
What I want to get at is the meaning of these words, “under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions for a shorter than for a
longer distance on the same line, * * * * the shorter being in-
cluded within the longer distance.” To explain what I desire to get
at, I will make this inquiry of the chairman of the committee: Take
a long haul, from San Francisco to Portland, Oreg., over a railroad
running from San Francisco to Portland. Transportation by rail over
a route like that, of course, is affected to a certain extent by steamship
competition, by steamers running between the terminal points. Now
suppose a short haul, between points intermediate of those two termi-
nal points, say from Stockton to Roseburgh; would that come within
the provisions of the section? Would that short haul, included in
this long haul, be subject to the influence of steamboat competition?
Is that a haul “under substantially similar circumstances and con-
ditions” as the haul over the whole line of road 2
Mr. CULLOM. I will touch upon that subject briefly in what I
have to say, and shall answer the Senator from Oregon in the course
of my remarks. *
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I am inquiring for information. I
have not yet made up my mind as to the construction of this bill.
Mr. CULLOM. I am not objecting to the Senator’s inquiry.' I was
going to say that I shall discuss that point briefly in what I say; but
in answer to the Senator I have this to say now: that the words “sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions” are words of very
great importance, and words which may be taken for what they say by
a court or by a commission who may have something to do with the
construction of the law. Whether the section should be construed so
as to give relief as to the water point of competition that the Senator
refers to, or not, the section itself does provide that at such a compet-
ing point, if the fact does exist, the interstate commission shall have
the power to give relief upon a showing of the proper state of facts.
99.
Mr. HOAR. The power of suspension is given in a special case.
Mr. CULLOM. And of course every case of the kind would be a
special case, if, in the judgment of the commission, it was deemed
necessary to relieve the railroad company at that particular competing
point from the operation of the law. w
Mr. HARRIS. It does not refer to onesingle shipment, but to the es-
tablishment of a rule by the commission.
Mr. CULLOM. Of course a rule applying to all alike.
Mr. HOAR. I will put an illustration. The port of Boston, in
Massachusetts, has a foreign commerce of about $125,000,000 annually.
It was larger than that three or four years ago, but the change is not
in the amount of commerce, but in the value of the articles exported
and imported. That was the amount last year. Now, probably, of the
exports, which are seventy odd millions of dollars, between thirty and
forty millions consist of cotton, cattle, wheat, corn, hams and bacon,
and lard—the food products of the West and the cotton of the South.
Every ton of that produce exported to day I suppose is taken from a
place in the country which is from 150 to 250 miles nearer to New York,
Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Now, the railroads give a rebate of five
per cent. on all those exported articles. On that export trade of course
depends a corresponding import trade, which otherwise we should not
get at that port. *
Have we got, under this bill, to put down all the local business of
Massachusetts, the cotton which is taken to her ſactories to be used
there and the food products which are brought to feed her people, to
the New York rates, that is to the rates of carriers who do not have to
carry the goods so far by 250 miles; or have we got to give up that ex-
port trade; or is this great export trade of the second commercial city
of the country to depend on whether five commissioners happen to
think that is or is not a special case?
Mr. CULLO M. Mr. President, it may be said to be rather unfortu-
nate that Boston is a little farther away ſrom the center of gravity than
New York; but I do not think, myself, that there is anything in this
bill which prohibits a railroad from carrying to Boston just as cheaply
as it carries to New York from Chicago or Omaha or San Francisco,
and there is not anything now that prevents it. .
Mr. HOAR. I do not think the Senator quite apprehends the force
of my statement. The bill does not make New York a comparison;
but does it not say that a company shall not carry over the same line
of road to other points in Massachusetts the same article at a larger
price than it charges this foreign commerce—that is the proposition—
unless the commissioners come in and make an exception ? Then the
railroads have got to put down the whole railroad transportation in
cotton and food products in Massachusetts along their lines to the New
York rates if they put down the exports from Boston to the New York
rates, and that they can not do under the laws of trade, because, of
course, the other road, which is 250 miles nearer, has the advantage.
Mr. CULLOM. So far as this section is concerned, when a load of
corn, wheat, cattle, or what not, is started from Chicago, there is noth-
ing in this bill that prohibits the transportation company taking the
product in a car from Chicago at exactly the same rate to Boston that
it takes it to New York—not a single line. The only question, then, is
a question as to whether the railroads will carry the products as cheaply
to Boston as to New York. In my own judgment they will.
Mr. HOAR. My friend does not still answer the question. Do you
not prohibit them from carrying it to Boston at a less rate than they
100
carry it to Springfield, or Worcester, or Fall River, or to any other
point on the line in Massachusetts 2
Mr. CULLOM. At a less rate, yes. - ;
Mr. HOAR. That is exactly the point. We have got, therefore,
have we not, under your bill to put down Worcester and Springfield
and Fall River to the New York rate, or else Boston can not have the
exports? - - ~. .
Mr. CULLOM. Has the Senator any objection to having the rate.
put down? Is there any reason why the rates to New York and Bos-
ton should not be the same? - .
Mr. HOAR. The roads can not live at those rates. My friend has
got in his bill the general provision that they shall not charge any-
thing more than what is reasonable to those places. You have got the
thing down under the operation of your bill to what is reasonable as
an independent proposition.
Mr. CULLOM. Has the Senator any objection to that? v.
Mr. HOAR. Of course not. You have got it down to what is rea-
sonable; now stop there. Then the railroad company says, “While I
am doing this business for all New England, for all its local uses of
every sort, food supply or supply of materials, at a reasonable rate and
no more, which I am bound to do, I can, in connection with that busi-
ness, take on, in addition, at 5 per cent. rebate, these thirty millions.
which are going to Europe, if you let me; but if you say I shall not
do that unless I put local rates for all Massachusetts at 5 per cent.
below what is reasonable for them, I can not live, and the whole busi-
ness must go to New York.” That is the proposition. -
Now, a man doing a business of transportation at a fair rate, a reason-
able rate, and no more, may very often afford to take a particular piece.
of merchandise or merchandise for a particular destination at very much
less than his usual rates. If the Senator should engage to take me with
a hack over to Bladensburg this morning and charge me $10 for it, and
that was a reasonable price and no more, and he should come across a
man who was on his way there with a carpet-bag in his hand about to
walk, and the man says, “I have got but a dollar in my pocket and
I will give you that,” and he takes him on, that does not do me any
injustice, it does not do him any injustice, and it does not cause any
loss. That is the attitude of the foreign commerce of every principal port.
What I want to know of the Senator now is, not to debate this mat-
ter, but to ascertain the meaning of the bill. Do I correctly understand
him as saying that the right to continue that foreign commerce, in which
the condition is what I have stated, to be dependent in the future, un-
der the act of Congress, on the opinion of five commissioners? More
than that, is that foreign commerce to stop for a while, to be revived
again a few months later, when the commission have organized and got
around to this matter? * -
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, it is pretty difficult to pass any act
providing for any regulation whatever that may not appear to harshly
interſere with what somebody is doing. Now, so far as I am con-
cerned, I have no disposition to interfere with the foreign commerce of
this country. I would very much prefer to see the foreign commerce
increase, if it can be done consistent with the protection of the great
masses of the people of this country outside of the seaports. -
But here we are met with this condition of affairs—unjust discrimi-
nation, extortion, secret rebates, and all manner of unjust practices.
have been going on for years by the railroad corporations of this coun-
try because there has been no regulation of them by the Government
101
of the United States. Now we come in with a bill that undertakes,
in a moderate degree I think, to apply to them some sort of regulation.
We say that there shall be no secret rebates; we say that there shall
be no unjust discrimination; we say that there shall be no extortion.
Then we come with the fourth section and say that there shall not be
a greater charge for the shorter than for the longer distance over the
same line under substantially similar circumstances, the shorter being
included within the longer, and the property, of course, being of like
kind. t -
Now, how are we ever going to regulate these railroads? The Sen-
lator from Massachusetts steps in and says that is going to interfere
with the trade of Boston; it is going to stop the export trade and the
import trade that is going on at the city of Boston. I do not know
whether it will do so or not, but I do not believe it will because those
... words, as I said awhile ago, “under like conditions and circum-
stances,” are words that the commission, that the railroad men, that
the courts are bound to construe in the most liberal manner consistent
with the actual honest commerce of this country.
I undertake to say that you can not pass any bill which will in any
way restrict the traffic carried on by corporations unless you have some-
thing that will in some way appear to interfere with localities or with
individual interests which are being carried on. I believe myself that
those words “under similar conditions and circumstances” will open
a way, if any way is necessary to be opened, so that the real commerce
that is being conducted by Boston or New York or Philadelphia or any
other seaport will go on without the slightest interruption. I do not
believe that the Senator will find that his constituents in the city of
Boston will be in the slightest degree interrupted in their foreign com-
merce which they are carrying on to-day, even if the very letter of the
law should be enforced as the fourth section declares. -
But I do not believe it will be enforced as the letter of it reads in all
cases, but that a proper and liberal construction will be given by the
courts and by the commission and by the railroads themselves to the
words I have referred to. My own judgment is that if the common
carriers of this country proceed right along in the discharge of their
honest duties as common carriers and construe those words liberally so
that they may carry the products of the West to the city of Boston to
be transported to the people on the other side of the water, there will
be no interference with that work by the commission, by the courts, or
by anybody else. But if we are going to regulate these corporations at
all, if we are going to stop unjust discriminations and the secret rebates
by which towns are built up and towns are destroyed, by which indi-
viduals are destroyed and individuals are built up, we must have some-
thing in the bill which will mean something, or else we might as well
lay the bill on the table and go at other business. -
The limitations placed upon the prohibition that is made are very
significant, and they must not be overlooked. They require that in
determining the sum that may be charged for a shorter as compared
with a longer distance, the comparison must be made—
1. Between shipments “of like kind of property.”
2. “Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.”
3. “Over the same line.”
4. “In the same direction.” - ! *
5. When the shorter is “included within the longer distance.”
When the act is to be applied in any given case to measure the charge
that may be made for any distance, as compared with a longer distance,
102
all of these limitations must be taken into account, and they must
all apply to the case—not three or four of them, but all of them. The
first, fourth, and fifth of these limitations do not appear to call for any
explanation, but the meaning of the second and third may need some
explanation. .
As I understand them, the words “circumstances and conditions”
mean the conditions that govern railway traffic, and the circumstances
under which it is transported. To my mind these words are full or
meaning. They comprehend all the circumstances and conditions that
may justify differences in rates, such as competition with other railroads
and with water routes, the volume and character of business at differ-
ent points, the difference in terminal expenses, and the cost of service
in each case. If the words used were “the same circumstances and
conditions,” ingenious railway gentlemen would be able to show that
the circumstances and conditions were never exactly the same in any
two cases. And they might also be able to show that they were not
“similar,” if that was the word used. But the words “substantially
similar ” impart enough latitude to the comparison to enable the
courts to exercise a sound discretion and common sense in passing upo
cases that may arise. . -
So far as any one railroad company is concerned, therefore, the sum
which it may charge for a haul from one end of its railroad to the other
end becomes the maximum amount it can charge for any shorter haul
over that road in the same direction and under substantially similar
circumstances and conditions when the shorter distance is included
within the longer.
But the question that seems to trouble those who object to the sec-
tion as it stands is, whether the maximum thus fixed is the sum which
a railroad company charges upon shipments originating at and destined
to points upon its own road, or whether the maximum is the sum which
it accepts as its share of a through rate upon shipments passing over its
road which originate at or are destined to points upon another road.
It seems clear to me that there can be but one answer to that question.
In the first place, the measure of the charge that may be made for
the shorter distance is the sum that is charged for a longer distance over
the same line and under substantially similar circumstances and con-
ditions. The rates fixed by a railroad company between points upon
its own road are clearly rates upon one line, or, in the terms of the
bill, the “same line.” A railroad company can make and control the
rates upon its own road, and the section says that in making such rates
the short-haul principle shall be observed. A railroad company can
not control rates over the road of another company. But when two or
more companies unite in making joint rates over their respective roads,
they become in the eye of this bill one line, and this section says that
the short-haul principle must be observed in making rates over that
line, the two or more roads composing it being, within the meaning of
the section, the same line so far as such joint rates are concerned. The
word railroad is used throughout the bill and the word line is used only
in this section. The courts will be bound to assume that the word line
means something different from the word railroad, or it would not have
been used in this one instance when the word railroad would naturally
have been used if something different had not been intended. The
word line means a railroad or a combination of railroads. It means a
route. Section 7 of the bill requires the carriage of freights to be
“treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the
place of destination,” and this could not be done in the case of ship-
103
ments over connecting roads if the word used in this section was “rail-
road,” instead of “line.” -- - -
Mr. GEORGE. I wish to ask the Senator a question, if he will allow
Iſle. - -
Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir. •
Mr. GEORGE. Does the Senator wish to be understood as saying
that it is the meaning of this bill that the long and short haul provis-
ion does not apply; that is, that the circumstances are not substantially
similar, where one of the points is a competing point and where one is
not ? .
Mr. CULLOM. I mean to say simply this: You take one railroad,
if you please, between the city of Washington and the city of New
. York; that railroad makes its schedule of rates and it publishes, under
this bill, that schedule of rates, and so far as its operation on its own
road, not in connection with other lines or roads, but on its own road,
it is not at liberty to charge more for a shorter distance on that road
between here and New York under like circumstances and conditions
than it charges from here to New York.
Mr. GEORGE. But the point is this: I understood the Senator to
say—and that is what I want to have settled—that if one point from
which the shipment is made is a competitive point, either by having a
competing railroad or by having water transportation, and the other
point from which the shipment is made is not a competitive point, then
the circumstances are not substantially similar.
Mr. CULLOM. I do say the facts should be considered.
Mr. GEORGE. Then let me say, that if I believed that that was the
meaning of the bill and the courts would assent to it, I would vote
against it, because with that construction upon those words the whole
provision in the bill in reference to the long and short haul amounts to
nothing.
Mr. CULLOM. If it does not amount to anything, it will not hurt
anybody. -
Mr. GEORGE: I do not want to hurt anybody, but to save some-
body by a substantial provision on that subject.
Mr. CULLOM. So do I; but I do not want to humbug anybody
either. The Senate, however, by a deliberate vote placed in the bill
which was passed by the Senate during last session these words, “under
like circumstances and conditions,” and did it, the select committee not
having reported those words to the Senate in the original bill.
Mr. GEORGE. I do not object to the words. I object to the inter-
pretation which you put upon them. I do not believe that is the true
and legal interpretation, and I protest that this bill shall go through
here with an authoritative exposition or interpretation of the meaning
of these words given them by the Senator. If that be the meaning I
am against it.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Mississippi has a right to put
whatever construction on those words he chooses, and of course he will
do so; but I say, not as the chairman of the committee, but simply as
a Senator upon this floor, that those words were put in there by this
Senate after the select committee had failed to report them, and they
were put there because the original section reported by the committee
was too rigid and it was feared that it would interfere with the general
commerce of the country, and when they were put there they were put
there to mean something, and they do mean something.
They mean just what they say, that you shall not charge more for
the shorter than for the longer distance on the same line in the same
*
104
direction under substantially similar circumstances and conditions,
and those conditions and circumstances may be, if you please, the fact
that one place is a competing point and that another place is not, the
fact that one place furnishes a large amount of business and the way-
station does not furnish perhaps more than a car-load, and that it incurs
additional expense and all that sort of thing. No court, no commis-
sion, and no lawyer can afford to say that those words do not mean any-
thing when they are put in there.
Mr. GEORGE. With that construction of it, I think the Senator
gives away all the beneficial part of the bill.
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator does no such thing. The fact to-day
is—and I want the Senator from Mississippi to hear it—
Mr. GEORGE. I will listen. -
Mr. CULLOM. The fact to-day is that there is an utter disregard
by the railroads of the country of the circumstance that there are thou-
sands and tens of thousands of shipments made under exactly similar
circumstances and conditions where one is discriminated against and
another is not, where one place is broken down and another is hot,
where one man gets rebate and another does not; and the purpose of
this bill is to prevent that, in so far as we may be able to do it, without
crippling the commerce of the country. Does not the Senator think
there is something in it? .
Mr. GEORGE. I think there.is a good deal in the provision against
discrimination and the provision against rebates, but I think that by
the construction put upon the clause as to the long and short haul
the Senator has destroyed the benefit of that provision.
Mr. CULLOM. The joint through rates, which are made by two or
more railroad companies between points upon their respective roads,
are made over an entirely different and distinct line from that over
which any one of the companies individually makes rates. And they
are also made under different “circumstances and conditions'’ from
those which govern and determine rates made over a single railroad.
The two transactions are separate and distinct, neither being neces-
sarily governed by the other. Furthermore, the making of joint
through rates is specifically recognized by the bill in the section requir-
ing publicity of rates, and nowhere in the bill can anything be found
in relation to the division of a joint rate by connecting roads. I am
satisfied, therefore, that the only construction that is warranted by the
language of the section is the one I have given it, and that, instead of
requiring rates to be measured by the percentage of a through rate
which a road accepts, or of requiring through rates over connecting
roads to be an aggregation of the local rates over each road, as some
have claimed, the section as it stands simply requires that each railroad
company shall observe the short-haul principle as to its own rates, and
that the same principle shall also be observed by a combination of rail-
roads as to the joint through rates between points upon their respective
roads agreed upon by such a combination.
I have received a copy of the New York Times of the 5th instant,
containing a long argument against this section by Mr. George R.
Blanchard, commissioner of the Central Traffic Association. Mr. Blanch-
ard is a very able man, and has a peculiar faculty for discovering prac-
tical difficulties that may arise under this bill. If his questions can
be answered satisfactorily, as I think they can be, I feel sure that the
bill can stand the test of practical operation reasonably well. In this
letter Mr. Blanchard addresses some questions to me, which I will en-
105
deavor to answer in order. In discussing the meaning of the short-
haul section Mr. Blanchard says:
Traffic is received at Fort Wayne : *
1. From the Wabash Railway coming from Kansas City. This allows the
lowest rate east of Fort Wayne. .
2. From the nearer connecting Grand Rapids road. This allows more rate
east of Fort Wayne. * -
3. From resident forwarders. This allows the highest rate east of Fort Wayne.
It is a frequent happening that there comes to Fort Wayne, on the same day,
one car from each of these sources, none of them being handled by the railways,
(because the town grain comes from an elevator), and that the three cars, go in
the same train from Fort Wayne to the same consignee at New York, but at
the said three different rates. It is therefore all transported out of Fort
Wayne under substantially like conditions. Will Senator CULLOM kindly answer
the following : * * * *
1. Would the transportation circumstances and conditions be substantially
the same?
2. Is or is not the same rate required from Fort Wayne on the three cars, and
if not, what difference may prevail? --
3. Does this refer to commercial circumstances and conditions by which each
point of origin is to be considered as changing them?
4. His original bill defined this looseness by saying “from the same original
points of departure, or to the same point of arrival.” How is it to be read
now 2
My answer to the first question is that, in the case stated by Mr.
Blanchard, the transportation circumstances and conditions would
not be the same as to the three cars in question, because one shipment
originated at Kansas City, another on the Grand Rapids road, and
another at Fort Wayne.
The second question is: “Is or is not the same rate required from
Fort Wayne on the three cars; and if not, what difference may pre-
Vail 27' • * ‘. -
In answer, I say that the same rate or charge is not, in my opinion,
necessarily required from Fort Wayne on each of the three cars, be-
cause they do not pass “over the same line '' from point of shipment
to place of destination within the meaning of the bill. The line from
Kansas City to New York must observe the short-haul rule, and must
not charge more from Fort Wayne than from the first point on that
line west of Fort Wayne to which that particular combination of car-
riers makes joint through rates. The combination of carriers making
joint rates from points on the Grand Rapids road to New York must
observe the same rule. The shipment originating at Fort Wayne would
be governed by the charge made from the next point west of Fort
Wayne on the road between Fort Wayne and New York. The same rule
must be observed in all these transactions as to each separate line, but
the differences between the amounts actually received for the haul from
Fort Wayne to New York in each case must depend upon the circum-
tances in each case. -
I think Mr. Blanchard's third and fourth questions are sufficiently
answered by what I have already said. In the same letter he pro-
pounds several questions to the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON]
which I desire to notice. He quotes the following statement which
the Senator is reported to have made:
When the Boston and Albany, New York Central, and Lake Shore combine
and fix a through rate from Boston to Chicago, they can not charge more be-
tween Bostor, and Buffalo than the aggregate charge. That gives a wide lati-
tude. It allows a charge of as much for 50 miles as for 500, though no more.
So far as the fourth section is concerned, the Senator from Iowa is
reported to have said it. -
Mr. Blanchard then asks: “How can the rate from Boston to Chicago
be charged to Buffalo?” -
106
My answer is that, if the combination of carriers named by the Sen-
ator agrees upon and publishes a schedule of joint rates between Boston
and Chicago, the charge made to Buffalo must not exceed the sum
charged to Chicago, but it may be the same, so far as this short-haul
section is concerned. The prohibition made by this section is simply
against charging more in the aggregate to Buffalo than to any point
beyond Buffalo on the line composed of the three roads named. The
charge to Buffalo must not exceed the amount charged to Chicago; but
that is not all. It must not exceed the charge to any point between
Buffalo and Chicago to which the combination composed of these three.
carriers makes joint rates. - -
If the charge to any of the intermediate points is less than the charge
to Chicago, such smaller sum becomes the maximum amount that can
be charged to Buffalo instead of the Chicago charge. This is as far as
the short-haul section affects the charge to Buffalo. When a question
is raised as to the right of the carriers to charge as much to Buffalo as
to Chicago or to the next point west of Buffalo, that must be deter-
mined by the commission and the courts under the requirements of the
bill that all rates must be reasonable and that no unreasonable prefer-
ence must be given to any particular locality. -
Mr. Blanchard’s second question is: “Why is it the rate to Chicago
rather than to Cleveland or Omaha which may be charged from Bos-
ton to Buffalo, and why is it any of them?” -
It is to be presumed that under the requirements of the bill such
joint through rates as those under consideration would be established
and made public by the carriers. The illustration said to have been
given by the Senator from Iowa referred to shipments over a line from
Boston to Chicago composed of three railroads. The charge to Omaha
does not govern the rates made on that particular line, because Omaha
is not on “the same line.” . `. g
The charge made to Buffalo must not exceed the charge to Chicago,
nor to Toledo, nor to Cleveland, nor to Erie, nor to the first point west
of Buffalo on that line to which the three carriers named make joint
rates. In this case the first requirement of the short-haul section is
that the charge to Buffalo shall not exceed the charge to Chicago, which
would be the largest amount that could be charged. But the maxi-
mum would be decreased as the charges to points between Buffalo and
Chicago decreased, so that the smallest sum charged to any point be-
yond Buffalo would really become the maximum amount that could be
charged to Buffalo.
Again, Mr. Blanchard asks:
If they can charge as much from Boston to Buffalo as three lines combined
may charge from the same or further points to Chicago, why can not the charge
be as much as six lines combined from Boston to San Francisco 2 -
There is nothing in the short-haul section standing by itself that
would prevent the same charge being made from Boston to Buffalo
that is made from Boston to San Francisco, if we can assume that no
smaller charge is made to any point between Buffalo and San Francisco.
When the six carriers combine to make joint rates between Boston
and San Francisco they become a different line, and not the line that
we were talking about or that the Senator from Iowa is charged with
having talked about, from Boston to Chicago. The charge this different
combination could make to Buffalo would be limited first by its charge
to San Francisco, then by its charge to Ogden if that was less, then by
its charge to Omaha if that was less, then by its charge to Chicago if
that was less, and finally by the lowest charge made to any point west
107
of Buffalo to which this combination of six carriers made and pub-
lished joint rates.
Mr. DAWES. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois for an
explanation of the effect of the bill. Suppose the Boston and Albany
Railroad takes freight at Albany for Boston from different lines from
the West—freight from Chicago on one line, freight from Saint Louis on
another, freight from Cleveland on another, and freight from Kansas
City on another—if the Boston and Albany makes a different charge for
the freight that it takes off from one of these lines on its way to Boston
than it does from any other line, does it not subject itself to the pros-
ecution set up in your bill 2
Mr. CULLOM. I have just been discussing the very points the Sen-
ator raises.
Mr. DAWES. Probably I was out of the Senate chamber.
Mr. CULLOM. However, I have no objection to the Senator asking
the question, because I want to be perfectly fair about this matter. I
have undertaken to show that a line of railroad may be one line doing
business by itself, having its tariff of rates for its own use, and it can
control them, and that one road shall not be at liberty to charge more
for the shorter than for the longer distance on the same line, in the same
direction, and under the same circumstances, &c. Now, you can make
a line of a dozen roads, for instance, as I said, from San Francisco to
Beston, and the same rule applies as to that line, that it shall not be
allowed to charge more for the shorter than for the longer distance, and
so on, under similar circumstances. Suppose there are four roads com-
ing into Buffalo. I believe that is the place the Senator named?
Mr. DAWES. No, Albany. I will explain to the Senator that Al-
bany is where the Boston and Albany road begins. It is an indepen-
dent line from there to Boston, and being in two States it is subject to
all the penalties of your bill. *
Mr. CULLOM. I understand. Suppose there are four roads coming
to Albany, and each one of them does business with the Albany and
Boston road. At the other end of its line, if you please, each one of
them has its arrangements of through rates, by which, from Kansas City,
the Wabash, for instance, carries freight to Albany, and on to Boston
on that line; another road from Chicago carries freight from Chicago to
Albany and on to Boston on that line; another one from Detroit carries
freight to Albany and on to Boston on that line.
Mr. DAWES. If you will allow me right there—
Mr. CULLOM. Do not interrupt me while I am in the middle of
an explanation. -
Mr. DAWES. I beg pardon.
Mr. CULLOM. Each one of these different roads makes its own
combination, its own arrangements with the Boston and Albany, by
which grain or other products are transported over its line from Albany
to Boston; and the charge that the Albany and Boston road makes, or
the agreement that it makes, if you please, with these different, sep-
arate lines has nothing to do with what it charges one or the other of
them, and it has nothing to do with its own local rates from Albany to
Boston.
Mr. HOAR. Except under the clause as to unjust discrimination.
Mr. CULLOM. Except under the clause relative to unjust discrim-
ination. As I said before, the Albany and Boston, road can have an
arrangement with the Wabash by which grain is brought from Kansas
City to Boston over its line at just whatever rate the Wabash line can
agree upon, and so with each of the others.
108
Mr. DAWES. And they can charge a different rate?
Mr. CULLOM. They can carry the freight as they may agree to
carry it, and whatever their agreement may be, it does not affect the
freight that goes from Albany to Boston on that line, its own line, ac-
cording to its own published rates of freight.
Mr. DAWES. Suppose it be a different rate from that for which it
takes up freight at Albany and carries it to Boston? -
Mr. CULLOM. It does not make the slightest difference in the
world; it has nothing to do with it. One is a line of railroad by itself;
the other is a line of railroad in conjunction with one, two, or five
others, if you please, and the one rate does not control the others. In
other words, as I have said over and over again, the percentage that
the Boston and Albany road gets for carrying the products that are
brought from the far west to Boston after they reach Albany has nothing
to do with regulating the rates from Albany to Boston over that road.
Mr. DAWES. Do you find that in the letter of your bill, or do you
think that ought to be the construction of it? . %
Mr. CULLOM. I think that is a reasonable construction of the bill,
and I have no question myself but that the courts and the commission
would construe it that way. The letter of the bill will sustain that
construction of it, I think.
Mr. ALDRICH. It is of the utmost importance that we as well as
the business community should understand the construction the com-
mittee put upon this bill. I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois one
or two questions in this connection, so that we may understand fully
just what the committee understand to be the meaning of this section.
As I understand him, if a combination of roads agree to carry freight
from San Francisco to New York at $1 a hundred pounds, that rate is
the only limitation which that particular transaction makes upon any
intermediate rates between San Francisco and New York. Do I un-
.derstand that to be the Senator’s construction?
Mr. CULLOM. Ask that question again.
Mr. ALDRICH. In the case of a contract for the transportation of
freight from San Francisco to New York at an agreed rate of $1 per
100 pounds, that rate of $1 per 100 pounds is the only limitation which
that transaction fixes upon any intermediate transportation or upon
transportation between any intermediate points between San Fran-
Cisco and New York 2
Mr. HARRIS. Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to answer
that particular question of the Senator from Rhode Island?
Mr. ALDRICH. I was only trying to find out whether that was
what the Senator from Illinois had stated. I understood him to state
fhat.
Mr. HARRIS. The statement of the Senator from Illinois on that
point, as I understood him—and I think I understood him clearly and
correctly—was this: Here are four distinct and independent lines of
railroad between New York and San Francisco; first, the Pennsyl-
V &til 18,
Mr. ALDRICH. I am talking about the same line. Take one of
the lines.
Mr. HARRIS. There is a line composed of four distinct and inde-
pendent lines.
Mr. ALDRICH. Take one of them.
Mr. HARRIS. It becomes one line by a contract and agreement be-
tween these four separate, distinct, and independent companies.
Now, to answer the question and to illustrate, assume that by con-
109 .
tract upon the long line from New York to San Francisco, composed of
four independent, distinct lines, becoming one by contract and agree-
ment with the owners of these four lines for specific purposes and a
specific character of ſreight, that line agrees to haul a car-load of grain
or other freight from San Francisco to New York, say, for $100.
Mr. ALDRICH. One dollar per hundred pounds, I said.
Mr. HARRIS. Very well; but one hundred dollars illustrates the
principle just as well, taking the freight by the car-load instead of a
hundred pounds. Now, $100 is the through rate from San Francisco
to New York. By agreement each of those four companies agrees to
accept $25 apiece, making the hundred. If they agree only for through
freights, if this agreement extends only for through freights from San
Francisco to New York the hundred dollars a car-load would be the
maximum long-haul charge, and it would be the maximum of any short-
haul that passes over two or more of those roads. But suppose by con-
tract the parties agree to carry from San Francisco to New York at
$100, a car, from Ogden to New York at $75 a car, from Omaha to
New York at $50 a car, then the rule would be from Ogden to New
York, that is from any point east of Ogden to New York, they could
not charge more than $75. The rule would be from Omaha to New
York, from any point east of Omaha to New York, they could not
charge more than $50.
Mr. ALDRICH. What I want to get at is the understanding of
the committee. Could this same line charge $99 from Ogden, and
from Omaha, and from Chicago, and from Cleveland, and from Buffalo
to New York? So far as the limitations of the section are concerned,
would they be allowed to charge $99 per car-load, say, from Buffalo to
New York 2
Mr. SPOONER. They must charge a reasonable rate.
Mr. ALDRICH. As I understand the fourth section, so far as dis-
tance is concerned, it undertakes to fix what is a reasonable rate. That
is another part of the bill; but this section of the bill, if I understand
it at all, undertakes to construe the difference of distance into what is
reasonable.
Mr. CULLOM. It does not do any such thing.
MT. HARRIS. Mr. President <&
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Rhode Island
yield.
Mr. ALDRICH. I do.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. To whom? To the Senator from
Illinois? *
Mr. CULLOM. I do not want to interrupt the Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. ALDRICH. I wish to continue my inquiry, but I am willing
to listen to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. HARRIS. If the Senator will allow me to suggest it to him,
in as explicit terms as language will permit, each common carrier is
not only authorized but required to classify and fix the rates upon the
road. *
Mr. ALD RICH. That is another section. I am speaking now about
the provision of the fourth section and only the fourth section of the
bill. *
Mr. HARRIS. I answer the declaration of the Senator that this bill
would have to determine what was a reasonable rate.
Mr. ALDRICH. Is there anything that does it, I ask, so far as this
section of the bill is concerned ? The Senator from Illinois does not
110
understand it that way; and I resume, if the Senator pleases, and ask
him to answer my question.
Mr. HARRIS. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. ALDRICH. I mean the Senator from Tennessee. My question
is whether under the provision of this section there is anything which,
would prevent this same line from charging $99 a car (certainly it can
not charge as much as $100) from each one of the points to which I
have alluded. -
Mr. HARRIS. If I was understood, I answered that question a few
moments since, but I will repeat my answer, as I see that I, perhaps,
was not understood. This long line becomes a distinctive carrier by
contract, composed of four distinct and independent railroads. If the
contract provides for the carrying of freight simply from San Francisco
to New York and the contract stops there, it is a line for a specific pur-
pose and for no other purpose.
Mr. ALDRICH. In other words, it is a contract.
Mr. HARRIS. And if that be true, then there is no reason to be
found in this bill why they may not charge from any intermediate point
up to the maximum, except that the charge must be reasonable.
Mr. ALDRICH. As I understand the Senator now, he says that that
understanding and agreement constitutes a line of itself for through
business from San Francisco to New York.
Mr. HAR l’IS. So it does.
Mr. ALDRICH. And that an agreement from Sacramento to New
York would constitute a new line with the right to make a new con-
tract not dependent upon the other. Is that true? I ask that question
and I should like an answer.
Mr. HARRIS. If the contract fixes a different rate and a lower
rate— * se •, -
Mr. ALDRICH. It is another line. Does it constitute another line
within the meaning of the bill which entitles them to make another
and a different contract?
Mr. HARRIS. Upon the contrary, I think it is the same line created
by contract and composed of four distinct lines.
Mr. HOAR. Suppose three of those four make a contract with their
three roads, the Senator from Rhode Island wants to know whether
that makes a different line, one line of the four roads and another of
the three? -
Mr. HARRIS. I can see no reason why three of the lines may not
transact among themselves, for.
Mr. ALD RICH. I understood the Senator from Tennessee to say
distinctly that a contract from San Francisco for through freight con-
stituted that line a line only for that purpose, and that it did not put
any limitation at all upon other contracts from intermediate points.
What I want to find out is whether at Sacramento they would have a
right to make a new contract, ignoring the provisions and limitations .
of the original contract from San Francisco.
Mr. HOAR. And make a new line and charge more?
Mr. ALD RICH. Yes; can they make a new line of three? That is the
point I am coming at exactly. Here are between New York and San
Francisco ten different railroad companies, who have joined in a con-
tract which constitutes, according to the Senator from Illinois and the
Senator from Tennessee, a distinct, separate line from San Francisco to
New York. Now is it a new line when nine of those join in that con-
tract, and are they exempted from the provisions and limitations which
apply to the line of ten companies; and if eight, if seven, if six, can
11 I
each one of these companies make a new contract with new rates which
have no limitations or relations to the nine or ten? That is what the
Senator from Illinois said—that then you can fix your rates entirely sepa-
rate and apart from the line. If these are separate and distinct lines,
mine can charge more than ten; eight can charge more than ten; seven
can charge more than ten, until you get down to two, and they can
charge more than ten, and then you have only one line.
That is the point I was coming at exactly—whether each one of these
various companies forming a line in itself was affected at all by the lim-
itations which were tixed by a large combination that included the
whole. I understood the Senator from Illinois to say distinctly they
were flot so bound, and that there was no limitation by this bill in the
through rates upon smaller lines. For instance, if four roads between
Chicago and New York charge one sum, it would not prevent three
roads from Buffalo from charging twice as much, or three roads between
Cleveland and New York from charging three times as much. It is
not a question of business. I am trying to get at what construction
the committee places on this section.
Mr. HARRIS. You mean three different roads from those I have
mentioned as constituting the long line from San Francisco’
Mr. ALDRICH. No, I mean three of the same roads which made
up the four in the original line.
Mr. HARRIS. Three of the same roads would not reach the same
point; they would not reach San Francisco.
Mr. ALDRICH. They would reach an intermediate point.
Mr. HOAR, They are links in the same chain.
Mr. ALDRICH. They are three links of the same long chain which
you have drawn out.
Mr. HARRIS. The case I put originally, it seems to me, clearly
and distinctly answers the Senator's question. If this long line, being
constituted with four separate, distinct, and independent lines, has
contracted for through freights and for through freights only, T do not.
see that their contracts or the existence of that line would affect any
other than the through shipments: but if in their contract constituting
that long line composed of the four distinct lines they fix one rate from
San Francisco to New York, another from Ogden to New York, another
from Omaha to New York, or any of the intermediate points, includ-
ing more than one of the lines to carry the freights, then the short-haul
provision would apply to the maximum charge fixed by that agreement,
fixed by that line upon which the freights were to be transported.
Mr. A LD RICH, That is the question which I meant to ask the
Senator from Tennessee in the first instance, and I think he has
answered it now. It was, that iſ this constitutes one through line
from San Francisco to New York, as I now understand him, they could
fix a rate of $100 a car from San Francisco, and $99 a car from all the
intermediate points under the provisions of this section of the bill.
Mr. CAMDEN. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. ALDRICH. Is that what the Senator from Tennessee meant
to say?
Mr. HARRIS. If they provide for but one rate, and that an entire
through rate, then the maximum charge of the through rate would be
$100, and, so far as the fourth section is concerned, the maximum
charge for the short haul could not exceed a hundred dollars.
Mr. ALDRICH. It could come anywhere within the whole charge?
Mr. HARRIS. Not exactly anywhere within the whole charge.
That is to say, whenever you come to freights that begin and end on
112
one line of road, that is, on one interstate railroad, then the rates fixed
by that railroad apply, and not the rates fixed by contracts with any
other roads. - * . . -
Mr. STANFORD obtained the floor.
Mr. HOAR. I should like, with the leave of the Senator from Cali-
fornia, to ask one question of the Senator from Tennessee. That is,
whether he agrees with the Senator from Illinois that the mere destina-
tion, that is freight being carried to a foreign point or to a domestic
point, the case I put to him, constitutes a difference of circumstances
and conditions under this bill 2 ---
Mr. HARRIS. In answer to the suggestion of the Senator, from
Massachusetts, I desire to say to him that as a legislator I do not think
it concerns me to determine the conclusion of fact as to what would
Constitute similar conditions and circumstances. That is a fact to be
ascertained by the commission, if appealed to, or decided by the com-
mon carrier and to be complained of if he decides it incorrectly; and
the commission will then investigate the question and determine
whether the conditions and circumstances are similar in a given case
ut. . . -
Mr. HOAR. But does the Senator mean to say that being able to
maintain a great foreign commerce, millions upon millions, it ought to
be dependent upon the opinion of the five commissioners and not to be
fixed by the law-making power, so that in voting for this measure h
has not an opinion as to whether that thing should continue 2 -
Mr. HARRIS. I mean to say that whatever effect may be wrought
upon any given commercial point by the establishment of a correct
rule of transportation, the correctness and fairness and justice of the
rule should determine it, and not the interest of the locality in ques-
tion; and I mean to say in addition that it is very difficult, in my
opinion, to establish the justice of a given carrier charging more for
carrying a load of the same character of freight, and at the same time,
and under substantially the same circumstances, over one-half of its
road than it charges for carrying the same over the whole length of its
line. If the adoption and maintenance of that rule shall work preju-
dice to the trade of any given locality, it is the misfortune of that
locality, and it ought to be the misfortune of the locality and not made
the misfortune of all the people who chance to live at non-competitive
points along the line of the road. .
Mr. HOAR. I can not see any misfortune to anybody else. It does
not hurt the other people any. -
Mr. ALD RICH. Will the Senator from California let me ask the
Senator from Tennessee just one more question? -
Mr. STANFORD. Certainly. -
Mr. ALDRICH. I desire to know whether he agrees with the Sen-
ator from Illinois that where in case the short haul is to a non-compet-
itive point and the longer baul to a competitive point, that constitutes
such a dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions as would allow the
railroad company to charge a greater sum for the shorter haul ? .
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Rhode Island will pardon me.
The Senator from Illinois made no such declaration.
Mr. ALDRICH. I certainly understood him to make exactly that
declaration in answer to the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE].
Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? -
Mr. Aſ, DIRICH. Of course. . - -
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Illinois said that the question of
conditions and circumstances necessarily would be taken into consider-
| 13
ation as between the competitive and the non-competitive points. The
Senator from Illinois gave no opinion upon the question as to what the
decision should decide. --
Mr. ALDRICH. I understood him to make the statement I at-
tributed to him. *. - -
Mr. CULLOM. While I am upon the floor I wish to say another
thing. The Senator from Massachusetts objects to the construction of
this subject being left in any degree to a commission.
Mr. HOAR. No; but that part of it.
Mr. CULLOM. I refer to the question whether the foreign com-
merce of the country should be interfered with or not. All I desire to
say is that the best we can do is to pass the best bill we can, and it is
for the commission and the railroads and the courts to construe it after-
ward. We are compelled to leave it to the common carriers and then
to the commission, if one is created, and at last to the courts to deter-
mine what the proper construction of the law that we shall pass may
be. -
Mr. ALDRICH. As the Senator from Illinois says that he did not
make that statement, I now ask him what his opinion is upon that
question, if he has auy, and I should like also to get the opinion of his
colleagues on the committee. -
Mr. CULLOM. I will simply say in answer to the Senator from
Rhode Island that he seems to be exceedingly anxious to, in some way,
make the bill which is before the Senate offensive to the people of this
country; but I repeat that any court or any commission which had the
construction of this section to pass upon would be required to take into
account the language used, the place, the circumstances, and all together
as to what those words should mean in determining whether a com-
petitive point should have any advantage over a non-competitive point.
Mr. CAMDEN. If the Senator from Rhode Island will allow me I
will answer his question. - *
Mr. ALDRICH. I desired an ca: cathedra answer from the committee
who made this report.
Mr. HARRIS. If the Senator wants my opinion he shall have ex-
actly what I understand it to mean.
Mr. ALDRICH. I do.
Mr. HARRIS. I favored the short-haul provision from the begin-
ning, and did so for this reason: As a general rule the shipper from a
competitive point has a measure of protection, at least, by the compe-
tition that exists there.
Mr. ALDRICH. How if the shippers there can not get any lower
rates ?
Mr. HARRIS. But theshipper from a point non-competitive, where
he must accept the terms of the carrier or allow his produce to perish
upon his hands, is the shipper whom I wanted a short-haul law to pro-
tect.
Mr. CAMDEN. That is the very object of the provision,
Mr. HARRIS. That is the very object with me, at least, in having
insisted from the moment I entered the interstate commerce commit-
tee, and I continue up to this moment and shall continue to insist upon
a short-haul provision, so as to give the shipper from the non-competi-
tive point some protection against unreasonable and unjust exactions;
and for another reason: Take Chicago, for instance, as a competitive
point. When rate wars may rage and drive through freights down to
an unreasonable point, if the competing carriers there know that, however
I S C––8 - *
1 4 *
low they may put their rates from Chicago to New York, they can not
charge an aggregate sum greater for any shorter haul between Chicago
and New York, it will do more to restrain and to prevent rate wars than
all your pooling contracts have ever done or will ever do.
Mr. ALDRICH. Does the Senator from Tennessee expect that those
results will ever accrue from the passage of this bill? #
Mr. HARRIS. The protection of the shipper from non-competitive
points?
Mr. ALDRICH. Yes.
Mr. HARRIS. I not only expect, but I am confident that it will
accrue from this bill. tº
Mr. ALDRICH. I have received an answer, so far as the Senator
from Tennessee is concerned, but I do not understand that the Senator
from lllinois makes any answer to the question.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California [Mr.
STANFORD) has the floor.
Mr. STANFORD. Mr. President, I shall speak to this bill as I un-
derstand it. In what I shall have to say upon the measure I shall en-
deavor to be entirely candid and correct. The importance of the sub-
ject is so great that it can only be permanently settled upon right prin-
ciples. Anything else means renewed and continued disturbance.
The bill under consideration provides for a regulation of one species of
property not common to others. To see how far this is justifiable, it is
well for us to consider the creation of railroads, and to understand how
they are created.
Railroad companies are organized under the general laws of the dif-
ſerent States. They have no exclusive privileges. They are associa-
tions aided by these general laws—laws of which every citizen, or any
number of citizens, may avail themselves equally with those forming
the railroad company. In the mere fact of association they may exist
entirely without the aid of the State. The association is as natural as
it is for one man to call in his neighbors to help him raise his barn, or
to roll a saw-log, or to do any business not inconsistent with the rights
of others. The State gives, by virtue of the incorporation laws, noth-
ing to the incorporation. Whatever of capital or labor that is contrib-
uted to them is entirely private.
The ownership of the labor and capital provided is private; as much
so as the banker's ownership of his money, the farmer’s ownership of
his farm, the teamster’s ownership of his team, and so on.
It is private labor that builds the railroad from the first shovelful of
dirt that is thrown until the last spike is driven and the road is ready
for business; and then, when it is ready to operate, it is all the product
of individual or private property.
But some will say the right of way was given. In regard to that I
think there is much misapprehension. Those who desire to build a rail-
road, of course, must in some manner obtain the right of way on which
to build it. They appeal to the State on the ground that the proposed
investment is of a highly beneficial character to the public, and they
ask the State to exercise its right of eminent domain in order that the
road may be built. The State only can exercise the right of eminent
domain for the benefit of the public, and then upon just compensation
to be made to the owner for whatever is taken. The State could not
take private property for the benefit of A, B, C, D, E, F, and others.
Now, up to this time everything in the railroad has come from pri-
vate sources, and the labor belongs to the individuals as much as the
labor of the man who tills a farm.
115
Control is the essence of ownership. The value of the property is its
income-producing quality. This bill strikes at the control, and di-
rectly affects the income-producing capacity of the properties. Now,
if the investment is legitimate, if its nature is so highly beneficial that
the State can do, to aid its construction, what it could not do for the
establishment of a factory or any other legitimate business, wherein is
the reason for the interference with the values and the control of this prop-
erty 2 No monopoly is given to it; it interferes with no rights previ-
ously existing, and is never used except when it offers advantages to
the shipper or traveler superior to those existing before. If it is a mo-
nopoly it is only a beneficent one, cheapening and facilitating travel
and commerce.
Now, if the State has given nothing to this railroad company but
what it gives to every other citizen; if it has put no money in; if the
company has no monopoly; if its services are necessarily of a beneficial
character, why should the State interfere with its ownership and with
its income-producing qualities? And if the State, or if Congress, im-
pairs the value of this property, why should not compensation be made
to the owners, and, before putting into operation a law that will affect
values, ought not compensation to be made as is done when the Govern-
ment exercises its right of eminent domain and condemns the property
of A that the road may be built which the company pays for 2 By a re-
duction of income-producing qualities the value of the very right of way,
which the railroad company has paid for, is affected.
The geography and topography of the country make competition a
certainty. This bill denies to the railroad the right to charge less for
the greater distance than for the shorter. I do not suppose that any
railroad company ever carried freight or passengers for the longer dis-
tance for less than for the shorter unless competition, or some other cir-
cumstance beyond the control of the company, compelled. The only
alternative would be to yield the business. It is a principle in good
railroading to reject no business that offers if it can possibly be dome, so
long as it will pay the additional expense consequent upon its own move-
ment. A very large portion of the traffic of the country is done below
the average cost. The fixed expenses and the semi-fixed expenses of a
railroad company are very large. They, as well as the operating ex-
penses, are included to make the average cost of movement.
The average of operating expenses per ton is a very different figure
from that of the average cost per ton, the latter including operating ex-
penses, fixed expenses, and semi-fixed expenses. Thus, take the busi-
ness from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or from the Pacific to the Atlantic,
and we find competition by the Isthmus of Panama and competition
by Cape Horn; we find overland routes of different length, of different
grades and curves, varying in volume of business and in expenses of
operating. We have very different average expense for movement. The
longer road must compete with the shorter. The road with the heaviest
gradients must compete with the road of easier. The road having a
small volume of business must compete with the road having a large
volume of business. The cost of fuel is a very important item, vary-
ing on the different railroads. Yet the road having the least volume
of business, the road having the longest line, having the heaviest grades
and curves, having the highest cost of fuel, will be in competition with
and will have to carry as cheaply as one having the shortest line, the
easiest gradients, the cheapest fuel, and the largest volume of business.
All these are factors that determine the rates at which the railroad
may possibly do business, however meager the profits. All the over-
1 16 " )
land lines of railroad find their rates very largely controlled or influ-
enced by the routes by way of the Isthmus of Panama and of Cape Horn;
meeting that competition, and being willing to accept a small profit
where a larger can not be had, they carry along the line between the
two extreme points the same character of freight at less rates than it
is carried from east to west, or from west to east, to intermediate places.
Thus, because of competition, freight going from New York to San
Francisco may pass over the various lines of road making up a through
line for, perhaps, half their regular rates, say from New York to Buffalo,
from Buffalo to Chicago, from Chicago to Omaha, from Omaha to Salt
Lake, and so on to destination on the Pacific coast. No profit is so
small as to be despised. Business is done at that rate rather than not
do it at all.
Take a more marked illustration. The Southern Pacific road strikes
the Atlantic waters at a much less distance than any of its more northern
competitors. It has a line of easy gradients comparatively, and it com-
petes not only with its northern rivals, but more particularly with the
Cape Horn and Isthmus of Panama routes, because of its shorter line
and easy gradients. In this competition it often takes freight between
the two oceans as low as $10, while it takes freight half way for, say,
$30 a ton, a most reasonable rate for the limited local business of that
country. Now, if it makes only a dollar met on the freight from San
Francisco to New Orleans at $10, it is glad to make that dollar where
it can get no more; but a ton of freight going to El Paso, something
over half the distance, will pay $30 a ton. Now, if the freight at $10
to New Orleans pays $1 profit, the freight going a less distance, to El
Paso, would pay as much profit as 21 tons going through to New Or-
leans; and the rates charged to El Paso are but fair, as is shown by the
gross earnings and the gross expenses of the road, leaving but a very
narrow net profit.
The shorter distance is not charged any more because of the less
rate for the longer distance. Indeed the longer distance helps the
railroad company to maintain itself, while without that help perhaps
they could not do the shorter business at all. Is this Congress pre-
pared to say that small earnings shall be despised, that they shall not
be secured when greater can not be had 2 Are they prepared to deny
to individual shippers and communities the benefit of their more favor-
able location, whether made so because of the geography and topog-
raphy of the country or by artificial means ? It is the misfortune of
... some places not to be so well located and not the fault of the more
favorable places that nature or art has given them superior advantages.
It seems to me that Congress might with equal propriety deny the
shipper the right to avail himself of these natural or artificial advan-
tages as to deny to the railroad the right to avail itself of opportuni-
ties to meet competition.
There is a class of freight that can stand only a certain charge. A
greater charge becomes prohibitory. A very large part of the unman-
ufactered raw material of this country belongs to this class, paying a
trifle over the additional cost consequent upon its movement, develop-
ing a business that may pay better, and giving its small portion of net
profit above the cost of movement towards the large items of fixed and
semi-fixed expenses. Whether a road is doing a profitable business or
not is not determined by the percentage of operating expenses. Thus
a road carrying valuable goods and doing a small business may find its
percentage of operating expenses upon the amount earned very small,
whereas, if there Gould be thrown upon it in addition a large business
117
of cheap transportation, its earnings would be larger, but the per cent.
of operating expenses would be increased; and to the extent that there
was a net earning on this cheap class of freight just so far the company
would be benefited. The long haul at cheap competing rates is really
beneficial to the short haul at non-competing rates. It may be that
neither alone would maintain the road. If I understand this bill cor-
rectly, under it the long lines of railroad passing through different States
will bave to give up one or the other. It will be practically a regula-
tion of freight within the boundaries of a State and making a barrier of
the boundary of a State to the free transmission of commerce.
Since the first road was built in the United States up to this time
the railroads have substantially fixed their own rates for service, until
to-day the rate is such as was not dreamed of as possible twenty years
ago, nor was it believed possible even ten years ago. The whole coun-
try is developed. No product has suffered for want of movement.
The general railroad management of the country is careful to consider
what the cheap unmanufactured products of the country can afford to
pay, and make their rates with a view that production shall not be
hindered. The rates charged for manufactured goods, almost without
an exception, do not affect the producer or the consumer. If the rates
of freight upon manufactured articles were reduced one-half the prob-
ability is that there is nothing that moves by railroad over the longest
line in the country whose price to the consumer would be affected or
would be taken into consideration by the manufacturer; but the frac-
tional part of a cent becomes a serious consequence in the long haul to
most of the raw products of the country. The higher the maximums
the lower the possible minimums. - -
Thus, in my own State, the maximum rates were 15 cents per ton
per mile. With an average cost of 2 cents a mile for movement, which
was about the average at one time, 1 ton of freight moved at 15 cents
a ton per mile, would enable the railroad to move 14 tons at the min-
imum rate of 1 cent a ton per mile. There was at that time about 1
per cent. of the business done at the maximum rate, while the other 99
per cent. was done at rates governed by circumstances and influences
which the railroad company could not control.
This bill seems to me not only to deny competition by railroads,
which exist almost throughout the length and breadth of the country,
but to exhibit a tendency to foster water ways to the positive discour-
agement of the railroad interests. If it aimed but to insure the water
lines of communication against the competition of rails, I do not know
how a bill could be framed to secure that object better than this one.
If railroading is a legitimate business, and if it is only the aggregate
of the private property contributed by the stockholders; if it is main-
tained and operated by the labor of individuals, what justification there
can be for depriving the owners of control, and the property of its full
earning capacity within the laws as they existed at the time of the
original investments, I am unable to see. It seems to me, clearly, it is
a violation of the rights of property, and the rights of the laborer to
receive a compensation for services performed.
It is also a discouragement of this class of investments. The rail-
roads up to this time have received the peculiár indorsement of being
of such a highly beneficial character that the State could exercise the
right of eminent domain to the end that the road might be built. If
this bill shall become a law its consequences will be most disastrous,
in my judgment, to the varied business interests of the country.
When you think that most of the products of the country pass one or
I 18
more times over its railroads, of the many thousands of people who
are engaged in their operation, the many more thousands whose calling
depends upon these roads, and the vast volume of business and its
great value that moves over them, it seems to me that Congress ought
to consider with great care how far these investments, these industries
of all kinds, may be disturbed. That they will be largely disturbed
it seems to me must be plaim to the dullest comprehension. While
the railroad companies have practically been as free to manage their
business under the common law as those engaged in other callings the
country has prospered, accommodations have been given and are given
that promote the prosperity of every industry. There has been no
taking of property without compensation, no control without owner-
ship, and the anarchists in the history of the country have thus far
found little justification in the example of the Government for violent
taking of property. There can be no valid objection to police regula-
tion, but only to that attempted regulation which goes to and affects
values directly and inevitably. .
TUESDAY, JANNARY 11, 1887.
* *::: * 33. * * -X:
Mr. CULLOM. I call up the interstate-commerce conference report.
I believe it comes before the Senate at this time, but if it is necessary
to make a motion I move to take it up. v.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon, in the chair).
The Senator from Illinois moves that the Senate proceed to the con-
sideration of the conference report on the bill (S. 3532). -
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration
of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses on the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce.
Mr. COKE. Mr. President, after fifteen years of agitation, during
which the public mind has been enlightened by the most exhaustive
and far-reaching discussion, we have reached a point where a conference
committee of the two Houses of Congress have agreed upon and reported
as a substitute for the two bills submitted to them a bill regulating
commerce “among the States”—interstate commerce. The question
before the Senate is, shall the report of the committee be adopted and
the bill passed? Is the bill constitutional? Are its provisions just
to the people and to the railroad corporations? Is there a general
public demand for a law regulating interstate commerce, and is such a
law necessary? If these questions can be answered in the affirmative,
as I believe they can, then it is unquestionably true that the conference
report should be adopted. S.
I have heard no constitutional objection seriously urged to the bill
save and except that in the argument of the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. MORGAN], which he frankly acknowledged to be at war with the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which decisions, I
will add, commence with the great case of Ogden vs. Gibbons, in the
time of Chief-Justice Marshall, and run in an unbroken line down to
this hour, all affirming the sole and exclusive power to regulate inter-
state commerce, whether carried by land or water, to be in Congress.
The breadth and comprehensiveness of the power may be seen from the
following, which I read from Chief-Justice Marshall’s opinion in Gib-
bons vs. Ogden: - +
“Commerce in its amplest signification means an exchange of goods, but, in
the advancement of society, labor, transportation, intelligence, and various me-
diums of exchange become commodities and enter into commerce. The sub-
119
ject, the vehicle, the agent, and their various operations become the objects of
oommercial regulation. Ship-building, the carrying-trade, and propagation of
seamen are such vital agents of commercial prosperity that the nation which
could not legislate over these subjects would not possess the power to regulate
commerce.”
Every decision of the Supreme Court since Ogden vs. Gibbon has
been in line with the opinion in that great case, so that the doctrine
announced in it is to-day as firmly established and as unquestioned as
any other in the Constitution or administration of our Government.
No single case in the whole range of our jurisprudence can be found
which impugns it. It makes no difference how the commerce is car-
ried, whether on land or water, in ships or boats, or in cars, the doc-
trine is held to be equally applicable. The argument of the Senator
from Alabama is an arraignment of this whole course of decision; and
if he could convince the Senate that no constitutional power exists in
Congress to enact such legislation as is provided for in the pending bill;
that it is an infringement of the rights of the States, the Supreme
Court of the United States, continuing as, of course, it will, to hold all
State legislation which attempts to regulate interstate commerce abso-
lutely null and void, the question would be left, where it now is, in
the hands of irresponsibie and unrestrained railroad corporations, with
power to tax the products of industry of this country at will.
In the inception of the agitation on this subject a denial of the con-
stitutional power of Congress to legislate in the mode now proposed
was a favorite argument of those who opposed any legislation on the
subject; but in later years, under the light of investigation and dis-
cussion, and especially of the later decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States, which have amplified and extended the scope of the
doctrines laid down in Gibbons vs. Ogden to embrace the widened and
widening circle of commercial activity and development of this great
era, this argument has been so far abandoned as to be rarely heard, an
when suggested at all is not pressed or seriously relied on. -
The objections almost exclusively relied on against the bill go to its
wisdom and expediency and its alleged injustice to the railroad cor-
porations. I do not propose to go into the details of the bill nor to do
more than state very briefly my reasons, without elaboration, for the vote
I shall cast in favor of it, but undertake to affirm confidently that the
intelligent judgment of the country will approve it, not because it is
all the people have a right to demand, or because it gives them justice,
but because while falling greatly below the standard in both of these
regards it is a beginning, it is a good long step in the right direction,
which may be added to and supplemented in the future, and by the
light of experience perfected so as to be absolutely just and effective.
A brief glance at the leading points of the bill as reported from the
conference committee will, I think, justify this assertion. They are:
First. That all charges shall be reasonable and just.
Second. That there shall be no discrimination between persons or
firms, either directly or indirectly, by special rates, rebate, drawback,
or any other device, but that all shall be treated equally and alike for
like and contemporaneous service.
Third. That no undue or unreasonable preference or advantage shall
be given to any particular person, firm, company, corporation or lo-
cality. |
Fourth. That no greater compensation shall be charged for the short
than for the long haul, where both are made under substantially simi-
lar conditions and circumstances over the same line and in the same
direction, provided that in special gases, upon application to the com-
1:20
missioners, they may upon investigation relax the rule; and provided
further, that nothing contained in the bill shall be construed to au-
thorize the charge of as much for the short as the long haul.
Fifth. It declares unlawful any combination, contract, or agreement
between railroad corporations for the pooling of freights of different
and competing roads, or to divide between them the earnings of such
roads, provides penalties, and declares each day of the violation of the
law a separate offense. - -
Sixth. It requires all schedules of rates plainly printed, and posted
at all depots and stations for public inspection. It forbids any advance
in rates as published except upon ten days’ notice duly published. Re-
duction of rates may be made without notice.
These are the leading, salient points of the bill, the remainder of it
being mainly administrative in its character and devoted to the meth-
ods of enforcing the provisions named.
Now, Mr. President, I assert, without the fear of successful contra-
diction, that these provisions are in substantial if not literal accord
with the common law governing common carriers as known and prac-
ticed in the States of the Union so far as the rights of the public and
the duties and obligations of the carriers are concerned. $
The penalties for violation of the law and the means of enforcing it
involve some departure from common-law methods, but this is rendered
necessary by the inadequacy of ordinary remedies in the hands of a
citizen for the enforcement of the law or the vindication of his rights
against powerful railroad corporations. It is this consideration which
justifies the appointment of a commission and devolves upon it the im-
portant part it is to perform in securing an enforcement of the law.
This bill, except as to remedies, is in substance and legal effect, so
far as they are applicable to conditions here, a substantial epitome of
the English statutes, which confessedly are only a codification of the
English common law of common carriers, the source of our common
law on the same subject. There is but one substantial exception to
this proposition, and that is as to combinations and agreements between
railroad corporations, which, in some cases, are permitted under the
English law, but forbidden under this bill. As this fact has been ad-
verted to in the debate in justification of the pooling system here, I will
read from an able argument of Mr. Simon Sterne, of the New York
bar, made before the House Committee on Commerce, extracts from
the English statutes and some of his observations thereon, which show
how this phase of the subject has been met in England, from which it
will be seen that no argument in favor of the American system of pool-
ing can be drawn from that in England. . - -
I read from page 121 of arguments and statements before the House
Committee on Commerce. Mr. Sterne quotes at length section 90 of
the English “Railway Clauses Act,” which reads as follows:
Whereas it is expedient that the company should be enabled to vary the tolls
upon the railway so as to accommodate them to the circumstances of the traffic,
and that such power of varying shall not be used for the purpose of prejudicing
or favoring particular parties, or for the purpose of collusively and unfairly
creating a monopoly, either in the hands of the company or of particular parties,
it shall therefore be lawful for the company, subject to the provisions and limi-
tations herein, and in the special act contained, from time to time to alter or
vary the tolls by the special act authorized to be taken, either upon the whole
or any particular portion of the railway, as they shall think fit : Provided, That all
such tolls be at all times charged equally to all persons and after the same rate,
whether per ton per mile or otherwise, in respect of all passengers and of all
goods, or carriages of the same description, conveyed or propelled by like car-
riages or engines passing only over the same portion of the line of railway un-
der the same circumstances. Aud no reduction or advance in any such tolls
* -
1.21
shall be made either directly or indirectly in favor of or against any particular
company or persons traveling upon or using the railway.
Then he proceeds:
The “railway clauses act” of 1863 made all agreements between railway com-
panies, either in the way of working arrangements or for purposes of consoli-
dation, lease, or of any other device by which railways had down to that period
extended their powers, subject not only to the sanction of their shareholders,
but subjected such agreements also to the supervision of the board of trade, in
its twenty-fifth clause, in these words: ;
“The agreement shall not have any operation until it is approved by the board
of trade, and the board of trade shall not approve the agreement without being
satisfied of its having received the sanction of meetings of the respective cond-
panies, as aforesaid.”
And here allow me to observe parenthetically that the board of trade of Eng-
land is a branch of its executive government, the president of which is a mem-
ber of the cabinet, and not a voluntary organization. -
Even after the consent of the board of trade is obtained it is provided by the
twenty-seventh section of this act that at the expiration of the first or any sub-
sequent period of ten years after the making of the agreement, the board of
trade may, if they are of the opinion that the interests of the state are preju-
dicially affected thereby, cause the same to be revised, and the board of trade
may require the companies who are parties thereto to publish such notice of any
intended revision of the agreement as the board of trade might direct, and the
board of trade may modify the agreementin such manner as may seem expedient
for the protection of the interests of the public, and may declare the modifica-
tion to be part of the agreement, and the same shall be read and take effect ac-
cordingly. - -
All the powers under these acts to be exercised by the board of trade were by
the subsequent act of 1873 transferred to the railway commissioners appointed
under that act.
Speaking of the English railway commission, on page 124, Mr. Sterne
Says: -
Now, it is proper to observe right here that this commission is not at all what
an American railway commission has down to this period of time been.
The railway commissioners appointed by the various States are, with scarcely
an exception. a mere perpetual committee of investigation to advise the Legis-
lature as to the infringement of laws by the railway corporations and to rec-
ommend remedies. They have no judicial powers. On the other hand, this
English railway commission is in every sense a court of justice. The difference
between it and the ordinary courts of Westminster Hall is not one of power,
but of limited jurisdiction ; it does swift and prompt justice, and appeals from
this body are within the jurisdiction of the commission itself. The act creating
this court is known as the “regulation of railways act” of 1873 (36 and 37 Vic-
toria, Ch. 448). It creates a court of three judges, one of whom is a railway ex-
pert, the second a lawyer, and the third a statesman. The terms of the act
creating this commission are, first, a transfer to this body of all the powers
which have been given to the board of trade and to the court of common pleas,
of supervision of contracts and enforcement of liabilities and duties; a general
investiture of jurisdiction under the ‘‘ railway and canal traffic act ’’ of 1854, to
investigate and redress all cases of undue or unreasonable preference or ad-
vantage in favor of or against any particular person or company, or of any par-
ticular description of traffic, or by which any undue or unreasonable prejudice
or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever is created ; the enforcement of
through rates; the enforcement of all requirements with reference to the publi-
cation of rates; the railway commissioners are clothed with the power to re-
quire the companies to distinguish in such books how much of the rate is for
the conveyance of the traffic and how much for terminal charges, instead of
imposing that duty upon the private freighter.
The commissioners likewise have power to hear and determine any question
or dispute which may arise with respect to the terminal charges of any railway
company, where such charges were not fixed by any act of Parliament, and to
decide what is a reasonable sum to be paid to any company for loading, unload-
ing, covering, collection, and delivering, and other services of a like nature, and
making the decision of the commissioners under this section binding in all
courts and in all legal proceedings whatsoever (sec. 15). All agreements between
railway companies and canal companies, or between railway companies them-
selves, are made subject to the revisory powers of the commission. A month’s
publication of any proposed agreement between railway companies is re-
quired, so that it shall be deposited for public inspection at the office of the
commissioners. Elaborate provision is also made for publication in the Lon-
don, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes. The act gave to the commission full
power of inspection of the railways themselves, and of all their books, papers,
192
and documents. It authorized the court to punish for contempt in like man-
mer as if they were a court of record. It gave to the decisions and orders of this
court the same legal effect as were given to decisions and orders of courts of
record. It limited appeals to such cases only which, in the opinion of the com-
missioners themselves, involve a question of Paw. The operation of any decision
or order made by the commissioners was not to be stayed pending the decision
of any such appeal, unless the commissioners so ordered; and excepting in such
cases as the commissioners themselves saw fit to certify as cases of law to a
higher court, the order of the commissioners was to be deemed final.
The provisoto section 90 of the English “railway clauses act,” which
I have just read, and which is a clear and comprehensive statement of
the English and American common law on the subject, embraces abso-
lutely all the features of the pending bill which I have enumerated as
the leading points in it, save and except the clause which prohibits
combinations between corporations, but does prohibit these when made
“for the purpose of collusively and unfairly creating a monopoly either
in the hands of the company or of particular parties.”
English railway corporations were not permitted to combine, or as
we would term it, to “pool,” except upon the approval and under the
supervision of the English Board of Trade, which is a branch of the
executive Government of England, the president of the board being a
member of the English cabinet. This high governmental authority
represented the English public in scanning the purposes, terms, rates,
objects, &c., in giving or withholding its approval of a proposed com-
bination. After its approval had been given, if it proved detrimental
to the public interests, it could require a revision, and such changes
and modifications as were thought necessary for the protection of these
interests. In 1873, the powers exercised by the board of trade over this
subject were, by act of Parliament, transferred to a board of railway
commissioners, where it now resides. -
That board can refuse to permit pooling between railroad corpora-
tions, or it can permit it upon such terms and conditions as it sees fit
in the interest of the English public to impose. In addition, the Eng-
lish railway commission court, always in session with plenary power
over the whole subject, is ready at all times promptly and on the spot
to hear the complaint of the humblest subject and redress such griev-
ances as he may have against any railroad corporation, and for this
purpose is armed with all the ordinary and extraordinary powers with
which courts are usually equipped. It may use the process of injunc-
tion, mandamus, and execution, and all other remedial process; and
it may proceed by fine and imprisonment—in short, may do all on this
subject that any other court may do in the exercise of a general juris-
diction.
Thus are the rights of English subjects guarded and protected and
the iron hand of the law placed upon the power of great corporations.
English law does allow railroad combinations made, but under its own
eye, its own supervision, its own dictation, its own regulation, and its
own control. This system grew from a small beginning, and has been
perfected as time and experience has suggested, as ours will be if we will
only commence it by the passage of this bill. The English Government
represents the public and stands between the people and corporate ra-
pacity, as the American people have heretofore demanded, and do now
demand, that our Government shall do, instead of leaving them, as they
are now, absolutely defenceless and without appeal, the prey of the
unbridled power of railroad pools and combinations, which destroy all
competition while they are unregulated and unrestrained.
What our system of railway regulation may, if commenced now, grow
into in the future, whether into one analogous to the English system or
*
133
to some other, it is useless now to speculate upon. It is sufficient now to
know that the best judgment of those who have been intrusted with its
consideration is embodied in the pending bill, and that to leave the ques-
tion as it now stands without legislation is a greater wrong to the peo-
ple of this country than could possibly follow the adoption of the bili.
The bill is strictly in line with the principles of the common law; that
system of laws which, as the Senator from Alabama happily expressed
it, “fills this country like the air,” being an embodiment of the culled
and selected wisdom of centuries, as it has been evolved from the ex-
perience of mankind in the affairs of practical life, and which has been
aptly eulogized as “the perfection of human wisdom.”
I am not apprehensive of error or mistake, nor do I fear that we may
wrong either the people or the corporations while adhering with fidelity
to the tried and approved principles of the common law, as is done in
the pending bill. The supreme court of New York in Hooker vs. Van-
derwater (4 Denio, 349), where a number of canal boatmen agreed to put
their boats into a pool and divide the earnings according to the number
of boats, and not according to the service rendered, held the contract
unlawful in an opinion from which I read, as follows:
It is nothing less than the attainment of an exemption of the standard of
freights, and the facilities and the accommodations to be rendered to the public,
from the wholesome influence of rivalry and competition. To produce that end
more completely, each member binds. himself not only to run all his present
boats according to the agreement and turn their earnings into the common
stock, at the rate agreed upon, and at which rate he is to be charged in the final
distribution, though he may have received or charged less, but he is also pro-
hibited, under severe penalties, from employing on any other terms boats sub-
sequently acquired. Being thus secure against internal defection and external
encroachments, and the members having thrown their concerns into stock, to
derive an income in proportion to the number of shares they hold, and not ac-
cording to their merited activity in business, and safe against the reduction of
compensation that would otherwise follow mean accommodations and want of
skill and attention, the public must necessarily suffer grievous loss. Indeed the
consequences of such a state of things would be that freighters and passengers
would be ill-served just in proportion that carriers were well paid.
The pool was pronounced unlawful.
This opinion declares the law as it is now, and has always been
throughout the United States, on poolings and combinations for the
purpose of destroying competition by common carriers, and stands un-
challenged to-day and is adverted to simply as a sample and speci-
men of judicial decision on this subject. The decisions of our courts,
the books of our standard law writers, and the constitutions and stat-
utes of nearly all the States of the Union declare that the railroads are
public highways, that they are common carriers, that they shall not
discriminate in freights and charges, that they shall not allow rebates
or drawbacks, that there shall be no pooling or consolidation between
parallel or competing lines, and that more shall not be charged for the
short than for the long haul of freights. *
Twenty-three States of the Union have legislated for the regulation
of State commerce, that is, of commerce commencing and ending in the
State, but under the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States their legislation whenever it touches commerce which com-
mences in one State or Territory and ends in another, this being inter-
state commerce, is absolutely null and void, because the regulation of
interstate commerce belongs exclusively to the jurisdiction of Congress.
The States are not allowed to regulate interstate commerce, and if Con-
gress shall refuse to do so, in what predicament is the country left 2
For the purpose of illustrating it, I now read from the statement of
*.
124
Mr. L. E. Chittenden before the House Committee on Commerce on the
New York railroad pool. Says Mr. Chittenden :
One word further and I have done. This pool commenced in 1877; it was then
a pool contract between the four trunk lines centering in New York. It has
grown and stretched out its arms and increased, just as an English judge said
such contracts would grow and increase, until now it embraces certainly more
than forty—that was the last enumeration I had—of the principal railroads of
this country. There is in New York city an equipped and organized pool govern-
ment. It has its executive committee of the trunk lines; its executive committee
of the pool, and another executive commitiee composed of one member from each
pooling railroad; it has its board of arbitration, which is intended to take the
place of the judiciary ; it has its corps of, I do not know how many hundred
clerks, an enormous concern, and over it all is the emperor, the commissioner,
Mr. Fink, who to-day exercises a power for good or evil over the connmerce and
products of this country greater not only than that, of any of his contemporaries,
but greater than any man ever before exerted in the United States of America.
He and his imperial organization are as independent of the law as it is possible
for man or State to be, and the whole charter or contract which binds these forty
roads into this one copartnership and confederation, judged by the principles of
the common law, is as unlawful and as much against public policy, if we are to
accept the declarations of the judges of the common law, as the Ilouisiana State
lottery or any other similar institution which is confessedly without the pale of
the common law. º
He was asked the question:
Then why are not the courts open for redress?
Mr. Chittenden says: -
They are, but what is the position of a unan who undertakes to get redress in
these courts? No merchant dares to do it. He can be crushed in his business
if he does. The question to-day before this great dry goods trade is, whether or
not it is wise, whether they can afford to go into the legal fight and attempt to
get these pooling contracts set aside by the courts. No. There is hardly a week
passes in the office of any prominent lawyer in New York that this matter is
not presented. A unerchant comes into the office of his counsel, with a claim
against a railroad for an overcharge or a denial of some legal right; the lawyer
examines it and decides that there is no doubt about the merchant’s right to re-
dress. But when it comes to bringing a suit the merchant hesitates—he can not
afford to do it. He can not take the risk of doing it, because the railroads have
it in their power, at any time, to destroy the business of any man or firm that
seeks redress in the courts.
The pool of the poor canal boatmen was broken up by an enforcement
of the law. The great railroad pool successfully defies both law and
public opinion, is absolute in its power over the commerce of the coun-
try, after it has destroyed all competition, and can tax it at pleasure,
leaving the public absolutely without appeal and without redress.
I have before me the Drovers’ Journal, published in Chicago, in De-
cember last, from which I read:
On the 1st of last March the east-bound pool increased the freight on live
stock 40 per cent. and on dressed beef 50 per cent. from Chicago to the sea-
board ; and by this one act alone they have taken from the pockets of the pro-
ducers of live stock not thousands but millions of dollars, which has been
divided between the six trunk-lines comprising the east-bound pool.
The Chicago Tribune, which I have before me, says of this transac-
tion that the increased rates are a dollar and a quarter a head for all
stock transported East “‘more than the railroad officials thought it nec-
essary to exact through the cold weather of last winter.”
The Standard Oil enormity, through which one company is by dis-
crimination and undue preference permitted to monopolize the entire
oil trade of this country, bankrupting and destroying all who dare to
attempt competition, is familiar to all.
It was proved before the House Committee on Commerce by the con-
fession of leading railroad men that the charges upon the transporta-
tion of dry goods from the city of New York are 100 per cent. greater
than they should be on a proper classification. I will not trouble
the Senate to listen to recitals of the practices of railroad corporations
125
under the pooling system, because hours could be consumed in that
way and a tithe would not be told. I have named these as specimens
of hundreds which are occurring every day. The pooling combination
among the roads leaves no competition and the power of the pool be-
comes absolute. * -
It can and does discriminate between persons and firms, building up
some and destroying others. It builds up some cities and towns, and
destroys others. It terrorizes merchants and shippers and traders, who
submit quietly to being plundered, because it is in the power of the
pool to destroy their business, by advancing their freights and by giv-
ing reduced rates to their competitors. They dare not seek redress
against the roads over which their freighting is done and with which
they deal every day, and upon which they are dependent for the suc-
cessful prosecution of their business, for there are a thousand ways in
which they may be harassed and injured. Under the pooling system
there is no uniformity, no stability in rates, so necessary for all legiti-
mate business. . The system of rebates and drawbacks, which are se-
cret concessions to ſavored and preferred shippers, undermines confi-
dence in commercial communities, for no man can tell when his com-
petitors may be thus enabled to undersell him, and subject him to loss
in his business. &
Without reason, except that the corporations desire more money, and
generally when such action cannot be anticipated, rates are advanced,
as in the case I have just stated from the Chicago papers. There is but
one limit to the power of pooled roads to tax the products of industry
in this country; and that limit is found when, to tax higher, will stop
production and transportation—how much will a given product bear
in the way of tax for transportation and leave a pittance for the pro-
ducer so as to keep him at work producing? There is no limitation, as
things now stand, upon the power of pooled roads to tax the com-
merce of this country except such as is found in that proposition. There
is no redress, no appeal, no remedy, unless Congress acts positively,
affirmatively, and energetically.
The railroads are pooled throughout the country North, South, East,
and West. There are great pools like that of the more than forty
trunk-lines with headquarters in New York, and there are smaller
pools like that in Texas, in which I am reliably informed the Houston
and Texas Central Railroad and the Texas Pacific road, both in the
hands of receivers appointed by the Federal court, officers of the court,
administering and running the roads presumably under the direction
of the court, in defiance and contempt of the constitution and laws
of Texas, which forbid such combinations, are parties. These pools
are operative only where there are competing roads. Their object is to
break down and destroy competition. Wherever only one road is found,
there is no competition. Then that one road is supreme and may fix
its own rates to suit itself. That territory belongs to that road, and is
out of the jurisdiction of the pool.
In this connection I will observe that I am informed in a note from
the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics that there were on the 1st day of
January, 1887, 33,694 railroad stations in the United States, of which
2,778 are junction points, that is, are points where there is more than
one railroad, leaving 30,916 stations where there is but one railroad.
These figures will give some idea of the relative proportion of compet-
ing and non-competing points. sº
The pool takes care of itself and combines to destroy competition
and keep up rates wherever there is competition, but when there is
126 Y.
***
none it leaves the single road to make its rates as high as it pleases.
They are all for the corporations and nothing for the people. Mr. Al-
bert Fink, the head and chief, or president, of the great New York pool,
who is generally admitted to be the ablest man in America in railroad
affairs, in one of his arguments before the House Committee on Commerce
admitted the illegality of pooling, in this language: “The first step
to this end (speaking of pooling) should be to legalize the management
of railroad property under this plan, and to abandon the antiquated
notion that a government or combination, as it is called, of this kind is
against public policy.” -
Of course pooling would not need to be legalized, if it were not now
unlawful. Mr. Fink, who is a man of great ability himself, has besides
in his employ as head of the great pool over which he presides the
finest legal talent in the United States, and always speaks advisedly.
Yet there is no clause of the pending bill so bitterly assailed by the
railroad people as that which prohibits pooling, admitted by the great-
est man among them to be simply declaratory of the common law as
it now exists. But the means of enforcing the law, of putting an end
to the bold, open defiance of it practiced every day by railroad corpora-
tions are provided in the bill. That arouses their most strenuous
opposition. The law as it stands now is a dead letter as against the
powerful corporations who violate it, though vital and forceful against
weaker trespassers like the canal boatmen, and they object to an invoca-
tion of the power of the Government for its execution and enforcement
upon all alike, the strong and powerful as well as the poor and weak.
These people are contending for a vast'stake. No greater ever hung
upon the chances of human effort. Learned experts estimate the an-
nual commerce of this country at three thousand millions of dollars'
worth, three-fourths of which is carried by rail; and three-fourths
of that carried by rail is interstate commerce, over which Congress
alone has regulating jurisdiction. The Constitution of the United
States vests the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce in
Congress. That power is being exercised by railroad pools and combi-
nations, without responsibility to anybody, without restraint from any
quarter.
They are fighting with all the appliances and equipments of power,
of organized concentrated power, supported by all the aids and influ-
ences that can be commanded by unlimited wealth, by all the resources
that money can buy, to retain in their hands for their own enrichment,
because it includes the power to tax the people of this whole country
at their will and pleasure, this power to regulate interstate commerce
which the fathers of the Republic denied to the States and intrusted
solely to Congress. They are seeking to defeat this bill, as they have
defeated all such bills heretofore, because that result will leave them
unmolested to handle as they please, and levy such tolls as their ava-
rice may prompt upon twenty billions of dollars’ worth of commerce
annually. - *
While this bill is being fought on every clause and section in it, the
chief assaults are made upon section 5, which prohibits pooling, and upon
what is known as the “long and short haul’’ clause in section 4. The
rule established by this section is that more shall not be charged for
the short haul than is charged for the long haul, but a discretion is
vested in the commissioners in special cases to relax this rule and allow
more to be charged for the short than for the long haul. I confess that I
would greatly have preferred the rule established by the section made
absolute, and the discretionary proviso left out. This section recog-
127
nizes that the short haul is attended relatively with greater expense
than the longer haul by reason of unloading, detention of cars, &c., in
that it does not forbid as great a charge for the short as for the long haul.
It does not seem possible with the discretion wested in the commis-
sioners to reverse the rule established by section 4, when upon investi-
gation in special cases it may be right to do so, that it can work any
‘hardship on anybody. The objections to this section amount to this
when reduced to their simplest form, that when the roads find it to
their interest to make the long haul for less than a reasonable compen-
sation they should be permitted to recover the deficiency by a higher
charge on the short haui. This is the method of discriminating be-
tween localities, tearing down some towns and cities and building up
others by unjust and unreasonable discriminations. This is forbidden
in section 4, as in another section discrimination between persons and
firms is forbidden. Railroads are public highways, and railroad cor-
porations are common carriers. -
“Common carriers” (says the court in Munn vs. Illinois) “exercise
a sort of public office, and have duties to perform in which the public
is interested; their business is therefore affected with a public inter-
est.” Their charges are required every where to be reasonable, and to
be so must be based on the cost of the service rendered. Their duty
to the public in virtue of their “office” demands equality in the treat-
ment of all of whatever locality, subject only to the difference in the
cost of the service rendered. It is impossible that the cost of making
the short haul, under similar conditions and circumstances, with the
like kind of property, in the same direction on the same line, the
shorter being included within the longer distance, as prescribed by sec-
tion 4, shall be greater than that of making the longer haul, and this
bill simply recognizes this fact, and provides that greater compensation
shall not be charged for the short than the long haul.
The power and the practice of discriminating between persons and firms
and between localities, while essentially unjust, is more dangerous than
any other and more offensive to a proper public policy. It is exer-
cised in favor of a few great centers and a few individuals, concentra-
ting the wealth of the country in a few hands and a few localities,
while the tolls levied on the great mass of the producing people of
the country are trebled and sometimes quadrupled by way of recouping
alleged losses in making these discriminations. Western and Southern
products carried East from these great centers, where they have gone
into the hands of great speculators, derive the benefits of reduced
rates, but while in the hands of the producers whose toil and labor
created them, who are to be found near the country and wayside sta-
tions where there is no competition, are trebly and quadruply taxed
for the purpose of recovering the alleged loss:
It is through these discriminations between persons and localities
that a few firms obtain a control amounting almost to monopoly over
the grain trade, the live-stock and dressed-meat trade, the oil trade,
and other lines of trade, with power to depress prices while the prod-
ucts are in the hands of the producers, and after they are bought up
to send up prices, - *
The producers are first robbed by the low prices, and the consumers
afterward by high prices, the great manipulators, nearly always secretly
in partnership with leading men of the railroad management, reaping
vast and inordinate gains. This power to discriminate, to excite the
hopes of men and communities on one side and their fears on the other,
backed by unlimited amounts of money which they wring at pleasure
...gº
128 *
from the people, with the best legal and other talent of the country at
their command, is a standing menace to free government, and should
not be tolerated for one moment among a free people.
Free from all restraints of law, responsible to nobody as they are
now, and are seeking to continue, by the most desperate efforts to de-
feat this bill, the domination of corporate power must be broken now,
or its admitted mastery in many States of this Union now will extend:
over the whole country. It can not be otherwise if the power remains
with them, as it exists now, at pleasure to build up and pull down the
prosperity of communities and individuals, pouring wealth into the laps
of some and visiting others with bankruptcy and ruin. The direct tend-
ency of this bill, and especially of the long and short haul clause, will
be to decentralize the wealth of the country by taking away the op-
portunities for illegitimate speculation and diffusing the benefits of
railroad transportation more equally among all the people of all sec-
tions of the country instead of concentrating them as is now done in a
few localities at the expense and to the sacrifice of all others.
Railroads are, in their nature, essentially monopolistic under the freest
possible system of competition. Competition such as obtains between
merchants, mechanics, traders, and others, which regulates prices, is not
possible in its fullest sense among railroads. They exclude all other
methods of carrying. The vast amounts of capital required to build
and maintain them, and the large areas of territory necessary to sup-
port them, and over which they are supreme in all matters of transpor-
tation and commerce, exclude the numbers which in other cases are
necessary to promote active competition; while their terrorizing influ-
ence over those whose business is within their power—their power to
punish enemies and reward friends—creates such a monopoly as should
not be permitted to exist except under the regulating control and active,
vigilant supervision of the Government for the protection of the rights
of the citizen. .
The States are powerless. Congress alone can respond to the great
popular demand for relief. The repeated passage through the House
of the well-known Reagan bill, a much more radical measure than
that now before the Senate, establishes beyond doubt or cavil the will
and demand of the American people who support and maintain this
Government, and in whose interest it is supposed to be administered,
that a law regulating interstate commerce shall be enacted. The Senate
has heretofore defeated this plainly expressed popular demand. It
remains to be seen if corporate power is so intrenched in this body that
the pending bill is to share the fate of its predecessors.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, I wish to state very briefly some of
the conclusions which I have reached from such investigation as I have
been able to give this question. Q
Next to production, the carrying trade is the most important factor
in the business of the country.
In addition to the water-ways, we have, at this time, over 130,000
miles of railways engaged in this trade, and year by year the mileage
is increasing, a very large percentage of the capital of the country
being invested in them. 4.
Remote from water-ways, railroads have monopolized the carrying
trade, and have regulated, in their own way, and generally with an
eye to their own interest, the freight rates throughout the country.
Transportation being an element which enters into the cost of most of
the necessaries and luxuries of life, every citizen is interested in the
question, -
*
129
Every man who produces a surplus of any commodity is interested
in cheap transportation to the best market; and every consumer is in-
terested in cheap transportation, because it diminishes the cost of the
article consumed.
Every merchant and trader is interested in uniformity and stability
of rates, whether they be high or low; while the carrier is interested in
the highest rates he can obtain, because the higher the rate the greater
are his profits.
These facts present a sharp and direct conflict of interest, between
the carrier on the one hand and the producer and consumer on the
other. -
For more than ten years the country has complained of what is
alleged to be the unjust and unreasonable exactions of carriers, espe-
cially upon shipments made from and to non-competitive points; and
not less loud and emphatic, or with less cause, have been heard the
complaints of unjust and unreasonable discriminations between persons
and places, by a system of rebates, drawbacks, private contracts, and
the various devices which ingenuity could unvent.
In view of these complaints, for which, unfortunately, there has been
but too much cause, the country has for more than ten years demanded,
and with great unanimity it still demands that the carrying trade be
fairly and justly regulated by the Government. The power to regu-
late that which is interstate by Congress, and that which is State by
its Legislature, has been too long and too well settled to admit of de-
bate. The question is, shall Congress exercise the power?
The overwhelming majorities by which the Senate and House passed
their respective systems of regulation gives an emphatic affirmative
answer to this question, if the two Houses can agree upon the same
system of regulation.
The conferees of the two Houses have agreed upon the bill now be-
fore the Senate, and I think the conference committee may congratu-
late itself upon the fact that in dealing with a question so Wast, so in-
portant, and so complicated as this, the shafts of criticism have been
leveled at but two of the provisions of the bill. What is known as the
short-haul provision, which is section 4, and the prohibition of pooling
contracts (section 5); but the short-haul provision has been the sub-
ject of severest criticism, and the most alarming predictions of great
injury, if not absolute ruin, to the commerce of the country, if it shall
become a law, but, singularly enough, I have not seen a single criticism
upon it which was not based upon a misconception or a misrepresenta-
tion of its provisions and its effects. Let it speak for itself:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance : Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transpor-
tätion of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act.
Most of those who oppose this section, claim that it fixes the same
rate per ton per mile for the short as for the long haul. If it was re-
spectful, I would say that such construction is absurd, as language
I S C–9
130 \
could not be selected which would more clearly negative that idea
than the language of the section does. w
The plain meaningis, that the carrier shall not demand a larger gross
sum for hauling a car-load of grain or other freight over a part of its
line, than it demands for hauling a similar car-load of the same class
of freight over its whole line.
Section 6 provides, among other things:
That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall print and
keep for public inspection schedules showing the rates and fares and charges
for the transportation of passengers and property which any such common car-
rier has established and which are in force at the time upon its railroad, as de-
fined by the first section of this act. The schedules printed as aforesaid by any
such common carrier shall plainly state the places upon its railroad between
which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the classifica-
tion of freight in force upon such railroad, and shall also state separately the
terminal charges and any rules or regulations which in any wise change, affect,
or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates and fares and
charges. Such schedules shall be plainly printed in large type, of at least the
size of ordinary pica, and copies for the use of the public shall be kept in every
depot or station upon any such railroad, in such places and in such form that
they can be conveniently inspected.
This section requires every interstate railroad company to fix and
publish the rates at which passengers and property will be transported
between the various points upon its road.
Now to illustrate the operation and effect of the short haul provis-
ion. We will suppose that the Pennsylvania road, extending from
Chicago to New York, has fixed and published its rates upon a car-load
of grain at $50 from Chicago to New York, $40 from Fort Wayne to
New York, $30 from Pittsburgh to New York, and $20 from Harris-
burg to New York. -
The rates being so fixed, section 4 prohibits the company from
charging more than $50 for a car-load of grain from any point between
Chicago and Fort Wayne to New York, or more than $40 from any point
between Fort Wayne and Pittsburgh to New York, or more than $30
from any point between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg to New York, or
more than $20 from any point between Harrisburg and New York, cir-
cumstances and conditions being substantially similar in the ship-
ments.
The justice of demanding a larger gross sum for hauling a car-load
of freight from Pittsburgh to New York than is demanded for hauling
a similar car-load of the same kind of freight from Chicago through
Pittsburgh to New York can not be defended. &
The chief object of the short-haul provision is to secure, at least, a
measure of protection to shippers from non-competitive points. Ship-
pers from competitive points find a degree of protection in the compe-
tition that exists; but the shipper from a non-competitive point is left
to his election to accept the terms demanded by the carrier, however
hard and unjust they may be, or allow his produce to perish upon his
hands.
Another, but a secondary, object of the short-haul provision is, to
restrain undue, reckless, and ruinous competition at competitive points,
known as rate wars. g
The history of the last ten years is not wanting in its many occasions
upon which, in rate wars at competitive points, rates have been run
down to a ruinously low figure on through traffic, when the only al-
ternative of the carrier was to make up the losses thus sustained by im-
posing an unjust and exorbitant tax upon the local traffic from non-
competitive points which were at his mercy; but when he is made to
131
understand that the law prohibits him from demanding a greater sum for
carrying the same kind and quantity of freight over any part of his line
than he demands for carrying it over his whole line he will be some-
what reluctant to commit the financial suicide which is involved in the
through rates, which are not unfrequently fixed by angry, unreasoning,
and reckless rate wars, and will allow a fair, reasonable, and healthy
competition to fix a fair and reasonable rate for through traffic, which
will fix maximums for local traffic on his line.
So far as I remember, every railroad man that was examined by the
Interstate Commerce Committee expressed the opinion that, as a gen-
eral rule, a larger sum should not be charged for the short than the
long haul over the same line and in the same direction, but with equal
unanimity they said that there were cases surrounded by exceptional
circumstances which would justify the carrier in charging less for the
long than the short haul on the same line, in such cases.
The bill admits that there may be such exceptional cases, and it pro-
vides for them. It fixes the general rule as the railroad men said it
should be, and authorizes the commission to relieve the carrier from
the operations of the general rule when exceptional cases are shown to
exist.
This is the rule as applied to each common carrier upon its own road,
but the bill authorizes and contemplates the creation of other carriers
by the combination of connecting roads by contract for the purpose of
establishing long lines for the transportation of through freights be-
tween points remote and distant from each other.
When such lines are established they may fix their own rates with-
out reference to the rates fixed by the several carriers whose roads com-
pose the long line.
To illustrate. You may connect New York and San Francisco by the
combination of the following four roads: The Pennsylvania to Chicago,
the Chicago and Northwestern to Omaha, the Union Pacific to Ogden,
and the Central Pacific to San Francisco. -
Each of these four roads may have fixed its through rate over its
own line at $100 a car-load, the rates of the four aggregating $400 a car
from San Francisco to New York, but the through line composed of
these four roads may fix a rate through from San Francisco to New York
at $200, or just one-half of the aggregate of the through rates of the
four roads.
It may fix a rate of $150 from Ogden to New York and a rate of $100
from Omaha to New York.
If rates should be so fixed the through carrier could not demand
more than $200 from any point between San Francisco and Ogden, to
New York, or more than $150 from any point between Ogden and
Omaha, to New York, or more than $100 from any point east of Omaha,
to New York, or in other words, the maximum short-haul rate of that
through line would be fixed by its long-haul rates and not by the rates
of the several roads composing the through line.
When all the provisions of this bill are considered, and each fairly
construed in the light of all the others, I can not see the possibility of
injury to any carrier who proposes to deal fairly and justly with the
public, and be satisfied with the reasonable income of a legitimate
business.
Every carrier should be permitted to earn legitimate fixed charges,
operating expenses, and a reasonable interest upon the actual value of
its plant, but the public should not be required to recognize or pay in-
terest upon either stocks or bonds which originated in the process known
132
as watering, and which represent nothing but the avarice and cupidity
of the speculator.
The producer and the carrier are dependent upon each other, and neither
can afford to Cripple or embarrass the other in a legitimate business, but
each has the right to demand justice at the hands of the other.
The other provision of the bill objected to is that which prohibits
pooling contracts.
I have always understood and still understand the object and pur-
pose of a pooling contract to be the destruction of competition—a con-
tract by which competing parties agree upon rates and a division of the
business, or the proceeds of the business.
If this be true, as I am satisfied it is, it brings us to the simple ques-
tion: Is competition beneficial or injurious to the business of the coun-
try? -
If beneficial it should be encouraged, but if injurious to the public
we should encourage combinations and monopolies and invite them to
take charge of and control the various branches of the business of the
country.
Why not extend the principle of pooling to fix and maintain rates to
the men who sell the common necessaries of life as well as to the men
who sell transportation ? If it be a good and proper thing in the one
case I can not see why it will not be equally good and proper in the
other. *
But I have a more serious objection to the freight pools now in vogue
than that which is found in competing parties agreeing by contract
upon rates.
The freight pool provides for a division of freights in fixed propor-
tions between the pooling carriers, and under such arrangement no
shipper can control his own shipment.
He may desire to ship over a road that he knows to be solvent and
able to respond in damages for any injury to the cargo resulting from
the negligence of the agents of the carrier; but the pool, not the ship-
per, determines the road that shall have the shipment, and his freight
may be against his will assigned to an insolvent carrier.
All the good that pooling contracts can accomplish is accomplished
by publicity of rates and adherence to the rates so published; while the
evils of pooling are avoided by allowing a fair and honest competition
in open market to fix reasonable and just rates and allowing every ship-
per to control his own shipment.
Being satisfied that none of the many evils which have been pre-
dicted will follow the passage of this bill, but that great good will re-
sult to the public and to the carriers, I shall vote for its passage.
Mr. MCPHERSON. Will the Senator from Tennessee, who is a mem-
ber of the committee of conference which reported back to the Senate
a bill that is a direct contradiction of the expressed judgment of the
Senate when taken upon the bill, in his attempt to show the charac-
ter of the legislation and its effect upon the country, be so kind as to
answer me now one single question? I should like to ask the Senator
from Tennessee if, in his opinion, the natural and inevitable effect of
the legislation of the fourth section of the bill will not be to increase
through rates?
Mr. HARRIS. I am satisfied the effect of the bill will prevent what
are known as rate wars, which sometimes reduce through rates to a
ruinous point, and they ought to be prevented. But as to legitimate,
honest, fair, and Square through rates, there is not, in my opinion, a
single feature in the bill which will necessarily increase them. Upon
133
the contrary, I think the probabilities are they may be lowered, but at
all events they will be uniform and stable.
Mr. McPHERSON. I am very much obliged to the Senator for that
answer. He says if I understand him aright—and I think I do that
the tendency of the bill will be to establish equitable through rates
and prevent rate wars. The bill confers upon a commission of five
members the determination of the question as to whether a rate is a
reasonable rate or not. The railway company may fix such rate as they
please, but the commission have the revision of that rate, and they may
make it such rate as in their view is reasonable. This, I take it, the
commission will do; in short, the power to make reasonable within a
certain limit is the power to make rates.
Very well, having fixed that through rate, which must be a reason-
able rate, how then are the intermediate rates fixed? The bill declares
that the intermediate rates shall not exceed the through rate, but are
not the intermediate rates subject to revision by the commission also 2
I wish to ask the Senator if the good people who demand this legis-
lation would be satisfied that a rate fixed for a thousand miles and
deemed reasonable by the commission would be accepted by the ship-
per as a proper and just rate for half the distance?
The inevitable result, therefore, is that unless every railroad com-
pany in this country goes into bankruptcy the through Tate must be
fixed at a point which will give a fair and equitable compensation.
In other words, the through rate must be equitable and compensating
to the railroads.
Now, let us apply it in practice. The Senator knows that, to-day, 90
per cent. of all the export product of this country is carried at rates
which scarcely pay the cost of doing the work. That is the thing the
Senator complaims of that the through rates are very low, and that the
local rate is made correspondingly high to pay dividends. If the local
rate is made reasonable in the same sense that the through rate is made
reasonable, the matural and inevitable consequence is that the through
rate must be made greater.
Now, what is the result as to our export product 2 The Senator very
well knows that the question of the possibility of exporting products
from this country depends upon the market. Who controls the mar-
ket 2 India controls the wheat market and the grain market of Lon-
don, where all our goods are marketed. Bmgland has spent $500,000,-
000 in a few years past to move the grain from the wheat-fields of India
to the seashore. It has given cheaper food to England, and it has com-
pelled in this country a reduction in the cost of transportation which
was never deemed possible by any people. 's
In 1873 the rates were 23 cents a ton per mile. In 1886 they were
reduced to half a cent a ton per mile, and without any restrictive leg-
islation whatever, but solely owing to the demands and the nature of
commerce. The plan which the railroads have adopted to charge no
more than the product would bear has moved the grain from the great
grain fields of the West and put it in the London market in competi-
tion with India. Not to have reduced that rate would have been to
put your corn in your stoves for fuel in the West, and leave India, with-
out a competitor in the London or other markets.
Mr. CAMDEN. Will the Senator explain one point 2
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey
yield to the Senator from West Virginia?
Mr. McPHERSON. Certainly.
Mr. CAMDEN. The product for export is raised in all the States
134
from the seaboard to the great West. Take a farmer in West Virginia
who raises wheat for export, take a farmer in Ohio who raises wheat
for export, take one in Indiana who raises wheat for export, take one
in Illinois, and so on until you get to Omaha. The bill does not ask or
require railroads to charge any more to the far shipper than it does to
the near shipper. Is there any reason why in regard to the product of
all these several farms, being carried fifteen hundred or two thousand
miles to reach the markets of the world, the near shipper should be
discriminated against in favor of the far shipper, when they are all send-
ing to the same market and for the same export purpose ? It occurs to
me that the fact is lost sight of that there are other sections of the
country which make up the amount of product for export besides the
border and the far Western States.
Mr. MCPHERSON. That is exactly what I want to aid the Sena-
tor from West Virginia and his constituents in securing. I say that
no intelligent or wise commission would say that a rate from West Vir-
ginia equal to that charged from Chicago would be a reasonable rate.
Hence it is that I say the natural and inevitable consequence must be
that the bill must increase through rates in order that there may be an
equitable and a reasonable rate charged for the shorter distance.
Mr. CAMDEN. I think the bill will increase through rates.
Mr. MCPHERSON. That is exactly the point. -
Mr. CAMDEN. It will increase them from the very fact that the
through rates have been too low in proportion to local rates.
Mr. MCPHERSON. Then, so far as I have gone there can be no
argument between the Senator and myself. He admits that the en-
forcement of this policy will compel high through rates.
Mr. CAMDEN. Let me ask the Senator a question. There is noth-
, ing in the bill which will require railroads to do otherwise than they
are doing now. The bill does not prohibit them from charging as much
for the short rates as they do for the long. But that is outside.
Mr. McPHERSON. No; but you give the commission the power to
fix rates. It is not only a power that is placed in their hands, but it
is a responsibility which they must exercise.
Mr. CAMDEN. I beg pardon. The commission is not given the
power to fix rates. I contend that Congress can not give to anybody the
right to fix rates; but the commission can decide whether a rate is
reasonable or unreasonable. That is the only point in the creation of a
commission.
Mr. McPHERSON. Very well; let me illustrate. Mr. A is the
president of a great railway corporation—
Mr. CAMDEN. Let me add one word further in reference to that
point. The commission has no power to enforce and control that ques-
tion. Their decision is not final and they can not impose any penalty.
Mr. MCPHERSON. I think the duty of the commission is to make
rates reasonable. If a rate is fixed for 500 miles which is the same
rate as that fixed by the commission and declared reasonable for 1,000
miles, the intermediate shipper would have a right to complain to the
commission. The commission is vested with quasi-judicial power. If
the shipper fail to secure his rights from the commission he would
make an appeal to a higher tribunal, the court which the bill provides
for, and the natural consequence of that would be that no court on
earth could decide that the shipper should pay the same rate for 500
miles that was paid for 1,000 miles, and still declare both to bereasonable.
Mr. CAMDEN. I ask the Senator whether that is not the law now.
135
If a shipper should resort to the courts would he not get the same de-
cision under the law as it stands now that he would under the bill?
Mr. McPHERSON. I understand that there is no law now except
the law which the carriers make for themselves. You propose to make
a law, and you propose to put the power in the hands of five commis-
sioners to change a rate which is equivalent to fixing the rate.
Now, let us see about a reasonable rate. For instance, the president
of a railroad, or a number of them, in the city of Chicago declares that
a reasonable rate shall be a rate of $100 per car-load of 10 tons from
Chicago to New York. Now step in the commission, and they have
the power under the bill to declare that that would be an unreasonable
rate. Why an unreasonable rate 2 Because I take the evidence that
you have given to the world here for the past five years, that you have
been carrying like cargoes of freight, 10 tons each in a car, for $25 from
Chicago to New York.
I wish to know by what right you charge a fixed rate of $100 a car
for a like service which you have been giving for $25 a car.
When that rate is fixed by the railroad company, the commission say,
mo, it must be reduced. The railroad company have the right to ap-
peal to the courts. What would the courts say? You are entitled, as
a reasonable rate, to the cost of doing the work plus a fair compensation
for the use of the capital invested in the plant. Now, what would that
be 2 That would increase the through rates to a point that the through
rates would be paying a share and part of the general fund of the
railroads which was applied to the liquidation of debts and paying divi-
dends.
Yourthrough rateis fixed and your local rates must be fixed from it. I
say that the inevitable result would simply be to increase through rates,
and if the Western producer can stand that ºn the face of present com-
petition then they can stand almost anything.
Mr. President, while I am on my feet there is one other point which
I should like to ask the Senator from Tennessee to explain. I under-
stand from him that there can by no possibility be any such thing as
an invidious distinction between railroads under the operation of this
bill. Let me cite an illustration to the Senator and ask him to solve
the difficulty sure to confront him. The city of Buffalo is at the eastern
end of Lake Erie, which is the terminal point for the great lake trans-
portation of the West. Cargoes of grain come from different points of
shipment in single vessels, by single owners, to Buffalo. That grain
is discharged into a single elevator in bulk often and always. That
is the end of the transportation so far as the lake is concerned and so
far as the carrier to Buffalo is concerned.
At Buffalo this grain is met by six great lines of railroad, reaching
Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Montreal. The ship-
per from Buffalo elects to take the line of railroad which will reach any
of those points of shipment, depending as it will be largely upon the
best rates of transportation obtainable from those seaports to London.
This grain at Buffalo is the original point of shipment in its relation to
those six railroads, as any point in the United States can be. Two of
those roads are Canadian roads, lying within the Dominion of Canada,
and beyond our jurisdiction. One of them is a State railroad, running
within the borders of a single State, from Buffalo to New York. There-
fore, we can neither fix through rates nor local rates upon any of these
roads. They are outside our control under this bill. *
Now, what of their competitors? Three lines of road, the Erie, the
Delaware and Lackawanna, and the Lehigh Valley are interstate rail-
136
roads laid upon the territory of three States. In the first place, the
commission from Buffalo eastward will make the rate from Buffalo
reasonable. That determines the rate from all intermediate points.
As to the other three lines it can not say a single word. They may
make the most unreasonable rate imaginable. They may pursue the
present policy pursued by railroads, which is simply to take the product
for what it will bear. The through rates from Buffalo eastward by the
Canadian lines and the New York Central are beyond anybody’s control
except their own, and whatever they may do touching a through rate
it does not interfere with their local rate. Hence they may drive the
three interstate railroads out of the competition at Buffalo.
First, I say that the Canada railroads would have the power under
this bill to take the products at Buffalo and carry them to Montreal,
and thus oppress the three interstate railroads on this side to such an
extent that the securities of these roads would depend on the will of a
foreign corporation; their securities would become the foot-ball of Wall
street, and the quotations or values from day to day be dictated from
Canada. That would be the practical operation of it, and without the
proviso in the fourth section would destroy half the railroad property
in this country. If, however, the commission shall find in this proviso
a grant of power to them sufficient to meet such a case as I have de-
scribed and to meet all cases when its exercise is needed—and I am
sure this proviso fairly construed goes this far—and believing that the
commission will apply this proviso power unsparingly, I am content to
give the section a trial.
Mr. HARRIS. The proviso of the fourth section confers upon the
commission full and complete power whenever application is made to
the commission and the commission has become satisfied after investi-
gation that this is an exceptional case under exceptional circumstances
which require that the railroad in question should be relieved from the
general rule prescribed by the fourth section.
Mr. McPHERSON. Very well. Then, I take it, the commission
would find this an exceptional case and would relieve these three
through railroads from the general rule. Having done that, then what
becomes of other rivals, the Pennsylvania, the Baltimore and Ohio, and
other great lines which would not be relieved because the special case
did not apply to them 2 They would be under the general interstate-
commerce law, while the commission would have relieved the three
interstate railroads from Buffalo, and they would be outside the inter-
state-commerce rule. ,
No, sir, it will not be possible to conduct the commerce of the coun-
try under the fourth section without the fullest exercise of the power
granted in the proviso. What a commentary upon this Senate upon
the ill-advised, reckless character of the legislation we make, that a
law must contain the power within itself to annul or make void its en-
forcement.
Mr. GEORGE. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?
Mr. McPHERSON. Yes, sir. -
Mr. GEORGE. I understood the Senator to say a while ago that the
case of some carriers might be special owing to peculiar circumstances.
If that be true what harm would occur if the Pennsylvania Railroad
and the other railroads engaged in through travel were not interfered
with ? They do not lose anything by it.
Mr. MCPHERSON. The Senator will understand in that event
they would lose all their through traffic. That, as a matter of course, a
line of railroad between given points, say, the Pennsylvania Railroad
137
between New York and Chicago can afford to carry through freight
cheaper than local freight.
The majority of the freight brought from Chicago to the seaboard
scarcely pays the cost of moving it, but at the same time I think it is
a decided advantage to the railroad to have it, for reasons so often
stated I need not repeat them. I wish to say a word about the pooling
section, but will not do so now, as I seem to be occupying the time of
the Senator from Delaware [Mr. SAULSBURY].
Mr. ALDRICH. Will the Senator from Tennessee allow me to tres-
pass on his good nature, and ask him one question?
Mr. HARRIS. Most certainly.
Mr. ALDRICH. I should like to ask him the same question which
was asked of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] yesterday in re-
gard to the case of the Boston and Albany Railroad, freight being de-
livered to it at Albany of the same character and in the same qualities
from half a dozen different places. Take the case, for instance, of a ton of
freight from California at a low through rate. Would the portion which
the Boston and Albany Railroad should receive on account of that
freight fix any limit for freight delivered at Albany by a local shipper,
or freight shipped from Buffalo or from Syracuse to go over the Boston
and Albany road 2
Mr. HARRIS. This bill authorizes two or more common carriers to
unite to make an extended long line of transportation, and that long
line becomes a carrier independent of and separate from either of the
lines and all of the lines that compose it. That common carrier so
created by contract has the right of all other carriers to fix and publish
its rates from one end of the line to the other, from the intermediate
points to the end of the line as long as two or more carriers or compa-
nies are involved in the carriage.
Now, take the case that I put where the combined carrier composed
of four independent roads fixes a rate of $200 from San Francisco to
New York, of $150 from Ogden to New York, of $100 from Omaha to
New York. Then the rule would be, as I understand it, that that car-
rier can not charge for a car-load of freight from any point between San
Francisco and Ogden to New York more than $200. It may charge that
much under the fourth section. It can not charge more than $150 from
any point between Ogden and Omaha to New York. It may charge that
much under the fourth section. It can not charge more than $100 from
any point east of Omaha to New York. It may charge that much under
my construction of the fourth section.
Mr. ALDRICH. I fear that I failed to make myself understood in
my question to the Senator from Tennessee. The question I will repeat
in another form. If the Boston and Albany Railroad receives a cer-
tain sum as freight in the aggregate for the transportation of a barrel
of flour from Albany to Boston, that flour having been shipped from
Chicago, is that a measure of the compensation which it must charge
and receive for a local shipment from Albany to Boston?
Mr. HARRIS. That would depend entirely, in my opinion, upon
whether this was a continuous and through shipment from San Fran-
cisco to Boston, or whether it was a shipment to Albany and then re-
shipped to Boston.
Mr. ALDRICH. Suppose it to be a through shipment 2
Mr. HARRIS. That I have already answered by what I have already
said. The short-haul provision would only affect that shipment, as I
have already explained. It would fall within the last and lowest
138
through rate made by that carrier. For a short haul more can not be
charged than the maximum of the long haul.
Mr. ALDRICH. But, as I understand the Senator now, the aggre-
gate compensation received in one case would be no measure and no
criterion of the actual sum to be charged upon another.
Mr. SAULSBURY. Mr. President, the importance of this bill will not
only justify but demands the fullest consideration which the Senate can
give toit. It proposes to deal with questions that may affect seriously
not only the vast railroad systems of the country, but all other common
carriers engaged in interstate commerce. When we consider the num-
ber and length of the railroads of the country, the vast expenditure
in their construction, and the great number of persons engaged an
interested in their operation—to say nothing of the common carriers
upon the natural highways, the rivers and navigable streams of the
country, and the value of the property, and the number of persons
connected there with—the necessity for due and careful consideration
will at once appear. Nearly all our artificial as well as natural high-
ways are mediums of interstate commerce. Almost every railroad, by
consolidation with other lines, becomes a part of a system extending
over contiguous and even distant States, forming links in chains of
railway which bear to market the traffic of distant communities and
furnish the means of intercourse and travel for citizens of different
States of the Union.
If we look therefore only at the vast interests of the common car-
riers which may be affected by the bill, it is sufficient to challenge the
most careful examination in order that no injury may unwittingly be
inflicted upon interests so great, not imperatively demanded for the pro-
tection of the people who are compelled to use those mediums of com-
merce in the transportation of their persons and property from one State
to another. In the consideration of this bill it is proper also to take
into account the vast amount of traffic, to say nothing of travel, carried
on over these railroads and navigable streams, and dependent upon com-
mon carriers not only for the means of transportation but also very
largely for its value. It has been estimated that our domestic commerce
is not less than $18,000,000,000 annually, and much of this large amount
is dependent upon the common carriers for transportation and forms a
large part of interstate commerce dealt with by the provisions of this
bill. No member of this Senate does, and I may say no sane man can,
desire to see injury inflicted upon the common carriers of the country
or the commerce dependent upon them for transportation.
The bill deals with the carriers of interstate commerce alone, but as
I have already said this designation applies to almost every railroad and
navigable stream in the country, so that it may be said that almost all the
commerce carried on by rail or water may possibly be affected by the pro-
visions of this bill as well as the carriers themselves. Great, however,
as may be the interests to be affected by the passage of this bill it is
before us for our action, and we must meet the responsibility imposed
upon us, as I have no doubt every member of this body will do, with an
earnest desire to deal justly and fairly with every interest involved.
That Congress has the power to make rules regulating commerce be-
tween the States of the Union will not be denied by any one. Indeed,
such power is expressly given in the Constitution, and has never been
questioned in any quarter, however much the propriety of its exercise
in particular cases and the extent to which it may have been carried
may have been doubted. **
* At the time of the adoption of the Constitution in which this power
139
was granted by the States to Congress interstate commerce was carried
on almost exclusively by the natural highways of commerce—the
rivers and other navigable waters of the country. No one thought of
railroads or other medium of overland transportation, unless the idea of
short canals connecting neighboring streams had at that early day been
conceived. More than forty years elapsed from the adoption of the
Constitution and the grant of power therein to Congress over the sub-
ject of regulating commerce between the States before any railroad
was projected in the country. It is very doubtful. at least, whether
such an unrestricted grant of authority to Congress to regulate inter-
state commerce would have been made had the framers of the Consti-
tution believed that it would be ultimately carried on by artificial
highways constructed under State authority. I think it may be safely
affirmed that the States never would have consented to surrender the
entire control over roads created by their authority within their own
limits, even when engaged in interstate commerce by reason of connec-
tion with other lines of road.
Almost all the railroads in the country have been constructed under
charters granted by the States. They owe their existence and fran-
chises to the States that created them, and generally their charters
have conferred upon them exemptions, privileges, and immunities of
the most valuable and liberal character. The anxiety of the people of
the several States for railroad facilities has induced their Legislatures
to grant to these companies all the rights and privileges deemed essen-
tial for their successful operation, and not infrequently have granted
them pecuniary aid as well as valuable exemption not enjoyed by nat-
ural persons. Until very recently no one doubted that the States them-
selves might exercise a supervisory control over these corporations
created by their authority and existing within their own limits and
jurisdiction, unless they had deprived themselves of such control by
express provisions in the acts incorporating those companies.
But by recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
it seems that railroad companies existing under State authority, and
claiming every right which they enjoy by virtue of that authority,
may withdraw themselves largely from the control of the power that
created them by forming connections with other roads chartered by
other States so as to form a part of a continuous line for the transpor-
tation of commerce from one State to another. - *
Now, while I do not believe that the decision referred to—‘‘the
Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific Railway Company vs. The People of the
State of Illinois”—is a correct interpretation of the power of the States
over their own corporations, and think the opinion of the dissenting
judges more in accordance with the true intent and meaning of the
provision of the Constitution relating to the regulation of commerce,
still I recognize the decisions of that court as fixing a limitation on the
power of the States over the roads which they have created; and the
investiture of Congress with the only control that can be exercised
over any railroad management, which, by connections and consolida-
tions, forms part of a continuous line of railway over which commerce
*. be carried on between persons residing in different States of the .
In IOI).
If the States could exercise what I believe their just rights, and pro-
tect their own citizens against unfair discriminations and extortions, I
should prefer to leave to them the absolute control of dealing with the
questions embraced in the pending bill. No State would legislate op-
pressively upon her common carriers. The dependence of her people
140
upon them for transportation would insure the railroads against hostile
acts, independent of the potent influence which such corporations are
supposed to exert wherever they exist. I have not much doubt that
it would be better both for the railroads and the people if this whole
question could be dealt with by the States. - But since this is not per-
mitted—and no State can now interfere with the operation of any rail-
road company, however extortionate and unjust, which is engaged in
interstate commerce—the only remedy possible is such as Congress may
provide. * .
The question is therefore presented broadly and distinctly: Shall Con-
gress interpose a restraining hand upon these corporations or shall they
be permitted to do as they please in their dealings with the vast inter-
ests dependent upon them—discriminating, in the facilities which they
afford and the charges which they exact, between different persons and
communities—exacting from some more than just compensation for
services rendered, to indemnify themselves for losses sustained by favors
and privileges awarded to others? These discriminations and un-
just exactions have brought this question here. Complaints have
been made from time to time, many of them perhaps without just cause,
and appeals for relief have been heard from every quarter. Shall Con-
gress now attempt a remedy or respond to these appeals by a refusal to
do anything to correct abuses? **
And, now, Mr. President, turning to this bill, I desire to say that I
am not at all sanguine that it will prove an adequate remedy for the
wrongs it seeks to correct. It is the commencement of legislation new
to Congress, and deals with questions upon which we have no experi-
ence in this country to guide us. -
Any legislation upon the subject must necessarily be very largely
experimental. What its effect upon common carriers or upon shippers
may be, is but a matter at present of conjecture. Time, however, will
reveal the defects of the bill, should it become law, and future legis-
lation can remedy its ‘errors. Should action be deferred for years to
come, it is doubtful whether Congress would be better qualified to leg-
islate upon the subject.
This bill has been very maturely considered in both Houses and is
the result of the best judgment that could beformed upon the subject.
If it proves adequate as a remedy for existing evils in the transporta-
tion of persons and property, without doing injustice to carriers, it will
prove a boon to the country of inestimable value. If it fails as a perfect
remedy and leads to future legislation which shall have that result it
will be no less salutary and beneficial both to the common carriers and
to those who are compelled to use them. Let us turn now to the pro-
visions of the bill to see what it proposes. I shall refer very briefly
only to some of the more important provisions of the bill and shall not
consume the time of the Senate further than is necessary to indicate
my opinion in reference to them.
The first section of the bill defines the class of common carriers to
which its provisions apply, namely, such as are engaged in interstate
commerce; and exempts from its operation such as are operating wholly
within the limits of one State, and then provides that all charges for
the transportation of persons and property by such carriers, including
all services rendered therewith, shall be reasonable and just, and de-
clares all unreasonable and unjust charges for such services unlawful.
No one, I suppose, can object to this provision of the bill. Differences
may arise as to what constitutes an unreasonable and unjust charge,
but no one will contend that any charge should be made that is not
141
just and fair. The railroads may not desire that any interference
should be had with their right to charge what they please for any serv-
ice they render, but they will not contend that any injustice is done
to them in prohibiting and declaring unlawful all unjust and unreason-
able charges which they may make. There is nothing in this section,
therefore, to which a valid objection can be made.
The second section prohibits and declares unlawful any discrimina-
tions between persons made by common carriers in charges for “trans-
portation of like kind of traffic under substantially similar circum-
stances and conditions,” whether such discriminations are made “di-
rectly or indirectly by special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device.
This provision is designed and will doubtless have the effect to break
up a practice which is said to obtain in railroad management of charg—
ing large shippers and favorites less than is charged to those who ship
less. While the railroads doubtless make more profit from the busi-
ness of large shippers than is realized from the business of smaller
shippers, and perhaps from its bulk can really afford to carry their
freight at a less rate, still such discrimination has been a source of con-
stant complaint and has operated to the prejudice of the small ship-
pers by enabling their favored competitors to outbid them for the goods
which they thus ship at a lower rate. Such discriminations will, in
the judgment of mankind, always be deemed unjust, and the bill
wisely and properly seeks to prevent them.
The third section of the bill makes it unlawful for a common carrier
“to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage
to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any
particular description of traffic in any respect;” and it also makes it un-
lawful for any carrier “to subject any particular person, company, firm,
corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect.”
What would constitute “undue and unreasonable preference or advan-
tage ’’ or “undue and unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage ’’ is not
specifically declared, and for that reason apprehensions have arisen in
the minds of very worthy and intelligent persons that it imposes im-
proper restrictions upon common carriers, and will operate to the preju-
dice of shippers of certain classes of produce who need special accommo-
dation in the transportation of their goods to market.
Perishable freights, for instance, require rapid transit in order to pre-
vent decay and loss in marketable value, and it is very natural that ship-
pers of such products should feel anxious that no impediment should
be placed in the way of securing the necessary and customary facilities
which they enjoy for the speedy delivery of such freights to the mar-
kets to which they are consigned. -
In my own State, as in many other sections of the country, the cul-
tivation of fruits is a very important industry, and the growers and
shippers of fruits, by arrangements with the railroads, have for years
enjoyed the necessary facilities for the speedy delivery of their products
to market. Without such facilities their produce would have com-
paratively but little value, and the fruit culture would have to be aban-
doned. . -
If it were possible to put a construction upon this section which
would prevent the railroads from giving every needed facility for the
rapid transportation of perishable articles, or impair in the least the
opportunities which such shippers enjoy, I could not and would not
vote for the bill; but I do not believe such construction possible. It
would not be held by any railroad company or any court in the country
142
to be an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to send for-
ward with the greatest possible rapidity freight of this character, so as .
to secure its delivery in good order in the markets to which they were
consigned. On the contrary, a neglect or refusal to do so on the part
of common carriers would clearly be regarded as an “undue, and unrea-
sonable prejudice” and disadvantage to this “particular description of
traffic,” and violative not only of the spirit but the very letter of the
law. -
It would be as reasonable to suppose that the provisions of this sec-
tion would prevent the running of express trains for the carrying or
passengers as to suppose that it inhibits the running of rapid trains for
the safe delivery of perishable freights. All apprehensions felt in any
quarter in this regard are in my opinion unwarranted by anything con-
tained in the third or any other section of the bill. I will add that the
view which I have expressed in reference to this matter is in harmony
with the opinion of all the members of this body with whom I have
conferred, and some surprise has been expressed that any different opin-
ion could be entertained by any one.
Independent of any obligation imposed by the provisions of this bill
the duty of common carriers to the public would compel railroads to
provide the proper facilities for shippers of this kind of freight, and that
duty would not be properly performed by furnishing only the same
accommodation required for other produce, such as lumber, grain, &c.
All common carriers take into consideration the character of the service
required; and, recognizing the obligation which their relation to the
public imposes, seek, if under intelligent management, to meet the just
demands upon them. - -
Besides this, self-interest would prompt the carrier to grant all needed
facilities for the prompt delivery of perishable freight, as otherwise
they would destroy a very profitable part of their business. With noth-
ing in the bill to prevent special arrangements for the appropriate and
necessary rapidity in forwarding freights requiring speedy delivery, I
can not conceive that any apprehension need be felt that the duty im.
posed by their relation to the public, and enforced by self-interest, will
not be faithfully performed. -
The fourth section of the bill reads as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a
longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being in-
cluded within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authoriz-
ing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as
great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however,
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this
act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the com-
mission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for
the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from
time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may
be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
The strongest opposition that I have heard to the bill has been to
this section. The railroads of the country have, perhaps without an
exception, at times discriminated against persons and localities at in-
termediate points between the termini of the roads. In some instances
this has been so excessive as to amount to the grossest injustice, and
has been felt by those subjected to such charges as oppression and ex-
tortion.
The fourth section proposes to limit the exactions of the carriers in
their charges at intermediate points, so as to prevent a greater charge
143
for the shorter than the longer distance. It will be observed that it does
not attempt to prorate charges according to distance, but simply to
prevent a higher charge for the shorter distance than is demanded for
the longer haul. This limitation however only applies to transporta-
tion of “passengers or like kind of property under substantially simi-
lar circumstances and conditions.”
Now, one of two things is certain, either the compensation for the
longer haul under present arrangements is inadequate, or that for the
shorter distance is excessive—and I think it reasonable to suppose when
such discrimination exists that the charge for the shorter distance is
increased to indemnify the carrier for inadequacy in compensation for
the longer service. Whatever may be the reason for the discrimina-
tion in prices for the same kind of service on the same line of road, the
public mind will not readily apprehend the necessity or justice of re-
quiring a higher price for the shorter service, but, on the contrary, will
continue to regard it as an unjust exaction which should be probibited.
This provision [ believe to be even more liberal to the carrier than
it should be. It allows the carrier to charge as much for the shorter dis-
tance as for the longer, except as restrained by the requirement that the
charge must be reasonable, and gives to the commissioners authority to
allow greater charges for the shorter than the longer distance—an au-
thority that is liable to be abused, as every power may be that rests
simply in the discretion of those who may be called on to exercise it.
This provision has been so fully discussed in this Chamber that I shall
content myself with this succinct reference to it.
I desire, however, to say in connection with this, that I have no ap-
prehension that the railroad interest will not be able to protect itself.
Associated wealth always, and in all times, has been fully able to pro-
tect itself, and I am sure that there will always be gentlemen in both
Houses of Congress whose sympathies will prevent them from consent-
ing to any injustice to railroads or other common carriers. So I do not
see that I am called upon here to defend especially the interests of rail-
road companies.
I will say further, before proceeding to the next section, that the
discretion vested in the commissioners to be appointed under the
bill to allow a less charge for the greater than the shorter distance
ought not to be exercised to the extent of defeating the purpose of this
section. It is fair to presume that the President will appoint, if the
bill becomes a law, commissioners who will act with due caution and
suspend the operation of the law only when circumstances may ren-
der their interference necessary to relieve the carrier from embarrass-
ment by reason of competition with other lines.
The fifth section makes it unlawful for any common carrier to enter
into any agreement with other common carriers for the pooling of
freights of different competing lines. It is well known such compet-
ing lines have, at times, made such agreements which have operated to
prevent the advantages to the public which just competition would
secure. The chief value of pools, however, to the competing lines has
been to prevent the cutting of rates in a spirit of rivalry to a point
ruinous to the carriers themselves, and only of temporary benefit to the
public. I apprehend that the prevention of what is known as railroad
wars is the main reason for the pooling arrangements which have ex-
isted, and if they could have that effect, without interference with proper
and healthful competition between competing roads, no valid objection
could be made to such arrangement.
The people of the country can not be permanently benefited by rail-
144
road wars and the cutting of rates to a ruinous extent, and if pooling
arrangements between carriers would prevent such strife and not ad-
vance charges above fair compensation for services rendered, they
would do no harm to any one.
Under the provisions of the fourth section of the bill it seems to me
that pooling arrangements can not be of much value to carriers. They
will not be likely to cut rates at competing points so readily as for-
merly, because it would affect charges along the whole lines of their
roads. Heretofore they could cut rates at the points of competition to
any extent without interference with rates at other points on their
respective roads, but under the provisiºn of the fourth section of the
bill charges would be reduced at many places on the roads if rates
were greatly reduced at the points of competition.
I do not see that this fifth section of the bill will be of much value
to the public or of any great disadvantage to common carriers should
this bill become a law. Under the present condition of railroad man-
agement I can understand how the system of pooling was conducive to
the interest of all roads connected with the pool, and how it may have
interfered with the proper competition which would otherwise have
ensued, and thus worked injury to the public by depriving the coun-
try of the advantages of such competition.
I shall not notice in detail the other provisions of the bill. They re-
late principally to the appointment of a commission and the duties with
which it is charged, and the authority with which it is invested; in
other words, to the machinery with which the sections of the bill to
which I have already referred are to be enforced.
I shall give to the bill my support, and hope it may prove a wise
and beneficial measure, not only to the people of the country, but also
to the common carriers themselves. I would not knowingly aid in
inflicting a wrong upon the railroad companies and other carriers, but
would restrain to the full extent of Congressional authority any injus-
tice which they may practice upon those who are dependent upon them
for the transportation of their persons and property. I recognize the
value of such corporations, and the great benefits they have conferred
in the development of the country and the advancement of its pros-
perity. We can not do without them, and they should be protected in
every just right and subjected tomo unnecessary and improper restraint;
but they ought not to be allowed, because they are indispensable, to lay
too heavy a hand upon any portion of the people who are compelled
to use them.
Nor ought the interference of Congress with this question of regu-
lating interstate commerce, carried on by the instrumentality of rail-
roads, to be longer deferred. Since the States may not pass any law
bearing upon the subject, or restrain in any manner the action of the
corporations which they have created in reference to commerce not
wholly within their own limits, the people of the country can have no
protection against any impositions practiced by such carriers, however
unjust and extortionate, unless Congress does interpose for their pro-
tection. If no complaints had been made in the past—if the dealing
of the railroads had been at all times marked by the strictest justice
and they were free from the charge of improper discriminations or op-
pressions of any character, still it would be unwise to leave in their
hands a power which might hereafter be exercised to the prejudice and
injury of the people of the country, and which it might be more diffi-
cult hereafter to check and restrain than it is at present. We know
something now of the power and influence of these corporations.
145
In some of the States of this Union they are believed to be potent if
not omnipotent in the control of legislation, and are supposed even in-
sidiously to shape judicial opinions and control the judgments of courts.
This estimate of their strength may rest more in apprehension than
in fact, but it indicates, at least, the fear that aggregated wealth is cal-
culated to inspire. Many of the men in the management of all the roads
are doubtless persons of the highest character as well as the greatest
intelligence, who would not willingly sanction an illegitimate use of
the means at their command or the power with which they are in-
vested, but they are but individuals in the bodies corporate and may not
be able to control their action or determine their policy. Observation,
too, has taught that men in their associate capacity will often do what
they would not do upon their individual responsibility.
No guarantee is, therefore, furnished in the character of individuals
composing railroad companies or controlling their management against
the wrongs for which this bill provides or against the use of all the
power they can command to prevent any restraint upon the absolute
control which they at present exercise over the transportation of the
commerce between the States of the Union.
Congress, therefore, should do something to restrain abuses at the
present session, and as this bill is the result of the joint action of a
committee of the two Houses after mature deliberation and reflection
it is safe to assume that it promises the only relief for which the coun-
try may hope now or in the near future.
Mr. CAI, L. Mr. President, I desire to submit some observations on
this report. *~
Mr. PUGH. If the Senator from Florida does not desire to speak
this evening, the hour being late, I move that the Senate proceed to
the consideration of executive business.
Mr. CULLO M. Before the Sena; or submits his motion, I should
like to make a statement. I desire to say now that, as I said last week,
I shall ask the Senate to remain in session to-morrow until this bill is
disposed of. I made that statement several days ago, and I repeat it
now, so that Senators may not be taken by surprise if they have for-
gotten what I said last week. I shall ask the Senate to remain in
session to-morrow until the bill is disposed of
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12, 1887.
*
* + * * * *
Mr. CULLOM. I move to proceed to the consideration of the report
of the committee of conference on the interstate-commerce bill.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration
of the report of the committee of conferenceiupon the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce.
Mr. CALL. Mr. President, I desire to submit some observations to
the Senate upon the pending report of the conference committee on the
interstate-commerce bill. I concur with Senators who have said that
this bill is one of great importance in view of the interests to be affected
by it. As I understand the function of the Senate and the duty of
a Senator here, it is to consider and weigh with great care and de-
liberation the ideas connected with a measure, and to act according
to his best judgment. The Senate under our organic law, with the
House of Representatives, are required to judge for themselves, not to
accept the opinions of others, but to formulate such laws as will carry
1 s C—10
146
into effect just and wise objects of public policy. In investigating
carefully the conference report and the bill which is the result of the
report, we must look, I think, somewhat to the grievances which are
proposed to be remedied, their origin, and their present effect upon the
people. -
The origin of the great public grievances which this bill seeks to rem-
edy and which the country at large demands should be remedied is to
be found in the improvident legislation of the different States creating
corporations and giving them all the rights possessed by a natural per-
son, the right to make contracts and be contracted with; the right to
hold real and personal estate; the right of perpetual succession; the
right of exclusive transportation over designated lines and areas of coun-
try; the right to issue bonds and securities. These powers were con-
ferred on these artificial persons for the public benefit, but they have
been used to issue securities that impose upon the people of this country
burdens greater than the war debt, without reference to the money ex-
pended, the labor used, or the cost of construction. They carry with
them a power of taxation greater than was reserved to the people in
their governmental capacity as States or as a National Government.
That is the fact. It can not be denied. -
With the Government professedly based upon the theory of protec-
tion of persons and property, upon the idea that no property shall be .
taken from a man except by law, the law of a body in which he shall
be represented and by consent of his representatives, the fact is that
a power has been created with a greater right of taxation without rep-
resentation of the people, without responsibility to them, a power which
in fact takes from them a greater sum of money than that drawn by the
National Government and the State governments for the public and
authorized purposes of government.
How shall we deal with this question? Is it an important question?
Is it the least important question connected with this subject 2. It is
estimated, and reasonably and justly estimated, in the authorities which
were read by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK) and others, that
a mortgage of over three thousand million dollars has been imposed
upon the labor of this country and an annual exaction of between two
and three hundred million dollars forced under these powers granted
by the States from the labor of the country, forced from the most ne-
cessitous classes of the country, for what? Without the expenditure of
any effort, money, or capital, without any justification except that the
power to enforce it and to extort it from the people has grown up under
the forms of law with the sanction of the courts. Three hundred mill-
ion dollars of annual taxation demanded, and in fact collected, from
the laboring classes of this country, and without any consideration, for
false and pretended uses of money, for that which would be a fraud in
a private individual, with the sanction of corporate power for abso-
lutely nothing in any just system of economy. - -
This vast sum of money, this annual tax of $300,000,000, must be
subtracted from the necessities of the people; it must be taken from .
that which otherwise, being the proceeds of their labor, would be ap-
plied by the people to furnish them with the comforts of life, with
houses for their shelter, with clothing and food for their families. Be-
fore any part of their labor can be paid, $300,000,000 must be taken
from it to be applied for the use and benefit of those who have given
nothing for it, on securities issued under the forms of law, placed upon
lines of transportation which in fact, by a law more inevitable than
human law, are an absolute necessity for the use of the people, and with
147
the power to impose this tax upon them to pay the interest upon these
securities. Can it he said that this great fact is not a pressing fact to
be used as a motive for the governinent of Senators? Can it be that
the people are to be thus oppressed by the use of the powers of Gov-
ernment, and no effort be made to relieve them 2
Shall we ignore the fact in any legislation on this subject that the rates
charged for transportation are to pay the interest upon fictitious and
pretended capital, upon money pretended to be used but not used, and
that to-day the labor of the country rests under a mortgage of $3,000,-
000,000 and an annual tax of between two and three hundred million
dollars, levied upon the poorest class of the people, upon all the peo-
ple, which must be paid before they can obtain anything from their
own labor for the education, the clothing, the feeding, or the shelter-
ing of their families 2
Mr. President, this fact is stated in the work of Mr. Poor on railroads.
It is stated that the capitalization of the railroads of this country ex-
ceeds the actual cost $3,700,000,000. I will not delay the Senate by
reading that which has been already read. I hold in my hand a speech
of the Hou, Mr. SPRINGER, of ſllinois, which elaborately investigates
these facts and proves conclusively from the record that this excessive
capitalization has been made a capitalization which is in fact nothing
but the use of the power conferred in these corporate franchises, to tax
the people by rates of transportation which are inevitable to pay what-
ever amount shall be regarded by them as proper for the interests of
these corporators, and for their personal wealth and aggrandizement.
It is therefore a most important fact for our consideration, as I have
said, that the people of this country are to-day paying, according to the
estimate of all the best authorities, an annual tax as great as that col-
lected by the National Government, the gross amount of which is equal
to and probably largely exceeds the entire taxation of the States, and
the National Government paying the interest upon money never used
but falsely pretended to have been used. How much that annual tax
affects the labor of this country is a question for consideration.
How much that annual tax of three hundred million dollars, to be
perpetuated under a mortgage of three thousand million dollars, is a
burden of indebtedness imposed upon the country and upon every man,
woman, and child is an object of public consideration which Senators
must consider for themselves. For one I can see in it nothing but the
ruin of the Republic. If it be permitted and is beyond the power of law,
that a corporation or creature of the law, either State or National, can
as a fact impose such a curse upon the industries of the country, I can
see no object in government, I can feel no pride in the great system of
government which we have. If its practical result is to impose on the
labor of the people by the exercise of the powers of the governments,
State and National, this vast annual tax without any consideration or
return, but only for the personal luxury of a few persons, and there is
no remedy for it, our efforts for the reduction of taxation, our declara-
tions of equal rights, of the value of republican government, are false
and mere pretenses.
I therefore assume as a fact that no legislation on interstate com—
merce should be made which perpetuates this annual tax of $300,000,-
000 upon the laboring people of this country in the shape of rates of
transportation. The complaint to be remedied is an excessive imposi-
tion of taxes, of charges, of rates upon the industries of this country,
and that is imposed and is legalized impliedly when we fail to require
that there shall be no money paid, no charges collected, so far as we
148
have authority in imposing or requiring reasonable rates except for
moneys actually expended and not falsely pretended to have been used.
Mr. President, does this conference report propose to meet this diffi-
culty 2 Does it propose to remedy it? Does it propose to touch the
great fact that $3,700,000,000, a sum so vast that it is almost beyond
our power to deal with, are now resting on the industries of this coun-
try and an annual tax of $300,000,000 for moneys falsely pretended to
have been used, but which were never used in the construction of these
highways? Is that the system of public policy which the people of
this country expect the Congress of the United States to legalize, or
to fail to remedy, for the one is equivalent to the other ?
It is quite evident that we cannot afford relief to this country in re-
ducing the rates of transportation so long as we permit rates to be
charged upon the people to pay an interest of two or three hundred
million dollars a year for moneys not used and not required to be used
in the construction, operation, and maintenance of the great highways
of transportation. If so, what do you mean by your law which prohibits.
discrimination? What is the evil of discrimination? It is that it ex-
torts improper sums of money from particular individuals and benefits
others by exempting them. It takes from the community at large and
gives to the individual discriminated in favor of. The burden of the
complaint is not that it enriches one, but that it deprives the other,
the individual, the mass of the community, of that which they have
a just right to, their earnings. The policy of the law would not object
to a man’s becoming rich by proper means, but the objection to the dis-,
crimination is that it impoverishes unjustly, by the exercise of a granted
power, the great body of the people.
What, then, is this discrimination which has issued $3,000,000,000
of bogus bonds, of excessive capitalization, and imposes $300,000,000
of actual taxation annually? -
These laws have granted a monopoly to tax the transportation, upon
the entire production and consumption of the people of this country,
all that is produced and all that is consumed except such small parts
of the whole as find their way to the markets for sale and delivery by
the great water-ways of the country. With that exception, which is
of comparatively limited amount, the entire transportation of this coun-
try is subject to the taxation of these great lines of railway transporta-
tion. It is the greatest power ever bestowed upon any individuals.
It is a power that is utterly inconsistent with republican government
unless limited, regulated, and restrained by law. The question is, how
shall we limit it, how shall we regulate it, how shall we restrain it?
The conference bill proposes to restrain it, not by requiring that rates
shall be reasonable only when imposed to pay the actual cost and op-
eration of these great highways and a reasonable interest upon the
amount actually expended but by impliedly licensing the increase of
these charges to meet any amount that may be demanded by the com-
pany. If in the course of these few years a mortgage of three thou-
sand million dollars, nearly as great as the whole war debt in the great
struggle between the States, has been created and an annual tax of
$300,000,000 imposed upon the labor of this country without any con-
sideration or value received, it is perfectly evident that you can have
no reasonable rates unless you establish some principle by which the
people shall not be taxed to pay money for nothing, but only to pay
interest upon money honestly expended to pay for cost of construction
and operation and a reasonable interest on the money used for these
purposes, not for that falsely pretended to be used.
*~, 149
But this bill provides that there shall be no discrimination in the
Imethod by which this large sum of money shall be raised from the
people. It does not say what shall be reasonable. It leaves it to the
courts to say what are reasonable rates. The courts have already sanc-
tioned this mortgage of three thousand million dollars upon the people
of this country for nothing, for falsely pretended sums of money, issued
in defiance of the purpose and spirit of the charters which never con-
templated anything more than an obligation to pay for money honestly
used and expended. This three thousand million dollars, this annual
tax of $300,000,000 upon the industry and labor of this country, is
licensed by judicial interpretation: is licensed by legislative sanction
impliedly. - -
Now, I ask the question: Of what avail is it to say that there shall
be no discrimination in the method in which this enormous and unjust
exaction upon the industries of this country shall be obtained? Cer-
tainly it is an evil, and ought to be prohibited. But if it be true that
$300,000,000 or $200,000,000 or $100,000,000 is levied upon the great
mass of the laboring people of this country—for it is they who pay it, it
is the production of the country that can pay, and that alone can pay,
this sum of money, for the consumption must be paid by the production.
It is the manufacturer’s production, the agricultural production, the
locomotion of the country; it is a tax which, like the gabelle, the salt
tax of France in the days of Richelieu and Mazarin, affects every human
being, except those who are exempted by favoritism. It is a tax which
comes upon the poor; it is a tax which is paid by the great body of the
people per capita, and comes from their labor more inevitably than
any human law, more certainly than any exaction made by public
authority. Here is power to tax given to transportation companies
over certain designated lines and areas of country. By necessary econo-
mies of business the whole production and consumption of the country
must pass over them, and be subject to their demands. We have seen
how it has been and is being used.
Mr. President, such a policy is impossible of continuance. No gov-
ernment, no people can stand a policy which accumulates the property
of the country without consideration or effort or value of any kind into
the hands of a few and impoverishes the many. It is not to the in-
terest of capital, it is not to the interest of corporations, it is not to the
interest of any one that this policy should be permitted to continue
until it excites the indignation and resentment of the people and con-
centrates the whole public opinion of the country into a policy adverse
to that enterprise and individual capacity, activity, and energy which
have been the great factors in the success of our affairs heretofore;
which have made us what we are. .
But yet I venture to say that the Senate will not undertake to look
into this question; I venture to say that this enormous sum of two or
three hundred million dollars annual tax for nothing but the misuse of
the powers granted, will be continued. The reasonable rates which this
bill undertakes to require shall be imposed, will be considered only as
reasonable to pay the interest upon such amounts as may be issued by
corporate authority and demanded by them.
For myself, I am in favor of that bill and that policy which will bring
cheap transportation to the people; that policy which will bring the
cheapest transportation consistent with a proper remuneration for the
money actually used, honestly and economically expended in the con-
struction of these great highways. *
I am aware that any legislation which will declare that reasonable
150
rates must be accepted upon the basis of money actually invested and
expended, and not upon the basis of that falsely pretended to be used,
will not now be tolerated by this body. But I at the same time know
that you will have no other legislation which will remedy this great
evil. I know that it is not in the nature of things that you can create
a power which may tax the people upon the transportation of all pro-
duction and all consumption, upon very coat they wear, every barrel
of flour and every pound of meat that are transported—you can not
create such a power either directly or indirectly—and then allow it to
be exercised to pay the interest upon vast sums of money—$3,000,000,-
000—which is falsely pretended to have been used and which has never
been expended in the construction of these highways or the operation
or maintenance of them, without gross injustice and oppression. -
Mr. President, if we say there is no power in the two great legisla-
tive bodies of this country to regulate that, we shall confess, then, that
so far as our interstate commerce is concerned we are without power
and that the bill is a delusion. - -
Now let us look a little further into this matter. We propose to pro-
hibit discrimination; we propose to declare in general terms that rates
shall be reasonable. We are told that is the common law doctrine.
Well, Mr. President, there is nothing in the common law or the civil
law which ever enacted that transactions which were unreasonable were
lawful. In every system of law there is a standard by which a trans-
action shall be judged, but that reasonable character depends upon the
opinions of the people of the country, the customs and the status of
right and wrong which prevail there. -
In our country you have a power given to finpose rates. You have an
exclusive right of transportation over certain designated lines and areas
of country. Whether it be a right thing by law or a practice which
has grown out of some other right, you have the power. It has be-
come the custom to consider that a reasonable rate is that which the
railroads charge to pay interest on the mortgage issued in pursuance of
law. It was issued by the authority conferred on the corporate body,
but it was in violation of the original purpose for which it was granted.
A debt was created without a consideration, issued for the purpose of
accumulating values and imposing burdens upon the production of the
country, in order that Some persons might be enriched without any
contribution of money, effort, time, or labor on their part.
There is, therefore, nothing in this bill to require the courts to say
that in transportation from one State to another that shall be reason-
able which shall be an honest return for money actually used and ex-
pended in the construction and maintenance of the road; that the rate
shall be fixed to pay the cost of the operation of the road and the in-
terest upon the money actually used and expended, and properly used
and expended, in its construction. I maintain that there is no other
rule; I maintain that no other rate can be a reasonable rate. There can
be no reasonable rate requiring payment of money in consideration of
money that was never expended. There can be no reasonable rate in
charging the production, which means the labor of the land; which
means the food and clothing of the people; which means to take from
the production, whether it be mechanical labor, manufacturing labor,
or agricultural labor, the cost of transportation before any part of it
can go for their clothing, their food, and their subsistence. There can
be nothing reasonable unless it be to pay the necessary, the economi-
cal, the proper cost of the construction of these highways, the cost of
sº
151
operating them, and the interest upon the money that was properly in-
vested and used. -
Mr. President, we have another provision; we have a provision that
there shall be no pools, no combinations, and we attach very great im-
portance to that. What is a pool 2 . It is simply an agreement that
the earnings derived from certain sources shall be accumulated and
shall be divided after they are earned. Those who own them agree to
their disposal; they are their property under the authority of State
laws, not by virtue of any act of Congress or any exercise of power here.
They are, as well as land, as well as houses, authorized by the law of
the State where the corporation is created; they become their private
property; they are their earnings. Now we propose to do what? We
propose to say that after these properties have been earned, after this
money has been acquired in pursuance of law, under the authority of
State law, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, those
who have earned them by virtue of the State law shall not be allowed
to dispose of them, either by gift or otherwise, as they shall see fit.
Mr. HARRIS. Would a suggestion interrupt the Senator?
Mr. CALL. Not at all.
Mr. HARRIS. I desire to suggest to the Senator from Florida that
of the railroad pools which have from time to time existed in this coun-
try some, not many, have been of the character he has just described.
The pool now in vogue, however, with railroads is not an agreement for
the division of the proceeds, but it is a pool to divide freight between
competing companies, which deprives the shipper of the right to con-
trol his own shipment. The pool says what road shall carry this thing
or that thing, so that each carrier has his due proportion under the
pooling contract of the freights that are to be carried between two com-
peting points. -
Mr. CALL. Well, Mr. President, let us take that view of the case;
let us suppose an agreement on the part of the companies carried out
in that way. When a man delivers a bale of cotton to a railroad com-
pany, and that railroad company has agreed with a certain other com-
pany that it shall ship that cotton, not by the line of road directed by
the shipper, but by some other line, am I to be told that there is no
law of the State which has created a common carrier within the limits
of that State which will say to that common carrier, “You shall take
one hundred bags of cotton on the line designated by the individual?”
What need have we for that species of law? What act of Congress do
we need to require a railroad company, a common carrier under public
law, to carry out the contract that it has made?
Mr. HARRIS. Will the Senator from Florida allow me to answer
the question?- - - ag
Mr. CALL. Certainly.
Mr. HARRIS. The reason, or one of the reasons, is simply this: If
you, Mr. President, have one hundred bales of cotton to ship, and desire
to select the company that you will consign them to for shipment because
of the fact that you know that company to be reliable and solid, and
that it can respond in damages for the loss of that cotton if by the meg-
ligence of the agents of the carrier it shall be destroyed, I think you
ought to have the right to determine as to what carrier shall carry it.
But if the pool may assign it to whatever railroad company it chooses,
it may assign it to a railroad company wholly insolvent and wholly un-
able to respond in damages for the damage that may result from the
negligence of the agents of the carrier.
Mr. CALL. Well, Mr. President, I do not think it is difficult to
{ 152
answer that proposition of my learned friend. The man who delivers
one hundred bags of cotton to any common carrier has a right to have
it carried by that carrier, and the law of its creation obligates it to do
it. If it is a responsible carrier, whether it carries it or not, it is re-
sponsible for any damages for not doing it. That is a subject of State
law and State authority. - -
Now, you propose to say in regard to the interstate commerce of the
country what? That the obligation created by the State law upon a
common carrier shall be enforced and carried into effect by a law of the
United States. The point of my remark in regard to that provision of
the bill is that if it is designed only to prohibit railroad companies
from diverting freight or agreeing to divert freight from other lines
than those designated in the contract of the shipper or forwarder, it
is a small object of public policy. If that is all that it does there is
already an adequate remedy provided. - -
This great bill, demanded by the people to reduce rates and forbid
discriminations, to make transportation equal, fair, and just, and fur-
nish the cheapest transportation that is possible consistent with a
proper compensation for money honestly used and really expended, is
made small by the proposition that we propose to prevent railroad
companies from directing freight from the line designated in the con-
tract of the shipper, for which there is already an ample remedy by
State law.
Mr. GEORGE. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him at that
point? , 3 Q
Mr. CALI. Yes, sir. - - * -
Mr. GEORGE. I understand the Senator to say that now pools are
prohibited by State law and that a United States law on the subject is
not necessary. What I desire to call his attention to is that as to in-
terstate commerce, over which, according to the Supreme Court of the
United States, Congress has jurisdiction. Is it an objection to a law
passed by Congress on the subject that it does really, as to that com-
merce over which alone it has jurisdiction, carry out and enforce the
law of the States of the Union ? -
Mr. CALL. That is not the point of objection to the proposition as
presented by the Senator from Tennessee. The point is that the State
law is abundant. If it is simply a question of diverting freight from
the line selected by the shipper there is no need for a national remedy.
The remedy is already abundant; the State law has already provided it.
Mr. GEORGE. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him again?
Mr. CALL. Certainly.
Mr. GEORGE. I understand that the Senator from Tennessee says
that notwithstanding the State laws these pool arrangements do exist
now all over this country and that the railroads are being operated
under them. Then it must be either that the State laws are unable to
put down the pooling arrangement as to interstate commerce or that
they are not homestly and properly administered. .
Mr. HARRIS. If the Senator from Florida and the Senator from
Mississippi will allow me, I would suggest that State legislation is
confined to State commerce. The States have no power and no means
to regulate interstate commerce or to regulate any pooling contract.
affecting interstate commerce. Congress alone possesses the power to
regulate interstate commerce or to regulate pools affecting interstate
commerce, if they are to be regulated by law at all, being the only leg-
islative body known to our institutions of government that has the
power to regulate that class of commerce.
153
Mr. GEORGE. The Senator from Tennessee may probably be right,
but I was undertaking to answer the Senator from Florida on the basis
on which he relied. * . -
Mr. CALL. I am very glad to obtain information from the Senator
from Mississippi or the Senator from Tennessee; but I apprehend that
neither of them will maintain the proposition that a man who orders
one hundred bags of cotton by one line of road from any city in the
United States, and under an agreement with that road and some other
road, instead of carrying out the contract which the law imposes on
the common carrier, it is shipped by some other line—I apprehend that
neither of them will say that the State law in the State where that con-
tract was violated is not operative and a remedy can not be provided
for its enforcement because it is interstate commerce. That is a viola-
tion of contract local to the place which the State would have juris-
diction over.
But, Mr. President, that is not the ground—though my friends as-
sume that—of this legislation against what? Against the right of a
person, artificial or natural—for it is the same—to dispose of the earn-
ings of his property with or without consideration. It is a singular
contrast that while the bill by implication sanctions and licenses the
extortion of $300,000,000 annually from the people of this country for
, money pretended and falsely pretended to have been used, it attacks
the disposition of it, and the right of persons, natural or artificial, to
dispose of their own property as they please. .
Mr. President, I doubt the efficacy of that remedy. I ask my friends
why they do not insert a provision in this bill, if it be a great public
evil that railroad companies divert freights from the line indicated by
the shipper to others, forbidding them from doing that ? Why not
forbid the pool from doing that if that is the great evil? Why not for-
bid and punish the abuse instead of the legitimate and proper use.
We are dealing with a vast subject; we are dealing with an actual
present grievance; we are dealing with an extortion of money without
consideration, without the sanction of any object of public policy, in
such vast sums that it is robbing the industry and enterprise of the
great mass of this people. It is accumulating the most magnificent
fortunes the world has ever seen, without the use of capital, in the
hands of a few persons. It is as much endowing them with wealth as
if enactments were made by the several States and the National Gov-
ernment that the people should pay out of the fund derived from the
ordinary and legitimate subjects of taxation these vast sums of two,
five, ten, twenty, fifty million dollars to an individual. It is just as
much a public act as if it was done by the direct enactment of the
Legislatures and Congress. -
We have had a great deal tead from various books as to the evils of
discrimination. I concur in all of them. It ought to be prohibited;
it is properly the subject of Congressional enactment. The railroads
should be forbidden to combine to discriminate unreasonably against
persons or places. That would cure that evil. -
Now the question is how far this general provision of the bill against
all combinations, how far this general provision of the bill establish-
ing an arbitrary rule of a long haul or a short haul, will answer the
purpose. The evil, let us bear in mind, is an unjust discrimination
between persons and places. The object sought to be obtained is the
cheapest transportation, equal, impartial, and fair to all the produc-
tions of the country, to all the transportation of the country—the
cheapest rate consistent with what? With the proper compensation
154
of the men who have constructed and who operate these highways, in-
cluding the cost of construction and maintenance. The evil we pro-
pose to remedy is excessive rates, unequal rates, unjust discrimination
between persons and places.
I acquiesce with whatever there is in this bill or in this report that
looks in this direction. I denounce so far as I am concerned this evil
as strongly as any can possibly do it; first, the extortion from the peo-
ple in rates of transportation of money before they have derived any
interest from their industries or production, the extortion from them
of money to pay for that which was never expended but falsely pre-
tended to have been expended. Second, the discrimination between
persons and places which has built up enormous fortunes in individuals,
ruined others, destroyed cities, built towns, corrupted judges, influenced
the politics of the country. All these evils I concur should be put an
end to. -
I desire that they shall be forbidden, but I do not see that the object
will be attained by a general provision that there shall be no such thing
as a combination or agreement between railroads to reduce rates, to
protect one against extinction, to prevent a line of railroad from being
deprived of such a portion of freights and such an amount of profit as
will enable it to continue. It is asserted that this is in the interest of
competition. Do you promote competition by destroying a line of
transportation ? These propositions I do not think can be sustained.
Then again in regard to the long haul and the short haul; take two
lines of railroad having the same terminal points of arrival and depart-
ure, the one diverging from the other, traversing a different country,
as most railroads do, traversing a country the productions of which are
not accessible to both, but having the same terminal points of depart-
ure and arrival, the one longer than the other, more expensive in its
construction than the other, necessarily more expensive in its opera-
tion. The long haul over the short line of road it being the rule that no
part of that line shall be used for a higher rate than that charged for
a greater distance, that there shall not be a greater charge for the short
distance than for the longer distance, the short line of road, the less
expensive road, may, under that rule, be enabled to adjust its local
freights, the changes upon its business in the country which is acces-
sible to it and which is not accessible to the other, upon a profitable
rate. -
The other road may not. It may be ruined. Who shall assume that
it will not be? Who shall say—by what argument will you elucidate
the proposition—that in all cases two roads, differing in cost, differing
in expense of operation, may be governed by this fixed rule with a fair
profit, sufficient to pay interest on the money actually expended in
its construction, its equipment, its operation? Who shall say that this
arbitrary rule will fill the measure of the honest necessities of both?
Again, what necessity is there for such a rule if you provide that
rates shall be reasonable, whether it be upon excessive capitalization
or not. If the rates be reasonable, why define that a reasonable rate
shall be that in which the charge for the short distance shall not ex-
ceed the rate for the long. I can not perceive by what argument this
long and short haul idea can be maintained in that relation. I acquiesce
in the fact, and I believe that in the majority of cases the margin al-
lowed is amply sufficient.
I can not see that it will do any great harm. I appreciate the force of
the fact, for facts are to be considered wherever they come from proper
authority. Whatever may be the disposition of men, if we have a fact,
155
and it comes from sources authorized to speak and well-informed, that
fact should have its weight and significance. The Senator from Cali-
fornia [Mr. STANFORD], familiar with this subject, the other day stated
the fact that upon the line of road in California, before there were any
other parallel lines, or limes having the same terminal points of de-
parture and arrival, the freights were apportioned on a certain basis—
the basis that 10 per cent of the business could bear a high rate and
90 per cent. a very small rate.
There is a great outcry here about pools. I am perfectly willing to
vote against pools, if necessary; but let us see what the facts are worth.
Because there are unjust discriminations, because pools or combina-
tions or agreements have been used for improper purposes, why shall
we say that no agreement shall be made, no combination shall be made 2
I undertake to say that the law here proposed in this aspect is an im-
possible one, and I will give my reasons for this opinion. %
But I was adverting to what the Senator from California had said.
He said that on the line of the road in California. 90 per cent. of the
freight was carried very low, being mining material and the agricult-
ural products of the country which could pay only a very small and
minimum rate, and that the great amount of the charge on that line
of road was on the other 10 per cent., which bore a vast proportion of
the charges in comparison with the 90 per cent. The 10 per cent. could
properly bear this great proportion of charge whether for short or long
distances, while the 90 per cent. of the freight could only bear the
minimum charge whether for a shorter or a longer distance; a greater
charge would destroy the profit to the owner and prevent its trans-
portation altogether. -
That was not interstate commerce, and this bill does not touch it;
it touches no commerce that is entirely within a State line. The ex-
tent of its benefit, therefore, will depend entirely on the proportion of
local consumption, of local production, of local transportation between
the lines of a State and those that pass outside, that pass from one
State into another, or two, or three. But that fact illustrates the
proposition that a reasonable rate must be imposed in reference to the
value of the thing transported, the value in the markets of sale and
delivery. You can not reach it otherwise.
The bill concedes the power of Congress, and that, I think, is its
great merit, for I maintain the power of Congress to regulate this ques-
tion. I think that as the Republic has grown and these vast interests
have developed, it is necessary for the protection of capital, for the
protection of the vast interests which have passed into the hands of
these corporations, for the protection of the people; it is in the interest
of both that Congress should wisely exert the power of regulating the
transportation and the rates of transportation, not in detail, but pre-
scribing general principles. Shall Congress say, by exercising the
power to regulate that transportation which passes from one State to
another, that rates shall be imposed to pay two or three or four hun-
dred millions of dollars a year for money falsely pretended to have
been used ? Shall Congress fail to provide that rates imposed for this
purpose shall not be reasonable rates; and, instead, declare that no
greater charge shall be imposed for a short distance than for a longer
one over the same line, the shorter being included in the longer dis-
tance, and that agreements between railroad companies to divide their
earnings or to ship freight on one or the other line shall be prohibited,
and will this produce the cheapest transportation possible to the people?
Well them, I say, having digressed to indicate my opinion on that
&
156
* {
subject, that I maintain the power of Congress, which this bill de-
clares, and I support it in that respect and also its provision that a
reasonable rate shall be required. Now, how can we get that reason-
able rate? What is a reasonable rate 2 Upon what principle shall we
define it * As between the rates of freight—we will say from New
York to Chicago or a rate of freight from Chicago to New York and
local rates—what shall be the principles on which you will determine
the reasonable rate as between the through and local freights along the
line of transportation ? We must ascertain that.
The bill proposes to do it by laying down a general provision prohibit-
ing discriminations—prohibiting pools. Now, I take it, that may be ap-
proached in another way. The reasonable rate must, of course, pro-
vide for a return to those who have constructed the road with labor,
with money, to the laborer you may say, or to the men who have com-
bined to manage the labor, or to the capitalist. It must make a return
to him for the labor which he has actually used. That certainly must
be the first element; otherwise you can not have such organization,
such construction, such line built and operated. In paying that road,
therefore, the cost of transportation of everything carried upon it must
be ascertained and paid by the thing that is carried.
The business must pay the actual cost ; each article must pay its own
actual cost. It is manifestly improper that one class of business should
pay the expense of carrying another. It is manifestly impossible that
a bushel of wheat raised 10 miles from the city of New York should
pay the cost of transporting a bushel of wheat grown in Kansas. The
New York man has no right to claim that he shall have a monopoly.
The Kansas man has no right to claim that the interstate commerce of
the country shall be so adjusted as to make another man pay the cost
of transporting his bushel of wheat from Kansas to New York. It is,
therefore, a first principle that there must be such equality of rates as
is possible. -
In the cost of transportation shall we assume always that the cost
of transporting an article for a longer distance is as great or greater
than the cost of transporting it a shorter distance? That is a question
of practical detail. It may be, as I have stated, that a car having to
travel a whole line, the cost being the same whether it is filled or un-
filled, may make in that detail the one less costly than the other; but it is
certainly true that in the adjustment of these rates they must not be so
adjusted as to make one community, one locality, either the termial
or the intermediate point, pay for the cost of transporting the produc-
tions of the other. It is our duty to consider and provide, if possible,
some method, some principle by which this result shall be avoided and
to be careful that we do not give the force of law to principles and
methods which increase the rates of transportation; but, on the con-
trary, that we make them, by our action, as low as possible, and uni-
form and equal in all industries and places.
I take it that result would not be difficult to arrive at by apportion-
ing the cost according to the value of the article at the market of de-
livery. Having first charged the actual cost upon every article trans-
ported over a line of road, which is the first principle of justice and the
first necessary principle of economy, it would not be unfair nor imprac-
ticable to apportion the remainder, the remuneration of the carrier,
according to the value of the thing delivered, the reasonable and just
remuneration bearing equally upon the value of the thing delivered
after paying the actual cost of transportation.
But it is very evident that the provisions of this bill in respect to
157
pooling are very vague and general. I acquiesce in all that may be
said in regard to unjust and unfair discriminations. There shall be no
improper discrimination between the same classes of freight under like
circumstances. That affords a wide margin of difference. However,
I am anxious to arrive at something practical. I am anxious to have
the Senate submit to the country the idea in the form of law that trans-
portation must be made as cheap as is consistent with the proper re-
muneration of the honest capital honestly expended in the construction
of these great highways.
In these days, when there is a spirit abroad in the country question-
ing the expediency of the systems of economy which permit and en-
courage accumulations, which reward individual activity and enter-
prise, when the power of combination is so great in all the elements of
the country, when public opinion can so easily, in classes or sections of
the people be concentrated, and there are so many and powerful incen-
tives to a public opinion adverse to the policies which encourage indi-
vidual activity and enterprise, which have been the great factors in our
success heretofore, I am anxious that some rule shall be adopted which
will be just to both, which will protect capital, which will protect in-
dividual enterprise and a reasonable accumulation, and at the same
time bear upon the great mass of the community with great lightness,
impose no additional burdens and make transportation, which is the
great avenue for the return of compensation to the labor of the country,
as cheap as is possible.
This can only be done, not by prohibiting any and all discrimina-
tions, but by severely prohibiting improper discriminations, discrim-
inations which are not in the interest of reducing the total cost of
transportation, and the terms in which this should be done will have
to be very carefully considered. It will produce discrimination, un-
equal and oppressive discrimination, to say that all freights shall be
carried alike. It will produce it to say that there shall be collected
from the people of the country, as a reasonable rate, money to pay for
that which has never been used. It may produce it by fixing one ar-
bitrary rule alike for all roads that freights, whether of one value or
another, shall not, when passed from one State to another, pay more for
a shorter than a longer distance, however reasonable it may appear.
If it were possible to apply and enforce a law that there should be no
agreements between railway companies either to divide earnings or to
divide business, it might increase discriminations, and at the same
time impose greater burdens on the country.
You can not avoid discriminations in any other way than by pre-
scribing a general principle, first, that no money shall be taken in
rates or charges upon the interstate commerce of this country to pay
for anything but the reasonable and proper cost of the operation of a
road, for the cost of its construction, its equipment, and a just remu-
neration for the money actually expended. You can not reach the result
in any other way; and when you come to apportion these elements be-
tween the local rate and the freight at the terminal points you must
do it, first, upon the principle of compensation or payment of the actual
cost of transportation of the thing transported, whatever it is, and,
secondly, that it shall pear, according to its value in the markets of sale
and delivery, its proportion of the compensation, of the interest, of the
fixed charges, or whatever phrase you may choose to use in connection
with it.
Living in a terminal State, while I am in favor of going much ſurther
than this bill goes, while I am willing to vote for a law which shall de-
*.
158
clare that the rate is only reasonable which shall be imposed to pay for
money actually and not falsely pretended to be used, while I am will-
ing to vote for a law which shall prohibit, under penalties, unjust
discriminations, which shall make all discriminations subject to the
authority and supervision of the National Government or officers ap-
pointed by it, while I am willing to vote to define that discrimination
in the clearest and most positive terms, while I am entirely opposed to
making what is called local business, or short hauls, or the points which
are intermediate between terminal points, or which are non-competitive
pay the cost of transporting the products of the terminal countries—
while in regard to all this class of business I am entirely opposed to
any and every system which shall make them pay the cost of trans-
porting through business, and am willing to vote for such provisions, I
think they should be modified and clearly addressed to the question,
and that in cases where it is the interest of the local business that
through freights should be carried at smaller rates, it ought to be so
allowed and so provided for.
I submitthe question to Senators who have considered this great sub-
ject, what, advantage is it to the men living along a line of road that
there shall be no through business over it, although the through busi-
mess carried over it should be done at smaller rates than the cost of
transporting any part of its business over the shorter line? Of what
advantage is it? Does not every pound of through business add that
much to the profits of the road? Do not the greater profits of the road
enable it always to decrease the rates on local business? We are not
inquiring now what they do, or what their practice is, but what the
necessary economy in the matter is; what the effect of additional busi-
mess is; whether a railroad company will not be enabled to reduce local
freights by having through businSSS that will pay, although it does not
pay as much for the longer distance as local freights do for a shorter
distance. The only real object or benefit in such case is that both
through business and local business shall, in the aggregate, pay their
reasonable share of the expense and profit. -
If that be so, it would be within the province of law, in imposing a
reasonable rate, to say that the reasonable rate should be fixed accord-
ing to the gross amount; that it should not exceed, but go down in a
descending scale, according to the profits received. But it is not true
as a proposition that the local business, the intermediate country, the
short haul, is benefited by excluding, by any means whatever, the
through business, no matter at what or how small a cost it may be
carried over a road.
Mr. GEORGE. If carried at a loss 2 - -
Mr. CALL. The question whetherit is carried at a loss will involve
several different elements. The specific article may be carried at a loss
in the individual cases. The bulk of the articles may not be carried
at a loss. Of course, if in general terms all the through business is
carried at a loss then unquestionably the local business has to pay it.
But you provide a rule by which you say that in all cases this through
business is carried at a loss to the injury of the intermediate shipper,
the local man, because he has to pay more for carrying it 10 miles or
a hundred miles than the through business pays for carrying it 500 miles
or the whole distance.
I say there is no foundation for that proposition. It is unknown.
It is one that can not be sustained. It rests upon quantities and ele-
ments which nobody can ascertain and nobody can determine, but it
is peculiar to each particular case. r
159
I desire to say that it is no remedy for these evils. I desire to say
that it is no triumph to those who desire that the interstate commerce
of this country shall be regulated and that transportation shall be
made as cheap as possible, with a just system of economy in the oper-
ation, maintenance, and compensation for money actually and honestly
used in the construction of these highways. For myself, I do not want
any half-way or halting measures on this subject, nor to be drawn away
by them from the great fact that we are only providing methods by
which this vast amount of over three thousand millions of dollars, for
which no consideration and no value has ever been given, shall be
freed from the labor and products of the people with the least amount
of inequality and oppression. -
Now, Mr. President, we come to another proposition, which I think
is the great crowning feature of this bill, and which receives my most
hearty commendation. With so powerful an agency as this the abuses
of power by which it has created all the great evils which the Senators
from Kentucky and Texas [Mr. BECK and Mr. COR E] referred to in their
speeches, with a power of collecting greater revenues than the Federal
Government, with its nine hundred million or its one thousalid million
dollars of annual tax levied as its gross earnings upon the labor of this .
country, upon the food and clothing of this country, upon the comforts
of the laborers of this country, with its vaster power of annual taxation
than all the States possess, with its between three and four thousand
million dollars of fraudulent debts, fraudulent not in the terms of the
law, but in fact issued upon false pretenses, because it has the power to
tax the people for it. With this vast power it is evident that no citizen
can obtain any right by litigation. Assuming, which is not always
the case, that the judge is incorruptible: assuming that he is not influ-
enced by the political, the social, the professional considerations which
those who represent this great power are able to cast around him;
assuming that he is not mercenary and venal—and there are many
cases, I am afraid, in which the facts would justify condemnation and
conviction of persons occupying this high station in these relations;
assuming all that to be true, supposing the judge to be honest, incor-
ruptible, wise, and learned, our system of law, and any system of law,
and every system of law belonging to modern times will enable natural
or artificial persons of vast wealth to maintain an endless litigation.
What is the citizen to do when deprived of his right, when his prop-
erty is taken from him, when excessive rates are imposed upon him,
when an interest in his neighbor's business is taken by a great trans-
portation company, his freights delivered at lower eharges, when his
town property is destroyed by the building of another town, by estab-
lishing a depot, because they have been paid to leave his place of busi-
ness and the natural place of delivery of trade and build their depot
elsewhere two or three or four miles from the town, as I have seen
done, and as is frequently done? What is he to do? Sue in the courts?
Such a suit is useless; it is beyond his means. He is entirely at their
mercy; he has no rights. Very often the men who own the stock of
these corporations, broad-minded, liberal-minded men, merchant princes
of finance and commerce, have no knowledge of the manner in which
these roads are operated. The shipper is completely at the mercy of
the management of the road. How is he to be protected? The bill
provides, I think, a great remedy. It provides that the power of this
great Government, that the power of the people's President, their ex-
ecutive, their representative, directly responsible every four years to
them and amenable to their servants in the Senate and in the House
16()
of Representatives for his official conduct, shall be charged with the
duty of defending and prosecuting and protecting that right of the
humblest citizen.
I regard this as the great and crowning feature of the bill, the ap-
pointment of these commissioners, themselves amenable to the Presi-
dent, the President amenable to the people for their official and per-
Sonal responsibility in the administration of this great trust, the great-
est and most important possessed by his office in time of peace. He is
charged with the duty, under this bill, of protecting the humblest citi-
Zen, and I commend the bill in this respect; it excuses many defects
and many shortcomings. -
I am inclined to vote for the bill notwithstanding the objections I
have pointed out, but I would prefer, if it were possible, that it should
be further considered by the conference committee. I would prefer
that these provisions should be modified. I believe that it is true of
this long and short haul provision that it is useless, and perhaps in-
jurious, and that it is a mere definition of what is a reasonable rate. I
think that provision of the law (although the commission has the right
to supersede it, to set it aside in cases where it presses hardly) might
operate injuriously at times. - ' ,
Take, for instance, the State I represent. There are many lines of
road having the same terminal points of départure and arrival connected
as lines with other lines, the Coast Line, the Kenesaw Line.' I see the
enterprising Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company have just opened a
line now by the Kenesaw route into Florida and Louisiana.
Take these different lines of road diverging and traversing different
distances, at a very great difference of cost of operation, and very great
difference of cost of construction, some going by Pensacola, some going
by Macon, Ga., others going by Charleston, Savannah, Richmond,
Washington, and following the coast line, others going by Cincinnati,
the Pennsylvania Central, and the Baltimore and Ohio. These differ-
ent lines of road are all used by our people. They make their rates of
freight, in one sense of the word, under a certain degree of competition;
that is, they know that if they do not agree upon some basis which is
reasonable to the people, one or the cheapest line will be preferred. But
this provision of the law in regard to long and short hauls may place the
whole traffic in the power of the shortest line. .
So far as pools operate to prevent a reasonable rate on either or all of
these several lines they are very objectionable. I am willing to legis-
late that they shall not combine for any unreasonable rate that would
be wrong, but what do we do when we say now that none of these lines
of roads shall impose on this interstate commerce from the State of
Florida coming along any part of that line a higher rate for the short
distance than for the long one 2 I do not know, you do not know,
whether that specific sum will be the sum that will enable some of those
lines to do any part of the business. You do not know but that the
shortest line may be enabled to do the carriage profitably under this
rule and that the longer lines can not. - * -
Representing a terminal State, approving the policy of the bill, the
spirit of the bill, objecting most earnestly as I do to the implied legal-
ization of the bill of $3,000,000,000 of fraudulent debt upon the people
of this country and $300,000,000 of annual taxation for nothing, ob-
jecting to legalizing this enormous and oppressive taxation upon the
people, I still approve the policy, the great features of the measure, and
expressing my dissent upon these subjects I now expect to give the bill
ultimately my support; but I should prefer and I should vote for its
161
further consideration upon these points by the committee of conference
if there was or shall appear to be any reasonable probability of a mod-
ification of its provisions, and of action at this session; but I am sat-
isfied that every interest of the people and of the railway corporations
themselves demand that the power of Congress should be asserted and
exercised over them in respect to the interstate commerce of the country.
I have omitted some quotations which I have here, and I simply ask
the privilege of inserting them.
FROM “THE RAILWAYS AND THE REPUBLIC,” By J. F. HUDSON.
The effect of stock inflation upon the financial interests of investors is more
direct and vast than its bearing upon the shipping interests of manufacturers,
merchants, and producers. Although the latter is our special subject in this
work the importance of the former question warrants this sketch of the finan-
cial evils of fictitious values. In fine, this practice of creating securities in ex-
cess of actual values has, by one method or another, imposed upon investors a
volume of fictitious stocks and bonds more than double the amount of the na-
tional debt. According to the estinate of the most widely acknowledged sta-
tistical authority upon railways, through the methods of sale or hypothecation,
$3,700,000,000 of purely paper values have been sold to the public.
The creation of these fictitious securities has sometimes been so open and
notorious that the successful sale of them seems to indicate eagerness to be
cheated on the part of the public. In other cases the methods used have been
so secret and so plausible that it has been almost impossible for the legitimate
investor to detect them. In the end the false values have been so mingled with
the real, and the fraudulent investments made to bear so close a resenblance to
the lionest ones, that at the present time the greater part of the railway securi-
ties of this country are clouded by the suspicion of illegitimacy. In the pres–
ence of this mass of falsehoods and pretenses, imitating real investments, it is
not strange that a period of public credulity should be followed by a period of
general suspicion, when none of these doubtful investments are trusted ; but it
is strange that another period of credulity should come, allowing new inflations
and fresh issues of fictitious capitalization. Suspicion is the natural and legiti-
mate condition while such practices are possible.
The gigantic wrong upon investors, perpetrated in the creation of this $3,700,-
000,000 of fictitious railway investments, is one of the most serious and unanswer-
able counts in the indictment against the railway kings. Besides this imposition
on the confidence of the public, the practice of stock inflation reacts disastrously
upon legitimate railway interests. The loss which this wanton violation of pub-
lic confidence inflicts upon the railways themselves, is apparent in the rate of
interest, which they must pay on their bonded debt. If the bonds of the rail-
ways were confined to one-half the actual and honest cost of construction, they
would be eagerly sought for at 4 per cent.; and in that case $72,000,000 would
have sufficed to pay the interest charges in 1884. This would have left from the
net earnings of that year $196,000,000 as net profits instead of the $91,000,000 re-
alized under the rule of inflation; so that the second count in the indictment,
against stock inflation is that it has for several years inflicted an annual loss
upon the honest share-holders of the railways exceeding a hundred millions a
year. . * , sº : st $: s:
Although the charge was made against the Reagan bill that this section re-
quires rates to be strictly in proportion to distance, every leading advocate of
railway reform recognized the folly and uselessness of such requirement. The
provision as to long and short hauls in the Reagan bill is the best that can be
done by that kind of regulation; but its failure to afford any rennedy for a vast
multitude of discriminations shows the weakness of the scheme. These in-
equalities must be left unchecked until legislation finds a way to give free play
to the laws of trade, which will determine rates with unerring justice.
To show how easily an arrangement with much more than the power
of an agreement or pool may be made, I read from a speech of Hon.
WILLIAM M. SPRINGER a statement of what was actually done:
THE PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY.,
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company owns a majority of the stock of what is
called the “Pennsylvania Company,” an organization chartered by the State of
Pennsylvania, April 7, 1870, for the purpose of managing, in the interest of the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the railroads running west from Pittsburgh,
and the connecting lines thereof, extending west and south, lately owned, leased,
I S C 11
162
and operated by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company. The capital stock of
this railroad ring monopoly is $12,000,000, of which $8,000,000 is owned by the
Pennsylvania Railroad Company. . Of course, Col. Thomas A. Scott is presi-
dent. This Pennsylvania Company owns, leases, and operates, in the aggre-
gate, 2,512 miles of railroad, including the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago,
468 miles; Erie and Pittsburgh, 100 miles; Cleveland and Pittsburgh,228 miles;
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Saint Louis, 201 miles; Little Miami, Columbus and
Xenia, 197 miles; Columbus, Chicago and Indiana Central, 587 miles; Jefferson-
ville, Madison and Indianapolis, 210 miles; Cincinnati and Muskingum Valley,
194 miles; Indianapolis and Vincennes, 117 miles, and Saint Louis, Vandalia and
Terre Haute, 165 miles. - ſ
The same company also owns a half interest in the Indianapolis and Saint
Louis Railroad Company, 261 miles. Here is presented an interesting question
for statesmen and courts to consider, namely: What right has the Legislature
of Pennsylvania to incorporate a company for the purpose of operating rail-
roads in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and other States of the Union? We have heard
the right of Congress to do such a thing seriously questioned. But what shall
be said of the assumptions of one State to control the railroads of all the other
States? The Pennsylvania Company is the newest evolution of railroad mo-
mopoly. Its assumptions of power should havé alarmed the whole country. It
is the beginning of a system of national railroad consolidation, under the pre-
tended power of a State incorporation. There is nothing to hinder the Penn-
Sylvania Company from controlling all the railroads in the Union if it may do
lawfully, what it now assumes to do, and is doing. The receipts of this giant
corporation for the year 1872 were $31,000,000, the operating expenses were nine-
teen millions, and the net earnings were eleven millions. The capital stock of
this company is only twelve millions, and the net earnings for one year are
eleven millions ! Oh! for a power in Legislatures, in Congress, in any place,
that can regulate this corporate monstrosity . It doth bestride the middle con-
timent like a Colossus, having one foot on the upper Ohio at Pittsburgh, the
other on the banks of the Mississippi at Saint Louis, while its huge arms em-
brace the great lakes of the North—verily, a modern Colossus of Rhodes.
The Pennsylvania Railroad, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, 355 miles, and the
Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, 468 miles, together, form one of
the through trunk lines from Chicago, to the East, a distance of 823 miles. The
Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne road and equipments are reported to have cost,
January i, 1873, $35,835,285.71, or at the rate of $76,571 per mile. The aggregate
Tiabilities on the whole line, between Chicago and Philadelphia. amount to
$152,494,109.79, or at the of $185,292.96 per mile. It needs no argument to show
the vast amount of financial water in this exhibit. Rifty thousand dollars per
mile, or $41,000,000 ought, if honestly expended, to have been sufficient to have
built and equipped the whole line. This shows that there are $111,000,000 of
watered stock and fictitious values to be supported on this trunk-line, from
Chicago to Philadelphia, or at the rate of $135,000 per mile. If it is alleged that
this is not watered stock, I would ask, “What is it?” .
I care nothing about names. I am dealing with facts. The fact I desire to
make known is this: That the railroad from Chicago to Philadelphia via Fort
Wayne and Pittsburgh, is loaded down with liabilities to the annount of $152,-
494,109.79, or $185,292.96 per mile; when an honest expenditure of $41,000,000, or
$50,000 per mile, would build and equip the road. The difference, one hundred
and eleven millions, is a charge upon the products of the West. Every bushel
Qf grain that is raised in the West and Northwest is lessened in value by reason
of this mountain of watered stock and inflated bonds.
: > :: :}; ;: : *:
If the railroad companies would relinquish their demands for remuneration
upon their fictitious values, and manage their roads with economy, we would
have no further complaints about unreasonable rates or unjust discriminations.
Railroad tariffs that would pay reasonable running expenses, and 7 per cent.
upon actual cost of road and equipment, would be cheerfully paid by all the
people. Therefore the present war upon the railroads is a war upon watered
stock, bogus bonds, and extravagant management. The issue must not be mis-
taken for opposition to railroads generally. We are ready to concede all that
is claimed in reference to the thousand and one benefits railuoads have been to
the country. We need more roads than we have, and more will be built. All
new enterprises will receive the support and encouragement of the people.
They do not oppose the building of new roads, or the honest management of
existing lines. .
WHAT THE PEOPLE DEMAND.
But the people do insist, and will continue to insist— -
1. That no tolls shall be exacted to pay dividends upon watered stock, or in-
terest upon fictitious bonds.
2. That railroad management shall be economical.
3. That exorbitant salaries shall be cut down.
4. That the tariffs shall be reasonable.
163
5. That there shall be no unjust discriminations. .
6. That passengers and p. operty shall be carried as safely and expeditiously
as possible.
7. That railroads shall contribute their just portion of taxes.
8. That there shall be no more Credit Mobilier rings or bogus construction
companies.
à That there shall be no more land grants or bond subsidies to railroads:
£l Il
10." That corporations, as well as the people, shall obey the laws of the lit nd.
This is the decalogue of the people! -
I LLINO IS CENTRAT, IRA II, W A Y.
The Illinois Central Railroad has been peculiarly successful as an investment
to its owners. There have been several “ distributions of stock ’’ pro rata annong
the stockholders, and, in addition to this the land grant, announting to 2,595,000
acres, the company had realized on the 1st of January, 1873, in sales and advance
interest, the munificent sum of $24,824,333.33, or for the whole length of the road
(705 miles) an average of $35,211 per mile. In October, 1858, and January, 1862,
dividends were paid in scrip, since converted into stock, to the amount of $1,-
772,270. And in August, 1865, there was a “ distribution of stock '' to the amount
of 10 per centum, amounting to $2,119,931. And in August, 1868, there was an 8
per cent. distribution, amounting to $1,881,100. To recapitulate, the stock water-
ings and land subsidy were as follows:
Total waterings (as above)............................................................... $5,773, 301 00
Sales of land, including advance interest........................................ 24, 824, 333 33
Total waterings and subsidy......................................... ...... ~- - - - - - - 30, 597, 634 33
Total waterings and subsidy, per mile............... * - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - 43, 400 S9
The total cost of construction, as reported by the company, January 1. 1873,
announted to $34,061, 196.56, being an average cost per mile of $48,331.75. If we
deduct from this latter sunn the amount of stock waterings and subsidies per
mile, it will leave but $4,930.86 as the actual sum per mile that the owners of the
Illinois Central Railroad have expended over and above their receipts in the
building and equipment of their road . These estimates do not include the value
of the unsold lands of the company. On the 1st of January, 1873, there remained
of the land grant, not sold, 344,368 acres, worth perhaps $15 per aere, or the sum
of $5,165,520. This a mount should be added to the sum already realized for the
sales of land, including advance interest. The total wintered stock and land
grant would then aggregate the enormous sum of $35,763. 154.33. This sum ex-
ceeds the whole cost of construction, as reported by the company, by the sum of
$1,701,957.77. Virtually, then, the State of Illinois and the General Government
Thave given the Illinois Central Railroad Company a line of road 705 nmiles in
length, and a bonus of nearly $2,000,000.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, on two former occasions I have dis-
cussed the questions involved in the present controversy at very con-
siderable length, and I do not desire to reproduce all that I said on those
occasions, or to take up any considerable part of the time of the Senate
in this discussion. The two most objectionable portions of the report
of the committee on conference are found in what is known as the long
and short haul and the provision against pooling. -
The discussion upon the long and short haul provision of the report
has already demonstrated that the friends of the bill differ among them-
selves as to its true meaning, and the opponents of the bill are at a loss
to give it the correct interpretation. It is uncertain, indefinite, and
doubtful in its meaning.
I do not propose to attempt to interpret it, nor does any living man,
I presume, know what the interpretation will be. I think, however,
that the practical result will not be doubtful. From the very neces-
sity of the case the railroads will be compelled to retain their present
rates on local freights, or on the short haul, as they can not relinquish
them and keep out of bankruptcy, and as goods must not be transported
over the long haul for less money than the railroads demand for the
short haul, the result will be an increase of the freights upon the long
haul, which will very seriously cripple the interchange of commodities
between distant sections of our common country.
164
After this act goes into operation corn will not, in future, be carried
from Kansas City to Atlanta at the low rate heretofore prevailing, nor
will bacon, or beef, or pork be carried from Chicago to Charleston at
the rates heretofore adopted. The increase in rates on the long haul
will necessarily, to that extent, cripple the business of the country and
diminish its volume and it will leave less of profit to the Western pro-
ducer. Goods will not be shipped from Boston, or New York, or Phil-
adelphia, to the Southern cities at as low a rate as has heretofore pre-
wailed, and to that extent the business of the country must be crippled.
So far as the South, whose mineral development is now remarkable,
is concerned, we shall be badly crippled by the increase of the freight
for the transportation of our productions, from the mines of Georgia,
Tennessee, and Alabama to the Western and Northern cities.
I do not desire to predict evil, but I feel that I can not be mistaken
when I state that this bill when put into operation will derange both
the internal and foreign commerce of this country to an extent hereto-
fore unparalleled. It will greatly cripple our foreign trade by deny-
ing to the railroad companies, the long transportation lines, the right
to carry the productions of the West, for instance, to New York at a
lower rate when intended for exportation to Europe or other foreign
country than the rate charged for like freights for consumption in New
York. If the railroad companies are compelled to carry all the produce
moved by them at the rate charged for that which is carried for exporta-
tion abroad, they can not.live at it. :
By retaining the higher prices for what is carried for home consump-
tion, they can carry at a very small profit that which is intended to be
sent abroad and still not lose money. Indeed, they can make some-
thing and do it, as the fixed expense of the company is first paid; and
the company, if it continues to do business, is obliged to put the rates
high enough to pay the fixed expense; but after that is done it can
carry additional freights at a lower rate and still make money, and it
is their ability to do this which has built up so rapidly our foreign
trade.
But I may be told that the fourth section of the proposed act pro-
vides that, on application, the commission, in special cases, after inves-
tigation, is authorized to permit a railroad company to charge less for
Ionger than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers
or property. º
This provision, it is true, gives the commission power to discrim-
inate between the different railroad companies, and to relieve one from
the provisions of the law denying to it the right to carry freights a
longer distance for less money, while it refuses to relieve another which
may chance to be the competitor of the company which is relieved by
the favor of the commission. In other words, the proviso in the fourth
section of this act arms the commission appointed by the President,
under the authority conferred by the act of Congress, with a greater
power than that which is wielded by any sovereign in Europe where
anything like constitutional government prevails. Indeed, the Czar
of Russia could not have a more arbitrary power. -
The commission in its discretion bas the power to suspend the law
in case of one railroad company and to refuse to suspend it in case of
another railroad company located by the side of the one relieved if it
chooses to do so, and there is no appeal from its decision. As the other
provisions of the bill arm the commission with unusual powers, proba-
bly it is not inconsistent that its powers should culminate in discrimi-
nation made absolutely dictatorial between the different companies at
165
its own good pleasure. This provision looks like the committee in
draughting the bill had laid down a rule so arbitrarv and so dangerous
to the commerce of the country that it was necessary to give some tri-
bunal the power to suspend the law and thus prevent the ruinous con-
sequences resulting from its enactment and enforcement, and in doing
so they confer upon the commission the absolute power of discrimina-
tion between companies by relieving one from a portion of the law and
leaving another to its rigid enforcement.
Now, Mr. President, a few words on the subject of pooling.
Practical experience has demonstrated to those who have been charged
with the management of long railroad lines that unbridled competi-
tion always results in ruin to the railroad company and in the absolute
loss of the money invested by the stockholders of the company, while
it results in no good to the public or to those who temporarily receive
the benefits of the ruinously low rates. What the mercantile com-
munity wants more than anything else is reasonable rates on goods
shipped, which are uniform, equal, and just. Rates that are stable,
so that each merchant who goes to purchase his stock of gºods knows
in advance the rates he must pay, and knows that his competitor in
business will pay exactly the same rate charged upon his goods.
Take two large mercantile houses in Atlanta, one conducted by John
Jones and the other by John Smith; each purchases largely in New
York, and each sells a large amount of goods per annum. The profits
of these houses are made up of a very small per cent. upon the large
amount of goods sold. The advantage of 50 cents a hundred pounds on
the freight from New York to Atlanta given to one and denied to the
other would be an almost ruinous discrimination. If railroad com-
panies are not permitted to pool their business they will every now and
then patch up a truce and agree each to maintain the same rates between
given points. This agreement is not apt to last long until one thinks
the other has violated it, and both cut loose. They then bid against
each other, and the freight goes down, down to a ruinous rate.
Say that Jones goes to New York to purchase a stock of goods; he
finds the railroads maintaining rates, and $1 per 100 pounds from New
York to Atlanta is the best he can get. He pays it, and ships his goods.
Ten days afterwärd the railroads have gone into a war, and they are
cutting rates.
At this period, Smith goes to New York and buys a large stock. He
goes to the general freight agent of one of the lines, and asks for a re-
duction of rates. The agent says, we are cutting rates; I will give you
a rate of 75 cents a hundred on your goods to Atlanta. Smith goes over
to the general freight agent of a competing line, and makes the contract
for 50 cents per 100 pounds. He ships a large stock. Jones also shipped
a large stock. Smith paid 50 cents per hundred; Jones paid $1 a hun-
dred. This makes the profits uncertain. It makes the competition
between merchants unfair; it unsettles values, destroys business, and
does infinite harm to business men and other shippers.
Now if the railroad companies between New York and Atlanta had
been pooling their freights at the time, they would probably have main-
tained a rate say of 75 cents a hundred, and it would have been uniform
over all the lines as between all the customers of the different lines.
Which would be best for the commerce of the country, this fitful
fighting, and now and then patching up a truce, or the steady regular
rates adopted under the pooling system 2
Pooling has been found the best means of maintaining reasonable
rates and making them steady and uniform, while the pooling injures
166
}
no shipper, unless it may be the one who hopes by making his purchases
in the midst of a railroad war when rates are at the bottom, to get the
advantage over his neighbor. Other portions of your bill make it highly
penal for railroad companies to charge an unreasonably high rate, or an
extortionate rate. When you require all railroads to carry at a rea-
sonable rate then how does it interest the public whether the freights.
be divided among them under the pooling principle, or whether the
goods be carried at that rate without a pool? : -
The object of the authors of this provision, I presume, is to turn
loose all the railroads in fierce competition with each other, with a
view of getting freights down at a lower rate. In that the friends
of the bill will be greatly mistaken. Pooling prevents consolidation
and monopoly. Unbridled competition produces absolute consolida-
tion and monopoly, and in railroading there is no escape from it. You
may ask me how it produces this result. Experience answers. Say
there are three competing lines between two given points or cities. If
these lines carry at reasonable rates and pool the business, the rates.
will be steady and uniform. If they are not permitted to pool, and
are thrown loose for unioridled competition, they will soon run to the
point where the weakest one of the three will be unable to sustain it-
self, and not being able to meet its engagements it will go into the
hands of a receiver, and will finally be sold under the marshal's ham-
mer, and is likely to be purchased by the strongest of the three.
Then, as unbridled competition rages between the two remaining
companies, the stronger finally predominates over the weaker, and the
weaker one breaks down, and goes through the same process of liqui-
dation, and is disposed of under the marshal’s hanmer and bought in
by the stronger competitor. The three are then placed under one man-
agement, that management applying alike to all three of them, and
there is no more war of rates. There is no more need of a pool; the
very fact that one of the companies now owns the railroads forinerly
owned by three companies, dispenses with the necessity for a pool, and
at once puts a period to all competition, and the three lines run in per-
fect harmony. The result therefore of denying to the railroads the
right to pool their freights is the consolidation of all the lines of each
section of the country under one management, which is an absolute
monopoly of the business of the section. *
The Southern railroad companies cannot maintain themselves if they
must go into a perpetual war of rate cutting. Experience having
taught them this, they have formed an association known as the
Southern Railway and Steamship Association, which embraces the ter-
ritory from the Potomac to the Mississippi River, and from the Atlan-
tic and the Gulf to the Ohio River, including the steamships doing
the coastwise trade between the Southern and Eastern cities. Since
the pool has been established, rates have gone steadily down. They
have been generally maintained, and the companies have been able to
get along by uniformity and maintenance of rates, and they have given -
the section of country covered by them good railroad service. Pass
your bill denying to them the right to pool their business, and what
will be the result. It will be consolidation and absolute monopoly.
There are six leading companies which now cover and do the busi-
ness of nearly all the territory mentioned. What is known as the Coast.
Line runs from Virginia down the coast into Florida. The Richmond
and Danville from Washington to Birmingham, Ala., with branches.
The Central of Georgia, covering the greater part of that State, and a
large part of South Carolina and Alabama. The East Tennessee, Vir-
167
ginia and Georgia, with some 2,000 miles of railroad, covering the ter–
ritory from Bristol, on the line of Virginia and Tennessee, to the Mis-
sissippi River, and a line through Georgia from Chattanooga to Bruns-
wick. The Queen and Crescent Line from Cincinnati, Ohio, to New
Orleans, with branches. The Louisville and Nashville, from Saint
Louis, Mo., covering a good part of Kentucky and Tennessee, and down
through Alabama into Florida.
I have not the figures, before me, but taking the Central as an illus-
tration, and it is one of the largest combinations of the six; and its cap-
ital stock is, in round numbers, $7,500,000. The purchase of a little
over three and three-quarter millions of dollars, gives the party pur-
chasing control of the entire line and its branches.
* The stock of some of the other combinations is a long way below par,
and I presume I might safely say that five millions of dollars each would
buy a controlling interest in the stock of each company. So that thirty
millions of dollars in round numbers would purchase the controlling
interest in the stock of the six companies covering the whole territory
above mentioned, or a little larger sum would buy them under the
marshal's hammer. One single man in the State of New York is able
to pay thirty millions for the stock, and control the whole of this vast
combination, including the lines with all their branches, which would
leave but a few short railroads in all that vast territory which would not
be embraced in the purchase. And this would end the necessity of
pooling. Say, for instance, that Jay Gould becomes the purchaser of
the controlling interest in the six great companies. What is the result 2
No pooling is necessary from the Potomac to the Mississippi, and from
the coast to the Ohio. As one man controls the railroads in the
whole territory there would be perfect harmony in the management.
In other words, the silence of despotism reigns, and the monopoly by
consolidation and combination is complete; and you have driven the
different companies which were able to sustain themselves under the
pooling principle, into bankruptcy, by forcing upon them a ruinous
competition, and the result has been the grasping of the power of the
whole combination into the hands of one man or one company, and
thus obviating the necessity of a pool. -
What law will you then enact to put these lines in ruinous competi-
tion with each other? The stock is the legitimate subject of purchase
in the market. One company in New York, or, as I have shown, one .
single man there is able to own the whole of it and defeat your cher-
ished object, and you have no power to divest him of his title, or to
take from him the management. Bear in mind the prediction that the
enforcement of a provision denying to the railroad companies the right
to pool their business will result in the consolidation and monopoly
which I here predict, and a like consolidation and monopoly in each
section of the United States. There is no escape from it in the very
nature of things. -
Mr. Adams, in his book on railroads, tells us that the Northeastern
Railway of England is composed of thirty-seven lines, several of which
formerly competed with each other. Before their amalgamation they
had generally charged high rates and paid low dividends. They were
consolidated under one management, and the system is now the most
complete monopoly in the United Kingdom. From the Tyne to the
Humber, with one local exception, it has the country to itself, and it has
the lowest fares and the highest dividends of any large English railway.
It has had little or no litigation with other companies. While com-
plaints have been made from Lancashire and Yorkshire, where there
168
are so-called competing lines, no witnesses appear to complain of the
Northeastern, and the general feeling in the district it serves appears
favorable to its management. Unbridled competition drove thirty-
seven companies in England under one management. What do you
suppose will be the result of unbridled competition in the United
States forced upon the companies by act of Congress?
But it seems there is no sympathy for men who have been foolish
enough to put their money into railroads. A few bold speculators,
and in some instances bad men, have gotten control of long railroad
lines, and have watered the stock and issued more bonds than the cir-
cumstances justified, and have made large speculations, and even for-
tunes, by that sort of illegal traffic.
These instances are constantly cited to show that railroad men are
entitled to no sympathy, and to but little gonsideration in the courts
or the halls of legislation. I admit that unscrupulous men have some-
times controlled railroad companies, and that there have been iniqui-
tous speculations made, and much injustice has been done, but that is
no reason why Congress, by its legislation, should destroy the value of
a large proportion of the railroad property of the United States.
Men who have labored honestly for their money, have in thousands
of instances put it into railroad stock. When the road was being con-
structed everybody praised them for doing so, for everybody along the
line wanted the benefit of the road, and they preferred that others
should furnish the money to build and give them the advantages.
But as soon as a road is completed then the clamor is raised that the
rates are too high, or something is irregular, or something is wrong,
and the popular cry is, in effect, “confiscate it.” -
This act will do more, probably, if rigidly enforced, than any that
has ever been passed by the Congress of the United States for the de-
struction of railroad property. Thousands of widows and orphans
whose all of earthly goods is invested in railroads will be deprived of
their property and reduced to beggary. Any amount of injustice will
be done. The suffering that will grow out of it will probably be much
greater than any that has ever grown out of the rascality or illegal con-
duct of bad railroad men, who have abused their trust. Do the peo-
ple who have built the railroads and who own them deserve this? I
think not. -
The honorable Senator from Kentucky, Mr. BECK, in his able speech
a day or two ago in favor of this bill, and against the railroad manage-
ment, was just enough to make the following statement: -
They [the railroads] have done more than all other agencies to develop the
resources of this continent; they have enabled us to control and almost settle
the Indian problem. Without thena nine-tenths of the country west of the Mis-
sissippi would be a wilderness to-day. But for the cheap transportation they
furnish our exports would be a mere bagatelle, and the comforts of every man’s
home would be immeasurably lessened.
The honorable Senator might have added that the railroads have
built like magic our great interior cities and our towns and villages;
that they have increased five-fold, and sometimes more than that, the
value of the real estate of the country; that they have enabled the States
of the Union to develop their vast mineral resources, adding hundreds
of millions to the wealth of the country; that they have not only built
up and cherished an immense internal commerce, but they have doubled
ten times over our foreign trade; that they have brought the different
sections of the Union into close intercourse and fratermity, annihilating
distance and making us one people; that they have been the greatest
instruments of civilization ever devised, and that without them our
169
country, not only west of the Mississippi, but much of that east of it,
would be uncultivated, and almost a waste.
The fact that a few bad men have had the management and control
of certain great lines of railroads, and have used them for unjustifiable
speculation, is no reason why Congress should seriously cripple all the
great railroad interests of the country and destroy the property invested
by hundreds of thousands of our people, many of them of the most
helpless class. And it is no reason why we should enact laws that will
greatly cripple the commerce of the country, both internal and foreign,
and prevent the rapid and cheap transportation of the commodities of
one section of the United States to the markets of another, and thereby
retard the growth of our cities and do immeasurable damage to our
productive resources. Mr. President, I believe the authors and advo-
cates of this bill, if it passes in the shape in which it came from the
committee of conference, before they have seen six months of the work-
ings of the system will have abundant reason to regret it.
The commerce of this country can not be bound by iron chains or
restrained by iron fetters; no unbending rule in its transportation can
promote its prosperity. When the machine which is to bind it is put
into operation, and the clasps are put on, you will hear a terrible clat-
ter and creaking, and it will soon be discovered that it can not work
practically without more elasticity. ;
Why not commence by enacting laws of less dubious propriety,
allowing the proper elasticity and room for expansion in the workings
of the system 2 If it is found that you have not gone far enough, you
can then, at a future session of Congress, put on another screw, and no
serious injury will in the mean time have been done to the commerce or
the prosperity of the country. It is true you can, at a future session, re-
peal, as the people will. no doubt, as in case of the granger laws, require
you to do, part of what is now in this bill if it should become a law;
but you can not repeal it in time to prevent great mischief by the
workings of the system while it is in operation. The West and the
South and the foreign commerce of the country will suffer most, but
the whole country will suffer under the inharmonious workings of an
impractical and unwise system. - s
Modify the provision in reference to the long and short haul and the
provision in reference to pooling, and try it a year and see how it works,
and if you have not gone far enough it will then be easy to take the
next step.
If you have halted too soon you can advance the next Congress with-
out deranging the business of the country. If you have gone too far
you can not recede without having done great injustice, deranged the
commerce and transportation of the country, and caused great destruc-
tion of property and great reduction in values.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Mr. President, the question as to the
power of Congress to regulate-interstate commerce, whether conducted
by rail on land or boat on water, so long as such power is not exercised
in a manner that will invade the domain of vested rights of property,
is no longer an open one. If any doubt as to the power ever could have
had any reasonable support in the judicial mind of this country, that
support has long since been completely swept away by repeated decis-
ions of the SupremeCourt of the United States. The power, therefore.
to so legislate, within the scope and limits of other provisions of the
Constitution, is no longer a subject for disputation, but is conceded to
exist by virtue of the specific grant contained in the eighth section of
Article I of the Constitution, wherein it is declared that “the Congress
170
'shall,” among other things, “have power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
tribes.”
Nor can it be for one moment maintained that there is not in this
country, at this time, an almost universal demand upon the part of the
people for the exercise of this power on the part of Congress in some such
proper, vigorous, and emphatic manner as will, while doing no violence
or injustice to capital employed in the business of transportation, pro-
tect the people, the producer, the shipper, and the consumer from un-
reasonable charges and unjust discriminations to which, in too many
instances, they are now subjected by the transportation companies of
the country. And while it is not, in my judgment, by any means cer-
tain that the character of the proposed legislation in some of its promi-
ment features, which more than others have been discussed by the peo-
ple and urged upon the attention of Congress, will, if enacted, have
either the desired or intended effect, it is sale to say it is quite certain
that the great body of the national commonwealth from whom this de-
mand for legislation comes do not desire to be invited to a feast of leg-
islative legerdemain, nor will they be either satisfied with or deceived
by any legislative jugglery which is open to as many different construc-
tions in its vital parts as there were honorable members of the joint
committee of five of the two Houses, who have prepared this pending
measure and placed it before the other three hundred and ninety-eight
members of the two Houses of Congress and demand of them that they
take this or nothing. - .
It will be conceded by all that whatever legislation upon this im-
portant subject may be enacted, whatever may be the dominant and
salient points and controlling features in such legislation, whether any
of these be of doubtful propriety or disputed efficiency as a means
toward the accomplishment of a great end, or whether of such a nature,
so characterized by justice and equity and right, as to command by
their very statement the universal assent, including that of the common
carrier as well as all others, that such legislation shall be in its nature
and purposes, in whole and in part, as a unit and in detail, certain, spe-
cific, definite, unambiguous, and free in its construction from all rea-
sonable doubt; and that as to the vital points involved too much should
not be left either to the construction of courts or the discretion of
subordinate boards, whose judgments, to say nothing else, are con-
stantly subjected to powerful ulterior influences. Legislation on this
important subject affecting such vast interests should be unambiguous
and free from every reasonable doubt. The 'evil consequences that will
inevitably flow from provisions susceptible of various constructions,
leading to diverse and perhaps absolutely contradictory results, can not
be overestimated. -
The confusion that would necessarily arise from different construc-
tions from time to time by different federal courts in different sections
of the country on the various provisions left unwisely so widely open-
to construction, as are many of those of this bill, until all these vital
questions could be brought before and passed upon by the court of final
resort would be “confusion worse confounded :'' and in the meanwhile
the commercial interests of this country would stagger annid the con-
flicting gales of the advancing storm. Hut not only so. Such an act
would be regarded by the people of this country, who are not in these
later days very readily deceived, as in the nature of the “make-believe
order,” and it would in the end ſail either to satisfy the enlightened,
intelligent public judgment, or to correct the evils aimed at.
171
With these preliminary remarks, therefore, I come to consider the
report of the conference committee. And while there is much in the
bill reported for our consideration that is wise and reasonable and just,
and not in any proper sense open to the criticism hinted at, I feel war-
ranted in saying that I have never in all my experience heard so many
different and strangely contradictory constructions placed upon, or
claimed for, the material provisions of any piece of legislation, or pro-
posed legislation, as have been placed upon and claimed for the material
and arterial provisions of this bill by able constitutional and statutory
lawyers, both in and out of the Senate, friends and foes, since it was
reported to this body on the 15th of December last. Nor do these
various constructions of material parts of the pending measure come by
any means merely from those who are opposed to the bill; if this were
so it might, perhaps, with some degree of propriety and reason, be claimed
that it is the result of some ulterior purpose and sinnply the execution
of a carefully prepared plan, concocted by the transportation compa-
nies to bring the measure into radical disrepute, and thus encompass
its defeat; but that this is not so the Senate and the country will, in
view of the discussion that has already taken place in the Senate and
out of the Senate in reference to the material provisions of this bill, and
of the strangely contradictory constructions given, bear me witness.
Honorable Senators on this floor who announce their adherence to
each and every section of the bill, and who propose to vote for it as a
whole as it stands, without the dotting of an ‘‘i’’ or the crossing of a
“t,” and who do not desire its amendment in any particular, differ
widely, and radically, and irreconcilably as to the proper construction
to be placed on some of its most important provisions. That the bill
is therefore in its most salient features ambiguous in its phraseology,
uncertain in its purpose, and vague and misleading in its structure, if
not indeed absolutely inefficient as a means of meeting and overcoming
the evil against which it is ostensibly directed, is a fact patent to all.
Let us examine a little more minutely in reference to this matter;
and in this connection I desire more particularly to discuss the provis-
ions of this bill relating to the subject of long and short hauls as con-
tained in its fourth section. And in this connection I desire to say
that I have very serious doubts, and always have had, whether an act
of Congress prohibiting the com:mon-carrier from charging more for a
short haul than for a long haul, the short haul being over the same
line and included within the long haul, will have the good effect on
the transportation business of the country that those interested in cheap.
transportation rates on the short hauls hope and expect it to have.
I say there may be very grave doubts whether those shippers inter-
ested in cheap short hauls will in the end be benefited by such legis-
lation. Whether they will or mot may depend on a very great many
circumstances and conditions which may exist in certain sections of the
country and which do not exist in other sections. Such legislation in
certain localities may possibly have the effect to cheapen local rates,
or reduce charges on short hauls and still maintain low rates on the
long hauls, while in other localities the effect may and most likely will
be just the reverse. It may, in the latter class of cases, have the effect
to increase the charge on the long haul, and I believe this will be found
to be the case in a great majority of cases, and thus instead of reducing
the charge on the short haul may maintain it at present rates or even
actually increase it. -
Then, again, in many localities, that is, on many lines of transporta-
tion, the local business may be of such a nature, character and amount,
172
the through business being subject to such a degree of competition
from other lines of rail or water transportation as to make an increase
of through rates impossible, as to make it to the interest of the trans-
portation company to absolutely abandon all through business and
permit it to go over competing lines by water—or over railroads on for-
eign soil—rather than reduce its rates on the shorter hauls where the
income of the carrier is enormous, and in such an event most calam-
itous results would follow. -
First, no relief in such a case could possibly come to those interested
in short hauls, and second, a fatal blow, it seems to me, would be struck
at our transcontinental or through commerce as also our foreign com-
merce; and a great blow would thus be struck, not alone at our great
commercial cities, but at the general development and industrial pros-
perity of our whole country.
And in viewing this question in this aspect, and in speculating upon
the probable effect of this character of legislation on our commercial
and transportation interests, local and general, and upon the develop-
ment of our country, in reference to which, it must be conceded by all,
railroads perform a most important function, especially those commer-
cial and transportation interests of the Pacific Northwest in which I
feel a peculiarly especial interest, it must not be forgotten that two
material elements enter as important factors into this consideration:
First. That, as a rule, the great bulk of profits realized by railroad
transportation companies come not from their long hauls, where freight
charges are held, as a general rule, at the minimum by competitive
lines of both rail and water, but from local business, or from short
hauls, where these companies are not restricted by competition; and,
Second. That it is safe to assume that the transportation company
will always look primarily to their own interest and not those of the
general public, and if that interest should, by any possiblity, dictate
the abandonment of through freights for the sake of the golden har-
vest they might expect to reap by the transportation of great volumes
of local business at high rates, then all will agree that there would be
no hesitation whatever upon the part of the transportation company
to abandon their through freight business. For one I do not look for
that result. I do believe, however, on the contrary, that there will be
in such an event such secret combination between these powerful
transcontinental companies, including water lines, as will increase the
through freights over present rates, and thus enable them, notwith-
standing the provisions of the pending bill, to maintain their present
exorbitant charges on short hauls. Of course other provisions of this
bill are intended to prevent such combination; namely, the declara-
tion that all charges shall be reasonable, and the prohibition of pool-
ing; but will they do it? - *
Therefore, I am by no means clear that any act, iron-clad, plain,
direct, unequivocal, positive, unambiguous, and unyielding in its
terms—and the present bill lacks all these essentials—prohibiting a .
greater charge for a short haul than for a long haul would have the
effect of reducing existing freight charges on short hauls; for instance,
on short hauls between Saint Paul and Portland, Oreg., and Puget
Sound, or between Omaha and Portland and Puget Sound, or between
San Francisco and Portland, Oreg., and Puget Sound, or between
Chicago or New York and either of these far western points on the
waters of the Columbia River and Puget Sound; and while I believe
that no speculation or divination upon the part of any person, how-
!
173
ever well informed upon this intricate subject, can in advance de-
termine these important questions, and that nothing short of actual
experiment can determine them; if, however, the experiment is to
be tried, in deference to what I believe is an almost universal demand
upon the part of the people, as I concede it should be, then I am un-
willing, ſor one, at least until I have aided in exhausting every fair
and honorable legislative expedient to procure a proper provision on
this subject, to insult that portion of my constituency who are demand-
ing this character of legislation (I refer mow solely to the long and
short haul clause) by presenting them with a piece of legislation pro-
fessedly as a short-haul protection, which in reality, in my judgment,
although of course not so intended by the honorable conference com-
mittee, is a cheat, a deception, and a fraud; having within its provis-
ions ample room through which either an interstate-commerce com-
mission or any judicial tribunal in the land, not only could drive a
coach and four without any trouble whatever, but in reference to
which they would feel compelled by its very terms to declare its pro-
visions absolutely harmless.
That I may not be misunderstood, I must be permitted to state in
this connection that perhaps no other people within the limits of the
United States are to-day subjected to such unreasonable and unjust
transportation charges and flagrant discriminations as are those residing
and doing business in Eastern Oregon and Washington Territory. None
more than they can possibly be interested in a greater degree in some
effective legislation that will reduce the transportation charges to which
they are subjected to reasonable figures, and abrogate and prohibit
these grievous discriminations. The occupants of that empire, believ-
ing that legislation prohibiting a greater charge for a short haul than
a long haul will inure to their benefit, are desirous of obtaining legis-
lation to that effect. When they ask, therefore, for what they believe
to be bread, whether acting advisedly or under a misapprehension as
to the probable effects of such legislation, let us not, if we attempt to
legislate on this subject at all, under any misguided supposition or false
idea that we are drawing the wool over their eyes, or deceiving them,
give them what in reality we know to be a stone.
Let us inquire, then, as to their situation in reference to the business
of transportation, the evils to which they are subjected, the hardships
which they are called upon to endure by reason of their peculiar situ-
ation in reference to the transportation lines of the country, and then,
as to the legislation proposed by the pending bill, the construction it
must. when its provisions are applied to their particular case, undoubt-
edly receive, and we will at once realize the absolute poverty of this
bill, so far as the long and short haul clause is concerned, as a measure
of relief to that people—conceding for the present that such a measure,
free from loop-holes and the absolute certainty of being entirely swept
away in its practical operation by construction, would bring the relief
desired. - -
First, them, as to the situation of the people of what is known as the
inland empire—Eastern Oregon and Washington and Western Idaho.
and Montana--as to transportation charges, and for my present pur-
pose I can nou do better than to read a communication received by
me recently from a committee of the Board of Trade of Dalles City,
Oreg. Dalles City is located on the south side of the Columbia, in the
State of Oregon, on the line of the Oregon Railway and Navigation
Company, and distant 88 miles east from the city of Portland.
174
The communication is as follows:
- THE DALLES, OREGON, December 29, 1886.
SIR : On behalf of the Board of Trade of Dalles City we desire to call your
attention to the situation of the merchants of this city and other cities in East-
ern Oregon and Washington on the line of the Oregon Railway and Navigation
Company’s railway respecting freight rates to and from Eastern points.
The schedule of rates to these way points upon all classes of freights from the
East is made up by adding to the through rate to Portland the local rate back
from Portland to the way point. This additional local back charge is an arbi-
trary charge, and is in no way connected with the through rate. -
For example : A car-load of merchandise to any of these way points from Chi-
cago is delivered at the way point without going through to Portland, and the
freight charges thereon consist of the full through rate to Portland plus the
local rate on merchandise from Portland to the way point. In the case of our
own city this local rate from Portland is, on the average, from 70 per cent. to 80
per cent. of what is charged for hauling the same merchandise from Chicago to
Portland. The distance from Portland to this city is 88 miles. The ſocal rate
from Portland to this point, on the average, is 45 cents per 100 pounds. The
through rate from Chicago to Portland on the same class of freight is 65 cents
per 100 pounds, making the actual charge from Chicago to this point $1.10 per
100 pounds; and yet we are 88 miles nearer Chicago than is Portland, and are on
the direct line between those two points. - •
In the case of merchants east of us the situation is worse. Thus at Arlington,
a point 141 miles east of Portland, the local back rate is, on the average, 70 cents
per 100 pounds; that is, 5 cents more than the through rate from Chicago to Port-
land; making the actual charge to that point from Chicago $1.35 per 100 pounds.
In the case of Walla Walla, Wash., Baker City and Huntington, Oreg., the local
back rate is double the through rate to Portland. Yet the actual haul in each
of the cases referred to falls considerably short of the haul for which is paid the
through rate alone. Concerning this through rate no complaint is made, and .
merchants at the way points are entirely willing to pay the same rates as are
charged for the haul to Portland. But the arbitrary local back-rate charge is
deemed a most unjust and burdensome exaction, falling little short of system-
atic robbery.
In like manner merchants at these way points are compelled to pay on ship-
ments to Chicago, in addition to the through rate from Portland to Chicago, the
local rate from the way point to Portland. Thus the railway company exact
from dealers at these way points on all shipments to and from all eastern points
a charge equal to what they would be entitled to charge if they were compelled
to haul the freight first to Portland. But no such necessity exists, and for this
excessive arbitrary charge no service whatever is rendered.
If the bill now pending before Congress known as the interstate-commerce
bill gives us relief from this unjust and burdensome discrimination we would
respectfully request you to co-operate with our other Representatives in Con-
gress in securing its passage. If not, we earnestly hope you will endeavor to
procure such other legislation as will relieve us. -
We call the attention of Hons. J. N. DOLPH and BINGER HERMANN to the same
matter by similar communications.
Yours, very respectfully, -
E. B. McFARLAND,
A. S. MIACALLISTER,
B. S. HUNTINGTON,
- Committee for Board of Trade of Dalles City, Oreg.
Hon. J. H. MI'rcHELL, -
United States Senator, Washington, D. C. g -
The communication, I doubt not, correctly recites the facts in so far.
as it undertakes to state them in reference to the transportation situa-
tion of the people of that country, and in its conclusion doubtless voices
the sentiment of nine-tenths of the people of Eastern Oregon and Wash-
ington Territory.
Recognizing, then, for the present in this discussion, this communica-
tion as an instruction to me, and leaving out of consideration every
other cousideration as to the probable effect of legislation of this char-
acter, my first inquiry should be, does the pending bill as it stands, with-
out change or amendment, give those people relief from these unjust
and burdensome discriminations, even admitting that an entirely ef-
fective provision on the subject of long and short hauls would have the
effect to relieve them 2 I answer without hesitation, most emphat-
ically in my judgment it does not, and for these very cogent reasons.
e
17.5
And, as I have said, in considering this branch of the case I concede
for the argument that a properly drawn long and short haul clause,
free from loop-holes—not so framed as to be easily, and as in this case
necessarily, construed away and rendered inoperative, and not subjected
to the discretion of courts or interstate-commerce boards—would afford
specific and ample relief. -
The provision on this subject of long and short hauls is contained in
the fourth section of the bill, and is as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, wºnder swb-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same difection, the shorter being included with-
in the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common
carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation
for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon application
to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such common
carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized
to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of
passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time prescribe
the extent to which such designated connnnon carrier may be relieved from the
operation of this section of this act. .
It will be observed by the most casual observer that this section con-
rtains in its first paragraph six words, which are of rather ominous
import, to say the least; and which it would seem to the ordinary ob-
server, whether lawyer or layman, are by no means necessary, but, on
the contrary, absolutely unnecessary in a clause prohibiting a greater
charge for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the
same direction, the shorter being included within the longer distance.
These words are the following:
Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.
But these words being in the bill, they must mean something. It
is to be presumed that they are there for a purpose, and they must be
construed. Suppose this bill became a law, and the Oregon Steam
Navigation Company or the Northern Pacific Railroad Company
should still persist in charging the same rates from Chicago or Saint
Paul to Dalles City or Arlington or Umatilla, in Oregon, they do now,
and the people of Dalles City or Arlington or Umatilla should object
to this as being in violation of this law, what, manifestly, in view of
this provision—these six words above quoted—would be the answer
of the railroad company 2 Undoubtedly it would be that “the cir-
cumstances and conditions” under which they are transporting this
freight on this shorter distance are not “substantially similar,” in
fact, not similar at all, to those under which they are transporting
“like kind of property' from Saint Paul to Portland, the longer dis-
tance; and therefore the provisions of this bill prohibiting the greater
charge for a short distance than a long one does not apply. And why
would not such an argument under the provisions of this bill, with
these ominous words “under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions” inserted in them, be valid 2 Could an argument like that
be successfully combatted for one moment before any honest, intelli-
gent judicial tribunal in the land? The very argument upon this floor
of the author of this bill would sustain the plea.
What would be the character of the argument of the attorneys of
the railroad company to sustain their position? Simply and clearly
and beyond all question that because in the one case, that of the long
haul from Saint Paul, or from Chicago to Portland, or from New York,
if you please, to Portland, they are subjected in their business of trans-
portation to the “circumstance” and “conditions” of competing lines
176
of transportation via various railroad lines from Saint Paul and Chi-
cago via Omaha, the Union Pacific, Oregon Short Line, and Oregon
Railway and Navigation Company, to say nothing of the Canadian
Pacific, running over foreign territory, and from New York to Portland,
if that may be considered one of the long hauls in this bill to the “cir-
cumstance” and “conditions,” not only of competition from the trans-
continental lines, but the water transportation lines by the Isthmus
and around Cape Horn; and further, that these circumstances and
conditions are not circumstances and conditions substantially similar,
or at all similar, to those that attach to or apply to the transportation of
property over the short bauls? But not only so. The argument would
further go that the circumstances and conditions of volume and char-
acter of business, terminal expenses, and cost of service in the one case
are essentially dissimilar to those in the other, and, therefore, the long
and short haul inhibition could not apply in such a case.
That I am not mistaken in the construction I have given to this pro-
vision of section 4 of the bill relating to the question of long and short
hauls, I beg to quote from the remarks of the honorable Senator from
Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], the chairman of the conference committee upon
the part of the Senate, and who reports this bill for our consideration
from the conference committee. In order to obtain from him his con-
struction of the words—
Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions—
as they appear in the 4th section of the bill, I, on Monday last, during
the speech of the honorable Senator submitted to him an interrogatory.
I quote from the RECORD of January 11, the colloquy that then took
place between the honorable Senator and myself, and also between the
honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM]. and the honorable Sen-
ator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE], bearing directly upon the very
question I am now considering, as follows:
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. May I ask the Senator a question ?
Mr. CULLO M. Yes, sir.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Section 4 reads: -
“That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions.
of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for
the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions, &c.”
What I want to get at is the meaning of these words, “under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions for a shorter than for a longer distance on
the same line, * * * the shorter being included within the longer distance.”
To explain what I desire to get at, I will make this inquiry of the chairman of
the committee : Take a long haul, from San Francisco to Portland, Oreg., over a
railroad running from San Francisco to Portland. Transportation by rail over
a route like that, of course, is affected to a certain extent by steamship compe-
tition, by steamers running between the terminal points. Now suppose a short
haul, between points intermediate of those two terminal points, say from Stock-
ton to Roseburgh, would that come within the provisions of the section ? Would
that short haul, included in this long haul, be subject to the influence of steam-
boat competition ? Is that a haul “under substantially similar circumstances
and conditions ‘’ as the haul over the whole line of road 2 -
Mr. CULLOM. I will touch upon that subject briefly in what I have to say, and
shall answer the Senator from Oregon in the course of my remarks.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I am inquiring for information. I have not yet
made up my mind as to the construction of this bill.
Mr. CULLOM. I and not objecting to the Senator’s incluiry. I was going to say
that I shall discuss that point briefly in what I say; but in answer to the Sen-
atou I have this to say now : that the words “substantially sinnilar circumstances
any conditions” are words of very great importance, and words which may be
taken for what they say by a court or by a commission who may have some-
thing to do with the construction of the law. Whether the section should be
construed so as to give relief as to the water point of competition that the Sen-
ator refers to, or not, the section itself does provide that at such a competing
point, if the point does exist, the interstate commission shall have the power to
give relief upon a showing of the proper state of facts. - -
|
177
Further on in the Senator's remarks he said, in further reply to my
interrogatory:
The limitations placed upon the prohibition that is made are very significant,
and they must not be overlooked. They require that in determining the sum
that may be charged for a shorter as compared with a longer distance, the com-
parison must be made—
. Between shipments “of like kind of property.”
“Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.”
. “Over the same line.”
. “In the same direction.” -
5. When the shorter is “included within the longer distance.”
When the act is to be applied in any given case to measure the charge that
may be made for any distance, as compared with a longer distance, all of these
limitations must be taken into account, and they must all apply to the case—
not three or four of them, but all of them. The first, fourth, and fifth of these
limitations do not appear to call for any explanation, but the meaning of the
second and third may need some explanation. ,
As I understand them, the words “circumstances and conditions” mean the
conditions that govern railway traffic, and the circumstances under which it is
transported. To my mind these words are full of meaning. They comprehend
all the circumstances and conditions that may justify differences in rates, such
as competition with other railroads and with water rowtes, the volume and character of
business at different points, the difference in terminal expenses, and the cost of service
in each case.
sk $ $ ::: Sº 3: :
;
Mr. GEORGE. I wish to ask the Senator a question, if he will allow me.
Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir. - . - - - -
Mr. GEORGE. Does the Senator wish to be understood as saying that it is the
meaning of this bill that the long and short haul provision does not apply;'
that is, that the circumstances are not substantially similar where one of the
points is a competing point and where one is not ? -
Mr. CULLOM. I mean to say simply this: You take one railroad, if you please,
between the city of Washington and the city of New York; that railroad makes
its schedule of rates and it publishes, under this bill, that schedule of rates, and
so far as its operation on its own road, not in connection with other lines or
roads, but on its own road, it is not at liberty to charge more for a shorter dis-
tance on that road between here and New York under like circumstances and
conditions than it charges from here to New York. -
Mr. GEORGE. But the point is this: I understood the Senator to say—and that
is what I want to have settled—that if one point from which the shipment is
made is a competitive point, either by having a competing railroad or by hav-
ing water transportation, and the other point from which the shipment is made
is not a competitive point, then the circumstances are not substantially similar.
Mr. CULLOM. I do say the facts should be considered.
Mr. GEORGE. Then let me say, that if I believed that that was the meaning
of the bill and the courts would assent to it, I would vote against it, because with
that construction wipon those words the whole provision in the bill inv reference to the
long and short hawl amounts to nothing -
Mr. CULLOM. If it does not amount to anything, it will not hurt anybody.
Mr. GEORGE. I do not want to hurt anybody, but to save somebody by a sub-
stantial provision on that subject. -
Mr. CULLOM. So do I ; but I do not want to humbug anybody either. The Sen-
ate, however, by a deliberate vote placed in the bill which was passed by the
Senate during last session these words, “under like circumstances and condi-
tions,” and did it, the select, eommittee not having reported those words to the
Senate in the original bill. -
Mr. GEORGE. I do not object to the words. I object to the interpretation
which you put upon them. I do not believe that is the true and legal interpre-
tation, and I protest that this bill shall go through here with an authoritative
exposition or interpretation of the meaning of these words given them by the
Senator. If that be the meaning I am against it. -
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator from Mississippi has a right to put whatever con-
struction on those words be chooses, and of course he will do so; but I say, not
as the chairman of the committee, but simply as a Senator upon this floor, that
those words were put in there by this Senate after the select committee had
failed to report them, and they were put there because the original section re-
ported by the committee was too rigid and it was feared that it would interfere
with the general counmerce of the country, and when they were put there they
were put there to mean something, and they do mean something.
They mean just what they say, that you shall not charge more for the shorter
than for the longer distance on the same line in the same direction under sub-
I S C–12
178
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, and those conditions and cir-
cumstances may be, if you please, the fact that one place is “a competing point
and that another place is not, the fact that one place furnishes a large amount
of business and the way station does not furnish perhaps nore than a car-load,
and that it incurs additional expense and all that sort of thing. No court, no
commission, and mo lawyer can afford to say that those words do not mean any-
thing when they are put in there.
Mr. GEORGE. With that construction of it, I think the Senator gives away all the
beneficial part of the bill.
:k $:
sº $ $: Y: tº:
I think that by the construction put upon the clause as to the long and short
haul the Senator has destroyed the benefit of that provision.
From the foregoing it will be seen that the author of this bill [Mr.
CULLOM] and its able manager and principal defender on this floor, ac-
knowledges in unequivocal terms that in determining the sum that
may be charged for a shorter as compared with a longer distance, the
comparison must be made: 1. Between shipments “of like kind of
property;” 2. Shipments “under substantially similar circumstan-
ces and conditions;” 3. “Over the same line;” 4. “In the same direc-
tion;” 5. “When the shorter is included within the longer distance;”
and that when the act is to be applied in any given case to meas-
ure the charge that may be made for any distance as compared with a
longer distance, all of these limitations must be taken into account and
they must all apply to the case. Not three or four of them, as so well
stated by the Senator, but all of them. And what do we find trans-
piring on this very floor in reference to the meaning of these specific
words and to the construction that must be placed upon them 2 We
find the honorable Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] rising in
his place and declaring that if this clause is to receive the construction
placed upon it by its author, that then, to use his own language—
The whole provision in the bill in reference to the long and short haul
amounts to nothing.
And further, that—
If that is the meaning of your bill I will vote against it.
It is due, however, to the Senator from Mississippi that it should be
stated that he favors the bill as I understand, but differs with the hon-
orable Senator from Illinois, its author, as to the construction these
words must receive. That the construction, however, placed upon them
by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], its author, is the correct
one, and that which will be given it by the courts in the event of this
bill becoming a law without amendment of this provision, I do not
doubt for a single moment. That is the construction which the con-
ference committee evidently, yes avowedly, intended the section should
PećelVe. .
Mr. GEORGE. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him 2
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Yes, sir.
Mr. GEORGE. Unless I was unfortunate in expressing myself, the
Senator from Oregon has attributed to me as attaching too much impor-
tance to the construction placed on that clause of the bill by the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM]. Of course I disagree with him and very
radically; but still, even if he were correct in his construction of the
bill, though I would be opposed to that provision of the bill, yet I
regard that there is enough merit in other parts of the bill for it to
receive my support, even with the construction put upon that clause of
it by the Senator from Illinois.
I mean to say, that the bill is not satisfactory to me; it does not go
as far as I would like to go in the direction of restraining the power of
179
the railroads; but I shall not stand still and refuse to take one step in
the direction of correcting abuses because I can not take all the steps
that I desire to take.
Mr. HOAR. I am tempted to ask the courtesy of my honorable
friend from Oregon to allow me to read, in precise connection with the
point he is now making, a letter from a conferee on the part of the
House. -
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I will yield to my friend from Massa-
chusetts as soon as I say a word in answer to the Senator from Missis-
sippi [Mr. GEORGE]. I have already stated that I simply quoted what
the Senator from Mississippi had said to the Senator from Illinois in
the debate on Monday. I stated in the same connection that I under-
stood the Senator from Mississippi favored this bill because he thought
there was much merit in the bill outside of this provision.
Mr. GEORGE. I did not want to be misunderstood.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I said I understood that he differed
from the construction placed on the bill by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. GEORGE. I did not want it to be understood that even with
these difficulties in the bill, if the long and short haul provision is as
imperfect as the Senator from Oregon seems to think it is, for that rea-
son alone I should vote against the bill, because there are other very
valuable provisions in the bill which would induce me to give it my
support notwithstanding the imperfection of that clause, even if it were
as imperfect as the Senator from Oregon thinks. I do not think it is
that imperfect.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I yield now to my friend from Massa-
chusetts.
Mr. HOAR. I think it may be quite interesting to the Senate to
have an authoritative statement of the interpretation put upon this
clause by the Representatives of the other House. I have taken pains
to obtain one which is very brief and which I should like to read in
connection with the point my friend is making :
CoMMITTEE on CoMMERCE, House of REPRESENTATIVEs,
Washington, D.C., January 11, 1887.
DEAR SIR: Your favor of January 4 only reached me last evening. You pro-
pound three interrogatories, which for convenience are repeated and answered.
Judge REAGAN and Mr. WEAVER, the other House conferees, being absent, of
course I cannot authoritatively speak for them, but I believe that their views co-
incide with those herein expressed by me.
First—
This is the first question—
Do you understand that the prohibition in the fourth section of the bill, as
amended in conference, will prevent the common carrier from receiving a larger
sum in proportion for a shorter than for a longer distance, or only that the amount
of the entire freight for the less distance shall not exceed the annount of the entire
freight for the greater distance on a similar article, under similar circumstances?
This is the answer:
I understand that the fourth section will prevent a connnnon carrier within
the meaning of the act from receiving a larger sum in the aggregate for the
transportation of passengers or property for a shorter than for a longer distance,
over the same line in the same direction ; in other words, “the amount of the
entire freight for the less distance (included in the greater distance) shall not
exceed the amount of the entire freight for the greater distance, on a similar
article, under similar circumstances.”
Second. Suppose a thousand barrels of flour be taken from Chicago to Bos-
ton, and be thence conveyed to Europe, and another thousand barrels of
flour be taken from Chicago to Boston or Worcester, a point nearer Chicago, on
the same line, destined for home consumption, are these substantially similar
circumstances within the meaning of the bill & In other words, does a mere
180
difference in the destination of property ereate the dissimilar circumstances.
and conditions contemplated in section four 2 - * -
In my judgment, the difference in the case cited by you would not create dis-,
similar circumstances.
Third. Does the existence of competition at the end of the longer distance
which does not exist at the end of the shorter on the same line, make a differ-
§§ of circumstances and conditions within the intention of the framers of the
ill 2 -
In my opinion it does not.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours,
: - CHARIES F. CRISP.
Hon. GEORGE F. HoAR, United States Senate.
Mr. CRISP is one of the conferees on the part of the other House.
The conferees on the part of the House of Representatives disclaim, as far
as this gentleman can speak for them, the interpretation of the bill put
on it by the conferees on the part of the Senate.
Mr. PLATT. May I say a word 2
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Certainly. *
Mr. PLATT. I hardly think it is fair to ask of any one of the con-
ferees what his interpretation of the clause would be upon certain gen-
eral propositions for this reason, which is manifest, that no man in the
Senate or upon the conference committee can determine in advance what
the construction of the courts will be on those words, “similar con-
ditions and circumstances,” until all the facts of the particular case.
are made out.
Every shipment, whether there be competition or not, would be sur-
rounded by its own set of facts. Competition might be one of the facts
which would enter into the question of determining whether the con-
ditions were substantially similar; but I think no man can say that
competition existing at a certain point would determine that question.
It seems to me that all anybody on the conference committee or other-
wise can say is this: If you will present to me all the facts and all the
circumstances which attend a particular shipment of goods as com-
pared with another shipment of goods, then I can say for myself what
I think the true construction of the statutes would be as to that par-
ticular matter; but none of us can say more than that. -
Mr. HOAR. But when we have a question pending involving
whether great, vast commercial transactions in this country can con-
tinue, we are entitled, as it seems to me, to know whether the persons
who propose a measure upon which that depends understand their
measure one way or the other, or whether they propose that the con-
tinuance of that great commerce shall be referred to four or five com-
missioners to be appointed by the President of the United States and
to depend upon their interpretation of a bill. -
Of course, in every case that can possibly be conceived, it would
not be fair to these conferees to ask them to determine the particular
case in advance; but when a great, general rule is affirmed by this
bill, prohibiting the making of a rebate on hundreds of millions of
dollars of commerce on which the prosperity of great sections of this
country depends, whether the gentlemen who drew this language con-
sider that that is stricken down by the bill or that it is not stricken
down by the bill, or that the question whether it is stricken down by
the bill or not depends on what five men appointed by the President of
the United States may happen to think of it, is a fair question to put
to these conferees. And when we find that the conferees differ, I think
we are entitled to have it made plain to persons who think that there
should not be a 5 per cent. rebate for the foreign commerce of Boston,
or that it is unjust, to have the bill so drawn that the gentlemen who
181
differ from them shall not claim that it does not mean what they want
it to mean, as the Senator from Mississippi says he wants it to mean,
and the Senator from Tennessee. The gentlemen who think that it
‘ought not to be done are entitled, in my judgment, to have it put into
the bill, so that he who runs may read that it shall not be done.
That is my point, and I think it is fair to ask the gentlemen who
wrote this language what they mean by it. If we find that they do not
agree we ought to pause and have language on which they will agree.
Mr. PLATT. But this question manifestly can not be settled in ad-
vance. Take the law as it stands without any such bill, the question
as to whether the 5 per cent rebate constitutes a reasonable rate under
the circumstances is a question which now, if anybody contests it or
claims otherwise, must go to the courts and must be determined by the
Courts. -
Mr. HOAR. My friend will pardon me for saying that the question
does not go to the courts whether a road is charging too little to any-
body. - -
Mr. PLATT. It goes to the courts whether they are charging the
other parties too much. -
Mr. HOAR. That is another thing. s
Mr. PLATT. When they allow the 5 per cent. rebate to Boston the
parties who claim that they are charged too much can go to the courts
and have them say what rates are reasonable. So with all railroad rates,
they must be reasonable; and you can not imagine any case in which
that question may not be taken, and must not be taken, if there is a con-
, troversy about it, to the courts. Now, is it any worse to take it to the
commission in the first place than to the courts? -
Mr. TELLER. Under the bill they can take it to the courts in the
first place. - -
Mr. PLATT. Certainly. Let me say one thing more with regard to
the question which the Senator from Massachusetts proposes because it
so much affects the port of Boston. I would say that the question of
export trade was one of the elements to be considered and to exercise
its influence in determining the question of similar conditions and cir-
cumstances; but that it determined it of itself, I would not be prepared
to say. : -
Mr. HOAR. If the Senator from Oregon will pardon me once more
I shall not interrupt him any further. The Senator from Connecticut,
a member of this conference, says that that is one of the circumstances
on which the unlikeness of conditions and circumstances is to depend.
Mr. PLATT. One of the facts. -
Mr. HOAR. The three House conferees, as far as this gentleman
understands their opinion, say it is not, that that is absolutely fixed by
the bill, which prohibits rebates.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I am glad to have so clear and em-
phatic an illustration injected into the belly of my speech by this con-
troversy between different Senators and the expression of these differ-
ences of opinion as to what this section means, of the position I have
been trying to enforce on the Senate, that the provisions of the bill in
reference to the question of long and short hauls are vague, uncertain,
and no two lawyers place the same construction upon them. Therefore
it is left to each individual Senator to read and examine the bill for him-
self and arrive at his own conclusion as to what the bill means, taking
into consideration all the while the fact, which has been developed here
and now, that the very men who framed this bill, the conferees of the
18.2
Senate and the House, disagree radically and emphatically as to the
meaning of the fourth section.
Mr. PLATT. May I interrupt the Senator from Oregon?
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I refer more particularly now to the
chairman of the committee of conference on the part of the Senate, the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], and the House conferees.
Mr. PLATT. Will the Senator pardon me if I interrupt him just
once more ?
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Certainly.
Mr. PLATT. It seems to me hardly to..be fair to ask of the conferees
an interpretation of that clause, when it is a clause which was put in
by the Senate itself, and was not in the original bill as reported by the
Committee on Interstate Commerce.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. It was somewhat different in the bill
as passed by the Senate.
Mr. PLATT. Those precise words were put in by an amendment in
the Senate. - *
Mr. GEORGE. Will the Senator from Oregon indulge me in an
observation or two 2 -
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Certainly. . -
Mr. GEORGE. I desire to say this upon the difference of construc-
tion as to the meaning of the bill: In the first place the true meaning
of this measure, as of every other law, is bound to be settled by the
courts, and in arriving at the true meaning of the act it is a fundamen-
tal canon of statutory construction that the court will not look at the
opinions expressed by the members of the legislature who voted for and
against it as to its meaning. The meaning of the act will be deter-
mined by a consideration alone of its language. • ,
That is the first observation I desire to make; and the next is that
there never was an important statute from the earliest history down
to the present time which was ever passed by any legislative body that
did not give rise to disputes as to the meaning of the act itself. Our
Constitution is subject to these criticisms all the time, and the most
important and beneficial acts, for instance, the Statute of Frauds, passed
as early as Charles II, have been the fruitful source of disputes and
contrary decisions by the courts as to their meaning.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I do not wish to yield for a general
dissertation on the Constitution. .
Mr. GEORGE. That is as far as I want to go.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I will say in answer to the Senator
from Mississippi that he on Monday last in responding to the construc-
tion placed on the fourth section of the bill by its author, the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], stated distinctly and emphatically that if
that were the construction of the section, then it amounted to nothing
as a regulation of the long and short haul business, and that if that
were the construction he would not"vote for that provision at least as
a separate proposition, while he thought there were some other good.
things in the bill which would justify him in voting for it. -
Now, my friend on the left, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
HoAR], representing the great commercial city of Boston and certain
other commercial cities I presume in the State of Massachusetts, evi-
dently from the position he takes, is opposed teeth and toe-nails to the
provision relating to long and short hauls. He thinks that it mate-
rially and adversely affects certain people whom he deems it to be his
duty to represent on this floor, and therefore he gives a certain con-
struction to the fourth section which is directly the opposite construc-
183
&
tion to that placed upon it by the Senator who wrote it and who re-
ported it, the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM].
To fortify his position the Senator from Massachusetts brings in a
letter from one member of the conference committee on the part of the
House disputing the construction placed upon this section by the chair-
man of the conference committee on the part of the Senate; and there-
fore you have it just as I stated in the beginning of my speech, that a bill
is presented here in reference to which, so ſar as ſ an advised at present,
no two of the honorable members of the conference committee can agree
as to the proper construction to be placed upon it. Therefore I, as an
humble member of the Senate, am called upon in my place to examine
this bill for myself and to place upon it the construction that I think
the courts will inevitably be called upon to place upon it when it is
brought before them.
Now, I will proceed to consider the provisions of this section and see
what it does mean if we can get at it. :
But let us inquire further as to the real meaning of this fourth sec-
tion. It will not do in discussing this phase of this report to confuse
the rights, powers, and duties of the interstate-commerce commission
provided for in this bill in respect of special cases, which I think the
honorable Senator from Illinois inadvertently did the other day, with
the plain meaning and interpretation of the bill as to what is and what
is not declared to be unlawful by the express terms of this fourth sec-
tion in reference to the long and short haul business.
Mr. CULLOM. As I understand the Senator, he says that I, as chair-
man of the committee, have undertaken to confuse the public mind up-
on the question of the meaning of that section.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Not at all, Mr. President.
Mr. CULLOM. If he makes any such insinuation as that, I desire
to have the gentleman distinctly understand that I gave my construc-
tion of that section plainly, honestly, and in good faith to myself and
to the country, and I will not allow any man to insinuate to the con-
trary. -
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. The Senator from Illinois entirely and
absolutely misunderstands me, as he will find before I have finished
what I am about to say. I do not think the Senator is justified in
manifesting the feeling he does in reference to any language I have
used. If I have been unguarded I wish to declare now and here that
I have no intention whatever, as the chairman will see before I finish
my remarks, of imputing to the chairman of the committee anything
else but an industrious, able, and unwearied effort to secure the passage
of the very best bill he can get on this great subject. What I mean
to say is that in discussing this phase of the report we should be care-
ful not to confuse the rights, powers, and duties of the interstate-com-
merce commission provided for in this bill in respect of special cases,
as I think the Senator from Illinois did the other day, not of course in-
tending to mislead, with the plain meaning and interpretation of the
bill as to what is and what is not declared to be unlawful by the ex-
press terms of the fourth section in reference to the long and short hau}
business. -
The commission has no jurisdiction or power whatever to hear or
determine anything in any special case unless such special, case arises
in a case where the long and short haul provision applies. It is only
in case of a charge that is prohibited by law, that is by the first para-
graph of such section, that can be made a special case; and in no instance
can a special case arise under the provisions of this fourth section, or
184 -
any other provision of the bill, that can be considered by the commis-
sion whereby the terms of the section the long and short haul provision
does not apply. When, then, in what case or cases does the long and
short haul inhibition operate? When can it possibly attach under the
provisions of this section? In what instance or instances, when and
where, and under what circumstances is it by the specific terms of this
fourth section made unlawful to receive any greater compensation in
the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of property for a
shorter than for a longer distance? Clearly only in the single instance
where all the following conditions combine and exist, that is to say—
1. Where the property transported over the long and short hauls is
‘‘ of like kind; ” : r • ?
2. Where it is transported in the same direction, the shorter being
included within the longer distance; and, lastly, ".
3. Where the transportation over the two hauls, the long and the
short distance, is, to quote the language of the section— • ?
Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions. -
It is only therefore, it must be observed, in the solitary case where
all these conditions combine and actually exist that the inhibition
against receiving more for a short than for a long haul attaches by vir-
tue of the fourth section of the proposed bill. It is only when all
these “conditions” exist that it is declared by this proposed bill that
it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to its provisions to
charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the
transportation of passengers or property for a shorter than for a longer
distance. Therefore, if any one of any of these three essential condi-
tions is lacking in any given case, them as to such case the prohibition
does not apply, and in such an instance it is not, and can not be under
the express terms of this proposed legislation, unlawful in any common
carrier to charge or receive more for a short haul than along haul. If,
therefore, in any given case the transportation of persons or property
over the long and the short haul is not “under substantially similar
circumstances and conditions,” then in that case it is not unlawful
under the express provisions of this proposed bill for any common car-
rier to charge or receive more for transporting persons or property over
a short than a long distance, and in such a case the railroad commis-
sion provided for in this bill has no jurisdiction whatever.
I understood the other day in the argument of the Senator from Illi-
nois–I may have misunderstood him—that he did claim that the com-
mission provided for in this bill would in a case of that kind have juris-
diction; in other words, that the interstate-commerce commission pro-
vided for by a certain section of this bill would have the jurisdiction
and the power to determine whether in two given cases the freight or
persons were transported under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions. If I understood the Senator from Illinois aright in regard
to that, then I differ, and I insist that the true construction of this sec-
tion precludes and excludes the commission from any say whatever in
the matter, unless it be in a case arising where the law has declared it
unlawful to receive a larger sum for a short haul than a long haul, and
that the question as to whether the thing is done under the same cir-
cumstances and conditions is not a matter to be considered by them at
all under, the provisions of the bill. : -
In such a case the bill itself, by express terms, excludes it from the
operation of the mala prohibita declared by its provisions in certain cases.
In other words, it is only in a case where all the three several condi-
• * { * *
tions hereinbefore specified exist; and hence it is only a case wherein,
185
by the terms of this bill, it is declared to be unlawful for any common
carrier to charge or receive more for a short than a long distance, that
there is by the provisions of this bill any jurisdiction whatever in the
commission to consider a special case by reason of the hardship of such
case. As equity is the correction of that wherein the law by reason
of its universality is deficient, so here, this commission has authority
to-act, in-so-far as the fourth section is concerned, only in such special
cases wherein a strict enforcement of the prohibition would work a
hardship. * * * -
This being the condition and status, therefore, of this proposed bill
as now presented to us, can it for one moment be insisted with any
kind of propriety by those favoring an effective long and short haul
clause that this bill meets the case? Can any member of this Senate
Moint to a single instance in connection with transportation over any one
of the great transcontinental routes of this country wherein the trans-
portation over such line or lines is performed “under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions” to those of the transportation
on such lines, or any of them, on any one of the shorter hauls on the
same line between the terminal points of the long haul?
I undertake to say that not a single instance can be suggested, either
by the Senator from Illinois, who has reported this bill, and in whose
ability, earnestness, and zeal, and entire good faith in his unwearied
efforts to secure some good legislation on this great subject I have the
utmost confidence, or any other member of the Senate, wherein the
transportation on any short haul included in any one of the long hauls
on any one of the transcontinental roads of these United States is per-
formed, or regulated, or controlled, or the rates of transportation fixed
by or “under substantially similar circumstances and conditions” to
those under which transportation is performed, or regulated, controlled,
or carried on, or rates of transportation fixed over any of the shorter or
intermediate hauls within the terminal limits of the long haul on any
such line. - .
Unquestionably the competition by both rail and water—rail on our
own soil and over and through foreign territory as well, which our
legislation can not reach—and also the volume and character of busi-
ness at extreme terminal points, and over long hauls, the difference in
terminal expenses, and the cost of service on such hauls as compared
with all these conditions on short hauls, must, of necessity, make the
“circumstances '' and “conditions'' under which transportation is car-
ried on by our transcontinental roads over their long or through hauls
entirely dissimilar in every essential particular from that carried on in
any portion of any of these transcontinental lines on any of the shorter
hauls between their extreme terminal limits, and which in no single in-
stance, perhaps, is subject to the “circumstance ’’ or “condition ” of
competition, or, to say the least, subject substantially to that char-
acter and degree of competition which attaches to, controls, regulates,
and fixes the charge on the long hauls.
Therefore, I conclude, without hesitation, that the pending bill, in-so-
far as it professes to establish a rule that will prevent common carriers
from charging or receiving a greater price for transporting persons or
property over a short than over a long haul is an absolutely harmless
piece of legislation in-so-ſar as the interests of the common carrier are
concerned, and wholly and absolutely impotent and inefficient in-so-far
as giving protection to the shipper is concerned. In a word, the fourth
section relating to long and short hauls undertakes to declare certain
things unlawful, and then in the same breath declares that the thing
186
sought to be prohibited in order to be unlawful must combine three or
more certain specific conditions, which, in not one case in a thousand,
are found to exist in the same particular case. In short, it professes to
meet a popular demand, while in fact it does not meet it at all. It is
worse than the tub to the whale business. It pretends to make it un-
lawful to charge or receive a greater amount for a short haul than for
a long one, and yet it prescribes such conditions, on the existence and
unity of which alone the inhibition can attach and operate, as neces-
sarily throw each and every case beyond the reach of the prohibitory
provisions of the bill. 4 -
The same paralyzing clause is found in section 2 of the bill, which
declares unjust discrimination to be unlawful by prohibiting special
rates, rebates, drawbacks, and all other devices by which a greater or
less compensation for any service rendered or to be rendered, in the
matter of transportation, is charged or received from one person than
from another for a like and contemporaneous service. No person,
either shipper or common carrier, can present any valid objection to
this.
No one will contend that unjust discriminations of this character
should be permitted. And yet this conference committee, who must
be supposed to represent the true interests of the people, of the pro-
ducer, the consumer, the shipper, and not the interests of the common
carrier, except to see that no injustice is done, have inserted in this
section these same cabalistic words, “wnder substantially similar circum-
stances and conditions.” -
So that in every case arising under that section, before the act can
be considered unlawful, the question must be investigated and deter-
mined by some tribunal as to whether what has been done in the two
cases—the one of which it is claimed is unlawful—was done “under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions.” Without these six
words the section against unjust discriminations amounts to something;
with them in, it is, in my judgment, practically useless. So, also, as
to section four.
Believing that this bill as reported will become a law without amend-
ment in respect to the provisions I have discussed, and inasmuch as it
is doubtless generally believed by people throughout this country inter-
ested in cheap service for short hauls that this bill contains an effective
provision on that subject, and being firmly of the conviction that the
provision as it stands is absolutely valueless, and will prove in practical
operation to be so, I have felt it a duty I owed my constituents to sub-
mit these observations as to my understanding of the measure; and
whatever may be the result of this measure finally, or the character of
my votes in disposing of it, I should reserve the right to change both
my judgment and my vote, on any future occasion, in reference to this
whole business of long and short hauls, should the practical work-
ings of this bill, in the event it becomes a law, demonstrate that the
true interests of all the people of the great Pacific Northwest, her pro-
ducers, her varied industries, her commerce, and her commercial cities
demand such change. - - .
The mighty and complex problem of constructing empire in the great
Pacific Northwest, of developing her unparalleled and diverse resources,
of building up her commerce, is now undergoing solution. And it is
of the utmost importance that whatever may be done here shall not
complicate but rather tend to expedite such solution in a manner that
will promote the true interests of all concerned.
In conclusion, I submit the following proposed amendments for the
187
consideration of the conference committee, in the event that by the
action of the Senate this report shall be recommitted to that commit-
tee for further consideration: -
1. Amend section 2 by striking out the following words:
Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.
2. Amendsection 4 by striking from such section the following words:
|Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
report of the committee of conference.
Mr. SEWELL. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration
of executive business.
Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator from New Jersey will yield a moment,
I desire to make a statement. º
Mr. SEWELL. I withdraw my motion temporarily.
Mr. CULLOM. I gave notice yesterday, as I had done before, that
I should ask the Senate to remain in session to-day until this subject
was disposed of. There are, however, three or four Senators who have
expressed a desire to speak, and who have engagements this evening
which they would not be able to fill if they were detained here for the
consideration of this bill after the usual hour of adjournment.
The bill is a very important one. It is not suffering by discussion
or by a little delay, as I find that the Legislatures of the different States
are beginning to consider the same subject and act upon it, as well as
the boards of trade in different sections of the country.
I have thought it proper, therefore, to make this statement, saying
that I am willing the bill shall go over to-day, so that the gentlemen
who desire to speak may have an opportunity to do so to-morrow. I
trust that there will not be any further delay after to-morrow, but that
the bill will be disposed of then.
Mr. HOAR. I rise to suggest that I believe there are no executive
messages on the table. I am inclined, therefore, to move an adjourn-
ment, in lieu of the motion of the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. SEWELL. I understand that there are several reports ready
for consideration in executive session.
Mr. HOAR. Very well.
Mr. CONGER. I wish to say that, having been absent from the Sen-
ate for some time, until to-day, and not having heard the discussion of
this question on the part of the Senate, and being desirous, perhaps, of
presenting some views of my own, I hope very much that the subject
may be postponed until to-morrow, that I may have an opportunity to
make some remarks myself if I shall then desire to do so.
Mr. COLQUITT. In this connection, I beg to present a petition of
citizens of Georgia, concerning the interstate-commerce bill. I do not
ask for the reading of it, but that it be inserted in the RECORD.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia asks that
the communication referred to by him be printed in the RECORD. The
Chair hears no objection. It will be so ordered.
The petition is as follows: -
PETI’ſ ION TO CONGRESS BY PEOPLE OF GEORGIA.
To the honorable Semcºte and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled:
We, the undersigned, most respectfully petition your honorable bodies to pass
the anti-discrimination or interstate-commerce bill now before Congress known
as the Cullom bill, with the following amendment:
In the first clause of section 4, instead of reading as it does—“That it shall
be unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive any greater compèm-
188
sation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or property, sub-
ject to the provisions of this act, for a shorter than for a longer distance over
the same line in the same direction and from the same original point of de-
parture”—to read as follows: That it shall be unlawful for any commen carrier
to charge or receive any greater compensation per mile or length of haul for
the transportation of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this
act, for a shorter than for a longer haul of the same class of persons or prop-
erty from or to any point in any direction on the same line of transporta-
tion: Provided, That on the shorter haul a proportionate additional rate may
be charged to cover what is known as a greater percentage of terminal ex-
penses on the shorter over the longer haul; or, in other words, a reasonable and
just graduation of lower rates on the longer over the shorter haul may be al-
lowed, but not in violation of the equal rights and privileges of the people in
any town or locality sought to be protected and secured against unequal and
unjust discrimination by the third section of this act; all of which variations of
rates of freight shall be subject to revision, correction, and control of the com-
mission provided by this act. - .
We can see no valid reason why each class or kind of persons or property
should be charged heavier rates of freight for one or any locality than for an-
other, except to cover reasonable and just terminal expenses on the short haul
as compared with the longer haul. - -
We see no valid reason why the same kind or class of person or property
should be charged heavier rates of freight from Saint Louis, Chicago, or Cin-
cinnati to Baltimore, Philadelphia, or New York, than from Baltimore, Phila-
delphia, or New York, to any of the aforementioned places, or from Atlanta to
either of the aforementioned places, or from either of the aforementioned
places to Atlanta; that is to say, the rates of freight charged on the transporta-
tion of the same class or kind of persons or property should be the same per
mile or length of haul in each direction between any two points; localities, or
places on the same line, whether the haul be shorter or longer, with the excep-
tion of a reasonable and just percentage to cover terminal expenses, as aforesaid.
Nor can we see any valid reason why the people or small towns located be-
tween the great commercial centers of the country should be charged higher
rates of freight on the same class or kind of persons or property on the same
line of transportation than the people who reside in the leading commercial
centers, except in such cases as an intelligent and just commission may allow.
Nor can we see any valid reason why the Congress of the United States, rep-
resenting as it does the people and the States, should not take charge of, regu-
late, and control this vast railroad and transportation business, as it now does
many other interests. + - - N . * , .
Without attempting to portray the vast political interests and dangers in-
volved in this great question, we most respectfully petition your honorable
bodies to enact into a law the aforementioned bill with the amendment herein
suggested. - -
GEORGIA, 1886.
This petition is signed by numerous citizens.
Mr. HARRIS. Before the question of proceeding to the considera-
tion of executive business is put, I desire to inquire if I understood the
Senator from Illinois as giving notice that he would insist upon a final
disposition of this conference report before adjournment to-morrow.
Mr. CULLOM. That is my purpose. .
Mr. HARRIS. It would be desirable, if we could do so by unani-
mous consent, to have an agreement that before adjournment to-
morrow, no matter at what hour, we should come to a final vote, so as
to end this matter. .
Mr. CULLOM. I should be very glad if we could have such a unan-
imous consent. I did suppose the probability would be that some Sen-
ator would object; hence I did not ask unanimous consent, but I should
be very glad to have it now. * -
Mr. HARRIS. We can not know that some Senator will object
until he does it. I will ask the unanimous consent of the Senate that
before adjournment to-morrow—no matter at what hour, whether it
be 5 o'clock. 6 o'clock, or 10 o’clock to-morrow night—we come to a vote
upon the question. * * * * -
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee asks
unanimous consent of the Senate that an agreement be entered into to
take the vote to-morrow. Is there objection? : . . . . . . .
\ 189
Mr. ALDRICH. I object.
Mr. CALL. Mr. President & .
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 13, 1887.
+ -X: .# + + + *
Mr. CULLOM presented resolutions adopted at a meeting of the
members of the Peoria County Grange, of Peoria County, Illinois, in
favor of the passage of the interstate-commerce bill; which were or—
dered to lie on the table.
He also presented resolutions adopted at a meeting of the members
of the Commercial Exchange of Philadelphia, in favor of the passage
of the interstate-commerce bill, and especially indorsing those sections
in it relating to pooling and the long and short haul; which were or-
dered to lie on the table. -
Mr. COLQUITT. I desire to call attention to the petition which I
presented yesterday afternoon in favor of the passage of the interstate-
commerce bill. It was published in the RECORD, but not read, as I
did not wish to consume the time of the Senate. It appears as a peti-
tion of citizens of Georgia merely, without any names attached to it,
stating that it was signed by numerous citizens. It is due to the gen-
tlemen who sent me the petition, accompanied by a letter, that I should
state that it is signed by citizens of Atlanta, Ga., and signed by the
leading wholesale merchants as well as leading and influential citizens
of that State, such men as L. E. Bleckley, R. D. Spalding, John Col-
lier, Maddox Rucker & Co., Moore, Marsh & Co., M. C. & J. P. Ki-
ser & Co., Chamberlin, John & Co., and others.
2K. X -- 3: * * *
Mr. CULLOM. Now I insist on the regular order.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee
of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill
(S. 1532) to regulate commerce.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
report of the conference committee.
Mr. CULLOM. The report has not yet been read to the Senate in
full. If there are no further remarks to be made, I ask for the read-
ing of the report, as I suppose that is necessary.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report of the conference com-
mittee will be read. -
The Chief Clerk read the report, which has been heretofore published
in the RECORD. -
Mr. HOAR. I move that the Senate disagree to the report of the
conference committee, insist upon its former action passing the original
bill, and request a further conference.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts
submits a motion, which will be read.
Mr. HOAR. The motion is in writing.
Mr. CULLOM. I believe, under the rule, the question must be on
the motion to concur.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion made by the Senator
from Massachusetts will be read.
t 108)
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
That the Senate disagree to the report of the conference committee, insist. i
upon its former action passing the bill, and request a further conference.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois, the Chair
understands, has already made the motion that the Senate concur. -
Mr. CULLOM. Yes, sir. As I understand, I made the motion when
I submitted the report. It is the standing motion and under the rule
that would he the motion regularly. t
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is of the opinion that both
motions are in order. As to the order of precedence the Chair is not
now prepared to determine before the question arises.
Mr. HOAR. I am not aware that the Senator from Illinois has made
any motion as yet with regard to the report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understood the Senator
from Illinois to move that the Senate agree to the report of the com-
mittee of conference, at the very beginning. -
Mr. CULLOM. I thm.k that motion has precedence over any other
motion, unless it may be to commit.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, without any motion the question
pending upon a report of a committee of conference is, Will the Senate
agree to the report 2
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair has already announced
that he would consider the question. - $
Mr. HARRIS. Whether the Senator ſrom Illinois made such mo-
tion or not, that was the question; no motion was necessary. When
the Senate has acted on that question, if it disagrees, of course it will
then be in order, if any Senator chooses to do so, to move that the Sen-
ate further insist and ask for a further conference; but the motion now
in the form that the Senator from Massachusetts proposes it, is in the
first branch of it simply to present the same question in another form
as the question which is already pending before the Senate, “Will the
Senate agree or disagree to this report?” When that question has first
been decided, then it will be for the Senate to determine whether it
will further insist and ask for a further conference, or recognize the fact
that this action is the final defeat of the bill.
...I desire to say upon that point, while I am on my feet, that from a
two weeks' experience, almost daily, in that committee of conference,
I am satisfied and absolutely confident that the disagreement on the
part of the Senate to this report is the final defeat of legislation upon
the subject during this Congress. I am absolutely confident that we
can never more nearly approximate the views of the Senate with respect
to this legislation by any subsequent or additional conference with the
House than we have already done, and I desire that every Senator on
this floor shall realize and recognize the fact that when he votes upon
the question of agreeing or disagreeing to this report he is substantially
and in effect voting upon the question as to whether we shall or shall
not have legislation upon this question during this Congress, for such
is, in my opinion, the inevitable effect of a disagreement to this report. "
Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I suppose the mere method of putting
this question is of trifling importance. Both these motions are motions
that are in order—the motion to disagree, insist, and ask a further con-
ference, and the motion to concur. I do not understand that the
motion to concur or agree has been made, but undoubtedly whether it
has been or not it can be, and if it be— *
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair is informed by the princi-
pal officers at the desk, who are most likely to remember a matter of
191
that kind, that when the report was first made there was a motion
made by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CUT.LOM] to agree to or concur
in the report. - -
Mr. HOAR. That will depend on the Journal, of course. If it was
made, it was journalized. If it was not journalized it was not made.
But it is utterly unimportant. Undoubtedly at whatever time the mo-
tion to concur is made, whether made at the time of making the report
or made at the time of putting the question, it will take precedence
under the customs of the Senate of this motion of mine. The impor-
tance of this motion now is that the Senate may have before it what is
proposed as the next step, supposing the motion to concur should fail.
There are a great many motions, it is not necessary to say to the Chair,
which may be pending at the same time, but which have a due order
of preference in putting them. So there is no substantial difference
between the Senator from Tennessee and myself.
I wish, however, to say one word. without addressing myself at this
time to the general merits of the bill, in regard to the statement made
by my honorable friend from Tennessee.
Here is a bill which embodies four great Salutary propositions upon
which the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the American peo-
ple are substantially agreed. First, that the principle of the common
law, which it has been held does not belong to the jurisprudence of the
United States without special legislation, shall be extended to the
common carriers of the country who are engaged in commerce among
the States or with foreign nations. Second, that there shall be a com-
mission who shall investigate, report, and to some extent direct the
conduct of that business. Third, that hereafter the doctrine of reason-
ableness shall prevail by the authority of the statute of the United
States between the carrier and the customer in fixing rates. Fourth,
that there shall be no undue discrimination between persons or places
or classes of business in the conduct of the great carrying trade of the
country. And the committee having this bill in charge come in and
hold over our heads a threat that no one of these things, so salutary
and so desirable, shall be accomplished, but that we shall remain with-
out legislation unless we shall consent also to ingraft on this bill what
is a departure from the great doctrine of reasonableness, from the com-
mon law—to ingraft on it a principle against which the customers and
not the railroads interested in great branches of the carrying trade are
protesting on the ground that the inevitable effect of it will be to put
up freights and to make large branches of business now carried on
profitably and successfully impossible for the future.
Now, I appeal to the Senate not to submit to that kind of threat. It
is not statesmanlike, it is not just, it is not in accordance with sound
legislation that the Senate shall be told “you shall not accomplish
what everybody wants and everybody believes just, unless you will
submit also to regulations which are to cut up by the roots great depart-
ments of foreign commerce of this country.” -
I believe that a majority of the Senate can be made to see that the
new provisions ingrafted on this bill are not only unjust and unwise,
but that they are destructive of the object which the bill professes and
which both Houses of Congress have at heart. I believe, while saying
that, that there is an orderly, constitutional, legislative way to accom-
plish the good and to prevent the evil.
Mr. GEORGE, Mr. President, the remarks made by the Senator
from Massachusetts provoke me to say what I have had in my mind
to say for some days; and I will say it now.
192
The Senator said that he had no doubt that the effect of this legisla-
tion would be to increase freight rates. I have no doubt that will be
the immediate effect of the passage of this bill, not because that is the
legitimate result of the passage of this bill, but because the large inter-
est in this country opposed to the passage of this bill will make that
the occasion of unnecessarily and unjustly raising the rates in order to
bring into disrepute belore the people of this country the measure now
before the Senate. .
This measure, Mr. President, is not one that I would have proposed
to the Senate if it had been left to me. I would have made the regu-
lations much more stringent than they are. I would have left no loop-
hole for controversy or debate about the meaning of any portion of
this statute. But we must take this step or we must stand still upon
, this question. I am satisfied, from my observation and from conferences
with members of this body and with members of the other House, that
if this report be disagreed to on the part of the Senate, it means no
legislation upon the subject during this session. - -
Mr. HOAR. Why? - -
Mr. GEORGE. Because I think that after a two weeks’ work on
the part of the conference committee, when concessions have been made,
as I understand, by the conferees on the part of the House and on the
part of the Senate—extreme concessions made on either side for the
purpose of coming to an agreement—if this reasonable bill, this reason-
able report, fair to the railroads, much fairer to them than it is to the
people of this country, is rejected, no further concessions can be gotten.
Mr. HOAR. Will the Senator from Mississippi allow me to ask him
a question in that connection?
Mr. GEORGE. Yes, sir. . .
Mr. HOAR. Does the Senator mean to say that if a majority of th
Senate are of opinion that this long and short haul clause is unjust–
will raise rates, as he admits, not only temporarily, but permanently,
and will defeat the purpose of the bill—there is any legislator that he
knows of who will refuse to pass all the other excellent legislation
which he also approves of in the bill because other Senators differ with
him on that question ? - &
Mr. GEORGE. In answer to that question I can say that there is
a feeling, there is a sentiment, there is a suspicion, if I may use the
term, that this bill or that all legislation on this subject is to be de-
feated by dilatory motions. I do not know how far that goes; I do not
say that I entertain that suspicion myself; I do not, because I accord
to every member of this body the same honesty and integrity of pur-
pose that I claim for myself; but I do think, after the exposition made
by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIs], which I understand is
concurred in by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], that any
further attempt to postpone action in this matter will result in non-
action.
While I am up, Mr. President, I will supplement a little the idea
which I first advanced. I believe it will be the policy of the railroad
companies of this country as soon as this bill is passed, by all sorts of
tricks and maneuvers, to make arrangements, to make rates which are
unreasonable and unjust, and charge them to this bill. ... :
I am not without precedent for a statement of that sort. I have had
some observation in my own State which authorizes me to say, as I
now do say, that every effort, every device, every trick will be resorted
to on the part of the railroad companies for the purpose of bringing into
disrepute legislation on this subject. And so, Mr. President, I do hope
193
that every member of this body who is really in earnest about having
a bill passed on this subject will vote to agree with the conference
report. . -
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the pending mo-
tion that the Senate disagree to the report of the committee of con-
ference.
Mr. EVARTS. Mr. President—
. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York will
pause a moment. The Chair will state that upon a reference to the
Journal and also to the RECORD, it does not appear that the Senator
from Illinois did make the motion to agree to the report, and therefore
no motion is pending except the motion made by the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR], on which the Senator from New York has
the floor. -
Mr. CULLOM. If the Senator will yield a moment, I desire to state
that my impression was that I made a motion to concur, but I was not
sure about it, thinking that motion followed as a matter of course,
that that was the regular motion to be put under the rules.
Mr. HOAR. I withdraw my motion to let the Senator make his.
Mr. CULLOM.. I will make the motion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection, both mo-
tions may be presented.
Mr. HOAR. I will withdraw my motion and let the Senator make
his, and then renew mine. It was not for the sake of having mine put
first, because I do not understand that it is entitled to be put first if I
make it, but only that it might be before the Senate so as to present a
contrast between the two policies.
Mr. CULLOM.. I think the Senator is right in saying that the mo-
tion to concur has preference, and I make the motion now that the
Senate concur in the report. -
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Undoubtedly, under the rules and
parliamentary law, either motion is a proper motion, but the parlia-
mentary rule requires that the motion to concur shall be first put.
Mr. HOAR. I so understand it, and I therefore will treat my mo-
tion as subsidiary, but it is pending. -
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, what was the question before any
motion was made on the subject 2
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question was on the motion to
print, which, having been adopted, left the conference report before
the Senate without any motion based on it. -
Mr. HARRIS. And what was the question, if no motion had been
made, that the Chair would have put to the Senate?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Very likely the Chair would have
put the question on agreeing to the report; but still a motion to disa-
gree to the report is just as much in order as a motion to agree. The
Senator from New York has the floor.
Mr. FRYE. One moment, if the Senator pleases I give notice that
I shall offer a motion to recommit this bill with instructions, and if a
point of order is made against that, and the Presiding Officer rules as
the Senate ruled in a former case, that it is not in order (which I do
not believe), I then shall make the motion to recommit, and let the
instructions follow. As I understand it, either motion, if in order,
will take precedence of the motion made by the Senator from Massa-
chusetts or the Senator from Illinois.
I S C–13
194
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will decidesuch questions
as they arise.
Mr. EVARTS. Mr. President, if no other Senator proposes at this
moment to engage the attention of the Senate, I will venture to pre-
sent some views that seem to me of importance. And yet a careful
attention to the debate, as I have heard it, and to the record of the
speeches, which I have not heard, but which I have perused, might
restrain me from thinking that I could address any considerations of
that kind to the Senate; but my constituents, composing the largest
State in population and in wealth, and embracing all that belongs to
foreign commerce, domestic manufacture, long reach of communication,
and complete and intimate arrangements for domestic intercourse, it
can not but be supposed that that great community feels an interest in
this bill, and desires that whatever shall be the fate of the bill, its
opinions and its views may have been presented to the Senate and
understood by it. .
As the matter as I shall present it will involve some examination of
constitutional and of legal views, I can not expect to make it interest-
ing; but I shall endeavor to dwell at each step in the progress of such
argument, if I may so call it, as I shall make so as to bring us promptly,
at least so far as I am concerned, to the determination of the question
before us. • ,
In the first place, Mr. President, this is a question really of the in-
terest of commerce. It is generally spoken of as a measure of inter-
state commerce, and I had thought probably the title was confined to
that; but wisely and circumspectly, even in the title of the bill, that
confinement has not been practiced. It is, and is properly, described
in the title as “A bill to regulate commerce.” It does regulate com-
merce among the States, but it does also regulate commerce toward for-
eign nations; and thus, if we reject the single clause that introduces
relations with the Indian tribes, as immaterial certainly to this discus-
sion and immaterial in general compared with the other immense
topics, this measure deals with the entire power of the Government of
the United States over Commerce. - -
Whatever the effect of this bill as properly construed and as reason-
ably applied shall be upon commerce, it is the exercise of a power
lodged in this Government, solely on the motive of commerce, not upon
any other motive, not upon any other consideration than what either
directly or by converting influence touches the regulation of commerce.
In the arrangements of the Constitution, in the purposes, in the feel-
ings, in the independence, in the attributes, in the essential construc-
tion which went to make these great governmental arrangements for
common interests, commerce was not only the motive urging most'
strongly the establishment of the Union, but it was only a commerce
that after it was established and committed to a general government
was to be a commerce impossible, if human wisdom could prevent it,
of disparity among the States themselves or between the States in their
relations to the external world. -
And now let me say that this power of this Government, and thi
bill, and all these topics of debate, have no relation to railroads except
just so far as they come within the application of the principle and sole
constitutional right of dealing with commerce. Punishment or dispar-
agement, favor, patronage, development are not within the province
of this power when applied to railroads. They are not subject on these
considerations of police and of government that are brought within the
comprehension of the legislation of Congress. They are vehicles of com-
Af
195
merce. Like ships, they are vehicles of commerce. Like arrangements -
for conveyance that have been noted in judicial decisions, this power as
to commerce may have to deal with these more intimate and more sub-
tle arrangements as affecting trade, but all of them are included in
the right and the duty and the purpose of dealing with commerce.
Nor, Mr. President, has the power of this Government the right or the
duty of distributing population and either furthering or resisting opera-
tions that tend in that direction and with that effect. It is not to say
whether this town, this village, this seaport, in the spread of population
and the vastness of man’s dominion over the power of nature, shall change
the natural map so that no longer as nature made them are the points of
favor and the points to be avoided still to be kept upon the map. What
has happened has happened; what is to happen will happen; and if there
is any line that is drawn between the powers of the Federal Government
and the powers of the States it is this, that the domestic arrangements
areto depend upon the determination of the State authority, and that this
Government is neither a party nor is it a wisher in regard to the results
and consequences that come out of the development of commerce or the
changes of its methods except that this Government deals with this very
subject itself of commerce in the interest of commerce.
The power of our Government, as I have already intimated, was not
intended to be uncontrolled in the fundamental provisions of the Con-
stitution. We are, then, to look at those arrangements in the light of
the situation and the rights as they existed in the States before the
General Government was contemplated and framed—how much they
wished to forego of their independence in regard to the common inter-
ests, and how much they desired to deposit and how much to with-
hold; how much to withhold for the exercise of State authority; how
much to withhold from both State and Federal; for what was the gen-
eral freedom and equality on which the whole project rested and gave
its motive, its frame, its shape, its credit, with the answering support
of the various members of the Union.
We have been in the habit of saying as to foreign commerce, as it was
all external—external to every part of the Union—that branch of com-
merce might not need to be restrained, and that after its deposit the mo-
tive or the opportunity of departure from the general and universal law,
of equal advantage to all in foreign commerce, would regulate itself.
But the framers of this Government were not indifferent, unconcerned,
or uncircumspect in their dominion over that topic before they parted
with it in the acceptance of the Constitution. Irecall, and in very brief
terms—for all that relates to it is in very brief terms-—the instructive
clause upon the power of this Government in regulating foreign com-
merce. It is provided, in limitation of the power of this Government—
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the
ports of one State over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one
State be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.
You will observe that this was the controlling idea working in the
minds of the framers of the Constitution and its acceptance by the
States—that nothing should come or could come in the power of this
Government that would make discrimination among the States or
among their interests, but that all was to be operated, not only in the
sense of the general good and by the general power that this Govern-
ment was endowed with, so that it should be impossible to become par-
tial and discriminating among the States themselves. .
We then have in a most important particular, indeed in several most
196
important particulars, these limitations on foreign commerce and its
regulation, and all tending to equality and freedom in the commerce
of the people of these United States. I speak of the population of the
United States—the population of all of the States—of the whole; but
all of them also separately; populations, in the most important views,
of individual States. .
When we come to the dealing with commerce among the States, that
single phrase “among the States” is all contained in the Constitution
that in specific terms and by direct interpretation and acceptation re-
lates to that subject. Was it then so important that foreign trade, the
trade of our whole people ab extra, with the world outside, was to be
controlled so that no discrimination should be made at home in refer-
ence to that foreign trade; and yet that this deposit of authority re-
specting trade among the States was unlimited with the General Gov-
ernment to burden it, to impede it, to derange it, to destroy it, at its
will? The power to tax, as the great Chief-Justice has said, is the
power to destroy; and is it true that this Government of ours is un-
guarded in the maintenance of equality among the States in trade, and
in its freedom, by any principle or any postulate if there be wanting
particular clauses of authority to govern this? *
Why, Mr. President, the power to regulate commerce between the
States was to regulate the commerce between the States that was as-
sumed to be and to continue forever equal and free; and the deposit of
this power in the General Government was to see to it by its spaper-
vision and its imposing authority that no regulation in the special in-
terest of any State by the power of this Government could break that
absolute unity and freedom. Did you need to put into the Constitu-
tion clauses that we should not establish custom-houses between the
States, that we côuld not make a difference between the transit from
remote States to the seaboard and near States to the ports of exporta-
tion? Was that needed to protect these people of the United States
against such intervention as I have indicated; and if this bill is to have
that effect is it constitutional? .
Generalities have their value, even if the purpose and the result is
not carried out in detail and expressed in firm stipulation. In the
view that I shall take of the objectionable clauses of this bill I shall
denounce them as unconstitutional and utterly inconsistent with the
very basis upon which this constitution of power lodged in the Fed-
eral Government on the subject of commerce was arranged and de-
posited. -
Let me read—never too frequently to be read when matters of inter-
est relative to great and valuable pursuits of our people come under
consideration—the preamble of the Constitution: -
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity.
I omit the following clauses as immaterial, now present as an undis-
puted and indisputable purpose that freedom and equality and justice
should be the base in all internal arrangement of every kind, not to
the States as States, but to the people of the different States and the
people of all the United States as in one country in their internal reg-
ulations of commerce.
And now I shall venture to suggest, and I hope I shall support it by
pertinent argument, that the effect of this bill as it is to be treated, has
rather a tendency to resort to a less perfect union, to disestablish jus-
tice, and to insure domestic discord. If that be true, are we to regard
under the light of what is the historical and what is to be called the
197
invincible view and opinion of all of us, that in dealing with commerce—
commerce abroad, commerce among the States—everything is to be un-
der the guardianship of this General Government, that private inter-
ests and discord shall not interfere with it, and that the right and the
duty and the power of the Federal Government shall all be toward the
establishment, maintenance, and execution of better union, justice,
and domestic tranquillity.
What has been the record of the Supreme Court of the United States
in its disposition of the manifold and not infrequent occasions in which
the subject-matter of commerce among the States has come up for ju-
dicial interpretation and enforcement? I challenge, I think without
risk, attention to this proposition, that every act judicially enforced
under all the agitations and discussions respecting interstate commerce
or commerce among the States has been to remove impediments and to
insist upon absolute equality. The court has proceeded in the direc-
tion of disallowing State legislation further and further; but even when
there was an allowance of any State legislation affecting commerce
among the States, it was allowed solely on the ground that it was a
mere advancement, support, protection of the necessary means of reach-
ing the State commerce. But I will not delay upon any statement of
this judicial interpretation, for we have now immediately before us the
last conclusion of that court upon this subject; and I would not draw
attention to the brief extract which I shall venture to present did not
this judicial interpretation touch not only general principles but the
very language almost, certainly of the very tendency and of the very
extent of this legislation in these obnoxious clauses that we are to pro-
ceed upon and dispose of.
What was the question before the Supreme Court in its last de-
cision ? At the outset I will state that what Illinois did was in its
nature, in its effect, in its amplification, in its office, or if not in its
office certainly in its necessary effect, a burden on commerce among the
States. What was it?' It was a regulation of long and short haul
within its own dominion, but operating externally necessarily in rela-
tion to the extended interstate commerce that was and must be affected
by that legislation. If I am right in saying that that was the question
and that the Supreme Court overruled the legislation of Illinois on the
ground that it was a burden on commerce between the States, then I
shall have secured to the respect of that great judicial body the assent
of the whole Senate that if it was a burden on commerce and was by
the State authority condemned for that reason, the same action is a
burden on commerce although it is exercised and applied by the Fed-
eral Government; and then you will be brought in the first step of legis-
lation to consider, whatever might be the judicial conclusion as to this
action being constitutional by the Federal Government, whether the
legislation of the General Government can unreasonably impose a bur-
den on commerce between the States.
Let me ask attention to a few passages from the judgment of the
court; but first let me say a word in regard to the consideration of this
question by that court. The “granger” legislation of 1870, and that
period will be remembered. In 1876 the constitutionality of that legis-
lation as affecting interstate commerce was considered. I had the good
fortune to be engaged in that litigation and on the side of the freedom
of intercourse among the States and in condemnation of the burden laid
by the State regulations of the Northwestern States. The court upheld
that legislation; but the court, as it rightfully could do, said there were
other grave considerations in that legislation, as there were, and that this
198
matter, at first not sufficiently adverted to, deserved consideration.
At any rate, they entered into an exposition to show that they could
not have been profitably engaged in a support of such a regulation of
State commerce by their decision in the granger cases, because the pre-
vious decisions of the court in other matters had really laid down the
rule. It is under that exposition that I call attention to the present
situation of the authorities on the subject. The court says, in the re-
cent case from Illinois:
The case of the State Freight Tax (15 Wall., 232), which was decided only
four years before these cases—
Referring to the Granger cases—
held an act of the Legislature of Pennsylvania void, as being in conflict with
the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, which levied a
tax upon all freight carried through the State by any railroad company, or into
it from any other State, or out of it into any other State, and valid as to all freight
the carriage of which was begun and ended within the linnits of the State, be-
eause the former was a regulation of interstate commerce, and the latter was a
commerce solely within the State which it had a right to regulate. And the
question now under consideration, whether these statutes were of a class which
the Legislatures of the States could enact in the absence of any act of Congress
on the subject, was considered and decided in the negative.
It is impossible—
And here is the point— -
It is impossible to see any distinction in its effect upon commerce of either
class, between a statute which regulates the charges for transportation, and a
statute which levies a tax for the benefit of the State upon the same transporta-
tion; and in fact the judgment of the court in the State Freight Tax case rested
upon the ground that the tax was always added to the cost of transportation,
and thus was a tax in effect upon the privilege of carrying the goods through
the State. It is also very difficult to believe that the court consciously intended
to overrule the first of these cases without any reference to it in the opinion.
What is the statute of Illinois that is brought up for judgment under
these constitutional arrangements in the last determination of the court'?
I read still from the opinion of the court:
The language of the statute which is supposed to be violated by this transac-
tion is to be found in chapter 114 of the Revised Statutes of Illinois, section 126.
It is there enacted that if any railroad corporation shall charge, collect, or re-
ceive for the transportation of any passenger or freight of ally description upon
its railroad, for any distance within the State, the same or a greater amount of
toll or compensation than is at the same time charged, collected, or received for
the transportation in the same direction of any passenger or like quantity of
freight of the same class over a greater distance of the same road, all such dis-
criminating rates, charges, collections, or receipts, whether made directly or by
means of rebate, drawback, or other shift or evasion, shall be deemed and
taken against any such railroad corporation as prima facie evidence of unjust
discrimination prohibited by the provisions of this act. The statute further
provides a penalty of not over $5,000 for that offense, and also that the party
aggrieved shall have a right to recover three times the amount of damages sus-
tained, with costs and attorneys’ fees.
The court holds that all arrangements regarding that portion that
operates to burden commerce are obnoxious to the protective clause of
the Constitution of the United States, and that in whatever form the
States may assume to exercise their influence, if it affects the burden,
then it is condemned as much as if a tax was laid on transportation as
it was to pass from one State to another. -
Now, let us see how the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United
States operates upon this specific form of State legislation which I have
cited. The court proceed:
The applicability of this language—
Citing from a former decision—
The applicability of this language to the case now under consideration, of a
continuous transportation of goods from New York to Central Illinois, or from
the latter to New York, is obvious, and it is not easy to see how any distinction
199
s
can be made. Whatever may be the instrumentalities by which this transporta-
tion from the one point to the other is effected, it is but one voyage, as much so as
that of the steamboat on the Mississippi River. It is not the railroads them-
selves that are regulated by this act of the Illinois Legislature so much as the
charge for transportation, and, in language just cited, if each one of the States
through whose territories these goods are transported can fix its own rules for
prices, for modes of transit, for times and modes of delivery, and all the other
incidents of transportation to which the word “regulation ” can be applied, it
is readily seen that the embarrassments upon interstate transportation, as an ele-
ment of interstate commerce, might be too oppressive to be submitted to. “It
was,” in the language of the court cited above, ‘‘ to meet just such a case that
the commerce clause of the Constitution was adopted.”
It can not be too strongly insisted upon that the right of continuous transpor-
tation from one end of the country to the other is essential in modern times to
that freedom of commerce from the restraints which the States might choose to
impose upon it, that the commerce clause was in tended to secure. This clause,
giving to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the States, and with
foreign nations, as this court has said before, was among the most important of
the subjects which prompted the formation of the Constitution. Cook vs. Penn-
sylvania, 97 United States, 574; Brown vs. Maryland, 12 Wheaton, 446. And it
would be a very feeble and almost useless provision, but poorly adapted to se-
cure the entire freedom of commerce among the States which was deemed essen-
tial to a more perfect union by the framers of the Constitution, if at every stage
of the transportation of goods and chattels through the country, the State within
whose limits a part of this transportation must be done could impose regula-
tions concerning the price, compensation, or taxation, or any other restrictive
regulation interfering with and seriously embarrassing this commerce.
But to be more particular in dissecting this provision as to long haul
and short haul when practiced by a State, let us see precisely what is
the degree of interference with the transportation of property or per-
sons from one State to another, which this statute proposes:
A citizen of New York has goods which he desires to have transported by the
railroad companies from that city to the interior of the State of Illinois. A con-
tinuous line of rail over which a car loaded with these goods can be carried,
and is carried habitually, connects the place of shipment with the place of de-
livery. He undertakes to make a contract with a person engaged in the carry-
ing business at the end of this route from whence the goods are to start, and he
is told by the carrier, “I am free to make a fair and reasonable contract for this
carriage to the line of the State of Illinois, but when the car which carries these
goods is to cross the line of that State, pursuing at the same time this contin-
uous track, I am met by a law of Illinois which forbids me to make a free con-
tract concerning this transportation within that State, and subjects me to cer-
tain rules by which I am to be governed as to the charges which the same rail-
road company in Illinois may nake, or has made, with reference to other per-
sons and other places of delivery.” So that while that carrier might be willing
to carry these goods from the eity of New York to the city of Peoria at the rate
of 15 cents per hundred pounds, he is not permitted to do so, because the Illi-
nois railroad company has already charged at the Yate of 25 cents per hundred
pounds for carriage to Gilman, in Illinois, which is 86 miles shorter than the dis-
tance to Peoria.
So, also, in the present case, the owner of corn, the principal product of the
country, desiring to transport it from Peoria, in Illinois, to New York, finds a
railroad company willing to do this at the rate of 15 cents per pundred pounds
for a car-load, but is compelled to pay at the rate of 25 cents per hundred pounds,
because the railroad company has received from a person residing in Gilman
25 cents per hundred pounds for the transportation of a car-load of the same
class of freight over the same line of road from Gilman to New York. This is
the result of the statute of Illinois, in its endeavor to prevent unjust discrimina-
tion, as construed by the supreme court of that State. The effect of it is that,
whatever may be the rate of transportation per mile charged by the railroad
company from Gilman to Sheldon, a distance of 23 miles, in which the loading
and the unloading of the freight is the largest expense incurred by the railroad
connpany, the same rate per mile must be charged from Peoria to the city of
New York. -
The obvious injustice of such a rule as this, which railroad companies are by
heavy penalties compelled to comform to, in regard to commerce among the
States, when applied to transportation which includes Iliinois in a long line of
carriage through several States, shows the value of the constitutional provision
which confides the power of regulating interstate commerce to the Congress of
the United States, whose enlarged view of the interests of all the States, and of
the railroads concerned, better fits it to establish just and equitable rules,
&
200
Mr. President, all that I insist upon here is a determination upon two
points, not only by the authority of this dispassionate examination, but
upon the great and as I think irresistible reasoning on which this de-
cision rests, that legislation of this kind by the States is a burden on
commerce. It produces inequality. It is inconsistent with equality
and justice. And now if we transport the same measure into Congres-
sional legislation, it does not alter its nature or its inequality or its in-
justice—I mean its inequality and its injustice as to its operation in its
own sphere—and therefore I invoke the Congress of the United States
by a chain of argument to determine whether it has power to burden
commerce among the States upon motives that produce this disparity,
this distinction in the freedom of commerce, in the rates and expenses
that commerce itself must bear.
I agree that the submission of this power to the Federal Government
is a denial to the States. I will not disguise the general interest and
influence upon the action of the Federal Government in Congress that
may be considered protected; but what I say is that when a measure
is introduced in Congress that has not the motive, nor the occasion,
nor the tendency to promote commerce in its equality, commerce in its
foreign relations, commerce in equality and in absolute non-discrimina-
tion, in that it is doing a thing that is denied to the States, and the
same reasons argue that it should be denied to the Federal Govern-
ment. -
Commerce is what the people who made the Constitution understood—
commerce, no matter what the appliances and vehicles and methods of
prosecution might be. They might not foresee the steam-cars or the
electric telegraph, but they could see that freedom and equality for the
people of the United States were more permanent and more useful than
any modifications of the vehicles or the methods of intercourse of com-
merce or of transportation. They lodged this securely. The com-
merce clause was not to be used as the instrument and under the power
of other motives than those which stimulate and help, invigorate, and
maintain and secure the freedom and equality of commerce.
Mr. President, if I am at all correct in these views of the clauses
which I shall attempt to expose in their true character, and not with any
view of denunciation or exaggeration, then this would be unconstitu-
tional legislation; and if it came up to the Supreme Court of the United
States and the court did not retrace its reasoning, even if it did not re-
trace its decision, it would either be obliged to hold as a proposition of
constitutional law that these discriminations and favoritisms among the
States were not committed to the Federal Government, or to decide
that it had the power to be restrained, restricted, modulated, and made
consonant with these great interests of freedom and equality on the
mere discretion of Congress, and that it could establish custom-houses
between the States and have a tariff by which under the regulation of
commerce between the States you could have your duties and your im-
ports on the passage of commerce from one State to another. --
Indeed, the court, rather than maintain such a proposition of law as
that, would prefer to find in the distinct phrases of the Constitution an
abundant protection of State intercourse and freedom under this posi-
tive regulation:
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles— ;
Not in the phrase of the Constitution, “exported from the United
States,” but it reads— . -
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.
201
That breadth of application was essential. It was not to be pre-
sumed that a tax of export from Massachusetts to New York could be
inflicted by the Federal Government, and it was not necessary to define
it. Although the matter of commerce was present and controlling, if
you please, it would not use a restriction which said, “No tax or duty
shall be imposed on an export from the United States,” but no duty
shall be imposed on the exportation from any State. -
Why is it, with a general concurrence on the part of the people of the
United States, on the part, if you please, of great commercial interests,
to a considerable extent, even upon the part of the railroads, that there
is a readiness to accept the general frame of this bill, although some
may doubt its expediency 2 Some may doubt, perhaps, in some of its
details its constitutionality, but they are ready to accept and esteem as
capable of trial, and an expectation of benefit that will not need any
particular modification, all the clauses which make up the general
frame of the bill, and which, as I think, in the minds of the people
have been the principal inducement to desire its enactment.
Why is it that when we depart from this general regulation of com-
merce in the interest of commerce by its own motives and by its own
laws, and with equality and freedom toward all the people of the United
States, we are ready to accept this frame of supervision, and yet when
we come to the fourth and fifth sections we find them to be repugnant
to the interest, and the dearest interest, of the people of this country?
I submit to the sincere examination of the Senate that the regula-
tions of the bill beside the fourth and the fifth sections are regulations
of commerce, in the motives of commerce, in the promotion of com-
merce, in the advancement of equality and without discrimination
either between States or among pursuits, or between remote and near
arrangements of population and situation of States; and because sub-
stantially it adheres to and follows the phrases which were common to
the experience of the law as it was understood and explained when the
Constitution was adopted, and are still explained and construed now;
and that is, as the fundamental rule, that charges shall be reasonable
and equal, “without discrimination, without rebate”—I am quoting
the language of the proposed statute—“without undue preference or
advantage; ” that the measure is to be extended all over this network
of railroad intercommunication and does not touch and does not bear
upon one spot or upon another; it does not bear upon one product
or upon another; it does not touch one neighborhood or another. It
does not make a difference. It is the same rule, the same law, the
same application, and the same interpretation for these commissioners
-upon these rules of justice and equality, and nothing more.
But when you come to the question in the fourth section, so grave, so
interesting, if you please, the occasion of so much irritation, produc-
ing so much injustice, producing so much resentment, inducing so much
effort to cure, it is no longer regulated by the rules of commerce and
its motives, but is a positive regulation, not a conformity of commerce
to what is reasonable, but a determination in the Senate and in the
House of Representatives of the United States of what is a rule and
regulation of railroad transportation. In other words, all of this bill,
except the fourth and fifth sections, properly belongs to the sphere of
law-making. Wise or unwise, discreet or circumspect or deficient, it
all belongs to the sphere of law-making. When you come to these two
sections you depart from law-making and lay down rates and rules of
transportation not governed by the laws or interests of commerce or
transportation.
202
Before I enter upon any presentation of my own views of these two
Sections as impediments to free commerce and burdens upon free trans-
portation, I ask attention to the judgment of business men, commer-
cial men, in the interest and in the views of interstate commerce and
of foreign commerce, and also of manufacturers and the dissemination
of manufactures as well as in the dissemination of the trade products
of the soil. -
In the first place, I can not at least be indifferent, and Ishould hope
that no Senator could be indifferent, to a deliberate, calm, and reason-
able view presented by so great a body as the Chamber of Commerce of
the city of New York. New York, whatever may be said of other por-
tions of this country, is not domineered over by railroads. We have
other interests in New York, and our interests in the mass are gener-
ally hostile to what is the specific and single interest of railroads. It
is in vain to talk of the action of a body charged with foreign com-
merce, charged with the cheapening of transportation, hostile to en-
hancement, hostile to discrimination, hostile to oppression, and to put
their judgment down as if it proceeded in the interest of the railroads.
Let me say here for myself, not only from the propositions I have
stated, that I regard it as a question of commerce directly and in rela-
tion to railroads only as bearing upon the interests of commerce. I
have no interest, I have no relations, I have no bias in mind, but I can
not fail to see the discrimination which these sections are to produce
upon commerce. They may injure railroads for aught I know; they
may cripple them for aught I know. Not to that end should I favor
them; not to that end has the Constitution conferred any such power
on Congress; but if it should injure, if it should cripple, it will be be-
cause it injures and cripples commerce and nothing else.
Strangulation of commerce for the purpose of constriction on railroads
would be the merest folly in the world. If railroads have any distinct
and selfish and sordid (if you please to use the word) interest in this
matter of transportation, it is that commerce shall be developed and not
restrained, that its volume shall be increased, that its freedom shall be
untranameled, and that its justice and universal prosperity as commerce
shall be in itself and adjust itself to one of its vehicles as it would to
other vehicles, at one time the only vehicles of commerce, I mean the
foreign shipping and the domestic steamboat navigation of this country.
So to me, if I could tolerate the propriety of the arraignment of rail-
road managers and railroad systems which has been pressed on the at-
tention of Congress, I should be obliged to say that all of it is out of
place, unless you find, indeed, reasons which in the promotion of com-
merce should lead to a regulation not of railroads as distinguised from
commerce, but of commerce operating upon railroads as vehicles of
COmmerce.
The Chamber of Commerce has been for a period of years observant
upon railroad schemes and purposes and their execution, hostile, inter-
fering with them, desiring the authority of the State of New York to
be exercised in their regulation and restraint, and operating in com-
mercial influence always toward the equality and cheapening of trans-
portation. It approves the general frame of this proposed act, its pro-
visions against discriminations, against unreasonable rates, against
undue preferences or advantages, and it approves of that portion of the
measure which gives vigor to the execution of these salutary arrange-
ments. It no longer leaves the single shipper, no longer leaves the
single manufacturer, no longer leaves the single trade of one kind of
commercial business to deal with this whole interest; but invigorates
203
the arm of resistance to these destructive agencies, so that by the au-
thority of this commission and by the authority of the courts, in the
name of the public interest and at the expense of the public interest
all the redress that law can give may be furnished for the benefit of
COIn InleI'Ce. - . -
What, them. does the Chamber of Commerce of New York say on
these two sections? It is their opinion, it is not the opinion of rail-
road people, but their opinion, judging of commerce, with which they,
as the representatives of the constituents of the vast commerce of that
city, have to do. They look at railroads only as bearing on the free-
dom, equality, and development of commerce; and whatever they say
of criticisms that shall operate upon railroads is only in the light of how
it will operate upon that center of this vast circumference that is to
converge in the great port of New York for the distribution of commerce.
In that way they look at it. Could there ever be a larger view of the
subject taken 2 Could there ever be one that would so effectually
trample down and efface all trivial discrimination of the advantage of
this railroad or that railroad line? I submit to the Senate that the
judgment of men situated as these are is not to be discarded unless
they are willing to substitute their own willfulness on the matter and
meet the question of its disturbance with the affairs of this country
after it shall occur, if it shall occur, with this clear notice in a calm and
respectful presentation of the subject which proceeds from this great
center of commercial interest and authority.
The report of that committee of the chamber of commerce, at my sug-
gestion, was printed in the RECORD several days ago. No doubt it has
been examined by Senators. If desired, it can be examined by all. I
quote from that report the following passages:
Your committee are of opinion that (section 4) the prohibition to charge more
for a shorter haul than a longer one is objectionable and certain to work against
the public welfare. If enacted, it would do little good to any one. Local rates
would not be thereby reduced, but “through traffic,” which, on the average,
furnishes not to exceed one-quarter of the revenues of the trunk lines, would be
either refused, or raised to a standard of local rates—thus obstructing and ma-
terially decreasing the moving and exportation of cotton, grain, petroleum, and
other products. Upon the utmost freedom in making through contracts from
the West to the seaboard depends the development of the entire West and its
farming lands. The gigantic results already witnessed, due to the fortuitous
combinations of railroads and water transportation, and the ability to carry
this through traffic for trifling additional cost, and so far at very moderate rates
of freight, has produced a wealth to the whole nation so far exceeding any pos-
sible local benefits to be gained by the proposed prohibition as to forbid its
consideration. Nor is this provision necessary to protect the local resident from
imposition; his remedy is provided in the bill, quite independent of the through
traffic. If a local rate is unjust it must be remedied; but the consideration
thereof must depend upon the particular surroundings and circumstances of
that individual case, and not upon that of others further on the line, who may
have competing roads, water transportation, and many other things affecting
rates of freight not at all applicable to the case in question. One immediate and
inevitable effect of such a prohibition would be to divert most important vol-
umes of freight to competing Canadian roads running to the seaboard.
As to section 5, your committee is also of opinion that the absolute prohibition
against pooling is unwise, and much more likely to work injuriously to the pub-
lie than beneficially. If it be considered, it will be evident that most if not all
of the evils of unequal rates, discriminations, and partiality have arisen from
unrestricted competition, the only result aimed at by the proposed prohibition,
while a uniform tariff between all competing lines, arranged upon planes of
equity to all shippers, and enforced by an agreed volume of tonnage apportioned
to each road, is the very end to be accomplished by the bill itself—and this is
“pooling.” Its actual operation has been to do away with diseriminations
against individuals and localities; it has secured greater uniformity of rates ;
it has been found of greater advantage to shippers to deal with a “pool’’ conn-
missioner, representing all the trunk-lines, than to be compelled to confer with
many officials in detail--as instanced in the late dry-goods classification agree-
ment—its existence has secured a steadily decreasing average rate of freight,
204
which has developed during the whole period of “pooling.” In general the sys-
tem seems to have been productive of good to the public, and in many instances
where injustice has arisen it has been from lack of good faith to keep its condi-
tions on the part of the common carrier. While, on the other hand, its ten-
dency has been to avoid disastrous railroad wars, entailing upon the investors
Serious loss, and always productive of disastrous effects upon the laboring classes
and the commerce of the country.
For these reasons this committee would urge that any action looking to pro-
hibition of pooling be at least deferred, and the subject referred (as was origi-
mally proposed by the Senate bill on this subject) to the commission to be estab-
lished by this bill, for full investigation, report, and suggested legislation, if
they deem any needed, in the future. - -
It is true that the framers of this bill, evidently fearing the strict operation of
Section 4 (as it regards the long and short haul), have lodged the discretion with
the commissioners to limit or suspend, after investigation, its operation in cer-
tain cases. And if it be wise to confide to them so great a power, it can not be
unreasonable to leave the whole subject (affected by sections 4 and 5) to them
and their discretion, which would be the case were no clauses of this character
contained in the bill. If any discrimination of an unjust character arises, the
commissioners are fully vested with power to investigate and correct the same,
and this seems to be all that is required at present, and until more experience
is gained by the c >mmission. -
To this channber the public are largely indebted for the investigation of the
Hepburn committee, which led to the appointment of the railroad commission
of this State. This commission has proved eminently satisfactory both to the
public and the railroads, and has performed great public service. - .
The experience of our State railroad commission should furnish a valuable
guide and precedent for the larger and more important duties of an interstate
commission. When a law was passed creating a railroad commission in this
State the powers and duties of the State commission were largely advisory,
This chamber was of the opinion that the powers of this commission were too
limited, but experience has demonstrated that the law was wise and salutary.
The advice of the commission to the railroad managers has been followed in
most instances, in spirit if not in letter. Publicity and public opinion have
sºetorily supplied the place of mandatory provisions of the law in this
tate. --- • .
I have also papers from other commercial bodies. Many of them
have been introduced to the attention of Senators from the portions of
the community which they particularly represent. Without going
through any accumulation, any aggregation, or symmetry which should
group together the opinions of all the commercial interests of this en-
tire country, I select but one from its position as central in Illinois and
one as proceeding from the Board of Trade of Minneapolis. In Peoria
they say: - §.
At a meeting of the directors of the Peoria Board of Trade, held December
20, 1886, the following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted:
Whereas after mature and Čareful consideration of section 4, known as the
“long and short haul” clause of the interstate-commerce bill, now before Con-
gress, it is the opinion of this board that the passage of the bill with the section
mentioned will unsettle all business interests throughout the West; will depre-
ciate the value of all farming lands west of the Middle States; will work di-
rectly in the interests of lake ports, lake transportation lines, Canadian roads
and the Eastern farmer: Therefore,
Be it resolved, That in the opinion of this board such radical and experimental
legislation as contemplated by the section mentioned is not only uncalled-for at
the present time, but threatens widespread disaster to the most vital interests of
the Western States.
Resolved, That the discretionary power given the commission to discriminate
in the application of the “long and short haul '’ clause as between different
localities, will at the best afford only uncertain and long delayed relief, and
will be apt to add merely another element of uncertainty to the transportation
problem.
This preamble and these resolutions were adopted unanimously by
the Peoria Board of Trade. Peoria is not eastern; Peoria is central,
central as toward the great Valley of the Mississippi and the immense
breadth of grain-producing country which we are so fortunate as to in-
clude within the limits of the United States. This is their judgment.
Can any one overwhelm it by the objurgation that it is in the interest
205
of railroads? If by stigmas the judgments of all the most intelligent
and responsible representatives of commerce are to be derided, if it is
to be set down as an espousal and a sycophancy toward railroads, then
already there is no opportunity of freedom. But they’record their
judgment, and they are going to be judged, if you pass this measure,
just as you are going to be judged; and if they are right, then you have
done this thing, and done it when advised by certain public manifesta-
tion and argument on the part of the representatives of commerce that
it “will unsettle all business interests throughout the West, will de-
preciate the value of all farming lands west of the Middle States; will
work directly in the interest of lake ports, lake transportation lines, Ca-
nadian roads, and the Eastern farmer.”
No more responsible and no more distinct advertisement could be
given to the Senate of what the people of this country think will be the
praetical result on commerce. I am not talking upon this bill and its
effects upon politics; I am not talking upon its effect on railroads. The
Peoria people and the farmers through the Mississippi Valley, and all
those who have built up relations of transportation to this permeating
scheme of railroads in this country tell you what the effect will be then.
But I venture to say that if political reasons are operating upon the
discrimination in the votes to be given here, that discrimination after
the fact, if it is proved to produce the results that here we are notified
will be produced, will not be a valuable position for any one to take.
We have from the Northwest, from the Minneapolis Board of Trade,
the following, and this was unanimously adopted:
Resolved, That while this board of trade fully approves the general principle
of national legislation for the control and regulation of our interstate carrying
trade, and while in the main it concurs in the provisions of the compromise bill
now pending before Congress, it thoroughly disapproves and deprecates the
provisions of section 4, relating to what is known as the long and short haul,
and of section 5, relating to pooling arrangements between parallel or compet-
ing railway lines. In the judgment of this board section 4, if enacted, would
give to the proposed national commission powers whose exercise would always
be dangerous and might easily become destructive to the interests of the dis-
tinctively agricultural sections of the country.
Resolved, That a committee be appointed with instructions to forward the fore-
going resolution to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, accompanied
with a letter of transmission which shall more fully set forth the views of this
board.
This was not only unanimously adopted, but the reasons are expressed
with great calmness and with great pertinency which have led them.
to these conclusions; but these topics are appended, to which I ask your
attention: -
Allow us, also, in passing, to remind you of the fact that, of the entire mem-
bership of the Minneapolis Board of Trade, representing all leading branches
of legitimate business and productive industry, not half a dozen have any pecu-
niary interest in railroads, direct or indirect, and we do not know of half that
number who are so interested. The board speaks for the producers and ship-
pers of the Northwest. . Further, it is fully recognized that national supervision
of our railway system is necessary and best, in the interest both of the people
and of the railways themselves; that this supervision bas already been too long
delayed; that there are wrongs to be righted and corporate abuses to be cor-
rected, and that the pending interstate-commerce bill, when duly amended, will
constitute a wise first step in the right direction.
Assuming that the section, means what its language, naturally imports, the
consequence of enforcing such a law would, we believe, be gravely injurious to
many important interests in all parts of the country, but especially would such
enforcement prove destructive in its effect upon the great agricultural section
of which our own State forms so important a part.
It would very greatly increase the cost to our people of heavy commodities
of all kinds which are brought in from eastern sections, including coal, without
which our prairie farms could not be occupied.
$ $ :
206
It would ruinously depreciate the value of every bushel of wheat and every
pound of beef produced in Minnesota by compelling the railroads to adopt a
freight tariff on through shipments eastward, which, if not prohibitory, would
leave to our farmers no reward for their labor and invested means.
It would depress manufacturing industries and deprive many working men
of employment.
It would reduce to a minimum the trade of the Northwest by largely destroy-
ing the purchasing ability of our producers.
It would drive a large share of the long-distance traffie from American to
Canadian lines. -
It would cripple, if it did not bankrupt, many railroads by compelling them
to relinquish a large part of either their through or their local traffic—both of
which are essential to their solvency. -
The very people who ought to derive most benefit from legislation of this
general character—the farmers and wage-earners of the country—would be the
first and greatest sufferers from its injurious effects.
Section 5, which arbitrarily prohibits the pooling of railway earnings, is 11 ot
less objectionable than section 4. It proceeds upon the assumption that an anni-
cable apportionment of traffic among substantially parallel railway lines de-
stroys wholesome competition, creates a “maonopoly,” results in exorbitant
transportation charges, and thus wrongs the general body of producers, ship-
pers, and consumers, who constitute the people. With exceptions so rare as
only to prove the rule, this assumption is a fallacy, and legislation based upon
it must prove a hurtful blunder. The facts are that such apportionments of
traffic are a matural and necessary outgrowth of the development of our national
transportation system; that they constitute the only plan of self-preservation
for railroads which time, and thought, and experience have been able to evolve
from a most difficult and perplexing situation ; that they are the only known
and feasible alternative for that system of cut-throat competition which foments
chronic “rate wars,” and which, unless held in check, would end in the bank-
ruptcy, first of the weak lines, and then of the strong ones—for a bankrupt rail-
way, having no responsibility to bondholders or shareholders, is the most reck-
less and destructive of competitors. These adjustments and divisions of traffic,
known as railway pools, do not raise transportation charges above a reasonable
level. Almost without exception they have resulted in holding rates steadily at
the lowest point at which the business can be done at a living profit. This is illus-
trated just now, as you are aware, in our own section. Never was there a closer
pooling arrangement between trunk lines than that which now exists between
the six roads leading from Minneapolis to Chicago, yet never were freight tariffs
so low as at the present time, and never were the people better accommodated.
The well-known fact that, concurrently with the development of the railway
pooling system, railway rates have steadily, greatly, and everywhere decreased
is a summary refutation of the whole theory on which section 5 is founded.
The pooling or apportionment system, besides preserving railways from in-
solvency, and railway investments from destruction, directly benefits every busi-
mess community by giving some degree of uniformity and stability to transporta-
tion charges, and thus enabling business men to shape their course with greater
certainty and safety. A railway rate war, although it temporarily reduces the
market price of transportation below actual cost, is universally and justly re-
garded as a misfortune to all legitimate lines of trade. Obviously it is of no
advantage to the public to enjoy any service at less than its reasonable cost, in-
cluding a fair return upon the capital invested in rendering that service. The
rule of unregulated and unreasonable competition, followed by the “survival
of the fittest,” when applied to railroads, means their own ruin, with resulting
calamity to every other business interest which is worth preserving.
The railway pool, honestly administered, is the natural balance-wheel of in-
terstate commerce. Section 5 of the pending bill does not provide or suggest
any substitute for this regulative and conservative agency. On the contrary,
it would seem to render commercial chaos legally obligatory, ... •
The reasonings here are in the direction which I have already indi-
cated, and in entire concurrence with the views of the Board of Trade -
of Peoria. We have then, I may say, at least, a creditable manifes-
tation of the feelings and views and interests of commerce itself; and
now I propose to point out, I think within reasonable limits, the vicious
proposition of these two sections. -
I have already said that we do lay down a regulation that belongs to
practical administration of the rate of freights. Why do we not make
it more definite and more thorough? Because it is impossible or it is
inexpedient. If there could be a regulation in the wisdom of man that
207
in advance could determine all these disputable and competing in-
terests it would be very well. It is not thought that we in Congress
can do that. - -
Now, why do we depart in either of these sections from the wise reser-
vation of the exercise of our power of law-making which characterizes all
the other provisions? Is it because a judgment has already been formed
among the people, among the great mass of the people, among a consider-
able portion of the people (for I do not speak disrespectfully in the least
of this source and measure of interest), that they have made up their
minds, under the pressure of mischiefs which they feel, resentments
justly, if you please, that they think should call for redress, and that
they have made up their minds that they will, by the General Govern-
ment, settle two propositions of railroad regulation? If we are to look
at that as a bearing and a motive, stimulated by feelings and facts,
however important, however just in the minds of the people, not bear-
ing upon the carrying of commerce, but only on the regulation of mo-
rality, of justice, of equity, if you please, by the railroads, as distin-
guished from the question whether these perversions on their part have
injured commerce, and as a great interest, they have had their atten-
tion drawn to something that it does not belong to the United States
Government to redress. It belongs to the law and the general admin-
istration of justice and the regulation by the States of what is examina-
ble by them. Here we are to act, not by getting, through a subterfuge,
a dominion for the Federal Government of what does not belong to it,
but we are to confine ourselves to what we are properly accredited and
furnished with, the regulation of commerce. -
Let me take now the fourth section. It is not a very bold step, it
is not a very assuring step that Congress enters upon this proposition.
It does not undertake to say it is right that the lineal measurement
shall be the commercial rule of equality. Nobody ventures to say that.
What has it said 2 It has said: “We will apply it at least to this, that
if the movements of commerce and the interests of commerce impose a
rate of transportation for shorter lines, those rules of commerce, those
motives, and those interests which should justify and induce a cheapen-
ing of the longer transportation shall not be allowed.” It is a regula-
tion not for cheapening anything. It is a rule, inflexible so far as Con-
gress imposes it, that nothing shall be cheapened by the laws of trade
and the interests of the people. That is a novel proposition to begin
with. We are dealing with railroads, dealing with commerce, and we
say that cheapening shall not be possible under the circumstances that
we state. Is there any denial of that ? There are motives and reasons
given for it, but nevertheless that is the effect which is to be produced
by it. . - -
Is our market to be raised? Is it to be regulated by the shorter hauls
included within the lineal transportation of the longer hauls? There are
all sorts of long hauls and all sorts of short hauls, the longer long hauls
and the shorter short hauls, but lineal measurement shall not be cheap-
ened unless according to lineal measurement, not absolute and univer-
sal, but on this line that is drawn. It is one of lineal measurement and
nothing else. It is not whether it is up hill or down hill; it is not
whether it is on a level; it is not the question whether there is support-
ing commerce or long gaps of 300 or 500 miles of desert ; it does not
deal with the question of the whole transportation that the commerce
and the people of the United States are interested in transferring from
one remote place to another, just as much as in crossing the ocean, where
there is no peddling along, as there can be none on the ocean.
20S
Those are all commercial reasons, those are all commercial arguments,
those are all reasons which affect cheapness, and this network of reason
and freedom and equality is to be subjected to an absolute demarkation,
resting upon nothing but lineal distance.
That is a pretty grave responsibility. How do we meet it? First,
by limiting it to the same kinds of freight, and under similar circum-
stances and similar conditions. There are lawsuits enough in that
provision to keep us lawyers at work for twenty years on that.
What are freights of the same kind winich are to be governed by this
lineal demarkation now and forever, unless the law is changed 2 Let
me ask some agriculturist or representative of agriculture. If the rural
State of Vermont, where I pass the most of the summer, may be called
an agricultural State, let me ask what are freights of the same kind?
I will ask my friend from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON] whether oats and corn
and wheat are all the same kind of freight?
Mr. ALLISON. They are.
Mr. EVARTS. That is the opinion of that section of the country,
and therefore necessarily not only of your own but reinforced by that
of your constituents. It is true. In rerum matura it is so. They are
products of the soil, they are cereals, and they are food for man and
beast. &
What does commerce care about that? What is that to commerce?
Suppose that in the situation of the commerce of the world which we
are to have hereafter and shall have, wheat is competed with abroad
under the state of casual crops, already competing with other fertile
fields, we are excluded unless we can carry wheat at a cheaper rate than
we can carry oats, and do carry oats, and that it is reasonable to carry
oats. We are not excluded from Europe in the carrying of oats, and so
with corn, but the wheat of India is ourrival and our terror. India deals
in wheat and not in corn, and not in oats. Russia, in its vast plains
and with its abject population, I will say, does not compete with us in
corn. It does compete with us in oats and in wheat. Under this rule,
in the state of the markets, oats can have the rate thus measured by
short hauls and get to Europe, and corn can get there, and wheat can
not. What are you going to do about it? What becomes of the lineal
rule bearing on commerce? The reasonableness of rates depends upon
whether the subject of transportation will bear this or that measure,
not an unreasonable measure. That is regulated by the other clauses
of the bill; but must we allow India to possess the consumption of
Europe, especially England, in wheat, because we can not transport
wheat at a cheapness that will comport lineally with the transporta-
tion of other articles?
Commerce has its own laws, its own trade, its own views of equality,
equality of reasonableness, equality of promoting commerce, of carry-
ing wheat, and carrying oats, and carrying corn, at rates that are mec-
essary to move them. When commerce, in its vehicles, in its managers,
in its capital, is ready to carry wheat across the continent and across
the ocean to compete with India, who likes to pass a law saying that
it shall not be done because it is a long haul? You can not carry wheat_
at a cheaper rate when that cheaper rate is the only one that will move
it all, because it does not conform to the regularity of the lineal meas-
urements of the short haul.
I have taken these absolutely similar articles as showing the impro-
priety of substituting the rule of lineal demarkation when the state of
the markets is the point which determines whether the rate is reason-
able or not. ---
209,
But we do not stop there. The Supreme Court of the United States
has decided that the States can not regulate long and short hauls, be-
cause that would burden interstate commerce; it is a tax. We are
them undertaking to regulate them, but do we regulate them? We do
it sensibly in a general frame; we do it as well as we can if we require
an assimilation in their nature of the subjects of transportation; but
then look how we draw back, how we really take the position of abdi-
cation by the Congress of the United States, the law-making authority,
in this demarkation. We will not trust to the laws of trade; we will
not trust to the views of managers of railroads and managers of com-
merce and those interested—not to them, not to all; we will not trust
ourselves. We say in this measure, thus condemned by these bodies
in different parts of the United States in the interests of commerce for
the danger that will come, well, it is very likely it will be so. We are
entering into an arrangement of an articulative tissue of commercial
interests as extensive as the coºntry and as intricate and manifold as
the interests of this vast country are diversified. If these farmers, if
these manufacturers, if these merchants condemn us for passing an act
that belongs to the law of commerce, only required by law to be made
sensible, equal, free, general, we are not going to face the community
on that subject. We provide a board to dispense with our folly and to
accept regulations that belong to the laws of trade and commerce.
Is that constitutional? Is that what is to come from denying to the
States and to their responsibility discrimination, to have five commis-
sioners to make such discriminations as they in their judgment shall
think are suitable to the interests of commerce? For that is what it
comes to, and just in proportion as this liberality of their discretion
and power is restricted it is contrary to the proposition upon which
they are trusted. We will not take it, we will not give it wholly to
them, but against the accusing laws of trade and commerce, of prop-
erty, prosperity, equality, and justice, we leave it for each to point to
the other, it was the Congress that was at fault; or, on our part, it is
the commissioners who did not do their duty. I can not see that that
mode of legislation is consonant with the duty of Congressional power
and Congressional responsibility.
Mr. President, you will observe that in all the regulative provisions
to be supervised and modulated by these commissioners, except in these
two clauses, we have given them a guide as clear as is possible, reason-
able, just, equal, and a supervision of law to determine what is reasona-
ble, just, and equal. Under the course of commerce developed in
Europe or here the words “reasonable, just, and equal” embrace
phrases that could be used; and reason, therefore, as far as may be, is
adopted as the guide and governor of all these various and competing
interests,
Ah, if reason could be supreme, and reason could be omniscient, and
reason could be omnipresent and omnipotent, what would be better
than to be governed without laws by what was reasonable, and just,
and equal 2 *
But there is a practical difficulty in this commission in respect of these
undefined powers, in their nature discretionary. Even if we possessed
and could possess, and if we should always think so, every measure of
equality and justice that can be conceived, such as can be found in the
resources of human nature, it takes time for these five men to do jus-
tice, not by a dispensing law to repeal the sections but by an examina-
I S C 14
210
tion to be made, judging of each one under its circumstances and not
embracing any general propositions. * *
Besides the burdens of the general framework of the bill, which they
may discharge, but which will require labor, deliberation, and delay,
how long will it be before these five commissioners in dealing with the
whole network and the whole area and the whole immeasurable divers-
ity will get around to your constituents and mine? One part of the
country will be liberated from this restriction a year and another two
years before others. Empowered with all the vigor of the Constitution
that may be accredited to it, and with all our confidence in the legis-
lative power of Congress, can we reduce time, and circumstance, and
delay, and difficulty 2 It is said that ten years of agitation have been
required to bring these deliberative bodies to the conclusion that we
are so near in concurring upon. How long what we find it impossible
to settle is it to take these men to settle for the private and particular
justice of every neighborhood and every production ? There has to be
a judicial determination of the particular case. Will they begin with
Alabama? I was going to say they will not get down to Alabama, but
beginning with Alabama, for aught I know, it will take them about
three years before they get to New York. That is not legislation. If
it be a demonstration that it is all the legislation we can safely make,
then it is regulation that you can not make at all. *
Now, about pooling. We have not said so much about pooling. These
chambers of commerce have very well pointed out what is the difficulty
in the fifth section in making a peremptory, a specific rule on the sub-
ject of pooling. There is none of that uncertainty about the regulation
that is found in the fourth section, and there is not any suspending power
under the fifth section.
What did we do in the original Senate bill? We commit it to this
administrative board to examine into the question of pooling and to re-
port to Congress. I thought that was wise. The other House have
substituted, in the concurrence of the conference committee, their meas-
ure, which is absolute on the subject of pooling.
Pooling is a very general term. It is not in very good repute by it-
self, and while it carries in this connection, as it does, a combination
in the interest of railroads and to oppress commerce, it is regulated by
the previous section, and sufficiently. But shall it be said that when
by the rules of commerce and the interests of equality, protection
against discrimination finds its readiest and its most useful mode in
its application to a certain area and operating upon certain interests,
from a diversity of points of competition governing and inflaming the
zeal and cupidity of competing railroads to reduce rates, are we ready
to say that that equalization and a conformity within an area and ap-
plicable to competitive roads shall not be allowed if that will produce
in the given situation equality and stability?
That pooling, as it is called, does produce uniformity and stability in
a certain situation we all know; and we all know that one of the most
important interests of shippers, whether Eastern shippers or produce
shippers from the West and the South, when they ship under contracts
that they make or arrangements with consignees for advances, is to know
the rate to be paid, and we have desired to accomplish that by provid-
ing that a publication shall be made and that the rates shall not be ad-
vanced without due notice. But on one railroad that is literally 20 or
25 miles from another the rate of fare is lowered under the invitation
and the rapacious effort of roads either to force a combination or to com-
pel buying out, or which they think they can displace without dishon-
911
est means. So when the shippers take themselves to their contracts
they find out that although there is rather a preponderance on one rail-
road the other is going to go on competing, and it will naturally take
shipments from this point at such a rate that although they are lineally
further off they are commercially nearer. Who cares in transportation
about lineal distances? It is what it costs to bring the produce to the
markets. Those are the nearest where the rates are cheapest. Those
are the farthest off where the line, as such, is destroyed in its nearness
by the excessive charges for freight.
People think that to get rid of the mischief of the competition and
the tyranny, if you choose, of the railroads over commerce, the States
ought to take all the railroads of the States, and the United States ought
to take all therailroads that cross the lines between the States, in order
that each line and each interest shall have an equality and uniformity
and stability, and that equality and justice may be accomplished. Now
what is that going to do? Actually you are displacing competition and
making a general income from all the railroads, by pooling, into the
Treasury of the United States.
I only insist upon this illustration to the extent that it properly
goes. Pooling, which is equalizing matters as to receipts, is in the
same nature as equalizing lineally, and is right or wrong, useful or
mischievous, according as that unification, that stability, that equality,
and that reasonableness is accomplished by one or the other; and
though pooling is assumed to be unpopular, and the name may carry a
measure of disfavor by force of the phrase, and is absolutely worthy of
denunciation in all cases, really the effect of pooling, as these cham-
bers of commerce say, is to give reasonable stability and equality. In
the experience of the great State of New York they have not only un-
dertaken not to control pooling, but by advisory intimation of the
State commission and advisory intervention of the chambers of com-
merce and of boards of trade at manufacturing centers, as well as at
the seaports, they have obtained a rate of transportation that at present
• meets with very little objection from all the interests in our State.
But here the intervention of an authority peremptory, conclusive, and
permanent is now proposed. &
Mr. President, everything is tending, as everything should tend in
this country, to unification and equality in all the intercommunication,
the passing of property, of exchange, of commerce in every direction,
so that within the periphery of our now wast country there should be
no line of discrimination known that the law tolerates, and certainly
none that the law defends. We may talk about the mischiefs that have
grown out of the exaggeration of wealth and the distribution of wealth
under the railroad system; one has been pinched here and one has been
inflated there; but I put it to the scope of consideration of the Senate
that with all the infirmities, with all the burdens, by whatever phrases
they may be described, which the system has caused, progress has gone
on in the sense of dispersing population and bringing lands into our
fertile and productive system, the commerce ab eatra has not been af-
fected injuriously. It has grown and flourished without the aid of in-
tervention, certainly without intervention to constrain. Who shall
desire that without investigation we should attempt so vast a disturb-
ance of this equality and these flattering commercial prospects?
Mr. President, to this fortunate land of ours we may apply the de-
scription armis potens terra et wbere glebae, our lands in fertility have
not been the inferior means by which this nation has been illustrated.
It is these fertile plains, and this free intercourse, and this railroad sys-
212
tem, pushed on rashly, losing so much to its investment, that have con-
veyed to the homes of the consumers that which the land produces so
abundantly. And now this very question of ours is at the bottom of
the political agitation of Great Britain and Ireland; and restrained by
all the impediments there it has brought the landed aristocracy of Ire-
land to the necessity of yielding to the tenants, and in Germany the
soldier can no longer prescribe the method for holding lands, but the
measure of their productiveness is that at which our competition places
them; and with these vast equals in freedom who shall say that the
Congress of the United States desires to lay impediments on transfers
between the States or burdens on their foreign commerce? No, Mr.
President, whatever we can see in the future, whatever we can read in
the past, the greatest and the most classic examples, all warn us to be-
ware of entering on the path now proposed to us.
-X. -k 3& -X: -X- º: %
Mr. SAWYER. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration
of executive business.
Mr. CULLOM. It is only 4 o'clock and we have had but one speech
to-day. There are a number of other gentlemen desiring to speak, and
if we are ever going to dispose of the bill I trust the Senate will con-
tinue its consideration at least during the regular hours of the business
day.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Let us sit it out.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
SAWYERJ submits a motion, which is not debatable, that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of executive business.
Mr. CULLOM. I call for the yeas and mays.
Mr. HOAR. I was going to appeal to my friend from Illinois.
There are several Senators who wish to make brief remarks. I am one;
but I am not quite prepared to go on to-night, though it is owing to no
want of diligence on my part. The Senator can certainly soon have a
vote on his bill. There is no purpose, I can assure him, of any delay"
that will work injury to the bill. He is certain to have a vote within
a few hours now, whenever the few hours come that gentlemen can be
heard. I do not see why we should be put to the inconvenience of a
late session.
Mr. CULLOM. I hope I may be allowed to say a word.
I do not think that I can be justly charged with being disposed to
ask any unreasonable thing of the Senate. This report has been before
the Senate now for many days. I have asked the Senate to consider it
from day to day. I have heard the same statement from the Senator
from Massachusetts that he was not quite ready to address the Senate
upon this bill two or three days ago and on yesterday. I think the
Senator has had a tolerably reasonable time in which to get ready. If
he is not ready, perhaps some other Senator who desires to speak is
ready. -
We certainly are not going to come to a conclusion on this bill, if we
run along with one speech a day, before the end of the session, and the
result will be, inevitably, the defeat of this measure, a measure in which
the people of this country are intensely interested.
I am not in favor of stifling debate; I desire that Senators may have
an opportunity to express themselves; but I propose that this subject
shall be brought to a conclusion within a time that will give the other
House an opportunity of acting upon the report after we dispose of it.
If we are in good faith wanting to pass a bill, let us go on with its
2} 3
consideration with a view of coming to the end of the consideration of
the subject.
Now, if the Senator and the Senate will give unanimous consent that
we vote to-morrow at any hour during the day—I do not care whether
it is 4 o’clock or some time before we adjourn—if there is no objection
to that arrangement I am content that the consideration of the report
shall go over.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asks the
unanimous consent of the Senate that the vote shall be taken on this
report to-morrow before adjournment. Is there objection? The Chair
hears none.
Mr. CULLOM. Now, I have no objection to the motion of the Sen-
ator from Wisconsin.
EXECUTIVE SESSION.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.
SAWYER] moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of execu-
tive business.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consid-
eration of executive business. After fifteen minutes spent in executive
session the doors were reopened, and (at 4 o’clock and 25 minutes p.
m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, January 14, at 12
o'clock m. *
FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 1887.
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there are no further concurrent
or other resolutions the morning business is closed. Pending the con-
sideration of the Calendar, which is now in order, as there is no motion
pending, the Chair will lay before the Senate the report of the commit-
tee of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the
bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce. The question is, Will the Senate
agree to the report 2
Mr. CULLOM. I have nothing to say if we are ready to vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the question pending before
the Senate.
Mr. HOAR. What has become of the Calendar?
Mr. CULLOM. The pending question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair announced that the morn-
ing business was over and business under the Calendar was in order.
No motion having been made, the Chair laid before the Senate the
conference report.
Mr. HOAR. Does it require a motion to proceed with the Calendar
in the morning hour?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair announced that business
on the Calendar was pending, and no motion was made to proceed with
any case on the Calendar. º §
Mr. HOAR. I supposed the cases on the Calendar were to be taken
up in their order without a motion.
Mr. CULLOM. I hope we shall proceed at once with the conference
report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Massachu-
setts ask that cases on the Calendar be reported in their order 2
Mr. HOAR. Yes, sir. s
t; 214
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The first case on the Calendar will
be stated.
Mr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate proceed to the considera-
tion of the interstate-commerce bill. -
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Pending the Calendar, the Senator
from Illinois moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the
report of the committee of conference on the interstate-commerce bill.
The question is on that motion. [Putting the question.] The ayes
appear to have it.
Mr. HOAR. I call for a division.
Mr. CULLOM. If I may be allowed to say a word
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order.
The question being again put, there were on a division—ayes 19,
noes 12; no quorum voting.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I call for the yeas and nays.
Mr. ING ALLS. Pending that, I ask leave to offer a resolution.
Mr. EDMUNIDS. The want of a quorum is disclosed.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. No quorum voting, the Chair can not
receive any morning business.
Mr. CULLOM. Let us have the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and taken.
Mr. BLACKBURN. I desire to announce that the Senator from
West Virginia [Mr. KENNA] is paired upon all questions connnected
with the interstate-commerce bill with the Senator from New York
[Mr. MILLERJ. Were the Senator from West Virginia present, he
would vote “yea.”
Mr. MORGAN. I am paired on the bill with the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. WoORHEES].
Mr. BECK. I have received a dispatch from the Senator from West
Virginia [Mr. CAMDENJ announcing that he is paired upon all questions
connected with the bill with the Senator from California [Mr. STAN-
For D]. The Senator from West Virginia would vote “yea’’ on the
pending motion if he were present.
Mr. CORE. I desire to announce that my colleague [Mr. MAXEY]
is paired on all questions growing out of the bill with the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES]. If my colleague were here he would
vote “yea.”
Mr. ALLISON. I am paired for the day with the Senator from
North Carolina [Mr. RANSOM], but I do not understand that the pair
affects this vote; so that I shall vote “yea.”
Mr. DAWES (after having voted in the negative). I am reminded
that I voted while paired with the Senator from Texas [Mr. MAXEY].
I desire to withdraw my vote.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The vote is withdrawn.
Mr. COCKRELL. I wish to announce that my colleague [Mr. WEST],
not expecting a vote to come up so early in the day in regard to this
question, is unavoidably detained by business away from the Senate
for a few moments. My colleague would vote “yea” if he were
present. " &
The result was announced—yeas 37, nays 12; as follows:
YEAS–37.
Allison, Call, Dolph, Gorman,
Beck, Cockrell, Edmunds, Gray,
Berry, * Coke, Eustis, Hale,
Blackburn, Colquitt, Fair, Harris,
Bowen, Conger, George, Ingalls,
Brown, Cullom, Gibson, Jones of Arkansas,
215
Manderson, Platt, Vance, Wilson of Iowa,
Mitchell of Oreg., Plumb, Walthall, -
Palmer, * Pugh, Whitthorne,
Payne, Saulsbury, Williams, .
- NAYS-12.
Blair, Cheney, Hoar, Sewell,
Cameron, Frye, Morrill, Sherman,
Chace, Hawley, Sawyer, Spooner.
- ABSENT—26.
Aldrich, Jones of Florida, Miller, Teller,
Butler, Jones of Nevada, Mitchell of Pa., Van Wyck,
Camden, Renna, Morgan, Vest,
Dawes, McMillan, Ransom, Voorhees,
Evarts, McPherson, Riddleberger, Wilson of Md.
Hampton, Mahone, - Sabin,
Harrison, , Maxey, Stanford,
So the motion of Mr. CULLOM was agreed to.
3& r -X- + * .): 3.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the commit-
tee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill
(S. 1532) to regulate commerce. -
Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, the bill as it came from the committee
in the beginning was the result of a popular movement which had been
in progress for nearly twenty years. . It is a movement which has bad
my hearty sympathy and my official support from the beginning. So
far as it was in favor of cheap transportation and of regulating the con-
duct of the great railroad carriers of the country in those things which
affect the convenience of the people, while it was a matter deeply in-
teresting to the rest of the country, it was essential to the very life of
the community to which I belong. I do not think any candid person
will question the sincerity of any representative of a New England
State when he professes a desire to accomplish the object proposed by
this legislation. We have in many of our populous cities, as in the
city where I live, no considerable water-power. The State to which I
belong, the most populous of that group, it is sometimes said produces
nothing but granite and ice. We have to bring coal, which is the chief
motive power for our industries, by an interstate transportation to the
seaboard. We have to bring from other States and from Canada the
kumber and the brick which compose our dwellings. The food which
feeds our workingmen comes from the West—from a constantly reced-
ing center—while the iron, the wool, the leather, the cotton, are brought
half-way across a continent and by the skill of our working-people are
wrought into machinery, cloth, shoes, and other articles for the com-
fort of men, and then carried back again to be sold in their new form
to the people who have produced the material. -
There is not an hour of the day’s life of a Massachusetts working-
man in which he does not feel the pressure of the unjust demands of
the railroad when those unjust demands exist anywhere, There is not
an article of his necessity or of his luxury into the cost of which the
price of transportation over the continent does not enter. There is not
a product of his skill, there is not an ambition of his life, whether for
wealth, for honor, or for usefulness, which is not affected by the rail-
road and upon which it does not press as a burden when it is permitted
to make an unjust charge. *
I myself helped in 1874 to frame the first important bill on this sub-
ject which passed the House of Representatives. It is somewhat amus-
ing, as I listen to the gentlemen who think the resistance to the unjust
216
provisions of the conference report comes from the railroads, to remem-
ber the history of that legislation. We were encountered by the old
State rights doctrine, by the representatives of the Democratic party,
and by a strict party vote. A bill which contained all the wholesome
provisions of this bill was resisted on the old State rights doctrine.
When I heard the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECKJ, who resisted
with all his might this legislation when the men who were advocating
it were standing at the beginning of a reform and trying to bring pub-
lic sentiment up to it, who resisted it with all his might and recorded
his vote against it on every occasion—when I heard him taunting those
who desire to make this legislation just and reasonable and effective of
its professed object with acting in the interest of the railroads, I felt
like applying to him the remark of a worthy old deacon who was spurred
up by a new zealous convert for his want of Christian zeal, who said he
had noticed “that young Christians were a good deal like young bumble
bees, much the largest when first hatched.” [Laughter.]
Mr. President, I wish to be permitted to repeat the argument which
satisfies me without question of the national authority to pass such
legislation as is proposed in the main features of the bill. The argu-
ment is all in a nutshell. The Constitution gives to Congress the regu-
lation of commerce with foreign nations and among the States.
The regulation of commerce is the regulation of the exchange of com-
modities. The exchange of commodities is commerce. The regulation
of commerce with foreign nations is the regulation of the exchange of
commodities with foreign nations. The regulation of commerce among
the several States is the regulation of the exchange of commodities
among the several States. An essential part of such an exchange is the
conveyance of the commodity from the seller to the buyer. Regulation
is the prescribing of a rule or law, or fixing the condition. To regu-
late the exchange of commodities is to prescribe the rule, or law, or
condition under which such an exchange shall take place. An essen-
tial part of the regulation of commerce, therefore, is the prescribing
rules, or laws, or conditions of the conveyance of commodities from the
seller to the buyer. The fixing or regulating of tolls, or charges, or im-
posts for conveying commodities from the seller to the buyer is the pre-
scribing of a condition of that conveyance. It is therefore a regulation
of commerce. .
Now, whenever the fixing or regulating of such imposts and tolls
properly comes within the domain of the law-making power, or when-
ever such imposts or tolls should be regulated by law, the power which
regulates commerce should properly regulate them. This is the settled
and unquestioned understanding with reference to foreign commerce.
The legislature does not ordinarily regulate rates of freight charged by
public carriers for merchandise brought from abroad; not because such
regulation would not be a regulation of commerce, but because such
carriers are engaged in a business open to unrestricted competition,
and it is deemed inexpedient to regulate commerce in that respect. But
“it exercises the power to regulate foreign commerce for the protection
of the interests of the public in many respects where competition does
not afford such protection. * - -
I have therefore no difficulty in supporting this bill in its main and
principal features. I think these imperial forces which the genius
of the American people in modern times has created may be and
must be rightfully curbed by imperial restraints. I am willing to go,
therefore, with the authors and framers of this bill as far as they have
gone in the protection of the internal transport interstate trade of the
217
country, wherever that protection is not afforded by unrestricted com-
petition. But I object to two features of the report of the conference
committee, because I regard those features as intended to strike down
and deprive the people of the protection created by healthy competi-
tion and as calculated to raise and not to diminish the burden which
the railroads already have placed upon the commerce of the country.
If this legislation be defeated, the gentlemen are responsible who will
not do all the good which this bill contemplates except upon condition
that they also may be permitted to do what seems to some of us un-
mistakably and clearly evil.
It was said the other day by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. HAR-
RIS] that the Senate might take it for granted that if this conference
report wele recommitted or rejected nothing could be accomplished.
Well, I do not see upon what the Senator from Tennessee based that
statement. I suppose it is not proper to speak of the proceedings of the
House of Representatives. But I may say that I have read in a publi-
cation upon our table that there is a body somewhere which considered
this bill, nearly one-half of which preferred the original Senate bill
without these amendments. There was only 24 majority for the pres-
ent proposition. In other words, there was a majority of only 24 for
the changes in legislation which were proposed by the majority of that
assembly, and I am informed on very high authority indeed that a
very considerable number of those 24 have already changed their mind.
Now, does anybody believe, if the question were stated to the members
of that assembly whether they would accomplish everything that the
original Senate bill proposed to accomplish, or nothing, that they would
insist on a demand to have these objectionable clauses retained 2 No,
Mr. President; the question is not between this conference report or
nothing. The question is between the bill as it was framed and adopted
by the Senate and passed by a majority, including all, I think, but four
members of this body, and inserting, against the original opinion of the
Senate, of clauses which some of the great interests of the country feel
will be fatal to their prosperity and to their very existence.
There are four great objects which this bill accomplishes which I
heartily favor. It extends the common law—which does not existin our
national jurisprudence without affirmative legislation, as the Supreme
Court has decided—to interstate commerce. It establishes the great
principle of reasonableness—to be enforced by law, by judges and juries,
and other tribunals that may be created, as the rule to prevail every-
where between the carrier and the customer.
Second. It establishes a commission, a constant supervisory national
authority, which has worked so favorably wherever the experiment has
been tried in the States.
Third. It requires publicity. It lets in the daylight on every trans-
action between the carrier and the customer.
Fourth. It prohibits unjust discrimination, whether that discrimi-
nation be between persons or between places or between transporting
lines.
Mr. President, the opposition to this report does not come from rail-
road managers principally or originally. I have received many letters
and many communications on this subject, and of these all but two
have come from persons not interested in railroads, and one of these
was from the receiver of a bankrupt railroad, who is heartily in favor
of this report. It comes from men who are alarmed lest under its op-
eration the rates at which they are now able to do large and profitable
218
branches of business must be raised, and must be raised to the ruin of
that business.
Now, what have we been aiming at in our public policy in this coun-
try? We withstood the whole railroad clamor of this country two years
ago in order to improve our rivers and harbors, that competition with
the water-ways might enable our Western farmers to send their grain to
Europe.
The Western farmer in this new business, which, within the past fif-
teen years, this railroad policy at which this deadly blow is now aimed,
has created, has become a merchant, whose competitors are on the Ganges
and the Bosphorus. The problem of our statesmen to-day is to main-
tain the Western farmer in comfort, in honor, and in wealth by a busi-
ness in which he is to underbid the naked Oriental, fed on rice and
living on 5 cents a day; in which he is to underbid a producer, the sub-
ject of the power which is to be his principal customer—a power which
is pouring out its wealth by the hundred and the thousand million in
order to compete with our through transportation of wheat and corn
and pork to the English market. What is to happen under the policy
which has grown up within the last twenty years? #
We have got at this moment the best and cheapest railroad service
on the face of the earth, with all its inconveniences, with all its imper-
fections. Suppose that with $7,500,000,000—I think that is the capi-
tal invested in railroads—it is quite likely that in a free country, espe-
cially one peopled by the English race, whose constitutional privilege
and whose constant delight-is grumbling, we may hear complaints of
Wrongs and injustice; but we have got, as the statistics show, at this
moment the best, cheapest, most reliable, most convenient railroad
service on the face of the globe.
The result has been a balance of trade continually in our favor for
the past ten years, a thing never known in the history of this Govern-
ment before, and I think never known in the history of any govern-
ment for so long a period of time together before—a thing which the
writers on economy declare to be impossible in the nature of things to
be maintained by any one country for any large period of time; and yet
this balance of trade by the very business which you are now striking
at by this conference report has been maintained in our favor during
all these years.
I wish, among many objections to this report, to occupy my time in
pressing upon the attention of the Senate one, and one only. It is to
a provision which, while it will affect railroads, strikes a fatal blow at
the commerce of the great State and the great city that honor me with
their confidence, and whom I represent in this Chamber. It injures,
n my opinion, all parts of the country. -
The exports of Boston have gone up from $10,000,000 in 1859 to $61,-
000,000 in 1885. It was $72,000,000 in 1881, the apparent reduction
being chiefly due to the decline of prices, and not to the diminution
of quantity. The imports, which, of course, the exports largely create—
for the ships that carry out sixty or seventy million of products from
Boston Harbor to Europe will not come back empty—were $53,000,000
in 1885. It is the second port in the country in its foreign commerce.
It exceeds New Orleans by $39,000,000; Philadelphia by $48,000,000;
Baltimore by $69,000,000, in the total of imports and exports. In ton-
mage it is also the second port, having 1,152,415 tons burden entering
from foreign ports, 975,495 clearing to foreign ports in 1885.
If you will look at the character of these exports it will be seen that
they are very largely the products of sections of the country consid-
? *219
erably more remote ſrom Boston than from other important exporting
cities, especially New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New Or-
leans, to say nothing of Montreal.
Among the exports of Boston for the year ending June 30, 1885,
WerG : -
; Value.
Wheat flour and wheat........................................................................ $13,558,070
Indian corn and corn meal.................................. ............................... 2, 465,566
Cattle.................................... .............. ...........----------------------------------. 5, 399, 260
Raw cotton, gathered from North Texas, and Alabama, and Georgia,
(some of the sea island cotton, from South Carolina, goes that way
to European markets)........................................ .... * @ 9 s & & a s is º ºr tº sº º ºs e º e º & & s = & 7, 740. 090
Beef-fresh, salted, and canned............... ....... • * * * * * * * * * * * ... • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,821, 327
Tallow..................... ................................... , 496
Mutton................................................................................................. 11,446
Bacon.....................................................................------------------------------ 5,002, 947
Ham....................................................................... .......... ----------------- 1,067, 7
Pork................................................................------------------------------------ 669,217
Lard ...... ... s a s a e º 'º s s e º 'º e º gº tº º is sº e º sº tº e º e s e º & & a tº a º is a e s º e º e s s & s = e s p * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 3,761,264
Other meat products........................................................................... 327,629
Butter............................................... ............................................. 370,067
Cheese.................. .... ........................ ...............-----------------.... --------. 1,027,064
Lard oil............... ......................................................................---------. 7S, 792
44,972,941
There are $45,000,000 taken to Boston to be exported, nearly all of
which is the product of regions more remote from Boston than from
either of its three principal rivals on the eastern seaboard, and carried to
Boston also largely in competition with the great trunk line of Canada.
Upon these exports, as I have said, depends so much of the import
trade as is due to the fact that the exporting vessels must have a return
cargo, and which would otherwise go to other ports.
Upon this export trade depend great lines of steamships, which dis-
patched 498 steamers, two in every three days, to foreign ports in
1884—195 to Canada, 303 to Europe. .
The men who have created and built up this business, the whole of
it the product of about fifteen or twenty years at the outside, object to
two provisions of this report.
One they say will destroy the cheapness of transport on which this
commerce depends; the other, the pooling clause, will destroy the
steadiness of the business by putting it out of the power of the railroads
to prevent the railroad wars, and that constant fluctuation which is
the destruction of all trade. Now as to the first they agree in the in-
terpretation of this bill with the Senator from Mississippi. They un-
derstand, as he does and as the Senator from Tennessee does, and as
the conferees on the part of the House do, that this bill provides that
where the only distinction between the two places is that there is com-
petition pressing upon the one and not upon the other, that does not
constitute dissimilar circumstances and conditions within the meaning
of the bill, -
It is true my honored friend from Mississippi paid a high compli-
ment to the business men of the country who manage this vast busi-
ness interest, chosen mainly for their capacity and their trustworthi-
ness by the owners of this $7,500,000,000. He thinks that by “tricks
and maneuvers” they will undoubtedly nullify this bill. He does
not think anything will come of it except a raising of the rates as the
result. - - -
Mr. GEORGE. Temporarily, I said. -
Mr. HOAR. Now, Mr. President, I wish to call the attention of the
Senate for five minutes or so, simply to see who makes the objection.
220
As I have said, it does not come from the railroad man, who wants to
put up rates. It comes from the customer of the railroad, who wants
to put them down, and who can not get on unless they are kept down,
at least, to present prices. Here is the resolution of the United Trans-
portation Committee of the various business associations in the city of
Boston held January 3, 1887.
RESOLUTION OF UNITED TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE,
At a meeting of the members of the transportation committee of the various
business associations in the city of Boston, held January 3, 1887, the following
resolution was passed:
Resolved, That in the opinion of the United Transportation Committee of Bos-
ton the bill known as the “Insterstate-commerce bill,” as reported by the con-
ference committee, would seriously affect the business interests of Boston.
Voted, That the chairman of the United Transportation Committee be dele-
gated to go to Washington to represent the committee and endeavor to secure
such amendment of the bill as will protect the business interests of Boston.
Business associations represented in committee:
New England Shoe & Leather Association, Boston Wholesale Grocers' Asso-
ciation, Boston Furniture Exchange, Boston Oil Trade Association, Boston
Chamber of Commerce, Bostom Merchants' Association—
An association said to represent $350,000,000 capital, and of whom
there is not a man, I suppose, whose interests are not in conflict with
those of the railroads in this matter of transportation—
—Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange, Boston Paper Trade Association, Dry-
salters’ Club of New England, Earthenware & Glassware Association of Bos-
ton, Paint & Oil Club of New England.
Mr. President, when my honorable friend from Illinois, with all his
ability, comes to the conclusion that he wants to diminish the railroad
rates in this country, is not some little respect, after all, due to the opin-
ions of men representing such interests as that, when they say that a
certain measure will not only not reduce those rates to them, but it
will raise them to a point which will prevent their business being able
to live 2 Sº
Here comes from another part of the country a similar remonstrance—
from the Peoria Board of Trade of Illinois. It was read by the Senator
from New York [Mr. EVARTs] yesterday, and I ask to put it in my
remarks without reading it again.
SECRETARY'S OFFICE, PEORIA BOARD OF TRADE,
Peoria, Ill., January 1, 1887.
DEAR SIR : Your careful attention is requested to the inclosed resolutions re-
cently passed by the directors of the Peoria Board of Trade.
While there is so much in the interstate-commerce bill that meets our approval,
and while we fully appreciate the imperative necessity of reform in the conduct
of the transportation business, still we feel that section 4 is so uncertain in its
application that we are called upon to protest against it. If omitted from the
bill enough of reform will yet remain to do vast good; and if, after investiga-
tion, the commission to be appointed find that the long-and-short-haul principle
can be so applied as to work no injury, this feature can then be added by some
future Congress. -
Will you not aid us in our endeavor to secure what is of acknowledged bene-
fit and avoid what is doubtful and unessential at the present time.
Respectfully yours,
W. H. BARTLETT, President.
PEORIA, IL.L., December 30, 1886.
At a meeting of the directors of the Peoria Board of Trade, held this date, the
following preamble and resolutions were unanimously adopted:
Whereas after mature and careful consideration of section 4, known as the
“long-and-short-haul’’ clause of the interstate-commerce bill, now before Con-
gress, it is the opinion of this board that the passage of the bill with the section
mentioned will unsettle all business interests throughout the West ; will depre-
ciate the value of all farming lands west of the Middle States; will work di-
rectly in the interests of lake ports, lake transportation lines, Canadian roads,
and the Eastern farmer : Therefore,
&Eºmºmº
221
...”
Be it resolved, That in the opinion of this board such radical and experimental
legislation as contemplated by the section mentioned is not only uncalled for
at the present time, but threatens widespread disaster to the most vital interests
of the Western States.
Resolved, That the discretionary power given the commission to discriminate
in the application of the “ long-and-short-haul’’ clause as between different lo-
calities will at the best afford only uncertain and long-delayed relief, and will
be apt to add merely another element of uncertainty to the transportation
roblem : 3. .
p And be it further resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Sen-
ators and Representatives of this State, and that our Representative, Hon. N. E.
WoRTHINGTON, be requested to do all in his power to have the “long-and-short-
haul” clause eliminated from the bill before its passage.
. W. H. BARTLETT, President.
SAMUEL WILKINSON, Secretary.
Here are the resolutions passed by the Boston Chamber of Commerce,
by a nearly unanimous vote, on the report of its committee:
BOSTON, Jamwary 12, 1887.
PHon. GEORGE F. HOAR :
The following resolutions were passed by the Boston Chamber of Commerce
to-day by a nearly unanimous vote :
Whereas,the act reported by the conference committee known as the inter-
state-commerce bill is now pending before Congress for final action ; and …
Whereas in the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce of Boston said act, if
it become a law, will be detrimental to the business interests of Boston and New
England: Therefore,
Be it resolved, That the rigid enforcement of sections 2 and 4 would, in the opin-
ion of this association, so increase the rates on the “ long haul '' from the West
to the seaboard that agricultural products could only be grown in the far West
for home consumption, except those States bordering on the Great Iakes or hav-
ing connection with the Grand Trunk or Canadian Pacific Railways, thereby
tending to develop the business of the port of Montreal and the two above-named
foreign corporations at the expense of our American seaboard ports and trans-
portation companies.
Resolved, That the foreign steamship lines that have been established and
continued upon the foundation of equality of inland rates with New York, would
by the operations of the provisions of this bill suffer to such an extent as would
lead to their withdrawal to other ports, and that such a result would be most
disastrous to the business interests of Boston, placing our importers and shippers
at great disadvantage as compared with other ports, and most seriously affect-
ing the growth and prosperity of our city.
Resolved, That we respectfully urge our Senators and Representatives in Con-
gress to use their influence in defeating this measure in its present form, and to
endeavor to secure such amendments of the bill as will establish a permanant
commission, whose business it would be, under suitable regulations, to supervise,
in the interests of the public, all common carriers doing an interstate business.
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Senators and Repre-
sentatives in Congress from MNassachusetts.
H. B. GOODWIN,
President.
The Senator from Maine [Mr. FRYE] informs me that that was unani-
mously adopted by a viva voce vote.
Now, let us see what is the opinion of our friends in Canada in the
present condition of things as to the working of the proposed law. I
ask the Secretary to read here a dispatch from Halifax, Nova Scotia,
dated December 3.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
[Special to Boston Post, December 4, 1886.]
WANT LOWER RATES-SHREWID YANIXEE MERCHANTS GET A HEAD OF THEIR
CAN ADIAN BROTHERS.
º HALIFAX, N. S., December 3.
The dealers in breadstuffs here are making overtures to Saint John (N. B.)
traders to protest against the action of the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific
Railroads for increasing the freights on flour. Last August pressure was
brought to bear on the minister of railways and a rebate freight of 10 cents al-
lowed on every barrel. Two thousand barrels were reshipped to outports for
the reason that the Michigan Central Railroad took Canadian flour in bond to
Boston for 33 cents. Merchants then shipped it to outports on the Southern
shore of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton in schooners at a cost of 8 or 9 cents,
222
* *
while freight to Halifax, from the same mill, was 42 cents. Boston firms thus
secured the whole trade.
De Long & Seaman have annual sales in this province of $2,000,000. Halifax
merchants, by means of the above rebate, again acquired trade, so that the receipts
of flour by rail from Ontario trebled in September and the succeeding months.
Now the winter rates from points on the Canada Southern Railroad to Bostom are
42 cents; to Halifax, 63 cents, and as Boston merchants can reach outports by
schooners which carry return cargoes at ballast rates as cheaply as Halifax ner-
chants, the trade will again fall into Boston hands. The merchants can bring
pressure to bear on the Government, who run the road from Quebec to Halifax,
The Grand Trunk, however, which runs from Ontario, can make what rates it
likes. The Canada Pacific Railroad, by working with the Michigan Central
Road, has cut rates from the flour mills to Boston, but have a high tariff to their
extreme eastern terminus. Merchants are in high hopes that things will be
different when the short line is completed from Montreal to maritinne ports, as
then there will be several lines competing with the Government road. The Gov-
'ernment have more or less influence on the management of the Canada Pacific
and Grand Trunk, and the whole mercantile pressure of the two cities is being
brought to bear to get them to endeavor to have the rates reduced.
Mr. HOAR. Now, Mr. President, I wish to add to that the testi-
mony of a very intelligent forwarding merchant of the firm of De Long
& Seaman, largely engaged in the general commission business, which
states very clearly this matter in relation to the driving of business to
Canada. I ask that that also be read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
E. R. De Long.] [J. Bennett.
De Long & Seaman, general commission merchants, and wholesale dealers in
provisions and fishing supplies; Canada, flour in bond a specialty. No. 5
Central Wharf. P. O. box 1397. - -
BOSTON, Jamatary 5, 1887.
(Dictated letter.)
DEAR SIR : We beg to bring before you the fact that the railroads in Canada.
especially those governed by the Government, have been giving the merchants
of the lower provinces a rebate of 10 cents a barrel on flour to encourage them
ordering their goods all rail instead of via Boston, and the Government has
lately sent a commission to the Lower Provinces to ascertain if this rebate is
sufficient for them to cut off the trade coming through Boston. The merchants
in their statements claim that they must have a still further reduction in freight
for an extra rebate in order to control all the freight that way and prevent any
freight coming via Boston. If the interstate-commerce bill passes, by which
the different railroad companies from the West and Canada are held up to a
stated rate, it will injure the trade here very materially. We, ourselves, ship
about two hundred thousand barrels per annum to the Lower Provinces, which
goods come through the West and Canada in transit for the Lower Provinces
of the Donninion. w
We make the above statement to show you that while our Government in
passing this bill is going to tie the railroad comfan.ies up to certain rates, the
Dominion Government are working entirely opposite in giving the merchants
lower rates of freight, which works decidedly to the disadvantage of Boston.
Yours, respectfully, DE I, ONG & SEAMAN
+ A. iº
P. S. Our Mr. De Long met Mr. Goodwin on the street and gave him that
paper which had the dispatch which was telegraphed from Halifax to the Bos-
ton Post, and requested Mr. Goodwin to show it to you. -
W. O. BLANEY, Esq., Bostom, Mass.
Mr. HOAR. I have here also a letter from three firms, the John P.
Squire Company, Charles H. Wirth & Co., and Niles Brothers. John P.
Squire, Isuppose, is the largest single forwarder of pork and hogs in the
country. He has an establishment near Boston. I should like to have
that also read by the Secretary. - ---
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
t
BOSTON, Jamwary 7, 1887.
DEAR SIR: Believing that the passage of the bill now before Congress, known
as the “Interstate-commerce bill,” and entitled “An act to regulate commerce,”
would be extremely detrimental to all New England States, and particularly
destructive of the growth and prosperity of the cities of Boston and Portland,
and believing that the commercial interests of these United States do not, as a
whole, or in any part thereof, demand such legislation as is set up in that bill,
223
please allow us to urge you most earnestly to oppose and obstruct the passage
of the bill in every way, to the end that the wings of foreign commerce may
continue to whiten our New England shores, and peace and plenty prevail in
the East, as well as in the West. We fully believe that the passage of this bill
would inflict a disastrous blow upon all the commercial interests of New Eng-
land.
- JOHN P. SQUIRE CO.
- CHAS. H. VIRTH & CO.
Hon GEO. F. Hoa R, NII,ES BROTHERS.
Washington, D. C. -
Mr. HOAR. I now send up to be read the resolutions of the Cham-
ber of Commerce, which also took part in the meeting of the trans-
pºrtation board, whose proceedings I have read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows: &
BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, January 12, 1887.
DEAR SIR: The following resolutions were passed to-day by a nearly unani-
mous vote of the Boston Chamber of Commerce :
“RESOLUTIONS ON INTERSTATE-COMMERCE BILL.
“Whereas the act reported by the conference committee, known as the in-
terstate-commerce bill, is now pending before Congress for final action ; and
“Whereas in the opinion of the Chamber of Commerce of Boston said act.
if it becomes a law, will be detrimental to the business interests of Boston and
New England: Therefore,
“Be it resolved, That the rigid enforcement of sections 2 and 4 would, in the
opinion of this association, so increase the rates on the “ long haul ?” from the
West to the seaboard that agricultural products could only be grown in the Far
West for home consumption, except in those States bordering on the great Jakes
or other water-ways, or having connections with the Grand Trunk or Canadiana
Pacific Railways, thereby tending to develop the business of the port of Montreal
and the two above-named foreign corporations at the expense of our American
seaboard ports and transportation companies.
“Resolved, That the foreign steamship lines that have been established and
continued upon the foundation of equality of inland rates with New York
would, by the operations of the provisions of this bill, suffer to such an extent
as would lead to their withdrawal to other ports, and that such a result would
be most disastrous to the business interests of Boston, placing our importers
and shippers at great disadvantage as compared with other ports, and most se-
riously affecting the growth and prosperity of our city.
“Resolved, That we respectfully urge our Senators and Representatives in
Congress to use their influence in defeating this measure in its present form,
and to endeavor to secure such amendment of the bill as will establish a per-
mament commission, whose business it would be, under suitable regulations,
to supervise in the interests of the public all common carriers doing an inter-
state business, , , -
“Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be sent to the Senators and Repre-
sentatives in Congress from Massachusetts.”
A true copy. Attest: W. H. PEARSON, Secretary.
Mr. HOAR. I desire to supplement these statements from these
great commercial bodies whose interest demands the reduction of rail-
road rates, by resolutions of the Minneapolis Board of Trade, which I
should like to have read in this connection.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
THE INTERSTATE-COMMERCIE BILL.
To the Senators and Representatives in Congress from Minnesota : -
GENTLEMEN: The Minneapolis Board of Trade, at its regular meeting of De-
cember 22, 1886, unanimously adopted the following resolutions:
“Resolved, That while this board of trade fully approves the general principle
of national legislation for the control and regulation of our interstate carrying
trade, and while in the main it concurs in the provisions of the compromise bill
now pending before Congress, it thoroughly disapproves and deprecates the
provisions of section 4, relating to what is known as the long and short haul,
and of section 5, relating to pooling arrangements between parallel or compet-
ing railway lines. In the judgment of this board section 4, if enacted, would
give to the proposed national commission powers whose exercise would always
be dangerous and might easily become destructive to the interests of the dis-
tinctively agricultural sections of the country. - -
“Resolved, That a committee be appointed with instructions to forward the fore-
going resolution to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, accompanied
~14
224
Mºletter of transmission which shall more fully set forth the views of this
board. * ... •
Jn forwarding these resolutions to you permit the undersigned, as the commit-
tee appointed for the purpose, to call your attention to the following brief sum-
mary of objections which, in the judgment of our board of trade, lie against see-
tions 4 and 5 of the pending interstate-commerce bill, and respectfully to express
the opinion that you can in no way render a more important or timely service to
your constituents than by aggressively helping to secure the omission of these
sections from the measure before it becomes a law. Allow us also, in passing,
to remind you of the fact that, of the entire membership of the Minneapolis
Board of Trade, representing all leading branches of legitimate business and
productive industry, not half-a-dozen have any pecuniary interest in railroads,
direct or indirect, and we do not know of laalf that number who are so inter-
ested. The board speaks for the producers and shippers of the Northwest. Fur-
ther, it is fully recognized that national supervision of our railway System is
necessary and best, in the interest both of the people and of the railways them-
selves; that this supervision has already been too long delayed; that there are
wrongs to be righted and corporate abuses to be corrected, and that the pending
interstate-commerce bill, when duly annended, will constitute a wise first step in
the right direction. It is simply insisted that a measure which is necessarily
experimental, and which deals with the most complicated and far-reaching conn-
mercial problems known to mankind, vitally affecting the interests of every
class and of every section, should not go so far, or attempt so much, at the out-
set, as to cause infinite damage where it might accomplish unmeasured good.
objFCTIONs: —THE “LONG AND SHORT HAUL.”
(1) Section 4, relating to the “long and short haul,”, is, intentionally or un-
intentionally, vague and ambiguous in its language. If enacted into law its in-
terpretation by the courts must, therefore, be wholly uncertain, its practical
application doubtful, and some of its effects impossible to predict. This is suf-
ficiently shown beforehand by the known fact that scarcely two persons under-
stand the section alike—even zealous advocates of the bill as it stands differing
widely as to the real meaning and intent of the words employed.
(2) Assuming that the section means what its language naturally imports, the
consequence of enforcing such a law would, we believe, be gravely injurious to
many important interests in all parts of the country, but especially would such
enforcement prove destructive in its effect upon the great agricultural section
of which our own State forms so important a part.
It would very greatly increase the cost to our people of heavy commodities of
all kinds which are brought in from Eastern sections, including coal, without
which our prairie farms could not be occupied.
It would ruinously depreciate the value of every bushel of wheat and every
pound of beef produced in Minnesota, by compelling the railroads to adopt a
freight tariff on through shipments eastward, which, if not prohibitory, would
leave to our farmers no reward for their labor and invested means.
It would depress manufacturing industries and deprive many working men
of employment.
Ht would reduce to a minimum the trade of the Northwest by largely destroy-
ing the purchasing ability of our producers. .”
It would drive a large share of the long-distance traffic from American to
Canadian lines. -
It would cripple, if it did not bankrupt, many railroads by compelling them to
relinquish a large part of either their through or their local traffic—both of
which are essential to their solvency.
The very people who ought to derive most benefit from legislation of this gen-
eral character—the farmers and wage-earners of the country—would be the first
and greatest sufferers from its injurious effects. * ,
(3) It is not a suſficient answer to say that the bill gives to the proposed com-
mission discretionary power to avert these otherwise inevitable calamities. The
ambiguity of language, already mentioned, renders it doubtful whether this
power is fully given; and even if it is conferred, its exercise would be a most
unnecessary and dangerous prerogative to be vested in any untried commission,
however able and disinterested, under an untried statute, in a difficult field,
where national legislation is now making its first tentative venture. At best,
it gives to five men, about whose competency, experience, and integrity nothing
can be known in advance, almost autocratic power over the market value of
hundreds of millions of dollars of railway stocks and bonds, over the market
value of the agricultural products of half a continent, as well as of the lands upon
which these products are grown.
So great a power and so tremendous a temptation to its abuse ought not to be
presented unnecessarily to any committee of citizens or be made the foot-ball
of politics. Besides, so enormous would be the task undertaken, and so exten-
sive its domain, that no commission however capable could successively con-
sider and adjust the inevitable frictions and controversies in time to prevent the
predicted evils, if those evils in fact impend -
&
2:25
THE PROHIBITION OF RAILWAY POOLING.
(4) Section 5, which arbitrarily prohibits the pooling of railway earnings, is
not less objectionlable than section 4. It proceeds upon the assumption that an
amicable apportionment of traffic among substantially parallel railway lines
destroys wholesome competition, creates a “monopoly,” results in exorbitant
transportation charges and thus wrongs the general body of producers, ship-
pers, and consumers, who constitute the people. With exceptions so rare as
only to prove the rule, this assumption is a ſailincy, and legislation based upon
it must prove a hurtful blunder.
The facts are that such apportion ments of traffic are a natural and necessary
outgrowth of the development of our national transportation system ; that they
constitute the only plan of self-preservation for railroads which time, and
thought, and experience have been able to evolve from a most difficult and per-
plexing situation; that they are the only known and feasible alternative for that
system of cut-throat competition which fonments chronic ‘’ rate wars,” and which,
unless held in clieck, would end in the bankruptcy, first of the weaklines, and then
of the strong ones—for a bankrupt railway, having no responsibility to bondhold-
ers or shareholders, is the most reckless and destructive of competitors. These
adjustments and divisions of traflic, known as railway pools, do not raise trans-
portation charges above a reasonable level. Almost without exception they have
resulted in holding rates steadily at the lowest point at which the business can
be done at a living profit. This is notably illustrated just now, as you are aware,
in our own section. Never was there a closer pooling arrangement between
trunk lines than that which now exists between the six roads leading from Min-
neapolis to Chicago, yet never were freight tariffs so low as at the present time,
and never were the people better accommodated.
The well-known fact that, concurrently with the development of the railway-
pooling system, railway rates have steadily, greatly, and everywhere decreased
is a summary refutation of the whole theory on which section 5 is founded.
The pooling or apportion ment system, besides preserving railways from in-
solvency, and railway investments fron], destruction, directly benefits every
business community by giving some degrée of unifornity and stability to trans-
portation charges, and thus enabling business men to shape their course with
greater certainty and safety. A rail wav-rate war, although it temporarily re-
duces the market price of transportation below actual cost, is universally and
justly regarded as a misfortune to all legitimate lines of trade. Obviously it is
of no advantage to the public to enjoy any service at less than its reasonable
cost, including a fair return upon the capital invested in rendering that serv-
ice, The rule of unregulated and unreasoning competition. followed by the
“survival of the fittest,” when applied to railroads, means their own ruin, with
resulting calamity to every other business interest which is worth preserving.
The railway pool, honestly administered, is the matural balance-wheel of inter-
state commerce. Section 5 of the pending bill does not provide or suggest any
substitute for this regulative and conservative agency. On the contrary, it
would seem to render commercial chaos legally obligatory.
(5) It is not a sufficient answer to say that if found to be injurious in their
working these provisions may be repealed at the next session of Congress.
The mischief that can be accomplished by their operation during a single busi-
mess season is simply immeasurable, and there is not the slightest necessity for
assuming the risk.
The interstate-commerce bill has adequate scope for its initial purpose with-
out including the sections to which objection is here made. Omitting these, the
bill lays the broad foundation of a system of salutary legislation, which a little
time and experience will develop and perfect. It is evolution, and not revolu-
tion, that the situation calls for. Such a policy will avoid the risk of serious and
disastrous mistakes; at least it will not invite that dennoralization of now re-
viving business, that shock to commercial confidence, that stagnation of enter-
prise, that aggravation of the labor difficulties, that wholesale depreciation
and destruction of values which many competent and disinterested students of
the problem foresee in case the bill becomes a law in its present form. The
panic of 1873 was precipitated and intensified, if it was not largely caused, by
injurious State legislation affecting railroads, hastily enacted in response to un-
reasoning clamor. It would seem to be hardly the part of wisdom or of states-
manship to incur even the liability of repeating that experience, and on a larger
scale, during the present century.
With great respect, your obedient servants,
A. B. NETTLETON,
H. A. TOWNE,
EDMUND J. PHELPS,
T, B. WALRIER,
Committee.
*
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., Janwary 5, 1887.
I S C 15
*:26
Mr. HOAR. Now, Mr. President, every bushel of wheat, every
bushel of corn, every barrel of flour, every animal, every other product
of every kind, the sale of which or the export of which is destroyed by the
operation of this legislation, is just so much deducted from the product
and the value of the farms of the Northwest. Every increase of through
rates is divided as a burden between the farmer of the Northwest and
the consumer of the product in the Northeast or in foreign countries.
I wish to supplement what I have said, coming from the testimony
of the business interests of Boston, by having read a very sensible and
powerful letter written by Mr. J. M. Nave, of Kansas City, Mo., whom
one of the Senators of that State knows, in which he points out the
effect of this legislation on the States of Kansas, Missouri, and Ne-
braska, confirming what, I think, the honorable Senator from Iowa, now
in his seat [Mr. WILSON], said a few years ago, that this legislation
would be the end of cheap farming in the West. I ask to have the
letter read. . * .
The Chief Clerk read, as follows:
- ICANSAs CITY, January 10, 1887.
DEAR SIR: I dislike very much to intrude upon your valuable time, espe-
cially at this important time of legislation in Washington, when you are doubt-
less very much engaged in matters of importance pending, but the interstate-
commerce bill is one of such vital importance to the people of the entire West,
as well as the people of the entire country, that I do most respectfully ask that
you listen to me for a few moments.
This bill, as it seems to me, and as it seems to merchants of the West, who are
familiar with the transportation question, is one that is proposed by reason of
the hostility on the part of the masses of the people, who are uninformed regard-
ing transportation matters, against railroad companies. The bill has been care-
fully read and studied by a number of mercantile and commercial people in
the West, and they all seem to be opposed to it—at the same time are diffident
about offering their suggestions or making their opposition known to their
friends and acquaintances in Congress and in the Senate. While every one will
admit that some legislation is probably necessary to regulate railroads and
transportation companies throughout the United States, the present bill now
pending will certainly (if it becomes a law) work great injury to all of the
Western States. -
One feature especially, which is receiving the hostility of the farming or
granger portion of the conununity, is the question of pooling; and this is a ques-
tion which those who oppose it, doubtless to a great extent, do not understand.
The fact of a number of railroad companies operating from common points in
the East and to common points in the West, running through various districts
of country, entering into an agreement to pool their rates in order to establish
a uniform rate to common points, certainly tends to make the rates more stable;
and stable rates are certainly in the interest of all concerned. A rate made to-
day by one company, and cut to-morrow by another company will run all busi-
ness into chaos. No one certainly ever heard of a rate being made higher at a
pooled point than at a neighborhood point not pooled ; so that no objection can
be raised to the pool, because the effect is to establish a uniform rate, which is
certainly to the interest of the patrons of the railroad companies; and at the
same time it is a protection to the great transportation companies, whose man-
agement desire them to pay a revenue to their owners, or to protect them from
bankruptcy.
You doubtless know that a great many complaints, in fact the majority of
complaints, against the railroad companies are that the rates are unstable and
not uniform, so that dealers can not depend upon them. The pooling of rates
certainly does in a measure remedy this evil, and the provisions embraced in
the interstate-commerce bill will abolish this remedy, and consequently will
create a warfare amongst the railroad companies, which will work great injury
to all of the business and to the agricultural interests of the Western country.
Then, again, the bill proposes, and one of the important features thereofis, to
require railroad companies to carry at fluctuating rates, &c.
Then another feature of the bill, to which all the agricultural and commer-
cial as well as other people of the West should take exception, is the feature
which provides that the long haul and the short haul shall be identical, or pro-
portionate. Should such a provision be enacted into a law, it would necessi-
tate the farmers of Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri, and doubtless other West-
ern States, to use their crops of corn (which they produce largely) for fuel, in-
stead of shipping them to the markets of the world to furnish bread. How,
under such a condition of rates, can the farmer of Missouri and Kansas com-
227
pete with the farmer of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, in offering
his corn, raised upon his land, to the New York, Baltimore, or Philadelphia
market, through which our import goods all go, when he is compelled to pay a
proportionate or a mileage rate of freight from the fields upon which his corn
is produced ? f
I do really believe, and I have considered the matter carefully (at the same
time offer my opinion only as an individual one), that if the bill, as it now
stands, is passed it will cost the States of Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas from
$1,000,000 to $2,000,000 annually by reason of the great depreciation of the value
of the products they raise and on account of the increased rates of freight they
will be compelled to pay to reach the markets of the world, and also by reason
of the increased rates of freight they will be compelled to pay on the products
of foreign countries or of the extreme East, which are absolutely necessary to
the daily living of our Western people.
I make this suggestion to you in the full belief that the bill should not pass. and
with the full knowledge that you know more about the nuatier than I do myself.
I am satisfied that the commercial interests of this State, together with the
manufacturing and agricultural interests of the State of Missouri, as well as the
State of Kansas and the State of Nebraska, and all other Western States now
demand, in their own interest and in common interest with each other, that this
bill be defeated as it now stands.
I have written this letter to Hon. GEORGE G.VEST, of Missouri, to Hon. P. B.
PLUMB, of Kansas, and to Hon. WILLIAM WARNER, of Kansas City, and Hon.
JAMES N. BURNES, of Saint Joseph.
I shall be very much gratified, if you deem the above communication worthy
of consideration, to have you show it to your friends and associates from the
West, and request that they read the same, and consider the suggestions made,
if such be worthy of consideration.
Yours, truly,
- J.A. M. ZS M. N.A.V. E.
Hon. F. M. COCKRELL,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Mr. GEORGE. With the consent of the Senator from Massachusetts,
I should like to interrupt him to ask a question. I understand the
objection of the Senator from Massachusetts to the provision in rela-
tion to the long haul and the short haul to be this: That now, under
present conditions, the railroad companies are in the habit of making a
rebate of 5 per cent. on exported products from the West so as to enable
them to put Boston Harbor on an equal footing with New York Harbor
in the shipment of freights. It has occurred to me, and to several Sen-
ators with whom I have talked on the subject, and especially the Sen-
ator from Iowa who sits on my left [Mr. ALLISON], that the difficulty
would be obviated by a through bill of lading from Chicago or any other
point West from which the shipments to Boston originate—a through
bill of lading to the European port.
Then this 5 per cent. could be adjusted between the steamship line
and the railroads without any interference at all with the provisions
of this bill, the only restriction in that case being that the total charge
from Chicago, supposing that to be the point from which the shipment
was made to Liverpool, supposing that to be the point to which the
shipment is destined, shall not be less than the charge from Chicago to
Boston. Why would not that obviate the difficulty of the Senator?
Mr. HOAR. I should more naturally have spoken to that point a
little later. But I will say at this time that, in the first place, that
would require all the foreign exports which are forwarded by this vast
Boston mercantile interest to find their buyer, or, at any rate, their im-
mediate point of destination in Europe before they would reach Boston.
Now, Mr. Squire cuts up his live hogs and exports them in the form of
lard or pork or ham, as I understand. That is one answer, that it would
make this great inconvenience.
Another answer to it is, that it would be an evasion of what the ma-
jority who favor this bill mean by it.
228
I am a little off from my point, but I will make it now. You are
passing this bill—I am betraying nobody’s secret in saying so—because
you think it necessary to bow to a popular feeling on the subject of
these interests which is likely to make itself felt in politics; therefore
you yield when the people who make this demand for this part of this
legislation come and say it is just that railroad prices should be pro-
portioned to distance, and we demand that if you are going to take
freight from Chicago ten miles east or a thousand and ten miles east, a
particular article, you shall not under any circumstances charge any
more for it than if you took it a thousand and twenty miles, no matter
what its destination or what the competition at one point and the other.
That is the demand, and the bill is based upon that erroneous funda-
mental propositon, as I conceive. .
The answer to the Senator from Mississippi, it seems to me, is that
the practical men who are interested in doing this business do not them-
selves conceive that they can make such an evasion as is proposed by
the honorable Senator. You are putting on to this bill the stringent
penalty of $5,000 for any single transaction in which it is disobeyed;
and what railroad can for a year, until this commission gets around to
it, or what group of railroads can take to Boston the forty-five or fifty
millions of exports which they hope they will be able to send out of
that port during the next twelve months and run the risk of the inter-
pretation put on the bill of the conferees on the part of the House being
held to be wrong and that of the Senator from Illinois being held to
be right? They would have the amount of thousands of millions piled
upon them as penalties if they happened to err in their construction.
Mr. GEORGE. With the permission of the Senator I will state to
him that there is no provision in this bill which even squints at a pro-
hibition of the kind of through shipments to Liverpool or Europe which
is suggested, and it would not be an evasion. It was intended to be
carried to a foreign port, and it would be in exact accordange with the
provisions of the bill.
Mr. HOAR. Will not the Senator, in consideration of the import-
ance of that single proposition, a vital point, just vote to recommit,
and have that put in writing in words?
Mr. GEORGE. There is no difficulty about it in the world; you can
not put your finger on a single clause to justify any other view.
Mr. HOAR. That is the Senator's opinion. I expect to put my
finger on clauses which will have the effect I have stated.
Mr. GEORGE. May I be indulged in just one further remark?
Mr. HOAR. The Senator is not only interrupting me, which I do
not wish to object to, but he is forcing the discussion of certain points
which I have not yet reached. . -
Mr. GEORGE. I beg pardon and will not interrupt the Senator.
Mr. HOAR. Now, Mr. President, just look at the Western farmer,
the agricultural interests interested in this, and see what the building
up of this trade by this 5 per cent. rebate has done for the Northwest.
Twenty years ago the city of Boston had storage capacity in its ele-
vators of about 500,000 bushels. To-day it has a storage capacity of
2,700,000. Twenty years ago the rate from the West to Boston was
3.7 cents per ton per mile. To-day it is .83 of one cent per ton per
mile or less than one-fourth it was twenty years ago. -
Mr. Edward Atkinson, a very high authority as a statistician, has
stated within a few days that on that freight there is a saving of
$800,000,000 in the reduction of the prices of freight as compared with
§ 2 - .
* *
what the same quantity of freight would have had to pay twenty years
ago:
The traffic of last year cost $800,000,000 less than it would have cost at what
were considered reasonable rates twenty years ago. The actual saving of the
last four years, 1882 to 1885, inclusive, as compared with the previous period,
has been $1.500,000,000.
The policy upon which this rebate has been allowed and upon which
this trade has grown up has been the principle of equalizing, as far as
possible, the advantages of the different parts of the country. The
purpose of the railroads, as has been said, from the time of their original
creation is the annihilation of space and time as far as is possible to human
ingenuity and the mechanical powers wielded by man. The doctrine
that railroad rates are to be proportioned to distances, instead of being
a proposition of justice or equity, is a proposition which in the practical
management of affairs would be absolutely destructive to the great
systems which have built up the prosperity of this country.
I had collected a few statistics of the growth of the railroad system
of the country and its policy, which I will not detain the Senate by
reading. I prefer to insert in the report of my remarks a few sentences
from a statement compiled by Mr. Poor, the author of the Railroad
Manual:
In illustration of the correctness of these observations certain talular state-
ments have been prepared and annexed hereto, compiled from the annual re-
ports of the railroad companies as printed in Poor's Manual of the Railroads of
the United States. From the statements 1, 2, and 3, which include the Pennsyl-
vania, the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago, the New York Central, the
Lake Shore, the Michigan Central, the Boston and Albany, and the Erie Rail-
roads, the great carriers between Chicago and the seaboard, it will be seen that
the number of tons transported over these lines in 1865 equaled 11,151,701 tons;
in 1885, 66,521,153 tons, the increase within the period of twenty years equaling
55,369,452 tons, the rate per cent, increase equaling 500 per cent.
Their earnings from freight equaled $47,832,873 in 1865 and $72,138,792 in 1885;
the increase of earnings in the twenty years equaling $24,305,989, the rate of in-
crease being about 50 per cent. It further appears that the nullaloer of tons
moved one mile in 1865 by the roads named equaled 1,654,324,000 tons; in 1885,
11,331,306,000 tons, the service performed being nearly seven times greater in
1885 than in 1865, the increase of earnings in the same period equaling ou ly
about 50 per cent. The average charge per ton per mile in 1865 on the roads
named equaled 2.90 cents; in 1885, 0.636 cents per ton per mile, the reduction
equalling 2.264 cents perton per mile, the rate in 1885 equaling only 22 per cent.
of that of 1865. Had the rates charged in 1885 been the same as those charged
in 1865, the earnings from freight would have equaled $328,617,874, or $256,479,-
08.1 more than that received.
The number of tons of freight transported in 1865 by the great lines entering
Chicago from the South, West, and Northwest—the Illinois Central, the Chieago
and Alton, the Chicago and Rock Island, the Chicago, Burlington and Quiney,
the Chicago and Northwestern, and the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul—in-
cluded in the statements 4, 5, and 6, equaled 4,032,166 tons; in 1885, 34,348,684,
tons, the increase in the twenty years equaling 30,336,518 tons, the rate of in-
crease being over eight-fold. Their earnings from the transportation of freight
in 1865 equaled $18,703,805; in 1885, $75,307,684, the increase in the period named
being $56,603,879, The number of tons moved in 1 mile in 1865 equaled 513,421,–
500 tons; in 1885, 6,287,346,000 tons. The average charge per ton per mile in 1865
was 3,642 cents; in 1885, 1,200 cents, the decrease in the period of twenty years.
equaling 2.442 cents per ton per mile, the percentage of decrease being 67 per
cent. Had the cluarges been the same in 1885 as they were in 1865, then their
earnings would have equaled $229,084,432 against $75,307,684, or a sum of $153,-
776,748 greater than that received.
A very large proportion of the freight received in Chicago is destined for East-
ern or for foreign markets. A very large annount of it is produced in districts 1,500
miles distant from the seaboard. At the average rate, 3.07 cents per ton per
mile, charged in 1865 by the lines included in the annexed statements, it would
cost fully $30 to transport a tom of freight from Chicago to the seaboard, and $45
per ton from points 500 miles farther west, and from which large portions of
the breadstuffs, and provisions now sent to the seaboard for domestic and for-
eign consumption are received. At the rate of 3.07 per tom per mile the charge
of the tonnage moved on the roads named in 1885 would have been $538, S30,731
in the place of $147,446,476, the amount actually received.
230
w
An increase in the tonnage of the railroads named from 15,183,867 in 1865 to
100,879,837 in 1885, accompanied by a reduction of net charges of transportation
from 3.07 cents to 0.831 cent per ton per mile, the saving, 2.176 cents per tom per
mile, effected thereby to be divided between producer and consumer, equaling
$391,453,855, is complete vindication of the railroad companies from the charges
of oppression and misconduct brought against the same, of which an example
will be given. Such a development could have been possible only by the adop-
tion by the railroads of a policy suited to the problem to be solved, which was
nothing less than to give a commercial value to the products of every acre in-
cluded in our vast domain. While the average charge for 1885 of the great lines
from Chicago to New York averaged 0.636 cent per ton per mile, and that on the
great lines centering at Chicago averaged 1.200 cents per mile, the average for
all being 0.831 cent per ton per mile, the charge for moving a ton of wheat or
flour from Minneapolis to the seaboard did not much exceed one-half the gen-
eral average, or $6 the ton. At the average minimum rate, the charge would
have been $12 per ton. As the greater part of the wheat grown in Minnesota is
accumulated at that place preparatory to its being sent to the Eastern markets,
every farmer in the State of Minnesota is benefited in the degree of the cheap-
ness of the “ long haul.”
The commerce, both foreign and domestic, of the country, its magnitude con-
sidered, is the creation of our railroads. The tonnage for 1885 of the lines in-
cluded in the statements annexed equaled 100,869,837. At $40 per ton, the value
of this tonnage equaled $4,084,793,480. The increase of this tonnage from 1865
to 1885 equaled 85,686,050 tons. The increased value of the tonnage moved in
1885 over that moved in 1865 equaled $3,427,446,000. The lines named moved
the past year only about 23 per cent. of the tonnage, 437,040,099, of all the lines in
the country. At $25 per tom, the value of the aggregate tonnage moved equaled
$10,926,002,200. The increase of the railroad tonnage of the whole system has
been as rapid as that of the lines named—that is to say, from 70,00,000 in 1865 to
437,000,000 in 1885. The value, at $25 per ton, of the tonnage moved in 1865 was
$280,000,000; in 1885, $10,926,002.200, the increase in the twenty years equaling
$8,126,002,200. Had the railroad companies been the instruments of fraud and
oppression they are charged with being, certainly such marvelous results could
never have been achieved.
It is beyond cavil that the proud pre-eminence which the United States enjoys
in its material welfare over all other nations is almost wholly due to the de-
velopment, through the instrumentality of its railroads, of its natural resources.
The result is strikingly shown in the changes in our favor which have taken
place in our foreign trade. From 1866 to 1875, inclusive, the value of the exports
of the country equaled $4,113,411,467; of its imports, $4,938,411,464; the balance
against the country for the ten years equaling $827,499,674. For the ten years
beginning with 1876 the exports of the country equaled $7,343,266,125; its inn-
ports, $5,77S,558,497; the balance in favor of the country for the ten years equal-
ing $1,564,707,628. In the period of ten years ending with 1873 the excess of
exports of specie over imports equaled $578,644,791. In the period of ten years
ending with 1885 the excess of imports over exports equaled $63,919,891. The
greater part of the increase of our exports has been made up of breadstuffs and
provisions grown far distant from the seaboard, and which could be sent to
markets only at very low rates on the “long haul.” But for the instrumentality
of the railroads and the adjustment of rates to the various conditions thus pre-
sented specie payments could not have been resumed or maintained.
Now, what is the principle on which the first great provision of this
conference report depends 2 -
It is that distance, except in special cases, ought to be the measure
of compensation; and therefore if the freights be put down at the end
of a road, they must be put down at least to the same point on all points
on the line.
I know it is said in the bill this must be under substantially similar
circumstances and conditions, and I know the provision that the com-
mission may in special cases interpose. But as a rule certainly no
Senator would expect the courts to say that the systems upon which
the great foreign commerce of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New
Orleans, and Boston is conducted constitute a special case. No one
would suppose that the great imperial legislative power of this country
intended to refer as a special and exceptional matter the policy on
which we should deal with such a public interest as that to a board of
commissioners appointed by the President of the United States.
Now, how does this matter affect Boston? We have coming from
231
the West to the seaboard three great lines for the transportation of the
business and merchandise to which I have referred. On one of them
our State spent $20,000,000 in tunneling a single mountain by a tunnel
about 4 miles in length, I think, which stood in the way of one of these
great Western lines, and they have within a few days disposed of the
State interest in that tunnel, after losing interest on the $20,000,000
for nearly twenty years, so that it must have cost, principal and inter-
est, full $40,000,000—they have disposed of it to one of the great rail-
road lines for the sum of $10,000,000. Another, the Boston and Albany,
was built up by the foresight and enterprise of a former generation of
the State of Massachusetts, building that road against a hostile outcry
that the dominant party were mortgaging the farm of every landholder
in Massachusetts.
Then we have in addition the New York and New England road, the
third line, on which the State also expended some three or four million
dollars withinadequate security undoubtedly. So, taking principal and
interest, I suppose it would not be too much to say that the people of
Massachusetts have expended nearly or quite fifty million dollars in
order that this great business might be conducted in competition with
Canada on the one side and with the great railroad lines to the south of
us on the other.
We have also on the seaboard the Eastern Railroad, which brings
merchandise from Maine and the British provinces in competition with
the water-way of the Atlantic Ocean, bringing freights to large and im-
portant cities, Newburyport, Portsmouth, Lynn, Salem, Marblehead,
and so on, which are way stations, and to Boston as the terminal point.
Now, they say that all this traffic north and south, east and west,
shall be prohibited and that competition with the water-ways shall not
have its natural and ordinary effect upon rates, or that competition with
the lakes and Canada or with the lakes and the New York Central
Railroad shall not be carried on unless every railroad which is engaged
in it puts down all its local business (which is 93 per cent. of the whole
amount of its business) to an amount not exceeding that at which they
do through business. That is what this bill proposes, according to the
men who drafted and forced this provision on the Senate.
The answer to the letter which I addressed to one of the House con-
ferees, and which he says in answering he believes his associates agree
with him, settles that question. I ask the Secretary to read this.
The House of Representatives passed the bill in that belief, and the
Senator from Tennessee avowed his belief to the same effect. I ask to
have the letter read.
The Chief Clerk read as follows:
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, House OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D. C., January 11, 1887.
DEAR SIR: Your favor of January 4 only reached me last evening. You pro-
pound three interrogatories which, for convenience, are repeated and answered.
Judge REAGAN and Mr. WEAVER, the other House conferees, being absent, of
course I cannot authoritatively speak for them, but I believe that their views
coincide with those herein expressed by me.
First. “Do you understand that the prohibition in the fourth section of the bill,
as amended in conference, will prevent the common carrier from receiving a
larger sunn in proportion for a shorter than for a longer distance, or only that
the amount of the entire freight for the less distance shall not exceed the amount
of the entire freight for the greater distance, on a similar article, under similar
circumstances?” “ $ $ -
I understand that the fourth section will prevent a common carrier, within the
meaning of the act, from receiving a larger sum in the aggregate for the trans-
portation of passengers or property for a shorter than for a longer distance, over
the same line, in the same direction; in other words, “the amount of the entire
freight for the less distance (included in the greater distance) shall not exceed
232
the amount of the entire freight for the greater distance, on a similar article,
under similar circumstances.” .
Second. “Suppose a thousand barrels of flour be taken from Chicago to Boston,
and be thence conveyed to Europe, and another thousand barrels of flour be
taken from Chicago to Boston, or Worcester, a point nearer Chicago, on the
same lime, destined for home consumption, are these substantially similar cir-
cumstances within the meaning of the bill? In other words, does a mere dif-
ference in the destination of property create the dissimilar circumstances and
conditions contemplated in section 4?” i - -
In my judgment, the difference in the case cited by you would not create dis-
similar circumstances. l *
Third. “Does the existence of competition at the end of the longer distance
which does not exist at the end of the shorter on the same line make a differ-
ence of circumstances, and conditions within the intention of the framers of the
bill?”
In my opinion it does not.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, yours, -
CHARLES F. CRISP.
Hon. GEORGE F. HOAR, -
United States Senate. --
Mr. HOAlk. Mr. President, I know that the Senator from Illinois,
representing the Senate, takes a different view and I infer that some
other Senators take a different view. This bill ought, then, to be re-
committed to determine this question, One side or the other is to be—
I will not say deceived or cheated, because I know of course there is
no such purpose—but one side or the 'other is to be misled, is to be
grievously misled. Think of the legislation, of the statesmanship,
which compels the great railroad lines of the country to transact busi-
ness essential to our foreign commerce, under the risk of a penalty of
$5,000 on every single transaction if the men who drafted this language,
who, as representing the House of Representatives, put it in the bill
and who compel the Senate to take that or nothing, happen to be right
in the construction they put on it. ;
In regard to these railroad lines there is one thing I may as well say
at this time. The New York Central Railroad, which transacts busi-
mess in connection with water at Buffalo and then takes it to Albany or
Troy for the East or for New York, is not an interstate railroad. It has
absolute control of this subject in spite of your act of Congress. You
are compelling our great lines of railroad, the Boston and Albany,
crossing the State line for about 4 or 5 miles, the New York and New
England, which goes through Connecticut, to be subject to its opera-
tion. *
The passage of this bill will create a panic. How soon are the com-
missioners to be in operation? The bill requires each special case to
be acted on; and I understand, and my friend from Mississippi under-
stands, that in a special case the commissioners may authorize this
distinction to be made after investigation and hearing. They are to
be appointed at once. The bill is to go into effect in sixty days, and
they are to get round to the determination of this particular case when
they have heard every application for an exception and their investi-
gations have been had all over the country. e .
It would take the President certainly thirty of the sixty days to find a
commission; it would take them the other thirty to lay aside and ar-
range their private and other business which they are to give up.
Meantime the provisions of this bill take effect. The whole through
business of the country is disordered and prostrate, only to be revived
when the commissioners in the course of their vast business get round
to each special case. -
But it seems to me that it is utterly indefensible legislation, upon
whatever theory of this bill you proceed, to create commissioners with
the power which the gentlemen who favor the bill attribute to this
\
233
commission. The original bill gave them a power of investigation and
report. They were to hold up to daylight any transaction in the rail-
road management of the country of which the people made complaint.
That was well; but here you give them a power half legislative, half
judicial, when the Constitution provides that you shall not take the
property of a man in the country to the amount of $20 from him with-
out a trial by jury, and that that trial by jury shall be superintended
by judges appointed for life under all the restrictions and safeguards
and securities which surround the administration of justice. You give
these men power over the business of great towns and great cities and
great classes of investments—a power which no Persian satrap or
Roman proconsul was ever intrusted with—at a salary of $7,500 a year,
with an exposure to temptation in the way of corruption which would
not stand at millions and hundreds of millions of dollars. To refer to
five commissionels the question of whether the foreign commerce of
the city of Boston, with its $135,000,000, shall stand or fall. The
question whether the House conferees or one of the Senate conferees
be right in this opinion involves all that.
I have dwelt on the city of Boston because it is the community which
I represent, and because it is better to point out its effect on an individ-
ual case. The foreign commerce of this second seaport city, vast as it is,
is a mere trifle compared with the vast interests of the producers and
consumers which are to be affected by this legislation. You had bet-
ter blot Boston as an exporting city out of the map rather than take
away from the farmer of the Northwest his access to the markets of
Europe in the near future. It is not commerce, but the agriculture of
the country, upon which the burden of this insidious provision is likely
to fall most heavily, as it seems to me. -
This proposition is in defiance of all recent railroad experience and
railroad thought. This provision is based on a crude fallacy which men
who begin to reflect on the railroad policy fall into in the first instance,
but which investigation always dispels and drives away. The last
English experience rejects it, as is stated in Professor Hadley’s book,
which I omitted to bring with me, on the one hundred and eighty-sixth
page. He says the last parliamentary committee in England have ut-
terly rejected the principle of proportioning rates to distance and the
long and short haul. *.
The fatal objection to this provision is that it makes distance the
measure of compensation as its general rule, when in fact distance is
often—perhaps in a majority of cases—one of the least important ele-
ments to be considered.
To leave a car-load of flour at an intermediate station will often re-
quire an expense of time and labor in stopping and starting a train, and
detaching the car, which may nearly equal the whole freight charge
to the terminus.
A road may often afford to take freight to a terminal point from
which its cars return full for little more than half the price which it
must charge to an intermediate point from which they return empty.
It can keep at the terminal point the most skilled workmen con-
stantly employed, elevators, awarehouses for the deposit of merchan-
dise, and all the means and appliances for cheap and expeditious hand-
ling of its freight. The freight, when it arrives, can be at once placed
where it will cause no interruption to the other business of the road.
At the intermediate point it must be handled by persons not fully em-
ployed, without conveniences, and where it seriously obstructs the other
234
business. It will often cost a road more to carry a certain article 5
miles than it would to carry it 50.
Take the case of the Hoosac tunnel, in Massachusetts, which I re-
ferred to just now, which is, I think, about eight miles from the State
line. Take an article of merchandise through that, to carry it from a
a town in Massachusetts, a way station just east of the tunnel, through
the tunnel over the New York line. Is it not fair to charge more for
that service than for a vastly longer distance under other circum-
stances? It is said that these are special cases for which the commission
would provide. Why, Mr. President, the whole railroad business of
this country is but an aggregate of such cases as this. There is not a
case that can be put of a transportation of freight from State to State
over a line of railroad into which some element or other does not enter
other than the mere comparison of the distance. Aft''
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. May I ask the Senator a question
right on that point?
Mr. HOAR. Certainly.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Is it not a fact that the very argu-
ment the Senator is now making that all these differences which he
says exist, and which I concede do exist, disprove the other argument
which the Senator is making, that there is no dissimilarity in the mat-
ter of transportation between the long hauls and the various short
haulsº
Mr. HOAR. I do not say that there is no dissimilarity.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Is there not a substantial want of
similarity in almost every conceivable case that can be pointed out?
Mr. HOAR. Certainly, and that is the folly and the fallacy and
absurdity of this bill, that it takes a business—
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I think so, too, but the construction
which has been placed upon it is just the reverse of the one placed
upon it by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. HOAR. We are dealing with a business which is made up of
special cases. If the comparison by distance is to be taken under a
general rule you can not conceive two cases which are not different, if
you come down to refinement as to special cases, if that is to be taken
as a general case, and you put the vast transportation business of this
country, its domestic as well as its foreign commerce, into the hands of
five commissioners who are hereafter at their mere whim, at any rate
in their mere judgment and discretion, to regulate and control its entire
operation.
My friend from Oregon who just interrupted me speaks of his con-
struction of this bill. I have not said that I claim that it was clear
that the bill dealt with foreign commerce. It may be that the mere des-
tination of the freight makes dissimilar circumstances in one case and
in the other, but I say the bill was framed by men who claim that it
meant that two cases I have put are cases of like circumstances and
conditions. I say the bill is intended to carry out a theory which is
that distance, in all cases, with very few and rare exceptions, shall be
the measure of compensation. -
If the commission is to deal with all these cases you must have a
commission of five hundred or five thousand men, and not a commission
of five. I think my friend's State of New Jersey will supply this com-
mission of five with work which will take all its time for ten years on
the theory of the construction of the bill which its framers have ad-
vocated. .
If there are special cases within the provision of the bill, your whole
235
bill is a mockery and an illusion. They will include every case wher
any discrimination is made in favor of longer against the shorter dis-
tance which is not protected by the general prohibition of unreason-
ble charges, except the case where the diminution of the through rate
is made necessary by competition, and that I shall speak of presently.
If you mean to say that the road shall not charge more for the short
haul than for the long haul where the short haul costs more than the
long, you are doing a gross injustice. If you mean to except that case
from the operation of your law, you are excepting, in my judgment,
the larger proportion of the cases which have incited the popular de-
mand to which you profess to yield, and so you will disappoint and
deceive the people.
There is a fallacious notion which seems to have got a lodgment in
some very intelligent minds; and that is, that the reduction of the rate
on through traffic is a burden or tax on local traffic. Gentleman have
said in my hearing, I think it has been said in this debate, that if we
can not have foreign commerce without taxing our domestic transpor-
tation to obtain it, we must go without. I hold, on the contrary, that
every dollar which a carrier gets, of through freight, at a rate which
pays anything above the bare cost of conveyance, and which it would
not otherwise get, is a benefit to its local traffic; and I hold that, given
the local traffic at present prices, the whole local traffic of the country,
adding to the business of the railroad such through traffic as they are
able to accommodate enables the railroads to reduce local rates and also
to relieve the local traffic from a share of its fixed charges.
Now, take a very simple proposition. Suppose a hackman starts to
take a passenger to Bladensburg and has got his price fixed. Remem-
ber that this whole thing is a graft upon a bill which already has pro-
vided that everywhere reasonableness must be the rule, and which has
afforded mechanism, both legal and supervisory, to accomplish that re-
Sult. You have got the hackman starting to Bladensburg with his pas-
senger, and he is to have $10, which is a reasonable price. He comes
to a man who is on foot with a carpet-bag, who says he has only got a
dollar in his pocket, but if he will let him get in he will give half a
dollar of it to the hackman and the other half to the passenger. The
passenger has paid his $10. Who suffers? What an absurdity it
would be to have a law to regulate a hackman which said that under
no circumstances should he take an additional passenger except at the
same rate at which he had taken the others, that he never should
diminish his rates ?
This little carrier business of the hackman or cabman affords a very
good illustration of the unreasonableness of the proposition upon
which this legislation is based. There is not a body of rules, I sup-
pose, in any city or populous town in the United States in which the
hackman who takes four passengers is not required to take them a lit-
tle cheaper than the hackman who takes but two; in which the hack-
man who takes passengers outside of a mile circle is not required to
take them at a cheaper rate in proportion than when he takes them
inside the mile circle. -
This is a fallacy which in carrying out the principle would be destruc-
tive of all sorts of business. The manufacturer has a surplus. The
manufacturing interests of the country, the business men of a particu-
lar kind, have a surplus of goods, and they can not conduct their busi-
ness profitably unless after having sold what the ordinary demand re-
quires they are permitted to sell off that surplus at a cheaper rate. Our
protective tariff is very largely intended to protect us from having a
236
surplus of foreign manufactures dumped down in our markets in com-
petition with our own. -
Take the corresponding occupation of the inn-holder, which the com-
mon law places exactly on the same footing as that of the carrier in
regulating it by law and requiring reasonableness as the measure of
charge. Are you to say that the inn-holder in a city where there is a
political convention shall not fill up his inn on a particular day at a
particular price for food and lodging if he wants to attract the conven-
tion to his house rather than have it go to another without a corre-
sponding reduction of the price which he is to charge all the rest of his
customers through the year?
Mr. HAWLEY. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?
I am seeking for light in this matter, as he is. I can not see how the
illustration of the hackman applies here, because this bill both as
passed by the Senate and as reported by the conference committee pro-
vides that no carrier shall charge more for a short distance than for a
long one. A cabman in this city I believe will take you a mile for
25 cents or two miles for 40 cents; but what is forbidden in this case
is charging 40 cents a mile and 35 cents for two miles.
Mr. HOAR. That is the theory on which the bill goes so far as it
goes on the ground that the distance in ordinary cases is the measure in
proportion of the price, and although the bill has limited itself by
having carried out the principle to say that you shall not charge at a
greater rate, yet where the difference in distance is very slight you have
all the destructive effect on the through business by saying that the
local business shall in no event be less, - -
Mr. HAWLEY. Under this bill a carrier might charge 4 cents a
mile on the intermediate distances, and 3 cents a mile on the through,
and yet not violate this proposed law, because the aggregate on the short
haul would not be the aggregate of the long haul.
Mr. HOAR. That is true; everybody, understands that, but that
does not affect substantially, it seems to me, the argument I am mak-
ing or the aptness of the illustration. If you concede, as the bill con-
cedes in that particular, that it is reasonable that the short haul shall
be judged more in proportion to distances than the long, in a very large
number of cases, of course that would bring the aggregate for the short
haul higher than the aggregate for the long in the cases I have put.
Mr. President, these public highways are the arteries and veins of
the State. An unhealthy pressure on any limb will not only cause that
limb to grow feeble and wither, but, in the end, it will be destructive of
the life of the commonwealth itself. It seems to me in our legislation, I
suppose it is true of all of us, when we attack one of these great, compli-
cated, and subtle economies we have to go through some of the diseases
of childhood. We have to have chicken-pox, and the measles, and the
whooping-cough, before we get to a condition of sound and vigorous
health. We had it in the matter of paper money and fiat money. I
sat in the House of Representatives in the next seat to a gentleman from
Ohio, who had a table to show that the amount of bank capital to the
square mile, and the currency to the square mile was very much less
in the Northwest than it was in New York and the Eastern States, and
he made it the pride and glory of his Congressional service to try and
remedy that vast injustice. We seem to be going through the same
thing now in this matter of railroad legislation. I am afraid some of
us are destined to have a permanent whooping-cough all our days. .
Mr. President, this bill will require the non-paying branch of a rail-
road to charge no more for the same included distance than it does for
237
the prosperous and well supported main line. The bill will injure, as
it seems to me, as I have said, the distant Western farmer more than it
will injure the capital which is engaged in the commerce of the Eastern
cities. A high authority, agentleman now a member of the Senate and
an advocate of this bill, has quite lately declared that it would be the
end of cheap farming in the Northwestern States. The agents of the
great steam lines, of which I think there are twelve now going out of
Boston, come to us and tell us that the bill as interpreted by its framer,
and as they fear it will be expounded hereafter, will be the destruction
of a large portion of the business in which those lines are engaged.
Mr. President, it seems to me that the true policy of the Senate is
to recommit this bill. Let it save as it can save the great principle
of reasonableness enforced and established by law, the great princi-
ple of publicity in the advertisement of rates, the great superintend-
ing power of the commission, and the great and healthy and beneficent
enactment which provides against any unjust discrimination whether
between persons or places or lines. But this other and further step
proposed to us by the House of Representatives against the original
judgment of the Senate we should to refuse to take.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I desire to have the benefit of the opin-
ion of the Senator from Massachusetts on one point for my own infor-
mation. He has stated, after a very careful examination of this bill,
as his opinion, as I understand, and he has fortified that opinion by
what seems to be the opinion of business men, not railroad men par-
ticularly, in the State of Massachusetts and New England, to the ef-
fect that the result of this bill, if it becomes a law, will be to increase
through rates, to increase the price of transportation on long hauls from
what he calls the great West to the Atlantic seaboard. I presume when
the Senator speaks of the great West he refers to the valleys of the Mis-
sissippi and the Missouri and Ohio, or in other words, the country lying
east of the Rocky Mountains and west of the Alleghany Mountains.
He does not refer, of course, to what we understand as the far West,
or that portion of the country lying west of the Rocky Mountains.
What I should like to have the opinion of the Senator from Massa-
chusetts on, if he has considered that question at all, is as to whether
the effect of this bill, if it becomes a law, will be to increase the rates
of transportation on long hauls from points east of the Rocky Mount-
ains to points in the extreme Northwest, the Columbia River, Puget
Sound, &c., that is, on that character of freight which is desired for
consumption in that distant part of our country, and which the people
residing there are compellêd to purchase either in Europe and bring
across the continent, or in this country in the markets of the East. I
should like to know what the opinion of the Senator from Massachu-
setts is as to the effect of the bill on that question ?
Mr. HOAR. So far as the manufactured products of New England
are concerned, which are now largely, and I hope will still more largely,
be sold to that people, and so far as by the cheapening of railroad rates
and mechanical improvements of railroad transportation they shall cause
their great wheat-fields to exchange commodities with the population
who are especially engaged in manufacturing those products, I have no
doubt the same injurious effect that I have stated will exist in those
C3SeS.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, it is not my purpose to engage in
the general debate on this bill or to attempt to discuss at length any
of the questions which have been presented so fully and ably by Sena-
tors on both sides of the Chamber. I wish simply to take my share of
23S
the responsibility of the votes on the bill and to state the reasons for
the votes that I shall give. -
I believe that no bill of this importance has ever had such a general
support, not only among the people but in both Houses of Congress, as
this bill to regulate interstate commerce. The necessity for the passage
of a bill on the subject is great, and is made greater by the decision of
the Supreme Court. Whatever might have been the difference of opin-
ion in the past, there is now a concurring sentiment among all classes of
people, strongly represented in both Houses of Congress, that there ought
to be some general regulations in regard to interstate commerce. No
question of power is raised; no questions of constitutional right or duty
are involved. It is simply a question of discretion as to what particu-
lar measure shall be adopted and as to the provisions of that measure.
I am free to say that if my vote on this bill would defeat the passage
of an interstate-commerce bill at this session I should vote differently
from what I intend to do; but there is no such exigency. The bill is
in such an advanced stage of consideration that without question,
whatever we may do in regard to the bill as it now stands, it will in
some form receive the sanction of Congress. It has passed both Houses.
It is in a committee of conference where a single vote can in Soune way
determine it, and all that can be done now is to recommit it or to pass it.
If we recommit it we are sure to have action upon it again. There
can scarcely be a doubt but what the committee would report it, be-
cause there is such a pressure of public opinion behind it that no com-
mittee of conference organized by Congress could possibly prevent the
passage of the bill. Either House might at any time recall the bill
from the consideration of the committee of conference, even if the con-
ferees failed to perform their duty; but there is no danger of that kind.
The bill is something in the nature of an appropriation bill, sure to
pass; but there ought to be no provision in it and no section in it that
does not receive the free and unbiased judgment in favor of it by both
Houses of Congress.
When an appropriation bill is pending and a proposition is inserted
by way of amendment by either House, if the other House refuses to
accede to that amendment, there is no logical way except for the
House proposing the amendment to recede. So, if there is any provis-
ion in the bill proposed by the House of Representatives, or by either
House that is not approved by the other, then the House making the
proposition should recede in order to secure the passage of the bill.
It is only by acting upon that general rule of policy that any bill in-
volving the magnitude of the questions in"this bill can pass through
Congress. . .
Under these circumstances, as I believe, without detaining the Senate
long, there are two or three provisions of the bill which ought to be
omitted from it, for the present at least, until we have had some expe-
rience in the operation of the bill. I shall vote, if the motion is made,
to recommit to the same conferees, and to have them look over these
three or four points (and there are only three or four sections in the
bill which have been made the subjects of controversy) and see whether
they can not frame such provisions as will enable Senators and Mem-
bers to vote for it freely without any doubt about the effect of the pro-
visions of the bill.
That is the view I take of the bill in its general provisions. Now,
referring to the particular points, the one is the fourth section, in rela-
tion to the long and short haul. The general provision that no greater
charge should be made for a short haul than for a long haul over the
239
same line is so plainly equitable and fair that one would say it ought
to be taken as an axiom in dealing with this question; and as a general
proposition it is right. I voted for it at the last session, and would vote
now that in the conduct of a railroad they should not, except in very
rare and special cases, charge more for hauling a shorter distance than
for a longer distance.
While, as I have said, the general rule of this bill is correct, I have
no doubt at the same time it is equally clear that there are certain ex-
ceptions to that rule which must be provided for in some way. Every-
where there is a fear that this bill, intended to relieve the people of the
United States, may destroy our export trade and break up important
competition now existing between water and railroad routes. This is
so clearly admitted that the conferees themselves, and both Houses,
have seemed to admit that there must be exceptions to this rule, and
they have endeavored to provide for those exceptions by the provisions
of the conference report, What I fear and believe, from a careful study
of the language of the fourth section, is that no sufficient provision is
made for those exceptions.
Let me state one which is probably the most imperative. The larger
portion of our export trade is in provisions or in material for clothing.
Pork, wheat, corn, cotton, and various articles produced on the farm
are sent abroad amounting to more than a half of our entire exports.
It is perfectly manifest to my mind, and ought to be to the mind of
every one ſamiliar with railroad business, that if you attempt to apply
this rule to produce about to be exported into foreign countries you
cripple the means of the United States of America to compete with for-
eign countries. You may cut off to a large extent the possibility of
sending our exports abroad where the markets of the world are open to
us, and might in this way do great damage that no one would desire to
inflict.
When this provision about the long and short haul is applied to the
transportation across the continent of the tea, for instance, that is
brought from China, it is perfectly manifest that that provision if car-
ried out and applied to that kind of trade would destroy our entire
carrying trade across the continent from India and Chiua and the East
to the European markets. In that trade there are many modes of con-
veyance and competition. There is the Suez route; there is the route
around Cape Horn; there is the route by Panama; and there is still a
close competitor, the route through Canada. Therefore, if you apply
the principle of short haul to the commerce across the continent, you
practically turn from our own country and from our own railroads all
this vast commerce, increasing constantly in almost geometrical ratio,
and turn it through other countries or by other routes. This trade, so
great is the competition in its conduct, would be diverted even by a
pebble, much more by a great restriction like this, which declares in
general terms that no less charge for the through distance in the aggre-
gate shall be made as against this kind of transportation than for the
ordinary transportation of our country in our interstate commerce.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Oh, no; it is the same kind of goods.
Mr. SHERMAN. It is true a provision limits it to like conditions
and circumstances.
Mr. EDMUNDS. And like property as well.
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes; like property as well. This limitation is
so broad, and may be construed to be so general, as practically to de-
stroy and absolutely nullify the general provisions.
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] in a single remark the
240
other day stated very fully and forcibly that if it must be applied only
to like circumstances and like conditions and like property, the whole
clause may be made nugatory. Shipments will rarely be on precisely
the same or in similar terms; they may be easily distinguished some-
what from each other. It seems to me there ought to be some provision
in the bill that will guard against such a construction as this, and en-
able the railroads in our country, by express provision of law, to make
such rates for this kind of transportation I have mentioned as would
enable them to maintain against all kinds of competition the trade they
have now, and to increase it if they can. But that is only one of the
cases I wish to mention. -
Take wheat and corn, pork or cotton, transported from all parts of
our country. The people of the United States are not particularly in-
terested whether that goes from Ohio or Nebraska, or the still farther
West—from Minnesota, Dakota, and all those vast new regions which
are now supplying us with the great elements of our foreign commerce.
Suppose wheat and these products are shipped from the far West and
no discrimination should be made in their favor because they are to be
exported to foreign countries; suppose no provision is made that will
enable our railroads to compete with foreign countries for that trans-
portation. There is a route through Montreal; there is a route, as I
said, around by Panama, and there are various routes.
If our farmers and our transporters are not able to conduct this trade
and this transportation so as to compete with these rivals, as a matter
of course we destroy a business, which will reduce the business of our
transcontinental railroads, reduce their income, and practically com-
pel them to increase the rates upon domestic interstate commerce in
order to make that loss good. -
It seems to me there ought to be some general and broad provisions
which will provide for this, especially in favor of our export trade. I
am not prepared now, with the limited examination I have given, to say
what words I would be willing to define in this law to make provision
for our exports abroad and for the competition between our wheat and
the wheat of Russia and the wheat of India, and other nations now
competing with us in the supply of all the great cereals and provisions
of the country, even in Indian corn, in which only a few years ago we
had a practical monopoly of all the world. It is now being produced
in competition with us. We must, therefore, make provision by which
this trade will not be jeopardized or affected.
Then there is another consideration. You take the hard and severe
competition between water routes and railroad routes in the summer
time from Chicago and from Duluth and from Milwaukee, and all these
great interior lake ports of the country. That water competition in
the summer time is so sharp that the railroads have either to abandon
all competition, turn the transportation entirely over to the water
routes from the 1st day of June until the 1st day of November, or else
they must be permitted to reduce the rates during that time to such
figures as would not justify them in carrying the same property on
local routes. If it is desirable that we force the railroads out of com-
petition for this kind of freight, then probably it is not an unfair pro-
vision, but that is not desirable. Especially in our export trade we
must allow the sharpest and closest competition. If you withdraw
from the water routes the competition of the railroads, you necessarily
induce the water routes to raise their rates in the summer time when
the great body of this produce is being transported, and they will do it.
The effect upon water rates by the railroads has been very great,
241
reducing them in some cases to one-fourth of what they would be, mat-
urally, without competition with the railroads. Unless some provision
is made in a general way for this, it seems to me we are likely to de-
feat the objects of this bill. I can not say precisely what language
ought to be used, but it seems to me the present provisions of the bill
are entirely too vague and indefinite.
Then the bill limits the powers of the commission to allow special
rates to a considerable extent, somewhat more than the original Senate
bill did, because they must take up each particular case, each particu-
lar matter, and decide upon that. What does that mean? Does that
mean that they shall not make any general regulations which would
apply to all articles exported to foreign countries? Not at all. But
they must take up the case as applied to a particular railroad under
particular circumstances and particular conditions. If that is the duty
imposed on this commission, there will not be time in the twelve
months between January and January to act upon one-tenth of the
cases that will be presented to it.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Do you refer to section 4?
Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. Here is the provision. In order to show
the connection of the words and their bearing on the whole, I will read
it.
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any cominon carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions.
What is the “like kind of property?” Is wheat like corn? Is corn
like other articles of food for man and beast 2 The Senator from Iowa
said yes. Therefore you can not make any discrimination between
property of the same general character and bulk. -
Mr. ALLISON. All thah was in the Senate bill.
Mr. SHERMAN. I know, and I will refer to the new clause subse-
quently. “Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.”
What are the circumstances? ... Does the fact that the property was
shipped from Chicago to New York for export make a different circum-
stance and condition ? Does the fact that the property is shipped from
Chicago to New York without respect to its destination, make a dif-
ference of circumstance or condition ? The Senator says no. Then
how can you tell whether wheat is to be exported or not? What pro-
visions do you make so as to distinguish in regard to that?
Mr. ALLISON. Will the Senator allow me?
Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly. .
Mr. ALLISON. The Senator from Massachusetts said that on all
commerce that goes to Boston there was a rebate of 5 per cent. It is
as easy for a railroad to make a distinction at New York as at Boston.
Mr. SHERMAN. If there is such a rebate, that will be abolished
by this bill.
Mr. HOAR. Allow me to explain. I said that was the present ar-
rangement. - *
Mr. ALLISON. Undoubtedly.
Mr. SHERMAN. By this bill, several provisions of it would pre-
vent any discrimination of this kind, and therefore that rebate would
be abolished as a discrimination that is forbidden. -
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to ask the Senator from Ohio, with his per-
mission, in criticizing this fourth section and the difference made by the
change in the House of Representatives and the conference report as to
I S C–16
242
the powers of the commission and the evils that he thinks would fol-
low from what he has stated, to tell us, not in mere language, which
he says he can not do in a moment—and nobody can—just the words
he would phrase it in, but precisely what general provision he would
make in respect to the matter he is speaking of? What would he do
about this foreign export 2 -
Mr. SHERMAN. My general idea is that I would make a discrimi-
nation in respect of the export foreign trade, but I could not say in
what language. I will go on a little further, because it may be an-
swered that this language was in the bill as it passed the Senate. But
I now come to other provisions that limit still further the operation of
the commission and compel them to apply this difference of circum-
stances and conditions to every railroad, to every common carrier. So
if a question should arise on the Pennsylvania road they must con-
sider that as one question to be determined by them. If a somewhat
similar question should arise as to the New York Central, they must
consider that also as a special case. .
Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me?
Mr. SHERMAN. I would like to get through.
Mr. CULLOM. I only wanted to call the attention of the Senator .
to the fact that under the language of the bill we passed through the
Senate before the general rule was made to apply, with special excep-
tions as to special cases in the operations of common carrier, so that in
fact, the language of the bill, as it is used now, means exactly the
same as was meant under the bill the Senate passed. -
Mr. EDMUNDS. But it is a little more liberal than it was before
in favor of the railroads. -
Mr. SHERMAN. Let us look at that. I will read the proviso here:
Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after inves-
tigation—
do so and so; but, remember, that until these special cases can be acted
upon and decided by the commission, the universal rule that is made
by the bill will be enforced, and must be enforced, because the special
circumstances and conditions must be made the subject of a communi-
cation to this commission, and their action must be had on each special
CaSC,
Now let us go a little further. The railroad may “after investiga-
tion by the commission be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and
the commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which
such designated common carrier’’—a “ designated common carrier’’.
—“may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.”
They must in each particular case, as to each particular carrier, make
a particular rule defining the extent and limit of this exemption, and
then after that—not until after that—the carrier will be authorized to
avail himself of this limitation. --.
Mr. CULLOM. Let me read the language that was stricken out of
the old bill, showing that the same language substantially is now used:
Make general rules exempting such designated common carrier in such spe-
cial cases from the operation of this section of this act.
Those were the words used before, which the Senator supported very
earnestly. - . -
Mr. EDMUNDS. The conference report is much better on that point
for the railroads than the bill was before. .
Mr. SHERMAN. I think I have sufficientiy stated the difficulties
243
in the execution of this bill. I am afraid and I believe that the imme-
diate effect of the bill will be a great disappointment to all. I fear that
the wide-reaching influence of this section will create a profound dis-
content in the very regions represented by gentlemen who are earnestly
advocating this bill. That is my opinion. I may be mistaken. I have
no narrow view about this matter. I do not speak about it as it affects
Ohio particularly, but only as it affects the country, and mainly as it
affects our foreign trade.
Now, so far as Ohio is concerned, there is a divided sentiment there.
My colleague and I will agree probably upon the statement I make about
it, that as a general rule the farmers of Ohio favor this long-and-short-
haul clause, because they are tired and sick of the idea that wheat raised
in Dakota, far off, should be transported over Ohio railroads through
to the market at far less rates than are charged from the center of Ohio
to New York. That is an abuse which ought to be corrected, and our
people generally make an outcry about it; they feel outraged about it.
Towns have been injured, markets have been broken up, great com-
plaints have been made, and a kind of anti-railroad mania has grown
out of this thing; and to the extent that it is possible, without sacrific-
ing great interests, I desire to see that corrected.
On the other hand, in Ohio we have a great number of very import-
ant manufactures, mainly in agricultural implements. I suppose that
Ohio is much the largest of any of the States now engaged in the man-
ufacture of agricultural implements. In the little city in which I live
there is one establishment devoted entirely to the manufacture of
thrashing machines and the steam power to run them—very valuable
machines; and they are exported to Hungary, Australia, South Amer-
ica, all over the world, you may say. They can only maintain this in-
dustry, as they think, and this enormous traffic—for it is a large item
in our exports—by having through routes, low rates, lower than the
rates given to other kinds of property. Without that it is doubtful
whether they could maintain themselves in the market at all and sup-
ply either the foreign market or remote domestic markets with these im-
portant agricultural implements.
It would not make so great a difference with them so far as the
American market was concerned, but in regard to the foreign market,
the universal testimony of all these gentlemen in communications sent
to me, the like of which have been read by the Senator from Massa-
chusetts, is that it would break up their business, compel them to ad-
vance their prices if they were required to pay higher rates, and thus
add an additional burden on our own people, when, if they were allowed
to make their own arrangements with our railroads to carry on this
business and export these articles to foreign countries, they would add
to our exports and incidentally to the business and value of the railroad
property by giving the railroads a low rate, probably, but still a rate
yielding something for carrying this commerce.
I suppose I have received, and my colleague has, petitions from every
manufacturing center of Ohio representing a general outcry against
the effect of this clause as preventing them carrying on this business
because they say this heavy machinery, occupying a great space in a
car, cannot be transported at the same rates that other kinds of prop-
erty will possibly bear, and therefore they say that this is ruin to them.
Men in whom I have the greatest confidence, telling me what will be
the effect upon their own business as applied to their actual daily work,
have that fear. I would like to see that removed. I would like to
see some provision, if possible, made qualifying and limiting this long
244
and short haul clause in a better way than this general provision leav-
ing the whole matter in special cases to the commission itself.
It seems to me that under the operation of this section the commis-
sion will be overburdened. They will not be able to act upon the cases
that will go before them. In the mean time this long haul and short
haul provision will break down an important part of our foreign com-
merce as well as cripple and limit our commerce to the remote portions
of the United States of America, because these same machines are sent
in large numbers to the South, in large numbers to the far West, and
they are to be found all over the plains of the West.
These are matters important to be considered, not that I am opposed
to the general principle of the long-haul and short-haul clause. It is
a plain rule of equity. But I can see that there ought to be excep-
tions, that ample powers should be given to the commission, more
ample and general in their character than is disclosed by this bill; that
there ought to be power to make regulations general in their character
applying to all-carriers so as to preserve the benefits of this commerce
to our country. This limits their power only to particular cases as
they arise and which have to await their decision.
That is all I desire to say about the long-haul and short-haul clause.
Now, as to the fifth section, which is entirely new in the Senate,
there I think the conferees have yielded what probably upon fuller ex-
amination and actual experiment they would not yield. A pooling
contract is like any other contract for the division of profit. We never
restrain natural individuals in their right to contract or to be contracted
with. We declare what contracts shall be unlawful, what contracts
are against public policy, but with these general rules, known to the
common law and never improved upon, we allow every man to contract
or be contracted with as he chooses. He makes partnerships. If two
blacksmiths find they can improve their condition by joining teams and
forges, they become partners to carry on the business of their neighbor-
hood, and nobody objects to that. So with merchants and so with every
occupation.
As a general rule, there is no reason why railroad companies should
not be allowed to make their contracts in such form as they think
right, unless they involve some breach of public policy. All pooling
contracts are not wrong. Some of them are wrong, but, as was shown
by the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT) who has already spoken,
the effect of the pooling system thus far has been to reduce the cost of
transportation enormously. These pools are always made at the lowest
rate, because it is the cheapest freighter that is the master of the pool.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Does the Senator from Ohio mean that the pool-
ing arrangement has reduced the rates to what they were just before
the pooling arrangement was made? .
Mr. SHERMAN. No, sir; I do not, but I say that the effect of
pooling by railroads has been to reduce the cost of transportation enor-
mously. Sometimes by cutting rates a single company has done injury
to the whole people, not only to the people whose goods are to be trans-
ported, but to the railroads themselves, and to all others. 3.
Does the Senator from Vermont say that the rule, and sole rule of
competition should prevail? If so, then take away all these restric-
tions, take away the power of this commission, and let the railroads.
fight it out—cut each other's throats. A road built purely for spec-
ulation starts, cuts down rates, and destroys the property of the other
railroads, and interferes with transportation, and then suddenly raises
the rates again. The pool is to secure steadiness of rates. The effect.
245
of this bill, by destroying such agreements, neutralizes all agreements
made in the interest of the public as well as those adverse to such
interests. •
I am opposed, therefore, to pools likely to do injury or to prevent
fair competition; but where pooling arrangements are made in a reason-
able way to prevent undue competition, if you please, to prevent undue
cutting, they operate to the public benefit. I therefore think that
while the prohibition of pooling might be inserted as a general rule,
like the rule about the long haul and the short haul, yet it is subject
to limitations. There may be pools that would be greatly conducive
to the public interests. There may be agreements between railroads
which tend to lower the price of freight as well as to increase the price
of freight. There may be pooling arrangements that give steadiness to
business, confidence to the people, shippers, producers, and railroad
transporters. Why, therefore, not give to the commission the same
power to modify and regulate these pools, to Sanction those that are
manifestly in the public interest—the same power that they have over
the long-haul and the short-haul provision? I can see no reason why.
I have listened to the arguments, and what I have not listened to I
have read, and it does seem to me now that when we are making such
a sweeping provision denying to railroads connecting with each other
or conflicting with each other the power to make arrangements with
other by which they may be able to secure steadiness and cheapness
for transportation, that power ought not to be denied to them. This
commission ought to have the power to say that such and such ar-
rangements made between railroads are in the interest of the public,
and not to their detriment. The word “pool ’’ usually applied to a
gambling contract is obnoxious to us, and they have taken a very good
word to represent the thing as obnoxious. We know in common lan-
guage among people that a pool is a gambling contract, but a pool as
applied to railroads is simply an arrangement and an agreement by
which they adopt certain rates. They may be innocent or they may
be injurious. Why should not this commission have the right to allow
those pools made for the convenience of railroad transporters to stand as
their law and regulation between each other if they do tend to advance
the public interest? Therefore I think there ought to be some limita-
tion to this section.
There is only one other provision that I wish to call your attention
to, and I suppose in that I shall not have the sympathy of this body.
I think the provision allowing a court in every railroad case when the
railroad is beaten to award an attorney’s fee without limit or restraint,
is what I would call a mean provision, which I trust the profession will
not be in favor of. This provision is only in favor of the man who sues
the railroad. It does not operate in favor of the railroad. Although
the suit may have been idle, fictitious, brought for the purpose of wor-
rying the railroad, it can not be allowed for its expenses in defending
itself against an unjust accusation. Oh, no, that would not do at all.
There is no provision here that the person who commences a frivolous
or fictitious action against a railroad shall pay the costs or an attorney’s
fee; it is only that the railroad shall pay in case the plaintiff recovers
even one cent damages, or the most trivial annount, and in that case the
court may award not a docket fee of a fixed sum, limited as in the law
of Ohio to $5 in former times, and even that was repealed on the ground
that any provision of this kind to pay the attorney’s fee of the adverse
party tended to promote litigation and therefore was against public
246
policy. It seems to me this provision ought to be omitted. It is an
unjust and impolitic one inserted here. I think it is not beneficial.
It is sometimes said that a private person can not compete with a
railroad. That is usually the case; but this law provides a place where
any plain citizen may apply for a remedy. He may appeal to this
commission without money and without price, and in nine cases out of
ten he will get his remedy there. But under this provision of the bill
he has a right to sue, and is tempted to sue in any court of proper
jurisdiction for any kind of claim, for any infringement whatever that
he may conceive has been done by the railroad company under the
operations of this bill. He may prosecute. It may be found to be a
trifling matter that ought to have been waived aside or submitted to
the commission, but still at the end of the litigation a court is called
on to award damages in the nature of attorney’s fees, and it is sup-
posed that the attorney’s fees ought to be at least ten or one hundred
times the amount involved. The effect of it is to invite litigation, to
set the whole legal profession to work to see if they can not find out
technical, or trivial, or substantial violations of this law by a railroad
corporation. - s
Are railway corporations such public enemies that we should make
laws against them that we would not apply to others? Who would
be in favor of a rule that would enable any man who sued on a note
that was plainly due on its face, which there was no contest about, to
recover his attorney’s fee? Who would advocate a provision of law
that would require the defendant to pay attorney’s fees in addition to
the ordinary costs of litigation, clerk’s fees, &c.? No such provision
would be tolerated, and yet it is aimed at the railroads. If they are
public enemies let us stop building them. If they are public enemies
too powerful for us to deal with let us prohibit any more railroads in
this country. That is absurd. Railroads are great arteries of commerce,
one of the great agents of modern civilization, without which this country
could not have been developed to its present great wealth and power. .
Take this country and all Europe without railroad corporations—be-
cause railroads can only be built by corporations; one man's wealth is
not sufficient; there must be an aggregate of many peoples’ wealth,
and they ought to be treated fairly, not allowed to oppress the people,
not allowed to make undue rates, but still treated with justice and
fairness. * ,”
All the provisions of the bill that tend to prevent abuses under the
law I am in favor of, but it seems to me that this is a petty matter, put
in here without any good reason. If a man commences a suit against
a railroad, let that suit stand upon the same general rules of law, the
same general rule as to costs as all other suits.
By this one fell swoop in this bill we practically repeal and change
the laws of all the States, because I doubt whether there is a State in
the Union, or anywhere in the world, that allows a court to fix the fee
that shall be paid to the attorney of the defeated party, except only in
that class of cases like partition cases or the like, where the whole
proceeding is a matter of common benefit. *
Mr. President, it does seem to me that if this bill could be recom-
mitted and these subjects submitted to the conference committee, they
might divest this bill of all those provisions that are likely to create
serious complication, trouble, and litigation. Them let us try as a
tentative measure the remaining provisions of this bill, as I believe it
will work vastly to the benefit of the people of the United States. If
it is not sufficiently stringent to prevent the abuses that have occurred
247
in the past, then let us one, by one, add these different clauses as ex-
perience demonstrates their necessity. - -
For this reason, and it is only for this reason, to explain my vote, I
shall vote to recommit the bill. However, if this motion should be
voted down now, as it seems likely, then I shall reserve to myself to
decide whether on the whole it is better to take this bill with these
objectionable clauses, with its many good features, and pass it into a
law and leave time to correct these imperfections.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Mr. President, I wish to ask the attention of the
Senate for a very few minutes to the reasons I shall state for voting in
favor of this conference report. -
There are only two points of objection made to it, excepting the mat-
ter of attorneys’ fees, to which my friend from Ohio has just alluded,
which I will not weary the patience of the Senate by taking time to
reply to, but which has a certain force, as it appears to be one-sided
and a mere trivial matter. The clause evidently ought to have been that
the court might award reasonable attorneys’ fees on either side against
the defeated party, but that is a very small matter. The thing that I wish
to call the attention of the Senate to is, first, the fourth section, what is
called the long and short haul affair, and the pooling provision in the fifth
section. The fourth section as it passed the Senate after two or three
years' consideration—not on this identical bill—and examination and
reflection and discussion, as it finally passed the Senate almost unani-
mously, provided, as I understand it, in substance precisely what this
conference report provides; that is, it simply provided against obnox-
ious, unjust discrimination in favor of the shipper for a long distance
over the same line of the same property under the same conditions, of
a wholesale performance or a small performance, charging more to the
man between who is sending his farm products and his goods to the
same point for the same purpose and under the same conditions. That
was the Senate proposition in the fourth section, and that was all; a
matter so self-evidently just that nobody can be found to standup then
or now and say that it was not. .
Now, how has the conference report changed that? It has stricken
out the words “and from the same original point of departure or from
the same point of arrival,” and has inserted the words, ‘‘the shorter
being included within the longer distance,” a rather self-evident prop-
osition, which means exactly the same thing, for every shorter distance
on the same line between the same points must be included as a math-
ematical proposition within the longer distance. It is a change of
phraseology that, so far as I can understand it, and I have tried, does
not change the substantial tenor or effect of the fourth section of this
bill as the Senate passed it. Then, after laying down this general
rule, it is provided: -
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
eommission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances.
All that the conferees have agreed upon in changing that is that they
are to do it after investigation—can anybody object to that—after they
have taken sufficient time to inquire whether it is fair and right or
not. That would have been implied clearly before, unless you suppose
that these commissioners were mere dolts or were corrupt or wicked,
and you can not presume that. It merely puts in words what would
be the clear and necessary implication of the bill as it passed the Sen-
ate; that is to say, that they are to consider whether in the special case
and under special circumstances of competition between one port and
ſº
248
another of export or import, or of whatever, they may then modify and
change this general rule for the time being according to the necessity
of that particular case. That is all of that. * . .
Now we come to the next change in the fourth section. The con-
ferees propose after the words, “And the commission may from time
to time,’’ to strike out so much of the succeeding paragraph as follows:
make general rules exempting such designated common carrier in such special
cases from the operation of this section of this act; and when such exceptions
shall have been made and published, they shall, until changed by the connmis-
sion or by law, have like force and effect as though the same had been specified
in this section. -
That language the conferees propose to strike out, and, after the words,
“And the commission may from time to time,” insert this:
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act. -
Where is the substantial difference except this, that in the Senate
provision they were compelled to do it by a general regulation, and the
House thought, evidently—and there is some force in it—inasmuch as
it must be a general regulation it might operate too far and too widely
and to defeat the very object that was designed by the fourth section;
and therefore they said that this being the general rule, when there is
brought to the attention of the commission a special state of circum-
stances that makes it right and fair, on investigation, that there shall be
a special exception for a limited time, renewable at the judgment of
the commission, that less may be charged for a long than for a short
haul; to use the common phrase, they might do it.
Therefore I say, as it appears to me, that the changes in this fourth
section, so far as they amount to anything at all, are favorable to the
railway interest and to the exporting and importing and other interests
that my friends who have opposed this conference report have so much
at heart, and not more at heart than I have myself. That is the way
it looks to me. *
Now we come to the pooling business; and my distinguished friend
from Ohio has undertaken to show, as my distinguished friend from
Massachusetts did, and with all the ingenuity that it is possible for the
human mind to exert, that there is really something dangerous to the
public welfare in declaring that there shall not be combinations among
chartered corporations employed for the public interest, existing and
created only for the public interest, taking private property for the
public interest (which is the most sacred thing we know of except life
and liberty in this world)—that combinations between these corpora-
tions, otherwise monopolies, against the benefit of trade and against
fair transportation shall not exist. That is what the anti-pooling clause
1S.
It may be said, as it can in every case where there may be a combi-
nation, that in a particular instance it is good for the public welfare,
just as there may be, in a thousand instances in this world, a private in- -
vasion by a private person of the private rights of somebody else that
on the whole we would say would be right. The hungry man comes
into my garden as a trespasser and takes fruit; he comes into my
kitchen unasked and uninvited and without authority of law and takes
bread. He has violated the law; but who cares? And so there may
be an instance, though I can not think of one just now, when a corpo-
ration created for a public purpose, existing by having taken the prop-
erty of private citizens for this public purpose, may combine with some
other corporation and arrange with it that they will go and do so and
249
so about public interests. I do not think of the instance, but it may
be, and I will grant that it may be; but this law, like every other law,
lays down general rules and general principles. It does not legislate
for the exception; it legislates for the general and for the universal
practice and experience of mankind, and therefore if in the city of
Washington there should be a combination of all the bakers that they
would regulate the price of bread, I say that the Congress of the United
States, or whatever may be the power in the District of Columbia, could
put it down, just as in Alabama many and many a year ago—and it
has been a famous case cited in many causes since argued and deter-
mined in the Supreme Court of the United States—it was undertaken
to regulate the price of bread of every baker in a certain city or perhaps
in all the cities of that State, that they should sell for a price that
should be regulated just as these corporations are in this bill under
competent sovereign legislative authority, just as we know in all the
States in a thousand ways that legislation has always existed and al-
ways ought to exist against combinations even of private persons to
forestall the markets and put up prices, to speculate against the gen-
eral interests of the community and against fair play.
And this is especially so when you apply it to great and powerful
corporations who exist only by having taken private property into their
possession for the proposed benefit of the public, consolidating them-
selves so that they may mutually, according to their will and their dis-
cretion, and not that of the sovereign power of the people, regulate
and conduct the affairs of the people as common carriers according to
their discretion and not regulated by any law.
So, Mr. President, I believe that what is called pooling—which is
simply another phrase for the combination of corporate monopolies not
to compete with each other, and so to regulate the freights and the car-
riage of passengers as if they were one single line, and hold their hands
upon the throat of the business intercourse of States and peoples—
ought to be prohibited; and yet in some instances it may happen that
some corporation will so far run down the price of its transportation ,
that it can make no profit, that it will exhaust the resources of its stock-
holders if they have actually paid their money and have not got wa-
tered stock--and I should like to see a railroad that has not got that
sort of thing—but if they really have paid their money will exhaust
the resources of their shareholders. Would that be sensible? Would
you or I, Mr. President, being stockholders, vote for a board of direc-
tors who would do that thing as a system 2 I admit, like everybody
else, we might be tempted or deluded or drawn into a temporary thing
of that kind, running at a temporary loss for a little while; but in gen-
eral, looking over large spaces of time and over large spaces of country,
the thing will not work, and everybody knows it. The consequence
is, that without a restraining hand we shall see, as we have seen in
the last twenty years, that when the people giving their private prop-
erty or having it taken from them against their will for the purpose of
building up quasi public corporations for the public benefit, and into
which nobody is compelled to go or put his money unless he chooses
on the terms proposed, find these competitors, they find that it would
be better for their interest, not for that of the people, that they should
combine, pool, and that they should fix their rates as if they were only
one, and thereby become a monopoly in restraint of trade and for op-
pression, instead of being what they were intended to be, advantageous
to the interests of the people on both their lines, carrying persons and
250
property at fair rates, according to the situation in which they were
placed.
Now, let us suppose, Mr. President, in respect to these two sections
that the “gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire” that have appeared in
all manners and forms in this Senate Chamber for the last week should
some of them finally, wherſ we lay our hand on them, be experienced
and turn out to be the fact. I do not believe that any of them will;
but suppose it does turn out, applied to the good city of Boston, for
which as the cradle of New England and American liberty I always,
have reverence, that the export trade of the good city of Boston is in
some way injured or hampered or diminished or crippled by the effect
of this act, who would be more ready than the Senate of the United
States to rectify it when we saw that the forebodings of these gentle-
men were in any substantial sense well founded ? These are the same
kind of forebodings that have appeared whenever in any State or in any
country the legislative voice has been appealed to to redress admitted
evils as applied to corporations.
I remember a few years ago that the State of Iowa passed among
the first of what are called the granger acts. The farmers found, as
they thought—and the mass of the Iowa people are farmers, as they
are in Vermont—that the railroads which they had chartered for the
public interest, the railroads which they had authorized to cross the
private property of farmers and other people in that State and take it
were not executing this public trust in a just and fair way, and they
passed the granger acts. The passage of them was resisted by just the
same kind of forebodings and dismal prophecies of ruin and destruction
to that State and all its interests that we hear now, and as somebody
has said, I believe, about this bill, the Constitution was appealed to
as being violated. Well, the railroads resisted the legistation, but it
came into force; they resisted its validity, but the Supreme Court of
the United States decided that it was valid; and then what was the
consequence 2
Were the railroads destroyed? Was anybody injured ? Did any of
the calamities, great or small, that had been so prophesied and fore-
boded take place? Not one of them. The stock and the property of
the railroads that cross that State, after ten or fifteen years of obedience,
which they were at last compelled to perform to these laws, have been
steady and firm and prosperous and profitable in the market ; and
yet the farmers of Iowa, legislating wisely for equality and fair play,
put their laws in force, and it was found that instead of injuring the
people who had resisted it in every way they could, it really did them
good. My belief is that when this great railway system of the United
States between States, covering a continent, comes to find itself com-
pelled (for that is what it is) against its will, against its opinion,
against its inspiring fears and discontent on the part of business people
all over the, United States, to be subject to the force of this act wisely
and fairly administered? it will be for its benefit as well as for the ben-
efit of the people. -
Mr. MORRILL. May I ask my colleague whether the law to which
he refers in Iowa was not subsequently modified or repealed?
Mr. EDMUNDS. Not repealed; it was modified just as this law
will be modified if it is found to operate hardly upon any just interest
of any man or of any corporation. Nothing in the way of experimen-
tal legislation, as this is, in this country and in this way can be sup-
posed in advance to be perfect. It will need undoubtedly, as it is ap-
plied, modification here and modification there, and it will turn out
undoubtedly, as our human experience proves it has turned out for a
hundred years in this country and for a thousand in Great Britain, that
there is not a statute of general interest upon any subject in the world
that having been first passed did not at some time in the future require
some modification or alteration to adjust itself to the circumstances of
the occasion. *
Mr. PLATT. With the permission of the Senator from Vermont,
reading from the report of Judge McDill, a former Senator, who is now
one of the Iowa commissioners, he says:
The law of 1878, known as the commissioner law, repeals all portions of the
act of 1874, known as the granger law, except that portion which provides for
the classification of railroads according to earnings per mile, fixes rates for pas-
senger fare, and requires an annual report of gross earnings.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes.
Mr. ALDRICH. Will the Senator from Vermont allow me to in-
terrupt him a moment to read a statement from a present Senator of
the United States from the State of Iowa on this present law 2
Mr. EDMUNDS. Yes. r
Mr. ALDRICH. He is referring to this law:
They put it into a law. The railroad companies put it into practice. . It pro-
duced evil, and only evil, to the greater portion of the State. It needed but to
be tried to cause a general demand for its repeal. It was repealed, and the com-
missioner system enacted in its stead.
That is the statement of a present Senator from the State of Iowa.
Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me to make a remark 2
Mr. EDMUNDS. Oh, yes; I think I understand the subject, but I
am glad to get contributions all around.
Mr. CULLOM. As the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT) has
referred to a gentleman in Iowa, Mr. McDill, I desire to say that I
have had not less than two or three letters from that gentleman insist-
ing that we must pass this bill.
Mr. PLATT. I was speaking simply of what the state of law was
in Iowa at the present time.
Mr. EDMUNDS. All of which illustrates exactly what I was say-
ing, that in inaugurating a law of this character or any other which
deals with new conditions of affairs, in the first instance it will un-
doubtedly turn out as it did in Iowa, as it did in Great Britain, as it
has done in dozens of the States here, that the law will need modifica-
tion, amendment, just as a locomotive put for the first time on a rail-
way line needs a screw, tightened here, a connecting-rod lengthened
there, a screw loosened in another place, and so on. The idea, there-
fore, of saying that we will not have anything—because that is what it
comes to, with all respect to my friend from Massachusetts—that we
will not have anything, and will uot go far enough to embrace this
whole subject in all its aspects because it may turn out, and probably
will turn out, that in many respects the legislative discretion and sense
of justice will be appealed to to adjust it when it is applied practi-
cally so that it will run, just as we do everything in our farms and our
. and our railroad operations, and every business operation of the
world. ~.
There is Great Britain, Mr. President, which had almost exactly such
an experience as we are having now. The railways, in the first in-
stance, were chartered under conditions and circumstances which made
it much less possible for them to do wrong to the general public than
it is in this country, in that small kingdom. They were chartered
much like our charters—independent fellows, monopolies, combinations,
\
252
pooling, long hauls and short hauls, and all that sort of thing. The
people of Great Britain stood it as long as they could, and the people
of the United States have, as I hope, stood it in this instance as long as
they could. They first enacted a law stringent like this—not like it
in all particulars, but in substance—and they thought it wise in the
first instance to put it into the hands of the judges of the courts by sum-
mary process, and with administrative as well as judicial power to ad-
minister. They practiced on that for a number of years. :
It was found by experience that while it was in the hands of the
judges this particular point in the law needed modification, another
point needed modification, either strengthening or being diminished,
according to the circumstances; and after a certain number of years'
experience it was thought that it was better to relieve the judges of
the courts entirely from that duty, and to put it into the hands of a
commission, and the Parliament of Great Britain did that. But the
Parliament of Great Britain had the power, which we have not, of in-
vesting that commission with summary judicial powers so that they
could not only require a railroad to do something, but compel it to do
it, with the same powers and effect as the Supreme Court of the United
States, or any circuit court of the United States, or any court of a State
can do in its own State. We have not that power, because we have a
written Constitution with a separation of powers, so that, in my opinion,
it can not be done.
This bill comes the nearest to doing it that we can. It has its com-
mission; it has its general regulations of limitation against obvious in-
justice and wrong, and within those limits it leaves the administration
to the commission upon fair principles. Then when that commission
determines that something ought to be done and it can not enforce it,
appeal must be made to the courts. So every railway corporation will
have its fair rights and its fair play in a judicial tribunal. What more
can be asked”
All this illustrates, as it seems to me, how clearly we should do a very
unwise thing if on account of forebodings and suggested difficulties and
possible disasters we should not go forward with this great measure,
and if we find at the next session or at any session hereafter, that in
any one of the respects that agitate the minds of Senators who oppose
it, it is working unjustly and injuriously, it is easy to correct it. But
if you break it down now on the ground that it being an untried ex-
periment you are unwilling to try it, how many years will it be before
the people of the United States can emancipate themselves from the
tyranny of this corporate management and corporate combination that
now exists?
Mr. ALDRICH Mr. President, I do not intend to enter upon a dis-
cussion of thegeneral features of this bill. The provisions which au-
thorize the appointment of a commission, which enforce the publicity of
rates, which prohibit the exaction of unreasonable charges, and which
seek to shield the public from undue and unjust discriminations, have
my hearty approval. I shall confine my remarks to a criticism of the
fough section, and I am led to claim the attention of the Senate for
this purpose because I desire to express my emphatic dissent from the
interpretation sought to be placed on its terms by the Senator from
Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], the chairman of the conference committee, and
from a profound conviction that if the provisions of this section are
enacted into law the result must be disastrous to great interests.
I believe this section to be revolutionary in its character and in vio-
lation of the sound principles which should govern transportation
253
charges, and that the rigid enforcement of its provisions would demor-
alize business, change the channels of trade, destroy values through
vast areas, and cripple both internal and external commerce.
The magnitude of the interests involved in the construction of the
section are by no means measured by the value of the railroad prop-
erty in the United States, or even by the extent of our internal com-
merce. Home and foreign competition have made cheap transporta-
tion a necessity to a large portion of our people, and anything which
tends to restrict the movement or to increase the cost of the transpor-
tation of the great agricultural and manufactured products of the
country affects injuriously the welfare of every individual and the
prosperity of every community.
This bill is here in obedience to the general desire that Congress
should exercise its unquestioned power over interstate commerce and
endeavor to cure by appropriate legislation some of the evils which have
accompanied our rapid and phenomenal railway development, a class
of evils which seem to be incident to the management of all great en-
terprises.
Preliminary to the examination of the specific terms of the fourth sec-
tion, it may be profitable to consider briefly the results which the ad-
vocates of long and short haul legislation seek to accomplish. Attracted
by the difference between through and local rates, they have assumed
that the rates imposed at non-competitive points are unjust and ex-
cessive, and that to reduce these to reasonable proportions a process of
equalization is necessary. This was clearly stated by the Senator from
Illinois in the report of the select committee. *
In that report he said:
The purpose to be accomplished by prohibiting greater charges for shorter
than for longer hauls is to equalize the existing differences between through and
local rates. It is intended for the protection of those most in need of protection—
the shippers at interior non-competitive points, &c.
The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIs], a member of the confer-
ence committee, stated in the debate a few days since that he had “in-
sisted upon a short-haul provision to give a shipper fromi non-competi-
tive points some protection against unreasonable and unjust exaction.”
I might quote the chairman of the conferees on the part of the
House, Judge REAGAN, to the same effect, but the statements which I
have read fairly represent the conferees’ understanding of the nature of
the evils complained of and the manner in which the remedy should
be applied. These explicit declarations by the responsible authors of
the section, of the purpose they had in view, should be constantly
borne in mind in our efforts to construe the meaning of the language
used. -
The fourth section, omitting the proviso, reads as follows:
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the
transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance
over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within
the longer distance. &
In its application to the transportation of merchandise the rule laid
down by the section may be otherwise stated as follows:
That the aggregate sum received in each case by any and every com-
mon carrier operating an interstate railroad, for the transportation of
property over the whole or any portion of its own line, fixes a rigid
maximum or minimum limit on the charges it may make for the car-
254
riage of a like kind of property under similar circumstances between
any other stations on its road, and in all other cases.
That the prohibition in the section against unlawful charges applies,
and can be made to apply only, to each individual common carrier
seems too clear to be disputed. -
The use of the singular number would seem to preclude any other
construction were it not for the contention of the chairman of the con-
ference that ‘‘any common carrier” also means any combination of
common carriers, and that when the language applies to a number of
carriers it has a different significance than when applied to one.
The words ‘‘any common carrier subject to the provisions of this
act ’’ are used in almost every section of the bill, always with the same
meaning and never in such manner as to admit of an inference that
the words might signify a combination of two or more.
The language used in the fifth section seems to be conclusive of this.
This section reads: º
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act—
The same words used in the fourth section—
to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with any other com-
mon carrier, &c.
If the words “common carrier’’ can be understood as meaning also
a combination of common carriers the fifth section is devoid of sense.
The contention that the aggregate compensation received by any com-
mon carrier as its proportion of a through Tate obviously fixes a maxi-
mum limit for all aggregate charges between stations on the same line
is strenuously objected to by the chairman of the conference committee,
who says:
But when two or more comparlies unite in making joint rates over their re-
spective roads, they become in the eye of this bill one line, and this section
says that the short-haul principle must be observed in making rates over that
line, the two or more roads composing it being, within the meaning of the sec-
tion, the same line so far as such joint rates are concerned. The word “rail-
road” is used throughout the bill and the word “line” is used only in this sec-
tion. The courts will be bound to assume that the word “line” means some-
thing different from the word “railroad,” or it would not have been used in
this one instance when the word “railroad '' would naturally have been used
if something different had not been intended. The word “line” means a rail-
road or a combination of railroads. It means a route.
$: : Sk ::: : : $:
The joint through rates which are made by two or more railroad companies,
between points upon their respective roads, are made over an entirely different
and distinct line from that over which any one of the companies individually
makes rates. And they are also made under different “circumstances and con-
ºns” from chose which govern and determine rates made over a single rail-
FO3,Ol.
The two transactions are separate and distinct, neither being necessarily
governed by the other. Furthernmore, the making of joint through rates is spe-
cifically recognized by the bill in the section requiring publicity of rates, and
nowhere in the bill can anything be found in relation to the division of a joint
rate by connecting roads. I am satisfied, therefore, that the only construction
that is warranted by the language of the section is the one I have given it, and
that, instead of requiring rates to be measured by the percentage of a through
rate which a road accepts, or of requiring through rates over connecting roads
to be an aggregation of the local rates over each road, as some have claimed,
the section as it stands simply requires that each railroad company shall observe
the short-haul principle as to its own rates, and that the same principle shall
also be observed by a combination of railroads as to the joint through rates be-
tween points upon their respective roads agreed upon by such a combination.
It will be observed that in this argument the Senator from Illinois
rests his claim for a construction which is obviously unnatural, solely
on the special significance which he says should be given to the word
“line,” but it is apparent upon examination that the word as used in
255
this section has no such meaning as that attributed to it by the honor-
able Senator. - - -
In making the statement that the word “line '' is used nowhere else
in the bill, and it therefore must mean something different from the
word “railroad,” the chairman displays a surprising lack of knowledge
of the terms of his own bill.
The third section provides:
- - * - -
Every common earrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according
to their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for
the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving,
forwarding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their sev-
eral lines and those connecting there with, and shall not discriminate in their
rates and charges between such connecting lines.
The sixth section provides:
And in cases where passengers and freight pass over continuous lines or routes
operated by more than one common carrier, and the several common carriers
operating such lines or routes, &c.
Notwithstanding the clumsy construction of the sentence, the words
“their respective lines” in the third section evidently refer distinctly
to the railroad or railroads of a single common carrier, and the words
have the same significance in the sixth, and by analogy as well as by all
rules of construction in the fourth section.
The word “line '’ as used in the fourth section can have but one
meaning and that is, the physical structure, the track over which prop-
erty is transported.
To transform this mass of rails, ties, and sidings, over which freight
is hauled, into a living, responsible being which can make contracts and
be subjected to penalties, is beyond the power of human effort. The
Senator from Illinois evidently confuses the material structure with the
person or corporation which owns and controls it.
If the same line means a definite combination of roads which can fix
rates independent of every other combination, the rates so fixed not
affecting the local rates on any of the separate roads, then many of the
evils complained of by these gentlemen will not be remedied, for we
might have, as I suggested the other day, ten different rates along any
extended route, the rates from all interior points at short distance being
greater than those over longer distances. The rate, for instance, from
Buffalo, Cleveland, or Chicago to New York might be much greater
than the rate from Saint Paul or Bismarck to that point. The Rock
Island road might charge twice as much for a car-load of corn from
Council Bluffs to New York as the Union Pacific charged for a car-load
the longer distance from Omaha to New York. A short road, five miles
long, might be constructed or purchased of other companies running
through Chicago, which as a separate corporation might act as a sort of
transportation clearing-house, and make contracts for all east and west
bound freight at any rates it pleased, and these rates would not affect
local or through rates on any other road.
If the honorable Senator should be correct in the assumption that the
limitations of the section apply to a combination of carriers as well as to
single carriers the penal provisions of the bill could not be enforced
against the combination, as it has no responsible officers, no corporate
or other existence. .
It is true that the sixth section authorizes the use of a joint tariff. It
will be noticed, however, that while each common carrier is compelled
by the bill to prepare and publish schedules of the charges over its own
line, the preparation and publication of joint tariffs is not mandatory,
256
f
but is merely permitted. When such joint tariffs are used, however,
the section further provides that— ;
No common carrier party to any such joint tariff shall be liable for the failure
of any other common carrier party thereto to observe and adhere to the rates,
fares, or charges thus made and published.
This fixes a responsibility upon each carrier only for the proportion
it may receive of the joint rates, and the language used is clearly, it
seems to me, in confirmation of the construction I am contending for.
In further explanation of the constructiou placed by him on the Sec-
tion the chairman of the conference makes the statement:
Suppose there are four roads coming to Albany, and each one of them does
business with the Albany and Boston road. At the other end of its line, if you
please, each one of then has its arrangements of through rates, by which, from
Kansas City, the Wabash, for instance, carries freight to Albany, and on to Bos-
ton on that line; another road from Chicago carries freight from Chicago to
Albany and on to Boston on that line; another one from Detroit carries freight
to Albany and on to Boston on that line.
S. : $;
Each one of these different roads makes its own combination, its own arrange-
ments, with the Boston and Albany by which grain or other products are trans-
ported over its line from Albany to Boston; and the charge that the Albany and
Boston road makes, or the agreement that it makes, if you please, with these
different separate lines has nothing to do with what it charges one or the other
of them, and it has nothing to do with its own local rates from Albany to Boston.
This opinion seems to be in direct conflict with that held by Judge
REAGAN, whose testimony on this point may be considered pertinent
and valuable. He was asked by Mr. Stahlman, at a hearing before a
House committee, “whether the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul
road, after having accepted 14 cents per hundred pounds for transpor-
tation between Chicago and Omaha on a shipment from Boston to San
Francisco, would be limited to that charge on all shipments of like
freight over its line, no matter where it originated ?” The provisions
of the fourth section of the Reagan bill which was under consideration
were substantially the same as the fourth section of this bill.
The answer was: - - - -
The Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul road is not obliged to take this
freight at 14 cents, or any other sum less than its local rate; but if it does it
will have no right to charge more to points on its line for a shorter distance.
Let us examine the statement of the honorable Senator from Illinois
closely. The Boston and Albany road takes up in its freight yard on
the same day and hauls from Albany to Boston, with the same locomo-
tive on the same train, four car-loads of corn of equal weight belonging
to the same shipper and destined to the same consignee in Boston but
representing shipments originally made from widely different points.
The service rendered by the Boston and Albany road in connection with
each car and all transportation circumstances and conditions are ident-
ical, and notwithstanding the fact stated by the honorable Senator that
‘‘ nowhere in the bill can anything be found in relation to the divis-
ion of a joint rate by connecting roads,” it is safe to assume that the
Boston and Albany corporation, a “common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act,” will at some time and in some manner receive an
aggregate sum for the transportation of each one of these cars to Boston,
and it is very difficult to understand the process of reasoning by which it
can be said that the aggregate sum so received does not limit by the
plain terms of the fourth section all other charges for similar transpor-
tation for shorter distances over the same line, i. e., the road from
Albany to Boston. If the different routes by which the property reaches
Albany may be taken into consideration in fixing rates outside the re-
quirements of law, how would it be if the four car-loads had all been
257
shipped originally from Buffalo by the same person, at same rate of freight
on a through bill of lading, the corn having all been taken from the
same elevator? Could the shipper claim different rates, or the road
claim exemption from the provisions of the section, because the corn
had been previously transported to Buffalo from different States, over
different routes, or had been produced on different farms? Could any
coloring be given to the word “line '’ which would cover these cases?
Mr. DAWES. I should like to ask my friend what force he gives to
the word “aggregate?”
Mr. ALDRICH. The “aggregate” compensation I understand to
be the total sum received by any common carrier for any given service
in the transportation of passengers or property. When the bill was
before the Senate originally for discussion the Senator from Connecti-
cut [Mr. PLATTj said that it was intended to embrace terminal and
other charges as well as compensation for the transportation of mer-
chandise; but the term “transportation,” as defined in the bill, in-
cludes “all instrumentalities of shipment and carriage.” So it makes
no difference in the amount of the charge whether the word “aggre-
gate’’ is used or not, as the charge for all terminal and other services,
it seems to me, must be included in the charge for transportation.
Mr. SEWELL. Taking the word “aggregate’’ in that sense, $10
would be the charge for the transportation of a hundred barrels of
flour
Mr. ALDRICH. Yes, it means, I repeat, the total sum received by
any railroad company for a particular service rendered by it.
Mr. DAWES. I suppose, if I do not interrupt the Senator, that the
word “aggregate” put in would prevent inequality of rates in a par-
ticular case by terminal charges.
Mr. ALDRICH. The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT) sug-
gests it means the total sum received for taking a given quantity of
freight from one point to another. It means the sum of every conceiv-
able charge which can be made for service from one station to another.
Mr. ALLISON. On the same line.
Mr. ALDRICH. Yes, on the same line; and I repeat again that the
aggregate sum so received is the inexorable measure by which all the
other business of the line, through or local, must be limited.
If the requirements of the section had not been limited by the words
“in the aggregate,” its provisions would have obliged every common
carrier to charge a uniform rate per ton per mile for the transportation
of like property.
With this limitation in the section, however, the ultimate effect will
be to establish on all interstate roads charges which will approximate
equal mileage rates.
The variation in “aggregate” sums received will not be determined
by the difference in the number of miles freight is moved, but by the
difference in the number of stations between the points of shipment
and arrival on any given road.
Instead of taking an exact and invariable unit of distance for meas-
urement, one is taken which is conspicuously inexact. Take for illus-
tration a road 100 miles long with one hundred stations; the aggregate
rate in each case would be the same as if computed on a mileage basis.
If a road of equal length were taken, with a less number of stations,
the extent of the variation from an equal mileage rate would depend
upon the number of stations on the road. If there should be but three
I S C–17
258
the rate to the intermediate station might be nearly twice as great per 3.
ton per mile as that between the termini. The rate imposed by the
terms of the section as it stands would not be a certain rate perton or per
100 pounds per mile, but an aggregate sum per ton or per 100 pounds
per station; the rate, in both cases, however, being determined by the
distance hauled, but by different methods. To illustrate my understand-
ing of the effect which the provisions of the section if they become oper-
ative would have on the actual traffic of a road, I have had this diagram
prepared. - - 3

*
$
§ —
& - - º
T---------1- Through rate limit 15 cents. -
* * * * * * * * * * * * = ----T----I----------------------s—
Te &n_
CN) sº
§ l - sº
** =se - - - --------|-- Specieſ. Through rate limit 10 cents.
* Q
Q -
I
§
§
*
So
|
co
arº-
s
AºA ſº ſº 6 - - *
Bºffalo,” ” e & e j 3. * * New York.
. Distances in miles, :
- | —I | l | T. | I |--| -
(2 700 200 300 300 500
tºº & ºr tº ſº º ºsmº a – Special Through Rate, 10 cents per 200 lbs. | < .
— --— --—------ Average Through Rates, 15 cents per 100 lbs.
Local Rates between Stations, 3 cents per 100 lbs.
Rates in all cases from the several Stations to New York.
I have taken for convenience of computation a road 500 miles long,
with local stations, a, b, c, d, e,f, g, h, i, 50 miles apart, and have supposed
it to be an interstate road running from Buffalo to New York. In the
preparation of the diagram aggregate sums in cents per 100 pounds have
been fixed for the charge in each case from the various stations t
New York. The local rates are fixed at what may fairly be taken as an
259
average rate on roads doing a heavy business, namely, 1.20 cents perton
permile,or 3 cents per 100 pounds from one local station to another. The
through rate is fixed on a basis of 0.60 cent per ton per mile, or 15 cents
per 100 pounds for the haul from Buffalo to New York. The rates I.
have taken are the average rates shown by the following table for a
series of ten years on the only road whose reports are available to show
for a considerable period the comparative rates on through and local
freight. -
Comparative statement of the freight traffic rates of the Cleveland, Columbus,
Cincinnati and Indianapolis Railroad, as per annual reports from 1875
to 1884, inclusive.
…t.
Average re-
: cei pts perton
per mile.
Y #
€3.T. . . . . ;
p-ºf a n 3-4
! tº 2 | *
I 3- ; ":
; £- ©
i -- O
H |-
Cents. Cents
1875 ............................................................... ............................... 77 1. 622
1876 650 1.429
1877.........................................................................-------------------- i 716 i. 538
1878........ ..............................................------------------------------------- . 613 | 1.303
1879 i .565 I. 215
1880.............................................................................. ................ .681 1.110
1882.................... ......................................... ............................----, -391 | 1. 176
1884. .............. .......................... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ---------------------------------- .525 1.018
i -
Ten years ...... ..... * e º tº e º º 'º e º 'º e º e º 'º º ............. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * . 618 i. 234
The average rates of the table have been adopted because it is be-
lieved that they fairly represent the average variation between through
and local rates. The freight charges on the Chicago, Milwaukee and
Saint Paul road in 1885 were 0.84 cent per ton per mile for through
and 1.34 cents per ton per mile for local traffic. It will be observed
that it makes no difference what rates are used in the construction of
the diagram so long as the proper relative proportion between through
and local charges is preserved.
I have also shown the effect of a special through rate of 0.40 cent per
ton per mile, or 10 cents per 100 pounds from Buffalo to New York. If
the Senate conferees’ understanding of the section is correct this special-
rate limit would not be effective, but the other limitations would apply.
The figures used show, and the length of perpendicular lines indi-
cate the aggregate charges, local and through, in cents per 100 pounds,
from each station to New York for the transportation of any like kind
of property (say a car-load of flour in every case), the freight moving
in the same direction in all cases. The horizontal dotted lines show
some of the maximum and minimum limitations fixed by the terms of
the section. It will be evident, however, on examination of the prob-
lem, that the limitations marked on the diagram are but a few of the
great variety which the traffic between different combinations of sta-
260
tions would produce, as the aggregate sum charged between any two
stations fixes a minimum limit for the sum to be charged between any
other stations located a greater distance apart, and a maximum limit
for the sum to be charged between any stations which are nearer to-
gether. For instance, the sum charged from station a to New York,
being the greatest local rate, 27 cents per 100 pounds, fixes a limit for
the lowest sum to be charged for through freight from Buffalo to New
York. While the sum charged from Buffalo to New York, 10 or 15
cents per 100 pounds, being the lowest through rate, fixes a maximum
limit for the rate from stations a, b, c, d, e, &c., to New York. It is evi-
dent that in order to reconcile these limitations an equalization of
through and local rates is necessary. This equalizing process can only
be effected by advancing through rates.
The rates to or from local stations a, b, c, d, e, &c., are now fixed by
conditions and necessities entirely independent of the through rate from
Buffalo to New York. The amount of business done at each station,
the character of competition, if any, with other limes, and, more import-
ant than all, the necessities of the railroad company to obtain income
with which to pay charges and expenses of all kinds, interest on its in-
debtedness, and possible dividends on capital stock, are elements which
have been taken into consideration in the establishment of local rates,
and these conditions will all remain in vital force after this section be-
comes a law. The new local rates will be gauged by distance, but the
total sum to be received from local traffic can not be greatly dimin-
ished, so that the general range of local rates must remain substan-
tially at present. This will certainly be true on all Eastern roads
where the local traffic forms in earnings 75 to 90 per cent. of the busi-
ness of the companies.
I am reminded by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HOAR} that
on the Providence and Worcester road local traffic furnishes 93 per
cent. of the receipts. -
In the interior of the country, in Ohio and Illinois, the relative per-
centages are 70 for local and 30 for through business. On some roads in
the extreme West the percentage of through business is much greater.
In Iowa in 1883 about 80 per cent. of the business was through and
about 20 per cent. local. It must be evident from a consideration of
these figures that it is essential in order to secure the continued opera-
tion of the roads, especially those in the East, that the income from local
rates shall be substantially preserved. To refer again to the diagram.
It would not be possible, for many reasons, to cut all local rates down to
the unbroken level of 15 cents per 100 pounds fixed by the through rate:
It would he prevented by the trade conditions and the necessities to
which I have already alluded, and the rates fixed would probably be
found in conflict with the terms of the second section of the bill, which
requires that all rates shall be reasonable, as the rates from stations a,
b, c, and d would probably be unreasonably low, and from stations f, g,
h, and i unreasonably high. Several Senators have stated that this sec-
tion would permit as great a charge for one hundred as for one thousand
miles, and that the rate might, for example, be the same from Denver,
Omaha, Chicago, or Cleveland to New York, as from San Francisco to that
city. The section would undoubtedly prevent a greater charge from any
of the intermediate points than from San Francisco; but this prohibition
would have no practical effect, as the rate from San Francisco, if rea-
sonable, would be so far above the rate from Cleveland that the limitation
would be valueless. The rates from Cleveland could never be as great
261
as the rate from San Francisco or the rates from Cleveland, Chicago,
&c., to New York would be fixed by other conditions, limitations, and
comparisons, without reference to the rate from San Francisco. To
illustrate by the diagram, the rate from i to New York could never be
greater than the rate from Buffalo to New York, but the comparison is
one which never would be made in an actual transaction. The rate from
i to New York would be in the first instance compared with and must
not be greater than the rate from h to New York, and the rate from his
compared with g, and so on through a long series of gradually increas-
ing rates. -
As the financial needs of railroad companies will not admit of any
considerable reduction in the income from local traffic, nothing is left but
to advance through rates; but this would not always be possible. To
refer to the diagram again, the through rates from Buffalo to New York
are fixed in competition with water carriage by the Erie and Wel-
land Canals and with a carrier whose railroad, entirely within the
boundaries of a State, is expressly exempted from the rule laid down
in this bill. To advance rates from Buffalo, materially, means loss of
through business and a necessary advance of local rates to recoup the
loss of receipts thus sustained. Where, then, would be the limit and
what would be the average rate after the equalizing process was com-
pleted? I believe that it would not be less than the average rate re-
ceived for transporting freight on all the railroads in the United States,
namely, 1.06 cents per ton per mile. The approximate resulting rate
limit on the diagram is placed at 0.84 cent per ton per mile, which is
about the average rate for all traffic on the trunk lines in recent years.
To avoid the necessary inference that through rates must be advanced
if rates are to be equalized as required by the section, some of the ad-
vocates of the bill have intimated rather than asserted that the quali-
fying words “under substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions” may be construed to authorize carriers to charge more from non-
competitive short-haul points than from competitive points where a
longer haul is necessary.
The chairman of the conference committee, in his explanation of
the meaning of the words, said :
They mean just what they say, that you shall not charge more for the shorter
than for the longer distance on the same line in the same direction under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, and those conditions and cir-
cumstances may be, if you please, the fact that one place is a competing point
and that another place is not, the fact that one place furnishes a large amount
of business and the way-station does not furnish perhaps more than a car-load,
and that it, incurs additional expense and all that sort of thing.
The words referred to were, I think, inserted in the section at my
suggestion, and it was my purpose, by the insertion, to limit as far as
possible the disastrous effects which would follow the adoption of the
ºrigid rule laid down in the section, but I could not hope that any such
significance as that now suggested could be given them. If the pro-
portion of a through rate which a carrier receives places no limit on
local charges, and if there is such dissimilarity of circumstance and
condition between points where there is competition, and those where
there is none, as would allow higher rates for a shorter haul to or from
the latter, then what is the purpose of the section, and what becomes
of the protection to be afforded shippers at non-competitive points?
If this interpretation can be given the section those gentlemen
who believe that a long and short haul provision furnishes a panacea
for all railroad troubles will sooner or later find out that this bill is a
delusion and a sham, and the country may as well understand that it is
an empty menace to great interests, made to answer the clamor of the
ignorant and the unreasoning. -
It is an open secret that this bill does not represent the deliberate
judgment of the Senate. Many Senators will vote for it with the hope
rather than the belief that the courts will construe the fourth section
to be meaningless, but we should remember that the courts may not
be impressed with the necessity of explaining away the fatal defects of
the measure, and that they will be bound only to give an interpreta-
tion to the words which are used in the section, and to give to these
their usual significance. Senators will be constrained to admit that if
this bill becomes a law and the section under consideration should not
be construed to be purposeless, that to save their own constituency from
ruin, its monstrous provisions must be evaded or ignored by the rail-
roads and the commission. To legislate on a subject of serious import
in this manner is not worthy the Senate or creditable to the representa-
tives of the American people. -
I do not see how the words “under substantially similar circum-
stances and conditions” can be held to apply to any but transportation
conditions and circumstances, and if so construed they would have no
application to the great volume of through or competitive freight.
Along the great freight routes of the country there is an incessant
flow of traffic, like in kind and moved under substantially similar cir-
cumstances and conditions. A large portion of east-bound freight is
made up of the great products of the West—grain, flour, and provis-
ions in various forms—moved in car-load lots to the seaboard, while the
bulk of the westward shipments consists largely of domestic and for-
eign manufactured articles, similar in character. Between the South
and the East and West there is a constant interchange of products
moving in the same channels and under similar conditions. -
This traffic between sections, makes up a considerable portion of the
internal commerce of the country
I believe, therefore, that these qualifying words can not be under-
stood as relieving common carriers from the obligation of equalizing
their rates on the basis of distance in the manner I have stated, and
the inexorable conditions of railroad traffic are such that the result of
this equalization must be to advance the low rates now prevailing for
long hauls to a point where they will be prohibitive in many cases.
Before calling your attention to the serious consequences which will
surely follow any considerable advance in through rates, I will ask you
to consider some of the obvious reasons why Congress should not adopt
the policy embodied in the fourth section. First, it is unwise to at-
tempt to fix rates by legislation.
This seems to have been well understood by the select committee,
of which the Senator from Illinois is chairman, at the time their repor
was made. They say in that report (p. 194): .
When all these considerations have been given due weight the gonclusion
seems irresistible that a very considerable disparity in charges upon different
railroads is inevitable, and that it would be inexpedient and impracticable to
attempt to adjust existing inequalities by any system of rates established by
legislation, as many witnesses have suggested.
sº :: :: $# $ sk #:
In either case it would be impossible to avoid taking into account the consid-
erations which absolutely enforce inequalities in rates, and the inevitable result
of any attempt to establish rates by legislation would be, as it always has been,
the adoption of tariffs arranged upon the same general principles as those now
in use, and perpetuating the system of differential rates now in force.
263
. Nor has it been made to appear that the establishing of a minimum rate would
be of advantage, while consideration has made it clear that the difficulties at-
tending the adjustment of such a rate would be no less formidable than those
encountered in establishing complete schedules for every interstate road, and
that the only effect of a minimum rate would be to increase the charges for long-
distance transportation.
It is difficult to understand how a Senator who could enunciate sound
principles with such force and clearness could support the provisions of
this section as reported from the conference committee.
Second, it is clear from the most casual examination of the transpor-
tation problem that distance does not furnish a correct or practicable
basis for transportation charges.
The provision that no more shall be charged for a shorter than for a
longer haul must be based on the theory that distance furnishes a proper
measure of the value of transportation. Against this theory it may
be conclusively urged that it rejects all the elements of cost or value
except that of the length of the haul, and upon this, which is by no
means the most important element—oftentimes it is the least impor-
tant—it proposes to base all traffic charges. It does not take into con-
sideration the difference in the cost of construction or maintenance of
the line, the difference in the actual cost of carriage, or the difference
in the value of terminal or other services rendered. It ignores the nat-
ural advantages of locality, and disregards competition by river, lake,
and ocean carriage. It fails to notice the most important fact of all,
that a considerable portion of the business of railroads must be done, if
done at all, at a rate which the traffic will bear, and that it is constantly
necessary to fix rates for this kind of business much lower than those
charged for the regular business of the line.
The objections to long and short haul legislation were also forcibly
stated in the report of the select committee (page 195), as follows:
And when the effect of the proposed puobibition principle—i.e., that no greater
charge should be made for shorter than for a longer distance—is considered with
reference to the whole internal commerce of the United States, and especially
with reference to the necessity of preserving the prevailing cheap rates for long-
distance transportation, there is reason to fear that the result of rigidly enfore-
ing the proposed regulations would be to stifle competition in numberless cases
where it now exists, and is to the general public interest, and perhaps to deprive
the country of the benefits of the low through rates now and for years given to
and from tide-water, without practical or appreciable advantage to intervening
pointS.
Third. The adoption of a distance basis in the manner now proposed
is an untried experiment in railroad legislation.
The necessity for making lower rates on competitive than on local
traffic is recognized in railway management in every country in the
world. The Senator from Vermont has alluded to the legislation of
England and some of the continental countries. Neither England nor
any of the European countries has any legislation analogous to that con-
templated by this act in regard to the long and short haul. In England,
Germany, and France the subject has been exhaustively investigated
by commissions and elaborate reports have been made, and the prac-
tice of making lower charges for long hauls in particular cases fully
justified.
The so-called long and short-haul laws of Massachusetts, Connecti-
cut, and other States are similar to this only in name. The use of the
words “from the original point of departure ?? in the statutes of those
States restricts their operation to very narrow limits, and the natural
advantages of competitive points are effectually preserved.
264
Fourth. The fourth section does not establish an equitable rule
which applies with equal force to the freight traffic of all roads. Dif-
ference in the length of the roads which different carriers operate would
inecessitate differences in rates for similar and contemporaneous service
"between competing cities and sections. The traffic of an interstate
Toad is placed at the mercy of a competitor whose line is entirely
within the boundaries of a State.
A carrier with but one line between great trade centres could not
• Compete with a rival controling two lines, one of which could be used
for local and the other for through business. -
Fifth. If we are to legislate upon a matter of this importance the
rights and obligations of the public and the railroad companies should
‘be clearly defined and understood; and yet if this bill is adopted by the
Senate and the fourth section is retained, three-fourths of the Senators
"Who Wote for it will do so with an understanding that it has one mean-
jing, and the other quarter on the understanding that it has an opposite
meaning.
If the Section has the significance given to it by a large majority of
its supporters, its adoption will result in the reversal of the policy
which has been pursued by the railroad managers of the country with
the acquiescence and approval of the people. We have heretofore
sought, by means of vast expenditures and valuable grants from the
public domain, to rapidly extend our railroad system that competition
might be increased and rates reduced. We now propose by law to re-
strict competition and to increase rates. -
New roads have been constructed across barren plains and over mount-
ain ranges in answer to an imperative public demand. Our rapid rail-
road extension, which had no warrant in the experience of other
nations, has borne fruit beyond the wildest hopes of the most sanguine.
Wherever the railroad has penetrated, thriving communities have
sprung up as if by magic. The prosperity and development of the fer-
tile trans-Mississippi States have been rendered possible by the fact that
modern transportation methods allowed lower rates for a long haul.
The wonderful effects which have resulted from this policy, and the
evil effects which must result from its reversal, have never been more
clearly, cogently, and eloquently described than by a gentleman now
a member of this body, the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON].
In an address which was made before the Committee on Commerce
of the House of Representatives January 20, 1880, he said:
This section has a knife in it. Its blade is sharp and long. It cuts clear
through the railroad corporations and reaches the people, especially those re-
mote from the great market centers. It is hurtful both to the railroad compa-
nies and their patrons. It isimpracticable, unphilosophical, opposed to the best
interests of the country, and strikes the West a fearfully discriminating blow.
Another has well said that the unit of profit in railroad management is a car-
wheel in motion, and that the unit of loss is a car-wheel at rest.
s: :k: :k :: $: s: - ::
"The wheel which carries freight 1,000 miles has more steady employment than
‘the one that traverses 10 miles. Therefore it can afford to work for a lower rate.
of wages.
This means a low rate for a long haul and a higher rate for a short haul. This
is the whole story. It discloses the principle that develops regions remote from
market and converts waste places into gardens.
The principle of the low rate for the long haul is the true one. It is the only
one through which the advantages of railroad transportation can be equitably
distributed. The equitable distribution has made the West what it is, in spite
of frequent violations of the principle involved. It has encouraged emigration,
*
265
opened farms, built towns, created cities, developed States, equalized the values
of property, made business for the roads, opened markets for manufacturers,
and brought prosperity to the people. It is this that makes the Eastern Iowa
farm substantially equal in value to that of the Central and Western Illinois farm,
and enables the Western Iowa farmer to count the returns from his crops almost
equal to those of the one in the eastern section of the State, and still gives him
but little advantage over the cultivators of Nebraska fields. It tends to equalize
the values of real estate throughout the State, enhances the price of all products
sent East to market, and reduces the cost of all articles carried West for use and
consumption. It assures good prices for all Western products, and consequently
enhances the prices of the farms from which they are derived. Whatever ad-
vantage the West gets from railroad transportation comes through the low rate
for the long haul.
It was stated before this committee the other day that flour is carried from
Saint Paul, Minn., to New York for $1.15 per barrel, and that in the recent past
it cost $1.20 per barrel to transport it from Buffalo to the same destination. This
is the low rate for the long haul. What has it done for Minnesota? Or, rather,
what has it not done? See how that State has grown into one of the great wheat-
producing sections of the Union : Her merchant mills are equal to any in the
world, and are the pride of her people. The flour which they manufacture places
the best of bread upon the tables of Europe and South America... The State has
been covered with farms, beautified with towns and cities, and filled with popu-
lation. As it is in that State so it is in all the West.
iſ: 2: $k : : §: ::
Who has been wronged by the application of the low rate to the long haul ?
Has harm come to the East by it? Why, the millions of people of the Western
States, who depend upon the practice of this rule to get their vast products to
the world’s markets, are most generous contributors to the prosperity of the
East. They are liberal consumers of everything which the East manufactures.
The low rate for a long haul of the manufactured articles of the East promotes
consumption in the West. This keeps the Eastern spindles in motion, and they
consume the cotton of the South. It keeps the looms in action, and they use
the wool of all sections of the country. It fills the furnaces and forges and roll-
ing-mills with orders. It deepens and extends the mines and creates a market
for the product. It fills manufacturing localities with dense populations, and
thus secures to the Eastern agriculturist a home market and good prices for all
of the products of his farm. In every way it benefits the East. Does it harm
the country at large? Look at the balance of trade against Europe in our favor.
What would it have been but for the enormous crops of the West and the low
rate for the long haul which carries them to market? This it was that brought
the cattle, sheep, hogs, wheat, flour, corn, and other products from the remote
West, and sent them abroad to feed the people of the Old World. This it was
that largely made up for our balance of trade, and brought home your bonds
and gave us the coin of Europe. No such results would have been realized but
for the wondrous development of the West, and that development could not
have occurred under the fourth section of this bill.
:k: §: se : : $: $
If section 4 should be given the force of law and received the construction
which I have, with others who have addressed the committee given to it, it
may be asked: “Will the railroad companies be so unwise as to destroy the
great business from and to the West?” Certainly not, so far as they have any,
election in the premises by which they can foster that business. But they could
do but little in the way of aiding the West. They will do the best they can.
But that best must be oppressive and depressive in the West. The people are
there and they must stay. They will go on planting and harvesting and sending
to market, but the cost of transportation will eat out their substance. A check
will be put upon the development of that section, now going on so rapidly and
satisfactorily. Prices of both land and products must recede. What high rents
are to the people of Ireland, the rates under section 4 will be to the people of the
Western States. Low rates of transportation are like low rents. Those who
pay them can prosper. High rates of transportation, like high rents, foster dis-
content and distress. This will be the mission of section 4 should Congress
give it the force of law. Its enactment certainly is another of the things that
ought not to be dome concerning commerce between the States.
That there may be no misapprehension as to the provisions of the
section to which the Senator from Iowa was then alluding, I will read
the fourth section of the Reagan bill, then pending in the House:
..That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the transporta-
tion of property, as provided in the first section of this act, to charge or receive
266
any greater compensation per car-load of similar property for carrying, receiv-
ing, storing, forwarding, or handling the same for a shorter than for a longer
distance in one continuous carriage. -
It is not alone the farmers of Iowa and the West who are interested
in maintaining a low rate for the long haul. The cattle growers, the
producers of sheep and wool in Colorado, Montana, and Missouri, the
cotton planters of Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas, the men who are
struggling so manfully to build up the new South in Georgia, South
Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee, and the operatives, artisans, and
mechanics of the East have all felt the beneficial effects of this wise
policy, and their prosperity is largely dependent upon its continuance.
To change this beneficent policy by enforcing any considerable ad-
vance in through rates on cotton, grain, and provisions, would not only
restrict traffic so as to impair the income of existing roads, but the
reduction in volume of business would have a decided tendency to
check the building of new roads. . Such an advance would embarrass
if not paralyze our foreign commerce. It would exclude from the
markets of the world the agricultural products of the great States west
of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
The prices of cotton and wheat are fixed in Liverpool and not in
Memphis, Minneapolis, or Chicago. The price of wheat is fixed in
competition with India, Russia, and South America. Great Britian
has manifested in many ways her anxiety to develop the wheat-pro-
ducing capacity of her colonies, that they might be able to furnish the
large annual deficiency in her food supply.
She has expended about $800,000,000 in building up the railway
system of India. She has succeeded in effecting such a reduction in
the transportation rates of that country that wheat is now carried over
long hauls at half a cent per ton per mile.
We now propose to do for India, Manitoba, and Australasia what
Great Britian could never do for them. We propose to enchain the too
vigorous forces which have given to American enterprise the undisputed
lead in British markets.
The time selected for this radical change of policy is inopportune, as
we have to meet reduced rates of freight and improved transportation
facilities all over the world. No other nation has in contemplation the
stupendous folly of attempting to fix rates or to restrain their down-
ward tendency by legislation.
The amount to be received by an American producer for a bushel of
wheat is not determined by the cost of production in Minnesota or
Illinois, it is the price in Liverpool minus the freight from Minnesota
or Illinois.
To show the close relation of prices of wheat in this country with the
British prices, I submit the following table, showing the price of No. 2
spring wheat for a series of years, from 1873 to 1885, in Chicago, the aver-
age (Gazette) price in Great Britain, and the average rate of freight
from Chicago to Liverpool. This shows that in 1873 the average price
in Chicago was $1.19, the freight to Liverpool 48 cents; price in Great
Britain, $1.78. There was a constant decline in price until in 1885
the price of wheat in Chicago was 84 cents; the rate of freight was 16
cents from Chicago to Liverpool and the price in Great Britain was a
dollar. The decline in English prices from 1873 to 1885 has been 78
cents a bushel, while the decline in prices at Chicago has been but 35
267
cents per bushel, the decline in the rates of freight from 1873 to 1885
s being from 48 cents a bushel to 16 cents in 1885:

: ‘s & 2: .
º #3 || 3:
# |###| #3
- * -- C, * *:-
2. CŞ C. : sº
Year. go 8p | D > S o
㺠º :::.P. #:
: 3 ºº's º
; : is .5'- ; : *
G) - 9 32 o 3 :
> O || > 3; 3 $: C5
<! <! j <!
1873. ............................................................. .................. $1 19 $0 48 $1 78
1874...........................---------------------------------...................... 1 09 35 1 69
1875........ ..... ............................................................ ..... I 02 31 1 37
1876................................................................................... 1 03 28 1 40
1877.................................................. ................................ 1 27 30 1 73
1878................... .......-----------------------------------------....... 97 27 1 41
1879..................................... ............................................. 99 26 1 33
1880.................... ...........-------------...........................------. 1 05 27 1 35
1881 1 03 19 I 38
1882. ................................................................................. I 16 19 1 37
1883................... ..............-----------------------------------............. 1 01 21 1 26
1884. .............................----------------------------....................... 17 1 09
1885.......................... ........................................................ 84 16 I 00
This table shows conclusively that the American farmer has received
the full benefit of the great decline in transportation charges.
To illustrate the effect which an advance in through rates would have
on the price of some of our staple agricultural products, I will say, and
I desire to call the attention of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON], who
now favors me with his attention, to this particular feature of the case,
that if the charge for transporting corn were advanced to 1 cent per ton
per mile, which is, as I have stated, the average late on all roads in the
United States, it would cost to transport a bushel of corn from Council
Bluffs to New York 45 cents, a sum about equal to its present value in
New York. At 1.20 cents per ton per mile, the rate which I have taken
as the average local rate, it would cost to carry a bushel of corn from
Council Bluffs to New York 54 cents, 9 cents more than the price in
New York. At the rate of 1 cent per ton per mile it would cost to
transport a bale of cotton from Waco, Texas, to a New England mill
$4.50 per bale, or about four times the present rate. If rates should be
restored to the average charges on the trunk lines in 1860—3.07 cents
per ton per mile—the cost of carrying a bushel of wheat or corn from
Chicago to New York would be 92 cents per bushel, a sum equal to the
present value of the wheat and twice as great as that of corn.
Now let us look at the effect of an advance in wheat rates. If the
rate for transporting wheat from Dakota to New York were 1 cent per
ton per mile, the average to which I have alluded, the cost of the car-
riage would be 60 cents a bushel, and allowing 10 cents per bushel for
carting to station, the farmers of Dakota would receive 20 cents a bushel
for their wheat on a basis of 90 cents in New York. If the cost of
transportation were 1.20 cents per ton per mile it would cost 72 cents
from Dakota to New York, leaving 8 cents to the farmer for his wheat
in Dakota. If 13 cents per ton per mile were the rate, it would cost
more than the value of the wheat in New York to transport it from
Dakota. An advance of Tºo of a cent per ton per mile on the rate of
freight on wheat means a reduction of 6 cents per bushel to the farmers
of the Northwest in the price which they will receive.
268
It is well known to Senators that the great competition which the
wheat-growers of the United States are now subjected to, is from India.
Wheat is now transported from the principal ports of India, Bombay,
and Kurrachee, to Liverpool at 16 cents a bushel, which is the exact
price now charged from Chicago to Liverpool, and this wheat is car-
ried over the Indian railways from the interior grain centers of India
to the seaboard at prices as low in the aggregate as are now charged the
farmers of Dakota and Minnesota to Chicago. In other words, so far
as the question of transportation is concerned, the farmers of India are
to-day in a state of absolute equality with the farmers of the Northwest
in competing for the English market. If through freights are to be ad-
vanced how can the farmers of Minnesota and Dakota hope to compete
with the ryots of India in wheat-producing, when wages for agricultural
laborers in the latter country are from 3 to 6 cents per day?
Mr. CONGER. Will the Senator allow me to ask a question?
Mr. ALDRICH. Certainly.
Mr. CONGER. If Dakota, Kansas, and the extreme Western States
can not compete with the Indian wheat and with labor in India at a
transportation rate of 20 cents a bushel, how can the farmers of Michi-
gan and Ohio and Pennsylvania live and raise wheat and compete with
the same wheat grown in India at a transportation rate of 40 cents a
bushel, a higher rate on the shorter route?
Mr. ALDRICH. I know of no railroad company—and I have had
occasion to give considerable study to railroad tariffs—that charges the
farmers of Michigan and of Ohio and of Illinois more for transporting a
bushel of wheat than they do the farmers of Minnesota and Dakota.
Mr. CONGER. Then what objection is there, if they do not do it
in fact, to having it in the bull that they shall not do it?
Mr. ALDRICH. There would be no objection if you stopped there,
but at the same time you fix a rate for Ohio and Indiana and Illinois;
you fix an inflexible rate at every railroad station in the United States
without regard to conditions. If you will put into this bill, in definite
terms, that no greater charge shall be made for carrying wheat from
Michigan, Indiana, or Illinois to New York than is charged for trans-
portation from Dakota to New York I will vote for it. If that was all
there was in the fourth section it would have my hearty support; but
it means a great deal more. What I find fault with is that in order
to cure evils which are apparent to the farmers of Illinois or Michigan,
you propose to demoralize the whole commerce of the country; you
propose to establish an arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, impracticable
rule, which, while it will do what you say, will do much more.
The evils you complain of can be cured in a great many other ways.
Mr. CONGER. Does the Senator believe in any event, and does his
argument lead justly to such a conclusion, that it is proper to charge
the wheat-grower of Michigan any greater sum for carrying his wheat
to the markets of the world—say at New York—over the same road,
500 miles less distance, than is charged the farmer of Minnesota? That
is a plain question, which the common people of the United States will
inquire into, no matter what the argument may be.
Mr. ALDRICH. I do not believe it was ever true that the farmers
of Minnesota and Dakota could ship their wheat to New York at a less
rate per bushel than was charged from Michigan and Indiana and Illi-
nois. If it is true, as I say, it can be cured in some other way than by
this drastic and far-reaching remedy.
I can conceive of circumstances and conditions under which it might
269
be necessary in carrying the wheat from points of shipment in Michi-
gan to charge the greater sum for the shorter haul, perhaps under some
circumstances a much shorter haul, but they do not exist except in
very rare cases and at very long intervals.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR] reminds me that I have
not alluded to the fact in answer to the Senator from Michigan that a
portion of the wheat to which he alludes may be destined to a foreign
market, where the price is absolutely and irrevocably fixed by in-
fluences beyond our control. I do not believe that the Senator from
Michigan can point to a single instance where a bushel of wheat was
charged more from any point in his State than it was from Minnesota
or Dakota.
Mr. CONGER. Will the Senator allow me to interject a remark
here 2
Mr. ALDRICH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CONGER. It is a notorious matter that at points between Chi-
cago and New York where there is water-power used—
Mr. ALDRICH. Water competition?
Mr. CONGER. No, not water competition, but water power. At
points 60, 70, 100, 113, and 123 miles east of Chicago, which I know,
where power is furnished to change wheat into flour, the people of
Michigan have availed themselves of it, and they have for years paid to
have the barrel of flour transported from those 60, 70, and over 100
miles at way rates to Chicago, because there they could get transporta-
tion over the same road for their same product to the New York market
at through rates. The farmers had to pay this back transportation to
Chicago. Instead of paying the actual price charged from Chicago to
New York, which they were willing to do, they had to transport their
wheat from their mills 70 or 100 miles back to Chicago, and there pay
for it over the same road the through rate, and they made money by
taking it back.
Mr. ALDRICH. One of two answers might be given to the proposi-
tion now made by the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. CONGER. If the Senator can give one answer to satisfy the com-
mon people of my State that they are wrong in their suppositions and
that he is right, let him try it.
Mr. ALDRICH. In the first place, the second section of this bill, re-
quiring that all rates should be reasonable, will effectually cure the evil
he complains of. In the next place, if the stations and localities to
which the Senator has alluded are of such a character that from the
amount of business transacted or other conditions the rule of reason-
ableness does not apply, then it is right that a higher rate should be
charged. I do not understand the Senator to say that a bushel of wheat
should be transported from some interior inaccessible point on a local
road to New York at the same rate which it charged from Chicago to
that city.
I know the Senator does not mean to say that. I have here a state-
ment of the average rates per ton per mile charged on all the roads
in Michigan in 1883. The rates vary from the through rate of 0.42
cent perton per mile on the Lake Shore road, which carried 9,194,988
tons of freight, to 5.93 cents perton per mile on the Michigan Air Line,
which carried 24,841 tons in the same year, the rate being fourteen
times as great in one case as the other. The circumstances"are cer-
ainly dissimilar between these roads.
Mr. CONGER. The case to which I referred was not on a little road,
270
but on the Central road, a road known wherever railroads are known,
one of the best roads in the United States, one of the best managed, a
through route. It is on that road and on the direct line, not on any
little road in the upper peninsula, that what I mentioned occurred.
But the Senator does not answer my proposition at all, by repeating his
statement, that it is not just to make intermediate stations pay for the
passage back to Chicago at a much higher price than is charged for car-
rying the same product the longer distance.
Mr. ALDRICH. Under similar circumstances it would certainly
not be just, and this bill would cure that evil whether the fourth sec-
tion is retained or not.
American transportation interests would suffer indirectly as well as
directly by the passage of this bill, for a large portion of the business
along our northern frontier would be diverted to Canadian roads which
can not be made to feel the restrictive power of our legislation. The
Canadian Pacific, now engaged in building Short branches as feeders
into all the border States, would thrive upon our misfortunes.
But it is said by Senators even if the construction which we put
upon the fourth section is correct, the commission have a right to sus-
pend its operation. This is too wast and dangerous a power to be
placed in the hands of any men. An anxiety is often expressed in re-
gard to the dominating influence of great corporations in politics.
But you propose without hesitation to put into the hands of five men, a
majority of whom shall belong to one political party, and selected
partly on that account, the power, to be exercised without appeal, to
make or unmake States, to build up or destroy communities, and to
increase or extinguish the earnings of railroad companies.
You propose to give this commission an autocratic, imperial power,
which is greater than that exercised by any sovereign in the world. I
do not say that they would abuse the power thus unwisely conferred,
but no more effective instrument could be found to perpetuate an ad-
ministration or to continue a party in control of the Government. The
duties you assign this commission it would be physically impossible
for them to discharge. They could not listen to the statement of the
numberless exemptions which would be claimed under the fourth sec-
tion, much less could they undertake to give an intelligent, and equit-
able decision in each case.
For the purpose of showing the growth of the transportation inter-
ests of the country and the great reduction which has taken place in
rates during the past twenty years I submit a table showing aggregate
tonnage on principal railroads in 1865, 1875, and 1885, and the rates
per ton per mile in each of these years, as follows:
Aggregate | Rate charged per Rate per mile on .
Year. ton in a ge tom per mile on principal West-
A moved. trunk lines. ern roads.
Toms. Oents. Cents.
1865. 15, 183,867 2,900 3.642
1875...................................... 45,619, 423 1. 161 1, 979
1885...................................... 100,869,837 . 636 1, 200
If the rate of 1865 had been charged on the tonnage of 1885 the cost
of transportation by railroad to the people of the country in the latter
year would have been $410,255,829 greater than the sum paid.
271
Also, a statement showing the rate per ton per mile charged on the
principal trunk lines and on several of the principal Western roads in
each year from 1865 to 1885:

,-4 | | is *
: c § 3 ; }; ; : ; ; 3 +
#3 #33 || #: , ; #33
rg; ; ; ;:: . ; º: ; ; ; g.: 5:
35 – 2 & 2 T. g. 35°; © 35°E * of
§ 3 ; ; ; ; ; ; ; § 3.8 ºf 37.3%
Year. § 5% ; ; ; ; ; Year. 2 : . . 2 #33
* #44 ##3 3 || * : * : * 5.3 :
3 * g : o T = * o T; o T c
& 3 = 8 ºf 5 ! o 3 = i * 3: ;
3.35 33 3.5 | #35 - 33 3.3
£r. ſº £3 ſº
**-**------ * * * ~ * ~-- ~~ +-- *** *- e - - - - - i
- Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents
1865 ..................... 2.900 3.642 || 1876 .................... .983 1. 877
1866 ..................... 2. 546 3.459 || 1877.......... ......... . 971 1. 664
1867 ..................... 2. 306 3. 175 iſ 1878.................... . 807 1. 476
1868 ..... ............... 1.951 3. 154 || 1879.................... . 725 1. 280 .
1869..................... 1.7.15 3.026 # 1880........... ........ . 840 E.266
1870..................... I. 585 2.423 iſ 1881................... .759 1.420.
1871 ..................... I. 478 2.509 it 1882.......... ......... . 665 1. 364
1872...... .............. 1. 475 2.582 || 1883.................... . 842 1. 308
1878..................... 1. 470 2. 188 # 1884.................... . 740 1. 251
1874............... ... 1.342 2. 160 | 1885.............. ..... . 636 1, 200
1875 ..................... 1. 161 I. 979
The railroad mileage of this country is nearly equal to that of all the
rest of the world combined. The rates for carrying freight charged
by our transportation companies, with all the evils of which gentlemen
have complained, are lower to-day than they are in any other country of
the world. We have a country vast in area. Great Britain, Belgium,
Germany, and France have compact little communities with a dense
population; and with all these advantages and influences in their favor
the cost of transportation in this country is less than in any of them,
the average on all roads in the United States being, as I have stated,
1.06 cents per top per mile, while the rate in Belgium is 1.30 cents, in
Germany about 1.35, and in Austria and France about 1.50 cents. The
rate in Great Britian is estimated at 2 cents per ton per mile, and
while the decrease in rates on trunk-lines in this country in twenty
years has been from 2.90 to 0.64 cents per ton per mile, the estimated
reduction in English rates during the same period has been from 2.75
to 2 cents per ton per mile.
Mr. BROWN. Before the Senator takes his seat, as he has been
discussing the question of the probable construction of the long and
short haul provision of the fourth section of this bill, will he permit
me to call the attention of the Senate to a decision very lately made by
the supreme court of North Carolina on that subject 2
We are differing here as to what is the proper construction. The
decision of that court may be wrong, but it is a court of ability, the
supreme court of one of the oldest States of the Union, and one which
is very highly respected everywhere. I do not know that I feel at
liberty to give the name of the correspondent, but this is a telegram
from Richmond, Va., by a very intelligent gentleman, to a gentleman
of this city, who presented it to me awhile ago, in reference to the de-
cision. It seems the decision has been very recently made—he does
not say what day—and is in manuscript yet. It has not been printed.
The telegram is: - - *
Am just in receipt of decision of the supreme court of North Carolina in the
suit against the Wilmington and Weldon road, in which the supreme court de-
cides that the long and short haul clause means as follows: “A rate of $2.50
272
per ton on guano from Wilmington to Tarboro’, 145 miles, is a violation of the
law when the rate is also $2.50 from Wilmington to Rocky Mount, a distance of
125 miles.” The law reads that you shall not charge a greater amount for the
same character of freight under similar circumstances in the same direction
over any part of the road for a short distance than you charge for long. N
Almost the identical language of the provision in the fourth section
of this report on that subject. .
These are precisely the terms of the interstate bill, section 4. The court
holds that in this case the W. and W. Railroad hauled the freight to Rocky
Mount, 125 miles, for $2.50, and for the remaining distance for nothing, and
therein lies the violation of the law. The opinion of the court covers fifty-
seven pages of legal cap, and construes the law clearly to in lean the same rate
per mile to be charged in the same direction. I will have the decision copied,
and try to get it to you by to-night’s train.
So that the decision of the supreme court of North Carolina seems to
be that, in case of a statute using almost identically the same language
as this, it means the same rate per mile. It may be right or it may
be wrong, but it is worthy of the attention of the Senate.
Mr. ALLISON, What does the Senator from Georgia think with
reference to that construction himself?
Mr. BROWN. I think it most probable that that will be the decision
of the courts generally, and the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States when it goes there.
Mr. MORRILL. Mr. President, it is not my purpose to address the
Senate at any length on this question, but I have reached the con-
clusion that it is my duty to vote to recommit this bill. I believe it is
conceded by all who have spoken, even in favor of it, that it is a very great
experiment, and it is very uncertain as to what may be its result.
I am very sure, upon as careful a reading of the fourth section as I
am able to give it, that its effect will be to increase the rates for the
long haul and possibly those for the short haul also, and that its result
will be disastrous to the country if it shall even slightly affect our ex-
ports. It will not take a very large percentage to turn the balance of
trade against us. Should that occur, it is going to derange not only
the business of the country, but the parity of the gold and silver cur-
rency of the country. -
I had supposed in years gone by that it was something creditable to
our people that we had built so many miles of railroad in this coun-
try, and have been wont to point to the fact that we had railroads that
equaled in extent those of all the world beside; but it seems that we
can no longer do so, judging by the vituperative epithets that are vis-
ited on these railroads for their conduct and their management; and I
judge, if this bill should pass unamended, we may rely upon it that
the crusade will have its effect until this experiment can be tried, for
I can not believe that there will be a single new railroad built in this
country until the experiment has been tested. It will call a balt upon
the further construction of railroads until it can be seem whether such
investments are endangered or not.
There are several provisions in the bill besides the one so constantly
referred to as the fourth section to which I think attention should be
called, and if the bill is to be recommitted I should hope it would be
amended in those particulars.
I have no doubt that the business of the country, should this bill pass,
will completely snow under all the five commissioners provided for.
Why, Mr. President, to take charge of this bill under its present terms
I do not think fifty commissioners would be able the first year to trans-
act the business that will be thrown on their hands, and yet we pro-
vide in this bill that there shall be only five commissioners, and leave
fºr s
273
it, even for those who are not at all interested in any freight matter,
to make any complaint that they see fit, and that complaint has to be
considered by these five commissioners. Look at the way that is to be
followed out. I wish to suggest whether it is not founding an oppor-
tunity for a series of blackmail upon all the railroads of the country.
A man who has no interest at all may make complaint. The commis-
sioners are bound to hear it. They send back word to the complainant
that he must go to the railroad managers and try to settle and adjust
the matter with them. The railroad, rather than have a wrangle, a
quarrel, or a lawsuit, may be willing to buy off that complainant and
pay him handsomely. Such complaints may give Some idle men a pay-
ing business. *
Then, it seems to me, that the amount appropriated is wholly inad-
equate for the services which are required to be rendered. One hun-
dred thousand dollars only is appropriated, and of this $37,500 are al-
lotted to the commissioners at once and $3,500 to a secretary ; and then
other employés must be provided for, so that it will eat up at least
$50,000 all at once. So that all the remainder of the sum that is ap-
propriated is barely $50,000. Mr. President, in p2 ying the expense of
this commission and summoning witnesses, perhaps from Oregon,
Texas, or Maine, that sum might not last sixty days. Therefore, I
think that the sum appropriated and the officers appointed are not suf-
ficient for the purpose.
But, Mr. President, there is another matter that I think of grave im-
portance, and that is the interference that we make with the roads that
have been chartered by the United States. Take the Central Pacific
and Union Pacific railroads. These, undoubtedly, Congress may legis-
late upon, but whether they can legislate upon them so as to destroy
them may be doubtful. If the short and long haul clause of this bill
shall be carried into effect, so far as these companies are concerned, we
may bid a long farewell to any prospect of collecting the indebtedness
of these companies to the United States. I do not believe that it will
be possible for these companies to carry on their through business under .
the fourth section of this bill, and if we are to ruin their business of
course the debt of much more than $100,000,000, secured upon the
roads to the United States, will be wholly worthless. *
There are other things in relation to these Pacific roads. We are in-
debted to them all over the country for green fruits, for oranges, for
pears, for grapes, &c. Unless these roads can be permitted to deliver
these green fruits to the East at a less rate than they charge for their
local freight, it will be impossible that we should receive these con-
stant supplies of such fruits, and the State of California and the other
States on the Pacific coast would be very badly damaged if we cut off
a market for which they have made such large provision.
But, Mr. President, I did not propose to discuss this bill at any length.
I know that the Senate have agreed to vote upon the question to-day,
and I merely wish to emphasize the statement in relation to the possi-
bility of getting up another bill. I have no sort of doubt about it. If
we should recommit this bill, especially with a chairman whose views
have been overruled and who has been compelled to present a bill here
not his own work, but against his own judgment and his own opinion,
I have no sort of doubt but that we can get a better bill. -
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. ALDRICH] took it upon himself to read as a part of his
remarks, by way of enforcing and illustrating them, some utterances
of mine made some years ago before a committee of the House of Rep-
I S C–18
274
resentatives, at which time I was not in official position. He seemed
to regard my utterances on that occasion as well put, and entitled to
consideration and force now.
I have changed somewhat my views of the questions which I then
presented to that committee. I have more information than I had
then. I have made a definite study of this subject since I became con-
nected with it as a member of this body, and I have found iniquities
sufficient in the practices of the railroad companies of this country in
the matter of the administration of our transportation system to induce
me to do what I said in my remarks before the holidays I should do,
and that is vote for the passage of this bill.
Many reasons have come to me in the years that have passed since
those remarks were made to induce the position which I now occupy,
and I stand here to-day, representing in part the State of Iowa, about
whose condition I at that time spoke, to say that the people of that
State under the present administrations of its transportation system
are, except at a very few so-called competitive points, practically with-
out any such thing as the low rate on the long haul. It has been said,
and repeated time and again, that the West can not get on without
the application of the low rate on the long haul, and that if this bill
shall become a law the fields of the farmers of Iowa will become waste
places. They are being pushed in that direction without this bill.
The farmers of Iowa and all others having products of whatsoever kind
to ship to market from that State are to-day, and they have been since
the companies induced the change of our first transportation act in the
State, paying, except from a few localities, local rates to Chicago, so
that while the companies were carrying the corn of the farmers of Iowa
at 11 cents a hundred from competing points on the Missouri River to
Chicago, they were charging 17 cents and 22 cents a hundred from
stations but a few miles east of the western boundary of the State to
stations within the State and west of the Mississippi River, producing
the result that I brought to the attention of the Senate in my remarks
before the holiday adjournment, that Western Iowa corn was selling in
Chicago ever since the ripening of the present crop from 3 to 6 cents
per bushel cheaper than the farmer in the eastern part of Iowa could
get it with which to feed the stock on his farm, he needing it because
of the failure of the crop in Eastern Iowa.
Mr. MORRILL. Will the Senator from Iowa permit me to ask him
a question ? -
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Certainly.
Mr. MORRILL. As I understand this bill, it does not interfere at
all with the railroads in the several States. Now he complains that
the railroads charge from a point in his State to another point in the
State a higher rate than they do to Chicago.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I am only giving that as an example of the
outrageous conduct of the railroad companies.
Mr. MORRILL. Which is not remedied by this bill.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. No; but I hope if we shall get this bill
that the people of Iowa will follow it with supplementary action with
reference to the transportation within their own State. Indirectly, of
course, it will have an effect. But these conditions have been grow-
ing worse day by day since the period referred to by the Senator from
Rhode Island, and, as I said, I have been getting education as the time
has been going on. I have received some of it even from good old
Massachusetts, the State which stands here in the person of her able
Senator [Mr. HOAR] to-day resolutely opposing the principle of the
275
long-and-short-haul provision of this bill. In the last report of the
commissioners of that State I find the following in respect of the long-
and-short-haul doctrine of this bill:
In exceptional cases and to a small extent it may work harshly, but its gen-
eral working has been most beneficial. It has remedied a great evil and a great
injustice; it bas helped save small industries and small places from being
crushed out of existence; it has checked the tendency to consolidation which
would build up one place, or a few places, at the cost of local enterprise, thus
creating traffic for the railroads by giving occupation to their customers. And
it is believed any attempt to repeal this safeguard of fair dealing would receive
almost universal condemnation from the business men of Massachusetts.
Mr. HOAR. From what does the Senator read, will he pardon me?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I am reading from an extract given me in
an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, which extract is said to be taken
from the last annual report of the railroad commissioners of Massa-
chusetts.
Mr. HOAR. What is the “it’’ which works all those things?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The application of the principle of the long
and short haul clause.
Mr. HOAR. I have in my hand a document, the last report of the
railroad commissioners of Massachusetts—I do not at this moment put
my eye on the passage, but I had it here to read—in which it is said
that the phrase “from the same point of departure,” which is stricken
out of the bill here, is essential to the Massachusetts legislation; that
without it it never would have been passed. It proceeds to argue
against this provision with great force; and among my papers which I
handed to the reporter I had a letter from Hon. Thomas Russell, whose
language the Senator from Iowa is quoting, addressed to the Senator
from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT], in which, in five or six closely-written
pages, he exposes the injustice of this present scheme. The Senator
has been misled by applying to one thing what the author of that lan-
guage applied to another.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. President—
Mr. HOAR. If the Senator will pardon me while I interpose a pretty
emphatic issue with the honorable Senator from Vermont. The chair-
man of the railroad commission of Massachusetts says it is not the same
thing in substance, but that this thing would be utterly destructive,
while that thing has worked well.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to say in reply to my friend from Massa-
chusetts, if it is lawful to differ from a Massachusetts chairman what-
ever he is, I entirely disagree with that Massachusetts man.
Mr. HOAR. But I did not bring Judge Russell, an eminent railroad
authority though he is, into this discussion. The Senator, from Iowa
undertook to quote Judge Russell’s language as an indorsement of this
bill, and he read it with a personal reference to me, saying that he had
brought a Massachusetts authority in opposition to what I had said.
He had been learning from Massachusetts.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. So I have.
Mr. HOAR. I then said that the Massachusetts authority which he
quoted on his side had expressed in the strongest way his disappro-
bation of the present bill both in private correspondence and in his
last railroad report, from which the Senator quoted. He says in speak-
ing of the provision which was not agreed to in the Senate originally,
that this provision should apply to two things from the same point of
departure, that that is essential to the efficacy of the Massachusetts
law, and without it it never would have been passed.
The Senator from Vermont will pardon me. I was not setting up
276
* * }
anybody against the Senator from Vermont, but I was simply pointing
out that the authority which was brought against me from my own
State was on my side.
The PRESIDENT pro fempore. The Senator from Iowa has the floor.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Mr. President, there is one thing that is
definitely clear in this matter, and that is that the long-and-short-haul
provision applies to the transportation system of Massachusetts. About
that there is no doubt or dispute. If that principle is good for Massa-
chusetts, why is it not good for New York, and Ohio, and Michigan, and
Illinois, and Iowa? -
Mr. DAWES. If the long and short haul is good for Massachusetts,
I should like to know why the same power that made it good for Massa-
chusetts does not take it up and apply it to Iowa.
Mr. HOAR. Will my colleague
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Let me take one at a time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa declines to
yield.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I will tell the Senator from Massachusetts,
who put the last question, why. Simply because we are dealing with
the subject of interstate commerce over which the State of Iowa can
exercise no jurisdiction, and because we can not do that we are trying
to get the remedy applied by the Congress of the United States.
Mr. DAWES. I wish to know of the Senator from Iowa, why Iowa
can not apply it to her commerce from station to station precisely as
Massachusetts does.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. We can do it from station to station within
the State. -
Mr. DAWES. Then all the good that Massachusetts gets out of it
in applying it to her freight system Iowa can if she wants to.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. With respect to her State commerce alone,
but there is commerce originating in Iowa that enters into and becomes
a part of the great body of interstate commerce.
Mr. DAWES. Now, I wish to know
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Not at present. While we may follow the
example of Massachusetts and apply the principle of her law to the
State commerce of the State of Iowa, we want also the principle applied
to the interstate commerce, in order that all that we ship out of the
State except from a few competitive points shall not be compelled as
now to pay local rates to Chicago.
Mr. DAWES. The Senator has cited instances of outrageous charges
betwen different points in his own State, showing that the farmer in
Eastern Iowa is obliged to pay for the corn he gets from Western Iowa
so much more in freight that they could get it in Chicago cheaper than
they could get the same corn there. Is not that all under the control
of the State of Iowa? If the charges between Western Iowa and
Eastern Iowa are so exorbitant, why does not Iowa put a stop to it just
as Massachusetts has, and get all the good which the Senator has made
himself familiar with by reading the report of the commissioner of
Massachusetts 2
Mr. WILSON. of Iowa. The Senator from Massachusetts can not
lead me away from the subject I was illustrating by the facts that I
cited in connection with Iowa. I cited those facts to show the hardship
imposed by the present system of transportation administration by the
companies.
277
Mr. DAWES. I alluded to it to show that the remedy is within your-
self.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. In so far as the commerce confined within
the limits of the State is concerned; but I put the question again, if
that principle works good in Massachusetts in connection with State
commerce, why will it not work good in the United States in reference
to interstate commerce?
Mr. HOAR. Will my friend now permit me to interrupt him?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa yield 2
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I am taking up more of the time of the
Senate than I intended.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa yield
to the Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. HOAR. I ann sure the Senator would not desire to put me or
the railroad commissioner of Massachusetts in a false position.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair inquires again if the Sen-
ator from Iowa yields.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Certainly.
Mr. HOA!!. I desire to read exactly what the railroad commissioner
of Massachusetts said on that subject. Here was an application from
the selectmen of Pittsfield, the town where my colleague lives, saying
that the Boston and Albany Railroad Company charged $1 a gross ton
for coal from a certain point on their line, 50 miles, to Pittsfield, and
that they were charging $1.25 for a distance of only 43 miles. That
is the complaint under our short-haul law. Then skipping all but a
few sentences I will read what the commissioner says:
The statute commonly known as the “short-haul law '' is in substance as fol-
lows: -
No railroad corporation shall charge or receive for the transportation of
freight to any station on its road a greater sum than is at the time charged or
received for the transportation of the like class and quantity of freight from the
same original point of departwre--
These words are in italics—
to a station at a greater distance on its road in the same direction.
The words in italics are a substantive and essential part of the law, without
which it could not have been passed. We have a right to say this, because such
a law was proposed to the Legislature, and was rejected in 1871, when the “short-
haul law'” was first enacted. This proposed bill read as follows:
“No railroad corporation of this commonwealth shall charge or collect for the
transportation of goods or merchandise for any shorter distance any larger
amount as toll or freight than is charged or collected for the carriage of similar
gºities of the same class of goods over a longer distance upon the same
TO3,Ol.
Such a bill would forbid the collection of $1.25 from Hudson and $1 from Al-
bany. But the general court not only have not enacted such a bill, but have re-
fused so to do, and for good reasons. It is interesting to notice that when the
“short-haul law '’ of this State is censured, as it recently has been by interested
Fº it is always misrepresented to be just what the petitioners have supposed
it to be.
And now when it is passed it is equally misunderstood.
It is misrepresented in that newspaper which the Senator quoted:
While a rate over one route or in one direction lower than that charged in
another is not absolutely forbidden, such a discrepancy is evidence admissible
upon the question of reasonableness, and it calls for explanation.
And they go on to give it. I have here, written by Judge Russell—
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Do not take up too much time.
Mr. HOAR. I have here a paper in which he reasons out
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Yes, sir.
..Mr. HOAR. Judge Russell reasons out his opinion of the proposed
27 S
act of Congress, and states that the act of Massachusetts is different
from it, and his reasons
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That would be simply involving a differ-
ence of opinion between Judge Russell and myself and other members
of the Senate concerning the proper construction of the fourth section
of the present bill. That is all there is of that. It does not avoid the
point I am making, that Massachusetts has the long-and-short-haul
provision of this bill in her law, and one reason given for the satisfac-
tion which the commissioners have concerning that law is that it has
remedied a great evil and a great injustice. It has helped to save
small industries and small places from being crushed out of existence.
If it will do that in Massachusetts, where they apply this rule, why
not, if it is given proper application, do the same in other States?
Mr. President, one of the reasons why I support this bill is that it
will have a tendency to prevent the crushing out of small industries;
and not only that, but it will have the additional tendeney of inducing
the upbuilding of small industries. It may be that Rhode Island and
Massachusetts, speaking here to-day, see through the operation of this
bill, if it shall become a law, the upbuilding of manufacturing business
in Iowa, in Nebraska, in Minnesota, in Dakota, and throughout those
Western regions that are now depressed, or, rather, which are now pre-
vented because of the methods and practices of the administration of
our railway system.
I have a case in mind like this, which seems to me in point. A
gentleman who had accumulated a few thousand dollars desired to
establish a wagon manufactory at a town in the State of Iowa. He
had capital sufficient to buy the lots on which to erect his buildings,
sufficient to put up the buildings, and to purchase and place his ma-
chinery therein to give employment to fifty or seventy-five workmen.
He looked the ground over and made his calculations. He saw what
he could do, and determined upon locating at that point. The next
important thing for him, Mr. President, was to ascertain whether or
not as against your great factories in Ohio, and as against the factories in
Chicago or in New York, or elsewhere he could get such rates for ma-
terial in and such rates for manufactured product out as would justify
him in investing his capital where, as a citizen and business man, he
desired. When he made his application to the company to know what
rates he could have, what was the answer? ‘‘No, we can not give you
such rates as these others have. We are not prepared to have manu-
facturing establishments built at this point; go to this place, to that
place, or the other,” naming them. But, he responded, “I have not
money enough to buy land to build a house on at those places. I can
do all that I need to do at the place I have selected—buy my land, build,
my houses, and put in machinery sufficient to give fifty or seventy-five
men employment.” He could not do it simply because of the method
adopted by the transporting companies of the country for favorite local-
ities while applying the opposite to others. -
There are instances of this kind multiplied over and over again
throughout the country, instances of such discrimination as I called to
the attention of the Senate before the holidays with respect to the corn
crop of Iowa, instances of favoritism of all kinds, instances of such
favoritism as bring out from the manufacturers of agricultural machin-
ery in your own State protests against this bill because they have
special rates and others can not get them. Of course the manufactur-
ing establishments that have their special rates do not want a bill
274)
passed that will establish a rule of equality, fairness, and exact justice
between all men engaged in business in this country.
It is because I believe this bill has the tendency to bring about these
great results that I shall give it my support. I want to establish in
our commercial system, so largely dominated by our transportation sys-
tem, that equality in business movements that each man is entitled to
under the Constitution of the United States and our doctrine of equality.
I do not want these artificial persons, the transporting companies of the
country, to determine whether I or any other man may or may not
invest capital for the purpose of business whenever and wherever we
please. Yet that is a usurpation that the transportation companies
have assumed to themselves, and they do dictate where business may be
done and where it may not be dome, where profit may be made and
where it may not be made. -
Therefore, having, as I have said, with care and diligence studied
this question since the days, years ago, referred to by the Senator from
Rhode Island—having, because of that care and study, changed my views
somewhat, I have concluded, as a Senator representing in part the peo-
ple of the State of Iowa, to give my vote for a measure which I believe
will tend in the direction of justice.
Mr. President, I do not concur in the position which has been taken
by some Senators that we had better not do anything now and wait
and see whether we can not find something better. The people and
the business of the country have waited and waited long enough.
They have endured the outrages and hardships imposed by the bad
nuethods and iniquities of the transportation system of the country long
eñough.
If there are to be some mistakes let them be made on the side of the
business and the people of this country, and let experience show
wherein they are mistakes, and we will correct them by and by when
we get the light sufficient to guide us in that action. But let us not
pass this day by, or this session of Congress by, without giving an af-
firmative response to the well-grounded demand of the people and the
business men and farmers of this country that they shall have relief
from the wrongs and bad practices that now lie imbedded in the present
method of administering the transportation system of the United
States.
Mr. MORRILL. Recognizing the Senator from Iowa as a good law-
yer who has studied this bill with diligence, I desire to call his atten-
tion to one provision in the bill. Of course we all understand that if
this bill should pass the Canadian roads can not be affected by it so
far as we are concerned, and therefore the bankrupt roads in Canada
are likely to have all the business that they can do. Beyond all ques-
tion, that is to be the practical result; we are to give a very large share
of our business to Canada.
On the third page of this bill, in the second paragraph of the sixth
section, I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Iowa to this
phraseology: "
Any freight shipped from the United States through a foreign country into
the United States, the through rate on which shall not have been made public
as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United States from
said foreign country, be subject to customs duties as if said freight were of for-
eign production.
I desire to know how we are to obtain that from the Canadian roads?
How can we compel them to give this notice of their rates ?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I have not before me the print of the bill
that the Senator from Vermont has.
280
Mr MORRILL. I will give my copy to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Perhaps the Senator from Illinois, who has
charge of the bill, can readily answer the question.
Mr. CULLOM. The language of the bill on the subject referred to
by the Senator from Vermont is that the Canada road, if you please,
which begins at Chicago and ends at Portland, shall publish its through
rates from Chicago to Portland, and if it declines or fails to do so, then
the provision in reference to customs duties shall apply.
Mr. MORRILL. But the road does not begin at Chicago.
Mr. CULLOM. The road begins at Chicago, practically.
Mr. PAJ, MER. If the Senator from Vermont will excuse me, I will
state that the road begins at Chicago by a late arrangement. They
now control the Detroit and Milwaukee road, which runs through
Michigan, and which is now a part of the Grand Trunk system.
Mr. SEWELL. I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois a
Question.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa has the
floor.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Then the Senator from Vermont was mis-
taken in his premises.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey ap-
peals to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. SEWELL. I desire to ask the Senator from Illinois if that
provision for a charge of duties on the freight of the Canada road would
not be an abrogation of the treaty of Washington ?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Iowa yield?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I had yielded the floor generally.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not understand that it would. My impression
is that that provision of the treaty of Washington has been abrogated
at some time, and if it were not, this is a police regulation by which
the United States has a right to require notice to be given, and if the
road does not comply with it the penalty will attach.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to say in regard to the treaty of Washing-
ton that the thirtieth article of it, which seemed to be the principal
one which embarrassed some railway gentlemen, was without their
knowing it, which was very strange, terminated on the 1st of July,
1885, and is no longer in force.
Mr. CULLOM. So I understand.
Mr. EDMUNDS. The twenty-ninth article relates exclusively to
the cross-transportation between one country and the other over the
territories of the other, where duties shall not be charged in the coun-
try through which the goods go; and that has nothing to do with this
question at all. So, in my humble opinion, after having examined it,
there is no ground whatever for the pretension that among all the other
evils that will happen if we pass this bill we are going to get into any
difficulty in regard to contravening the provisions of the existing reg-
ulations with Great Britain.
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I wish to say a single word in an-
swer to the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, in regard to the extract
which I read from his speech. I certainly intended to say nothing that
was discourteous or not complimentary to the Senator.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I hope the gentleman did not understand
me as lodging any complaint of that kind, for I certainly did not do it.
Mr. ALDRICH. I meant to create the impression that while the
words used in his speech were the argument of an attorney, the judg-
ment and the conclusions of the utterances were those of a statesman.
281
I am sure there is nothing in the portion of the speech which I have
read, or the remainder of it, that would cause the Senator from Iowa
to be anything else but proud that it should be contrasted either in its
style or spirit or in its conclusiveness with his later utterances in
another capacity.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I am not taking any exception whatever to
the use the Senator from Rhode Island made of my remarks. It has
afforded me an opportunity to express publicly in my place as a Sena-
tor mythorough revision and reformation of the mistaken views I then
entertained concerning the interests involved.
Mr. ALDRICH. The principal reason which the Senator from Iowa
has given up to this moment for this change of heart is that the law in
Massachusetts works so well that he thinks it ought to have a larger
application. There is no possible analogy between the two laws or ine-
tween the two conditions. The act of Massachusetts prohibits a larger
charge for a shorter than for a longer haul from the same original point
of departure.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Still it is a question of a long and short
haul. *
Mr. ALDRICHſ. There is always a question of a long and short haul
in every iaw regulating transportation, but they are as unlike as black
is from white. They are as far apart as the north pole fron, the south
pole.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. ALDRICH. Certainly.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That is simply a difference of opinion be-
tween the Senator from Rhode Island, myself, and others with respect
to the construction to be placed upon that law in view of the language
of the bill now before us.
Mr. ALDRICH. It is not a question of construction at all, but a
question of fact. The Legislature of Massachusetts in 1872 deliber-
ately refused to pass a bill which, in its provisions, was like the one now
under consideration in the Senate, and they did pass a bill as unlike
as it could possibly be. The Camden amendment, which was under
discussion in the Senate so long, was to strike out the very words which
are in the Massachusetts law, and which are not in this bill, and which
every Senator who spoke on the subject admitted changed radically
and fundamentally the provisions of the bill.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Nevertheless the Legislature enacted a law
with reference to the language of which there may be a difference of
opinion. There is a difference of opinion as to the effect of the language
of that Massachusetts law.
Mr. ALDRICH. From the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth to
the present hour they have enacted a great many laws, and most of
them have as little relation to this section now before the Senate as the
section in the law to which the Senator now refers. As I said before,
they are as unlike as any two provisions can be, the words “from the
Original point of departure” preserving all the natural advantages of
competitive points, and forbidding the very thing which this bill re-
quires, which is the discrimination against competitive points and in
favor of non-competitive points.
But if the statute of Massachusetts was identical with this, it is no
reason why an act in its application to a small and dense community
should be beneficial over the great extent of this country from one end
to the other.
The Senator from Iowa said another thing, that perhaps the manu-
282
facturers of Massachusetts and Rhode Island did not want to see the
manufactures of Iowa built up. The manufacturers of Massachusetts
and Rhode Island are situated upon the waters of the Atlantic Ocean
or very near them. They have a commerce to the West and to every
part of the world which you can not restrict by your legislation and
which you can not take from us. We are connected with the water-
ways through the Hudson River and the Erie Canal and the great lakes
with the West and with the South, and you can not prevent it. It is
a State-like Iowa, a State like Colorado, a State like Kansas, or a State
like Nebraska, which is absolutely dependent upon cheap rates of trans-
portation by long hauls to the seaboard that this bill is going to affect.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That business which can not be interfered
with, as the Senator from Rhode Island says, because they have water
transportation, may be very seriously interfered with if the people of
Iowa and Nebraska should develop manufacturing establishments which
would give them the products that are now shipped from Massachu-
setts and Rhode Island to those States.
. Mr. ALDRICH. The people of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, so
far as they are represented upon this floor, and I know the Senators from
Massachusetts will coincide with this expression of opinion, will wel-
come with gladness a development of manufactures in every village, in
every hamlet of the West, in Iowa, or any other of the great agricul-
tural States, and they will do as much here and now or at any other
time for such development as will produce such results as any Senator
on this floor.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to trespass on the indulgence of the Sen-
ate for a single minute, not to go into debate, but to just simply read
the one hundred and ninetieth section of the General Statutes of Mass-
achusetts, which appear to have been passed, so far as this section goes,
in 1874, and which appear to be in force still on this subject of long
and short hauls, without much, if any, comment:
SEC. 190. No railroad corporation shall charge or receive for the transportation
of freight to any station on its road a greater sum than is at the time charged
or received for the transportation of the like class and quantity of freight from
the same original point of departure to a station at a greater distance on its road
in the same direction.
Then it provides that two or more railroads making one line shall
be subject to the same condition, &c.: f
In the construction of this section the sum charged or received for the trans-
portation of freight shall include all terminal charges; and the road of a cor-
poration shall include all the road in use by it, whether owned or operated
under a contract or lease.
Here is the fourth section of this bill, as recommended by the com-
mittee of conference: -
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act to charge or receive any greater connpensation in the aggregate—
Which is not in the Massachusetts statute, but it seems to be for the
benefit of the company—
for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substan-
tially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer dis-
tance over the same line, in the same direction.
I am unable to see, I confess, how it is possible to distinguish in legal
interpretation the Massachusetts statute from this clause that I have
read. It does not say, as the Massachusetts statute, ‘‘ from the same
original point of departure,” but if it be under like circumstances and
conditions it must be from the same original point of departure. The
*~.
283
only trouble that we had when this bill was before the Senate and was
so long and exhaustively discussed, was as to whether there ought not
to be added the words “the same point of arrival,” and the Senate,
after discussion, on a yea-and-nay vote, inserted the words “the same
point of arrival,” so as to meet it at both ends. This change of phra-
seology appears now to be a shorter, and I must say not so clear a state-
ment of precisely the same thing that the Senate bill contained.
Mr. HOAR. Mr. President, I do not wish to detain the Senate at
this late hour over this incidental question which has come Up. The
question whether the words “starting from the same original point of
departure” do or do not make a substantial difference in this bill has
been, I think, sufficiently discussc.d before the Senate. It would take
half an hour to restate that argument in full, and I shall not undertake
to do it now. It is enough to say that it has been for the first time
heard of in railroad discussion that these two things were not essen-
tially different.
In the first place, the Legislature that passed the Massachusetts stat-
ute rejected one and adopted the other. In the next place, the chair-
man of the railroad commissioners, familiar with her whole railroad
policy and her great railroad authority, declares that they are totally
different, and that one never would have been adopted if those words
had not been in. Next, the Senate, when this measure originally passed,
struggled over that matter for a long time, and struck out the words
“from the same original point of departure,” the Senator from Ver-
mont voting for it, in order, however, that he might afterward put the
words back with an additional qualification, so that the qualification
should apply to both ends—to the point of departure and the point of
arrival. So if any authority may be cited to that effect, the authority
of my friend from Vermont may be cited.
But I did not raise this question for the purpose of renewing the
discussion. I thought when the Senator from Iowa cited an eminent
Massachusetts authority against me, it was perfectly fair that the Sen-
ate and the public should see that that eminent gentleman declared in
the strongest manner his opinion against the present proposition and
in favor of the other, and his statement that the two were distinct. I
admit that my honorable friend from Iowa is a reformed man, if that
will do him any good.
Mr. ALLISON. Before the Senator from Massachusetts sits down
I wish he would simply define what the words “the original point of
departure ?? in the Massachusetts statute mean. I should like to know
it in this connection, because then I shall be enabled more clearly
to see the difference which he says exists between the phraseology of
this bill and that statute. The Senator from Vermont certainly sees
practically no difference. The Senator from Massachusetts sees a
marked difference. Now, if he will tell us just what the words “the
original point of departure” mean in the Massachusetts statute I
shall be obliged, because I do not comprehend it even at this moment
after all the debate, especially after what I have just heard.
Mr. HOAR. There does not at this moment occur to me any phrase
in the English language which makes it more clear than the language
itself. The Senator might as well ask me to define to him what I think
two and two mean.
Mr. ALLISON. Very well; then I will put my question in another
form. The Senator from Vermont understands the phraseology to be
substantially the phraseology of the Massachusetts statute. The Sen-
ator from Massachusetts says that is not true, and quotes the Senator
284
from Vermont last July to prove it. I should be glad to have the
Senator from Massachusetts clearly point out to me that distinction.
Mr. EDMUNDS. So should I; but he can not do it, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont has the
floor.
Mr. HOAR. He can not do it, because the Senator from Vermont
has the floor. -
Mr. EDMUNDS. I will yield the floor to the Senator from Massa-
chusetts to point it out, if he wishes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
conference report. *
Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator from Massachusetts is not quite ready
to point it out.
Mr. HOAR. What does the Senator mean by saying that I am not
quite ready to point it out?
Mr. EDMUNDS. Pecause I yielded to you to point out, in answer
to the Senator from Iowa, the difference that you had suggested.
Mr. HOAR. Does the Senator mean to say that he does not think
there is any diſference between two classes of freight which come from
the same starting point and two classes that do not?
Mr. EDMUN DS. I only mean to say that I yielded to the Senator
from Massachusetts to answer the Senator from Iowa, and then I will
state what I think I mean.
Mr. HOAR. I mean from the same railroad starting point to the
point of destination where the freight is put down.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont has the
floor. -
Mr. EDMUNDS. The Senator from Massachusetts having made all
the explanation he wishes, I will proceed.
I am under the impression myself that I stand to-day exactly where
I did in July last, if that was the time when this section was under
discussion by the Senate. The bill as reported only had in the phrase
“original point of departure ?' and had not in the phrase “the point
of arrival,” so that leaving it as it then stood, as it appeared to me,
goods night be sent ſrom Chicago to Boston at one rate, at a dollar a
ton, while the same railroad line and the same corporation, if there
were one, might charge the same rate or more from Worcester to Bos-
ton, a distance of 40 miles, because the original point of departure
from Chicago and from Worcester would, to most minds, appear to be
different and not the same. Accordingly, I did what I could to per-
suade the Senate that that was incomplete and that the phrase “the
point of arrival” ought to be inserted, and the Senate thought so too.
I have never maintained, and I can not see now how it is possible to
distinguish in substance the provision of the Massachusetts act, which
is of course only an incident to this debate, from the substance of the
provision which the conference committee has reported. I agree that
it does not appear to my mind to be so clear as it was as the Senate
left it; but I believe that it means the same thing, and if it turns out
not to mean the same thing that we shall correct it; I am for taking
it as it is.
Mr. HOAR. The very case that I read from the railroad commis-
sioner was an illustration of the precise thing on which Judge Russell
bases his argument. There were two conveyances of coal to the town
of Pitsfield, one from Albany and one from Hudson, the farthest point
on the Boston and Albany road. The coal departing from Hudson, the
farthest point, went for a dollar a ton. The coal departing from Albany,
285
the nearest point, was charged a dollar and twenty-five cents. The
railroad commissioners of Massachusetts stated the reason which, be-
yond all doubt, made one proper and not another, and therefore they
sustained the larger charge for the shorter haul. The statute of Massa-
chusetts did not mean to prohibit it.
Now, take the case of a town on the seaboard for instance. Here is
a town which has a water-way the whole way from Boston to Salem or
to Portland, and there is an intermediate town which has no water-
way. I do not see that it is unreasonable that the railroad which per-
haps could not get the freight which might be water borne unless it
took it at cost or at a trifle above cost, so that it contributed some-
thing to its fixed expenses, should not take that freight. I understand
that some of the Senators who have spoken say this bill does not pre-
vent that, while others think it does.
Mr. ALLISON. If the Senator will allow me to interrupt him right
there I will state that Judge Deady, of Oregon, upon precisely a sim-
ilar statute, decided that this fourth section, if that is the section of
the Oregon statute, was to be construed with the other provisions of the
act, and where water-way competition came in he allowed a receiver
under his own court to charge a less rate, which was done under the
very direction and control of the court, under a statute more rigid than
this one.
Mr. HOAR. Exactly. Now, the supreme court of the State of North
Carolina, as I understood the honorable Senator from Georgia [Mr.
BROWN) to read the decision, has decided just the other way.
Is there any other subject on the face of the earth; is there a matter
which would involve to the people of this country the amount of $10,-
000; is there a private claim to the amount of $10,000, in regard to
which the construction of an act being in dispute between two respect-
able judicial tribunals of this country, you would not recommit to a
committee or bring the act before the Senate before you passed it, to
make that clear? If the Senator from Iowa is right and the Senator
from Mississippi is wrong, if the Senator from Vermont is right and
the Senator from Tennessee is wrong, if the Senator from Illinois is
right and the conferees who forced this into the bill as representatives
of the House are wrong, you have got a question which is to affect gen-
erally the country to the amount of hundreds and thousands of mill-
ions of dollars. All we ask of you is to recommit your bill or disagree
to this committee of conference report, and have language put into the
bill which will settle this question about which these great authorities
dispute.
But when the Senator from Iowa answered me I was simply replying
to the statement of the Senator from Vermont, that he could not see
how it could be just that the town nearer the point of arrival should, in
any case, pay more than the town which was farther from the point of
arrival. My colleague's town of Pittsfield is three times the distance
from Boston that the city in which I reside is; but suppose the people
of that city, as many Western communities bave done, should establish
three or four railroad lines from their own town to the seaboard at
their own cost for the sake of getting the advantage of that competition,
is the statute of the United States, or of Massachusetts, or whatever
legislative power has authority over that matter, to come in and say they
shall not have the benefit of the competition which they have them-
selves paid for?
These railroad lines are not of foreign authority or of foreign power,
brought into this country. They are created very largely at the cost
286
* of the communities that they serve, and it seems to me that if the people
of a particular community have provided themselves with competition,
or if they have settled themselves on the seaboard where they may have
many advantages in the way of soil or climate or water-power, it is un-
just to come in and by this iron-fixed rule say that the natural effect
of competition shall in no case apply to them.
The Senators who claim that this bill has the meaning which we do
not impute to it, concede in substance the reasonableness of our argu-
ments. The Senator from Iowa, the Senator from Vermont, and even
the Senator from Illinois, will not stand up here and say that these
things, which the North Carolina court and the Senators on the other
side of the Chamber, and the Representatives at the other end of the
Capitol, say the bill means, are unjust and ought not to be done. All
we ask of them is to have this bill brought before the Senate and have
the meaning which they impute to it made plain and clear.
Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, the only justification of this debate,
so far as I understand it, is that the minds of the commissioners, who
are to be appointed under the bill, and to whom its interpretation is to
be entrusted, may be enlightened by the cotemporaneous expression of
opinion on the part of those by whom the bill was enacted. I have
heard, I think, the Senator from Illinois and perhaps one or two others
say that when this statute came to be interpreted the commissioners
would revert to the debates which have been had on these various sec-
tions for the purpose of ascertaining what the intendment of the legis-
lator was. I therefore congratulate the Senate upon the unanimity of
opinion which has been exhibited in the interpretation of the fourth
section of this bill. I am satisfied that any commission which might
be appointed, on reverting to these debates, would have a flood of light
shed in upon the darkest recesses of their intellect as to what the in-
tention of the Senate and the conferees was in the provision that they
have inserted about the long and the short haul.
The Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDs] stated that he was un-
able to perceive any difference whatever between the section as it passed
the Senate and as it had been reported by the conference committee.
If an intellect as acute and luminous, as penetrating and profound as
that of the Senator from Vermont can detect no difference whatever
between those two propositions, it is presumptuous in me, with the dull-
ness and opacity of my intellect, to venture to express any opinion as
to the question of difference between the two propositions, and I feel
that I am verging somewhat perhaps upon the extreme limits of pro-
priety when I venture, with much diffidence, to express my opinion
that those two propositions upon the long and the short haul, as con-
tained in the section as it originally passed the Senate and as it comes
out in its second birth from the committee of conference, are just as
widely separated as it is possible for two propositions to be.
In the debate that occurred in April and May last there was no pro-
founder discussion, there was no more elaborate argument presented
upon this bill than that which resulted in the insertion of the line that
this report proposes to strike out. Senators need not refresh their
recollections to any particular extent to bear me out in the statement
that the insertion of the words “from the same original point of de-
parture or to the same point of arrival” was the culmination, the finai
point which was reached in the discussion of the bill.
In the first place, the words “from the same original point of de-
parture ?' after a long debate were stricken out on the motion of the
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDENI. The debate was long;
28
the contention was earnest; the purpose of the Senator from West
Virginia was well understood; and it was only after the debate had
been exhausted upon all the other propositions of the bill that the
Senator from Vermont, with his astuteness in parliamentary practice,
came in and proposed that the words which had been stricken out and
which could not otherwise be inserted in the state the bill then was in
should be again placed in the bill with the addition of the words “as to
the same point of arrival.” Yet the Senator from Vermont rises here in
his place and deliberately declares that the elimination of that line in
this section, which was inserted after all that debate and as the final
result of that debate, does not in any way whatever practically change
the effect of the section.
I understood then, and I understand now, that these words were
inserted in this section for the purpose of making the long and short
haul provision apply to terminal points. The whole debate turned on
that. The question of competition, of competitive points, of the injury
that was done by the discrimination for and against localities entered
into the debate; and Whose words were inserted in the section for the
purpose of making the long and short haul provision apply to com-
petitive terminal points. They may have been ineffectual; I dare say
they were. This proposed statute is in many ways inartificial. It
deals with a subject which can not be formulated. You can not treat
this matter like a scientific problem or a demonstration in Euclid; but
the intention and purpose of those who supported that amendment as
finally perfected by the Senator from Vermont was to make the long
and short haul provision apply to competitive terminal points.
Mr. HOAR. And no other.
Mr. ING ALLS. Yes, sir; and no other. I never would have voted
for the section as it then stood unless I had so clearly understood. I
am very sure that those who thought with me, and who are surrounded
by the same environments in their different localities, never would have
agreed to it unless it was supposed that that line was placed there for
a purpose after weeks of travail in debate, and that it meant something;
and that something is what, in my judgment and my belief, was de-
signed by those who voted for it. That section is intended, or was
intended, to do away with the discrimination that railroads have made
between localities.
Now, what is the effect of it as it stands to-day? The Senator from
Illinois in reporting this bill has seen fit, after consenting to the elim-
ination of that line, to agree to the insertion of the following:
The shorter being included within the longer distance.
What does that mean as it stands to-day? It means the application
of the long and short haul principle to every single mile of road upon
the common carrier’s way, no matter where it may be located, between
the two terminal points, and it applies to every pound of freight that
may be transported over that line, no matter from what point it starts
or at what point it is to arrive. It does not do to attempt to darken
counsel by words without wisdom in this matter. It does not do to ask
gentlemen to close their eyes to this great question and say after we
had agreed to that proposition that we should now agree to the other
because that debate was nothing, meant nothing, resulted in nothing,
and that therefore this should be accepted because it means practically
the same as the other.
Mr. President, let us not close our eyes to what this proposition
means. I say to that board of commissioners in the future, that is to
come without political influence, having no interest in the stocks or
288
bonds of common carriers, or anything else so far as I know, and not
being pecuniarily interested in them, and not being permitted to en-
gage in any other business or avocation or profession—I say to them
that as I understand the long and short haul provision, it applies as it
now stands to every single mile of track upon any railroad, no matter
where it may be, between the terminal points, and to every pound of
freight of like character or quality which may be transported over it.
You can not escape from it unless that language meant nothing, and
was designed for nothing and intended for nothing.
That means local rates for every pound of freight carried over these
roads. That means the abolition of all this system of cheap long hauls
under which, by the benefits of competition, distances have been equal-
ized and the commonwealth has been shrunk up to a span’s breadth,
so that practically the man who lives in Dakota or in Colorado is placed
upon the same footing and condition, so far as the results of his labor
are concerned, as the man who lives immediately upon the seaboard.
You propose by this measure to abolish all that and to declare that
hereafter, so far as we are concerned, every pound of freight that moves
upon these railroads shall pay its equal proportionate share of freight
money for every mile over which it passes.
I took occasion in a former debate to express my opinions about the
effects of this position, and I do not propose to renew them now; but
it is a little singular, notwithstanding all that has been said about this
proposition, that the result of it, in the opinion of the Senator from
Illinois, the Senator from Rhode Island, and the Senator from Ver-
mont, is entirely speculative and problematic. No one can tell what
the result will be. No one can predigt what effect this cast-iron, rigid
provision inserted into this proposed statute aud affecting the business
of this country will have.
Therefore it is that the committee of conference have agreed to the
provision of the bill as it originally stood in the Senate text, providing
that this section so far as its provisions apply to distant rates may be
disregarded by the commission. I suppose that this is the first time
in the history of legislation that such power as this was declared, that
such a declaration was made that this particular discrimination should
be unlawful, that it should be denounced in a legislative enactment,
and at the same time that the tribunal which was created to enforce
the law should in specific terms be authorized to abrogate, veto, annul,
and repeal it. * -
That is a sufficient answer to all that has been said in behalf of this
section. As it now stands, it is absolutely nugatory and rhust be; and
I feel encouraged to vote for the measure as it stands because under the
interpretation that must be given to it, if this construction were to be
held to be the one intended by the legislature, it would be a revolu-
tion. This country could not remain in peace for thirty days under
the rigid application of the provisions of the fourth section prior to
the proviso. Not a pound of freight, not a bushel of corn or wheat,
no beef nor pork that is raised on those great fertile plains beyond the
Missouri could be carried east of the Ohio River; its value would be
consumed in the price of transportation and would leave the man who
raised it without compensation for his labor.
I am satisfied that no such provision as that can ever be carried into
effect, and when the section goes on further to provide that upon the
application of the commissioners appointed under the provisions of this
act, such common carrier may in special cases be authorized to charge
2S9
less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of pas-
sengers or property, the whole thing is given away.
In the first place, the committee themselves confess that the provis-
ions in the first part of the section are untenable; they admit that no
such provision could be enforced with safety to commerce or the pro-
ductive energies of this country; but they have placed it in this bill in
obedience to a great public demand for legislation to prevent what we
all admit and recognize is unjust, invidious, and untenable—discrimi-
nation with regard to the transportation of freight not only in the East
but in the West, not only with regard to the long hauls from compet-
ing terminal points, but from points in the interior elsewhere.
My attention was called not long since to the situation on one rail-
road in my own State, where shippers at an intermediate point midway
between Kansas City and Denver desiring to send wheat to Denver city,
were compelled by the discriminating rates to send their grain at local
rates 250 miles back to Kansas City, and ship at through rates from
Kansas City to Denver; and they made money by the operation. Is
there any justice in that ? Is not that a discrimination which ought
to be guarded against 2
Therefore I say that the reason which prompted, as I suppose, the
committee to agree to this extraordinary provision was to guard against
such local discriminations as I have mentioned, knowing as they did
that the application of these rules to competing terminal points could
not be enforced without destruction to the commerce of this country.
I regard the fourth section in its application to local discriminations
as valuable. Iregard it in its attempt to enforce the long-and-short-haul
provision against through freights between great terminal and com-
peting points as absolutely nugatory and ineffectual, and I believe that
the commission will so regard it, and that they will in every case, when
their attention is called to this clause, rule in favor of the long cheap
haul, and not to establish distance short-haul rates.
This bill, as I understand, is one to regulate commerce, not to wreck
it, or destroy it, or ruin it. Its purpose is humane and beneficent. It
is in the interest of the producers of the country, and I understand that
the commission to be created will so administer and interpret this sec-
tion and so administer and interpret the other sections that may be pre-
sented to them for execution as to effectuate justice, and not to work
dishonor and ruin to the country.
There has been a suspicious unanimity of assault upon two sections
of this bill. It appears to me, or rather I may say that I have a grow-
ing suspicion, that the attacks which have been made from all quar-
ters, pamphleteers, leading editors, boards of trade, railroad attorneys,
local organs of opinion, against these sections, proceed rather from those
who prefer to have no legislation at all, and are convinced that if the
proposed bill can be made odious by attacking these two sections that
result will be obtained.
We have been regaled with repeated arguments against sections 4
and 5 of the bill. We have been assured that in its general provisions
the proposed law is beneficent, that it is intended to cure existing de-
fects, but that it contains provisions which, if enforced, will be fatal to
the interests of the country. So we have heard these arguments against
sections 4 and 5. The artillery has played upon them, the cavalry have
charged upon them, the infantry have fired their volleys at them; Tray,
Blanche, and Sweetheart have all barked at them, with the intention,
I S C–19
290
as I believe, of securing as far as possible—I am speaking now of the
inundation of information which has been poured upon me, and I sup-
pose upon other Senators outside of this chamber, of printed and writ-
ten literature—with the purpose, I say, if these two sections can be made
to appear especially odious, that legislation upon this subject may be
indefinitely procrastinated and postponed.
We have been told that pooling was one of the beneficent operations
of the railroad system. The pooling that I understand the fifth sec-
tion to be directed against is a pooling that has been a criminal con-
spiracy against Society. It has been a pooling that has enabled rail-
roads to continue a career of unrestrained depredation upon the welfare
of society. Who has not been familiar with the anthracite-coal pool 2
Who has not heard of the combination by which the dressed beef of
Chicago was to be prevented from reaching the markets of New York?
Who has not heard of the Standard Oil combination, by which, through
a pooling arrangement between the railroads and these companies, one
of the great natural products of the earth has been restrained and con-
fined 2 *
That is the kind of pooling I understand that this section is directed
against. It is the kind of pooling by which a bankrupt, spendthrift
beggar of a railroad that never ought to have been built, that can not
obtain the means of support in the country through which it passes,
that is a burden upon the earth, may succeed by cutting rates, as I
remember in one case one railroad did from Kansas City to Saint Louis,
reducing passenger rates to a dollar, and it continued to carry pas-
sengers at that rate until the great, solvent, profitable corporations, in
order to protect themselves from that ruinous and mendicant compe-
tition, were compelled to admit the road into a pool upon an agree-
ment to divide the receipts for passengers equally between these routes
according to their mileage between the two points. One result that I
concede will come from that section against pooling, and which I
shall be glad to have result from it, will be the abandonment of that
process and the relinquishment of the roads which are in that condi-
tion to their original elements.
. There are thousands of miles of road in this country that never ought
to have been built. There are thousands of miles of road running
through this country which would be better off if the rails were taken
up and sold for old iron, and the ties for cord-wood, and the right of
way planted in corn. * -
This section is a notification to those who are engaged in building
parallel lines of road all over this country, particularly in the West,
duplicating lines, building unnecessary and superfluous feeders, and,
as they call it, invading a hostile territory, it is a notification to
them that that process must stop, and it is a matter of importance to
the community that it should stop, and that no more roads should be
builded than are required either for the present or for the immediately
prospective wants of the communities through which they pass.
This section does not prevent beneficent co-operation between rail-
roads in a healthy condition. They have a right to unite for any pur-
pose that they may see fit under the provisions of the bill, but pooling
has a distinct meaning and significance. While there may be instances
and cases in which pooling may be perhaps not wholly guilty, in the
great majority of cases these railroad combinations are made for the
express purpose of conspiring with those interested in them and in the
other great staples of life to put the thumb-screws on the common peo-
291
ple, and increase the price of their bread, and their clothing, and their
food, and all the necessaries of life.
Mr. EDMUNDS. And diminish the profits of their products that
they want to send away.
Mr. ING ALLS. Therefore, so far as these two sections are concerned,
while they are not ideally perfect, while I admit that by the confes-
sion of the committee itself they are nugatory, at least one of them,
and impossible of being carried into effect, so far as the suggestions
which have been made about the application to the great-distance
hauls from the interior are concerned, the effect upon these minor dis-
criminations both against locality and against the individual direct
will be beneficent, and therefore they ought to be supported.
But there are matters in which, in my opinion, the bill is even more
fatally defective, if that were possible, than in the particulars to which
attention has been called. I regret that I have to vote for it, and I
think there are a great many others in the same condition. This is a
bill which practically nobody wants and which everybody intends to
vote for, a bill which nobody is satisfied with and which everybody
intends to accept, a bill which nobody knows what it means and yet
we have all agreed it ought to pass.
I wish to call the attention of the Senate to one other particular in
which I think the bill is open to the greatest criticism, and if it were
not for the brief space that will intervene between the time it goes into
effect and the reassembling of Congress, if it were not for the great
discretionary power confided to the commissioners who are to be se-
lected, I should hesitate what to do. On page 11, lines 44, 45, and 46,
I find the following language: •
Reductions in such published rates, fares, or charges may be made without
previous public notice.
Mr. President, we have been told about the great injuries that re-
sulted from railroad wars in this country. We have been admonished
of the difficulties which resulted from the contest between these cor-
porations for freights and for passengers. We have provided that no
increase in rates shall be made without first giving ten days’ public
notice and posting them up where they can be inspected by the public;
and yet, in that same connection we have declared that reductions in
published rates, fares, or charges may be made without previous public
notice. A more vicious and dangerous provision never was incorpo-
rated in a statute &
Mr. ALLISON. That was put in by the Senate. %
Mr. CULLOM. Is the Senator aware that he voted for that provis-
ion at the last session ? --
Mr. ING ALLS. And I am going to vote for this; I am going to be
entirely consistent. I ask the Senator to possess his soul in patience.
Suppose that there is a great, sudden congestion or accumulation of
freights in Chicago which require transportation to the city of New
York, to the seaboard. All the rates have been publicly established
and due notice given, and the public have adjusted themselves to them,
and yet under the provisions of this bill any common carrier in this
country has the right instantaneously, without public notice, to go to
any one of the great provision or grain dealers or commission or ship-
ping merchants in Chicago and say, “I will take your freight for one-
tenth of what it can be taken by any other common carrier running
between these two points.”
Is that justice, Mr. President? Does that prevent wars between
railroad companies for freight or for passengers ? Does that prevent
#
292
the cutting of rates ? This bill, to have been logical, to have been
just, ought to have provided that the same notice should be given of a
reduction in rates and fares as of an increase in rates and fares. I am
by no means sure that, inasmuch as a direct temptation is offered to a
reduction of rates, the inhibition against a reduction without public
notice ought to bave been more severe than the inhibition against an
increase of rates without due public notice.
I had marked a number of other points upon which I had intended
to comment, but as I think I have already given sufficient reasons why
I shall support the bill, I will now yield to the motion which I under-
stand is to be made to recommit with instructions. -
Mr. SPOONER. I have desired to address the Senate briefly upon
one or two propositions contained in the bill, although I realize that
the measure was passed after so long a discussion. I presume that the
Senator from Illinois who has charge of the bill desires in any event
that final action shall be had upon it this evening. Does the Senator
from Illinois intend to sit the bill out?
Mr. CULLOM. I shall ask the Senate to do so, as I gave notice yes-
terday, and as there was unanimous consent that we should.
Mr. SPOONER. Then I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate,
although weary, for a short time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin has the
floor. º
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I think I do not underestimate the
complexity and dimensions of this subject. The States have one
after another during the last fifteen years passed laws within the
sphere of State legislation for regulating commerce, but up to this
time ‘‘commerce among the several States’’ has gone without the
exercise of the regulating power confessedly conferred by the Con-
stitution upon Congress, and we are brought to face the problem
to-day with about 130,000 miles of railway in operation in the United
States, and the situation pregnant with discriminations and other
evils, very marked and very gross, against which the people have
long and justly complained. I have deplored somewhat the spirit
in which one or two Senators have approached the discussion of this
subject. Recognizing the evils to be eradicated, and sincerely de-
siring that a remedy be found for them, I do not feel called upon to
justify strong legislation by an arraignment of the railway companies
of the country and their managers for general want of business sense or
of business integrity. *.
It has been my fortune, good or ill, for the greater part of my pro-
fessional life to have had some connection with railways. I have, there-
fore, seen something of the difficulties under which some railway car-
riers of the country have labored, and I have intimately known rail-
way managers, honorable men, who have won fame in their profession—
and the management of railways has grown to be a profession—who
have risen from the lowest grade of railway work, who never gamble
in railway stocks, who have endeavored in conservative ways to main-
tain their properties, to deal fairly by the people and faithfully by their
stockholders, made gray too soon in life by vain efforts to maintain
rates, and to carry on the business of transportation in a just and fair
manner. Many of the evils which we seek to eradicate have been of
slow growth. They are attributable in part, in my judgment, to the
railroad companies, somewhat to the legislative policy of the States,
and somewhat to the logic of events.
The rapid growth of the country, the stimulus of the war, the flush
293
times following the resumption of specie payments, and the wild spirit
of speculation which flush times always bring, led to the too rapid con-
struction of railways. They have been built where they were not
needed, and for purely speculative purposes. The strife between com-
peting companies has grown to be wild and senseless, and out of this
strife have come the rebate, free transportation, special rates, commis-
sions, pools, and all manner of favoritism and discrimination. These
methods have been in vogue so long that the companies seem to have
grown to regard them as a part of their prescriptive rights. The
States have aided in this consummation somewhat by the unrestrained
generosity with which they have granted corporate franchises. In al-
most every State of the Union upon the payment of a dollar or two a
franchise is granted to be a corporation, clothed with the power to
construct and operate a railway, and with the great power of eminent
domain, and with authority to capitalize and to issue bonds at will,
regardless of question as to the public need or utility of such a fran-
chise.
The immense capitalization of which the Senator from Florida [Mr.
CALL] has earnestly spoken as so largely fictitious, has, I dare to say,
been largely under authority of State legislation. In almost every in-
stance in which stocks are to-day considered as watered, the increase
of capital has been under authority of State laws, and it would not be
unwisdom for the States even now to adopt stringent laws granting
franchises to construct railways only where upon investigation it is
found that they would subserve a public instead of a purely speculative
purpose, and prohibiting the issue of stocks and bonds except for money
actually invested in construction, equipment, and betterment, in order
that, looking to the great future before us in the way of railway con-
struction and otherwise, and taking counsel of the past, the people
shall be protected from rates of freight which are fixed in part with -
reference to affording interest upon money which did not enter into cost.
I have said this much because I should regret, in the public inter-
est, to have it understood that this legislation is in any degree for the
purpose of inflicting punishment for past corporate misdeeds, or is any-
thing other than an honest endeavor to fairly correct palpable evils, and
being enacted in that spirit I hope the carriers of the country will,
without captiousness, accept it. I know, as does every member of the
Senate, that, after long waiting, the people will be bitterly disappointed
if this Congress shall adjourn leaving its sessions as barren of legisla-
tion upon this subject as have been those of its predecessors, and I
would not willingly aid in such a result. If I felt, however, as to this
bill and its construction as the Senator from Kansas [Mr. ING ALLS] has
expressed himself, I could not be brought, in deference to any clamor,
or upon any consideration, in any event, to support it.
I live in a State, Mr. President, which I think can as well as any
State in the Union get along safely with the “long haul short haul.”
experiment as strictly as Congress may see fit to adopt it. Wiscon-
sin is bounded in part by the Mississippi River. Its great commercial
metropolis, Milwaukee, sits on the banks of Lake Michigan. To the -
northward is Lake Superior. It has railways leading from the in-
terior in every direction to these water ways, and to-day Canadian
money is building a railroad across that State to the Sault to connect
with a railroad to Montreal. While it would not be, in my judgment,
patriotic, or even fair statesmanship, for me to act upon this question
solely with reference to its effect upon my own State, I trust. I may be
pardoned for remarking that if Iowa and Kansas and Nebraska and
294
Colorado can tolerate the “long haul short haul” principle, certainly
Wisconsin and Minnesota need not fear it.
I voted for the measure which passed the Senate, and I have exam-
ined with great care the amendments reported by the conference com-
mittee, not for the purpose of finding foundation for criticism, but
with a view to reconcile the cordial support of this report with my
sense of public duty.
* DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CONNECTING CARRIERS.
The conference committee has added to the bill a few lines in section
3, which, in my opinion, greatly improve the section and the bill. I
quote part of the section,italicizing the words added: “Every common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according to their re-
spective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for
the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the re-
ceiving, forwarding, and delivering of passengers and property to and
from their several lines and those connecting therewith, and shall not
discriminate in their rates and charges between such connecting limes.”
The principle embodied in the amendment will serve a wise purpose
as a general regulation. Congress long ago imposed the same in a
qualified way upon the Union Pacific and Northern Pacific Companies,
and the failure sometimes to observe that corporate obligation has been
a detriment to other carriers and to large regions of country.
“LONG HAUL, SHORT HAUL.” -
The sections of the bill as reported by the conference committee
which are most criticized in the press and in the argument of railroad
men and pool commissioners, are sections 4 and 5, the former the “long
haul short haul’’ section, the latter the anti-pooling section. I beg
leave, though late in the day and in the debate, to present briefly my
views upon these sections for the information of those to whom I am
answerable. Section 4 when reported to the Senate by the Senator
from Illinois at the last session was as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive
any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers
or property subject to the provisions of this act for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, and from the same original
point of departure: Provided, however, That upon application to the commission
appointed under the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in spe-
cial cases, be authorized to charge less for ionger than for shorter distances for
the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from
time to time make general rules covering exceptions to any such common car-
rier, in cases where there is competition by river, Sea, canal, or lake, exempting
such designated common carrier in such special cases from the operation of this
section of this act; and when such exceptions shall have been made and pub-
lished they shall have like force and effect as though the same had been specified
in this section.
This was, as I remember it, practically a copy of the Massachusetts
law. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN) moved to strike
out, as Senators will recollect, the words “from the same original
point of departure,” so as to leave it an unqualified prohibition upon a
railway company from charging more for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line in the same direction, &c. I felt it to be
my duty to oppose, with all the earnestness and vigor I could command,
that proposition. I insisted to the Senate that it was an attempt to
discriminate on the part of Congress between points which possessed
advantages in the way of competition and those which had none, that
it was not just in itself, but was a sort of socialism precisely kindred
to that spirit which calls upon the rich to divide with the poor in order
that they may be thereby put more upon an equality. I urged upon
295
the Senate that it discriminated against the West and the far West,
that it stifled competition, that it would lengthen the distance between
the sea and the West, would force up the low through rates which had
built up the West, and would be destructive to the interest of the farmer,
the cattle-raiser, the dairymen of the West, and the merchants, manu-
facturers, and consumers of the East, and, moreover, would, in my judg-
ment, not result in lowering local rates.
Mr. President, that proposition, bald and bare as it was, was adopted
by the Senate, leaving what seemed to me simply an arbitrary, un-
reasonable, undiscriminating prohibition upon a railway company, un-
der any circumstances, charging more for a shorter than for a longer
distance, on the same road, &c., thus impounding the competitive forces
of the country. My opinion as to the effect of such a provision has
undergone no change, and if the section had thus remained in the bill
I could not, with my convictions, have voted for its passage, as I did.
Before the passage of the bill, however, upon the motion of the Senator
from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH], the words “like kind of property,
under substantially similar circumstances and conditions,” were added,
and then, upon motion of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDs],
the words stricken out by the Camden amendment were restored, with
added words, so that the section, as the bill passed, was as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater connpensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a
longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, and from the same
original point of departure or to the same point of arrival ; but this shall not be
construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to
charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance :
Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, be author-
ized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation
of passengers or property ; and the commission may from time to time make
general rules exempting such designated common carrier in such special cases
from the operation of this section of this act; and when such exceptions shall
have been made and published they shall, until changed by the commission or
by law, have like force and effect as though the same had been specified in this
Section.
As reported by the conference committee it is as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be lawful for any common carrier subject to the provis-
ions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in th: aggregate
for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substan-
tially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer dis-
tance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great conn-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance : Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier Irras, in special cases, after investigation by the commission,
be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the trans-
portation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to
time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be re-
lieved from the operation of this section of this act.
The opponents of this hill construe it to mean what I construed it
to mean as amended upon the motion of the Senator from West Vir-
ginia. I think the Senator from Kansas [Mr. ING ALLSJ so construes
it, and, if it bears that construction, I can not vote for it. But, sir,
when the Senate inserted in this section the words “like kind of prop-
erty, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions,” it
robbed the section of what to my mind had been so objectionable, and
I have not been able to consider it, as reported by the conference com-
mittee, justly liable to the objections which are urged against it. I
296
think the change in it is not substantial, and, as I construe it, I see no
great occasion to fear its operation, although I sincerely desire, dealing
as it does with a matter of great consequence, that it be made plainer
in one particular at least. I agree in substance with the construction
which the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] puts upon the section.
It will be observed that it does not prohibit under all circumstances
the charging by a carrier of more for a short haul than for a long haul,
as it did, and as it would, without the words “under substantially
similar circumstances and conditions.” Manifestly it is only sought
here to formulate a general principle. More than that would be in-
consistent with the elasticity absolutely essential to such a statute.
What rule does it declare?
That it shall be unlawful for any connnnon carrier, &c., to charge or receive
any greater compensation in the aggregate (not per ton per mile, as its critics
argue) for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a
longer distance, over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being in-
cluded within the longer distance.
What element of unfairness does this rule possess? Who will under-
take to assert the converse of the proposition, and to maintain that a
railway company ought to be permitted to charge for transporting a
like kind of property under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions, on the same line, in the same direction, more for a short
distance than for a greater distance? It is not fair to read the section
as though the words “under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions” were omitted. Without them it would be fatally wanting
in elasticity. It would take no account of advantages or disadvantages
of location, of competitive elements, of the question whether it was an
original shipment, to be loaded and handled by the carrier making the
charge, and to go solely over its line, or was carried as part of a through
line, on the mileage basis, &c. *
The words “under substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions” are powerful words in that connection. They must be construed
to mean something. They were put there originally because they meant
something, and because the Senate was not satisfied with the iron rule
which the section constituted without those words. Under any just con-
struction they would seem to leave ample room for the play of competi-
tive forces. The words are not technical words, although they have been
construed by the courts. They are words of common, well understood
signification. Webster defines “substantially ” to mean “really, es-
sentially.” “Similar” is defined to mean “resembling closely, some-
what alike, nearly corresponding.” So that the phrase must be con-
strued, as here used, as equivalent to the expression “under essen-
tially like or corresponding circumstances or conditions.” The Sen-
ator from Illinois has given abundant reasons for not using the word
“same” instead of “similar.” The word “substantially ” seems to
me to be a wise word in that connection. It deals with the substance
of things; not with mere form. -
I think that every condition or circumstance which does in fact dis-
tinguish one shipment from another would be open to proof under this
section. What element that ought to be considered could be excluded ?
It has seemed to me that in each case it would be a matter of fact for
the railway company to establish, in order to take a shipment out from
under the operation of the “long haul short haul” provision, that the
circumstances and conditions of the shipment were in substance not
similar to some other shipment with which the comparison is to be
made. Who can better tell, in a given case, whether the circumstances
t
297
are similar or are not similar in substance, in essence, than the rail-
way agents? Is it to be expected that this bill, which, at best, is to
formulate a general principle, must be, or can be, so framed that there
can be no question as to its application to the infinite number of cases
which may arise? If the rule be a fair one, leaving its application to
be determined upon the circumstances and situation of each case, tell
me upon what ground any Senator assumes that the question of fact
will not be fairly determined ? -
Mr. HOAR. The facts being all found, for instance that one is a
competing point, does the Senator understand that the further fact
whether within the meaning of this bill the circumstances and con-
ditions are substantially similar would be also found by a jury 2
Mr. SPOONER. I have not said so.
Mr. HOA.R., I suppose it would be like the case of probable cause
and a thousand other cases where the facts being found the application
of the law would be for the court.
Mr. SPOONER. I would not at all be willing to trust the question
finally to the decision of the commission.
Mr. HOAR. Then does the Senator understand that the question
whether a particular rebate like the one which has been stated here on
freights to Boston for foreign commerce may be determined by a jury?
If the discrimination is made at one end of the route by the Chicago
shipper or made at the other end by the Boston shipper, or if the freight
goes elsewhere by New York or Philadelphia, that the question whether
the fact that the freight is destined for foreign commerce or that its
point of arrival or departure is a competing point makes a dissimilarity
of circumstances and conditions which may be settled in one place by
one jury one way and in another place by another jury another way ?
Mr. SPOONER. The question of fact and of law may arise in dif-
ferent parts of the United States, and I suppose that each court would
exercise an independent judgment upon the question, and so it might
well happen in the adjudications under this section that there would
be different views taken. It might be found and decided one way in
one place and another way in another place, -
Mr. EVARTS. And if the Senator will allow me, I shall venture to
suggest that the question is whether the facts found differ so that
absolutely different rules are rightfully to prevail. That is the ques-
tion. If jurors find one way in one court and jurors another way in
another court, and they are masters of the question, then we have dif-
ferent rules in different places.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Just like any other case submitted to a jury.
Mr. EVARTS. But if the question whether the conditions are sim-
ilar is one of law; whatever the findings of the jury are they will be the
subject of revision and of regulation by the court. -
Mr. SPOONER. It would not take long to present the question for
final adjudication to the Supreme Court of the United States. I have
no doubt under this section that the fact that a shipment is from a com-
peting point must be held to distinguish it from a similar shipment
from a non-competing point. It certainly could not be said that in the
one case the circumstances and conditions are substantially similar to
those in the other case. It must not be forgotten that each of these
words, “circumstances” and “conditions,” is to have some meaning.
They do not refer to the kind of property, for this is taken care of by
appropriate words, which mean nothing else—“a like kind of prop-
erty.” As I understand it, the Senate conferees agree, in the main,
upon the construction of these words, “under substantially similar
298
circumstances and conditions.” But I can not, at this stage of the de-
bate, elaborate.
The construction which the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALD-
RICH] and the Senator from Kansas [Mr. INGALLs] give to the section
takes no account whatever, in my judgment, of the words “under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions,” and is an attempt to
make the section read just as the corresponding section of the Reagan
bill reads and just as the section read after the amendment of the Sen-
ator from West Virginia had been adopted. To my mind the sections
are not “substantially similar.” . -
I do not disguise, Mr. President, my embarrassment in attempting to
discuss this question at so late an hour.
The phase of the question which troubles me, because necessarily
left somewhat to argument, and in my view dangerous if wrongly
held, is, whether the proportion which the railway company, whose road
constitutes one of several links in a line of transportation, receives or
accepts of a through rate, upon a mileage basis, is to be taken as the
maximum charge which it may make for the transportation of similar
property over its own road as an independent shipment. Every one
knows that it has grown to be an essential part of transportation that
the terminal carrier makes through bills of lading over its own and
connecting roads, giving to each connecting company its proportion of
the through rate, upon a mileage basis. This method can not well be
dispensed with without detriment to the public interest.
If the amount of a through rate which the connecting carrier accepts
as its proportion, upon a mileage basis, is to constitute the maximum of
that carrier’s charge for an original shipment over its road, manifestly
the present method must be abrogated, for no carrier would permit, or
could be expected to permit, another to fix for it the maximum charge
for transportation over its own road; and the result would be that the
through rates would hereafter be the sum of the charges made by each
carrier over its own road as an independent shipment. This would be
disastrous to the people.
But it has seemed to me quite clear, for several reasons, that the sec-
tion would not be so construed. I think the service which a connect-
ing carrier renders in transporting a car-load of freight over its road as
part of the through line, and for which it accepts its proportion, upon
the mileage basis, of the through rate fixed by another carrier, could
not well be held to be “under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions,” as an original shipment of like kind of property from one
of its termini to the other. There is certainly a difference in fact.
Ordinarily the carrier to which the freight is first delivered, and which
makes the through rate, furnishes the car, stands the demurrage, loads
the freight, and generally the liability which the first carrier assumes
is different from that which is assumed by the connecting carrier. As
a rule the first carrier may be sued for the default of the connecting
carrier, but the connecting carrier can only be sued for default upon
its own road. There are doubtless other differences which practical
railroad men could readily point out. - :
Again, this bill distinguishes very clearly between a shipment over
the carrier's own road and a shipment over a line made up of several
roads, operated by different railway companies. s
The mandate of section 6, that the common carrier shall print and
keep for public inspection schedules showing the rates and fares and
charges, &c., applies only to its “railroad as defined by the first sec-
tion of this act; ” that is, “all the railroad in use by any corporation
\
299
operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a contract,
agreement, or a lease.” . There is no requirement, absolute, as in the
case just put, for the publication of rates for transportation over con-
tinuous lines or routes operated by more than one carrier. Even where
joint tariffs are made there is no requirement for their publication,
except so far as may “in the judgment of the commission be deemed
practicable.” The bill deals with the line as distinct from the rail-
road, and it is hardly to be supposed that a court, or the commis-
sion, in view of the construction which the conferees of the Senate, all
lawyers, who aided in framing the original bill, give it in this regard,
and in view of the considerations which have been suggested in sup-
port of that construction, would construe it so as to put an end, against
the interests of the people, to through bills of lading. s
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently made a decision
which throws some light upon the proposition as a mere question of law.
It is a case which arose between the United States and the Union Pa-
cific Railroad Company as to the compensation which the Union Pa-
cific was entitled to receive from the Government for transporting pas-
sengers in the service of the Government over the bridge and road from
Omaha to Council Bluffs. (117 U. S., 355.) By the law the company—
was entitled to be paid by the Government for services rendered in the trans-
portation of the mails over its road, and of the employés accompanying them,
compensation at fair and reasonable rates, not to exceed the amounts paid by
private parties for the same kind of service.
The facts found were as follows: "
The company’s uniform rate, during the time covered by this suit, for the
transportation of passengers between Council Bluffs and Omaha, over its bridge
and approaches, a distance of 3.97 miles, was 50 cents each, which sum was in-
cluded in the price of tickets sold for longer or shorter distances. That was a
fair and reasonable rate of compensation to be paid by the defendants and not
in excess of the rates paid by private parties for the same kind of service.
The Treasury Department did not allow 50 cents for each passenger so trans-
ported for the defendants, but in each case, ascertaining over what railroad or
public highway the passenger reached Council Bluffs or Omaha, and the rate
per mile paid by him over such part of said railroad or public highway as he
had thus traveled, the company was allowed only the same rate per mile for
transporting such passenger between Council Bluffs and Omaha as he had so
paid on the road leading to the bridge. On the roads leading to said bridge the
rates per mile are different, and the rates on the same road differ according to
distance traveled.
The court say:
The contention on the part of the United States is, that local passengers car-
ried on its account between Council Bluffs and Ogden, shall be carried at
the same rate as are charged for through passengers passing between those
points, as part of a journey over the whole line, although a difference is made in
respect to all other persons. But the Court of Claims has found as a fact that
the amount found by it is based on rates between those points which are fair
and reasonable, and not in excess of those charged to private persons for the .
same service. We can not review this finding of fact, and no question of law
arises upon it, unless it be one, whether the service rendered in transporting a
local passenger between the two points is in law identical with that rendered in
transporting a through passenger between the same points as part of the transit
over the distance of the whole line. This we can not affirm.
Mr. ALDRICH. I do not suppose the Senator from Wisconsin means
to say that there is any analogy between that and this section.
Mr. SPOON ER. I only made the proposition that the court would
not decide as matter of law that the service was identical, though the
persons were transported over the same rails, one being local and the
other as part of a through transit.
Mr. HOAR. Then is not that a decision of the court in conflict with
the position the Senator stated a while ago, that the question of dis-
similarity of the circumstances and conditions would be for a jury as
300.
as a matter of fact? It seems to me that the argument against the
bill is very much stronger if the question is to be disposed of by juries
in different parts of the country. , -*
Mr. SPOONER. But, Mr. President, I am anxious that in this par-
, ticular all doubt should be removed, and that the section should be
made to clearly express the intent stated by the Senator from Illinois.
and his associate conferees. It is too important to the people to be left
to mere inference and argument if it can be avoided, although, if nec-
essary to legislation upon the subject, I shall be willing to chance it.
POWER OF COMMISSION.
The proviso of section 4 seems to me broader and stronger in the power
it gives the commissioners to make exceptions and exemptions than it
was when the measure passed the Senate. Under it, as I understand
it, the commission is authorized to deal with special cases, and with
designated carriers generally, independent of special cases. It pro-
vides— -
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances
for the transportation of passengers or property. {
I am inclined to construe the words “special cases” as referring to
special shipments, but be that as it may, the words which follow do
not confine and are not intended to confine the commissioners to special
shipments or special cases. They are :
And the commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which
such designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this
section of this act. -
This language is very broad and very plain, and is an improvement
upon the confused language for which it is a substitute. It certainly,
authorizes the commission to exempt a carrier from the operation of
section 4, wholly, if in its judgment the public interest would be thereby
subserved. Under this power, as I understand it, where it is deter-
mined that the shipment is under substantially similar circumstances
and conditions, if the commission consider the determination errone-
ous, or if, for any reason, the enforcement of the rule is found to be
against the public interest or manifestly unjust to the carrier, the power
exists to suspend the section in its operation upon that carrier. If the
statutory rule were less flexible than I construe it to be I would not be
willing to rely upon this power in the commission.
It has been suggested against this bill that it makes the carrier lia-
ble to severe penalty if it should-be held to have wrongly construed
this law, as to the construction of which even Senators differ. This
argument is without foundation, for section 10 denounces the penalty
upon the corporation, director, officer, receiver, trustee, lessee, agent,
&c., who shall willfully do or cause to be done, or shall willfully suffer
or permit to be done, any act, matter, or thing in this act prohibited,
&c. The word “willfully,” as used in such a statute, is one of well-
settled meaning, and certainly if railway officers construe the statute
as the Senate conferees construe it and declare upon the record it is in-
tended to be construed, no court or jury would mulct them for so doing.
REBATES. -
I desire briefly, if the Senate will indulge me, to refer to another
section of the bill which gives me much trouble, and that is the rebate
section, under which, as I understand it, arises the difficulty suggested
by the Senator from Massachusetts, which is only typical of other dif-
301
ficulties of the same kind in different parts of the country, if the sec-
tion bears the construction feared. It is as follows:
SEC. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device,
charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less
compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation
of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges,
demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such
common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is here-
by prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
*
I am in receipt of letters from constituents, stating that they are so
situated that justice to them requires special rates in order to put
them on a basis of competition with manufacturers and persons in some
respects more advantageously located on other railroads, or at other
points, and complaining that the prohibition of rebates and special,
rates contained in this bill will injuriously affect them. This com-
plaint from them, as I understand it, is based upon a misconception or
misunderstanding of the terms of the section. The section, it will
be observed, does not prohibit rebates or special rates under all cir-
cumstances. It seems to be aimed simply at mere favoritism, which
no shipper has a right to ask. Its prohibition is only to shippers where
the service is like and contempóraneous in the transportation of a like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.
It seemed to me when I read the section that it was the statement.
of a just rule, and that no shipper could reasonably ask that he should
be charged by a common carrier less for a like and contemporaneous
service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic, under substan-
tially similar circumstances and conditions, than his neighbor was.
The prohibition is aimed, not at persons differently situated and
whom a rebate would simply put on an equality with others, but it is
aimed at persons situated alike and to whom the rebate would be, as
compared to others, a mere partiality. The section seemed to me not
subject to the criticism made upon it, and to be free from objection until
the case stated by the Senator from Massachusetts, in its relation to ex-
ports, was presented. The case, as presented to me by the merchants,
is thus: At Minneapolis millions of barrels of flour are manufactured
each year. It is stated, and it is undoubtedly true, that large amounts
of this flour are shipped from Minneapolis to Boston, part of it for the
domestic trade and part of it for export, and that in order to stimulate
the export trade the railway companies have been in the habit of giv-
ing a 5-cent preference or rebate in favor of the flour intended for ex-
port, and it is claimed that this section prohibits such an arrangement.
I am inclined to think it does.
I have not been able to satisfy myself that the mere difference in des-
tination, under section 2, would render inapplicable the prohibition.
The flour may go from the same shipper to the same consignee; it cer-
tainly goes from the same point to the same point. It may go over
the same line. The service rendered by the land carrier, subject to
the provisions of this bill, seems to me to be precisely the same, whether
the flour goes for distribution in New England or for export to some
foreign country. If, the service being identical in all other respects,
the mere fact that a part of the freight is to be exported, and a part of
it not, does not constitute a substantial difference in circumstances and
conditions, then the rebate, heretofore given would be prohibited, and,
as I understand it, if it were held to be prohibited there is no power
302
in the commission to relieve from the operation of the section. That
power arises under the fourth section, and the case put is not one
where there is a greater charge for a short haul than for a long haul.
I apprehend that what is true as to the shipment of flour from Min-
neapolis to Boston is true as to the shipment of flour from other places
in the United States to export points, and is true as to the shipment
of grain and beef and other food products of the country for export. If
the section can reasonably be construed, as I fear it can be, to prevent just
and reasonable discriminations in favor of the export trade of the United
States from Kansas, from Colorado, from Minnesota, from Wisconsin, and
the other States, I am not willing, without an effort to correct it, to vote
for the bill as it stands. It is to my mind, as stated by the Senator from
Ohio, a matter of grave consequence. It has been a part of the policy of
our legislation to stimulate our export trade. It has been wisely deemed
all-important to the producers throughout the country. This flour re-
bate, in favor of export, from Minneapolis stimulates the foreign ship-
ments obviously, makes a larger market and a greater demand and
hence a better price for the wheat raised in that region.
Rebates are allowed by many acts of Congress for the sole purpose,
and defensible only on that principle, of stimulating our export trade
and helping to keep the balance of trade in our favor. Why grant
such directly and prohibit carriers from giving for the same purpose a
similar fåvor in their business 2 It is important to the Western farmer
that the railway companies of the country should not only be permitted
but encouraged to put them as near as may be upon a basis of success-
ful competition as to their surplus with the wheat growers of India,
Russia, and other countries. -
Mr. EDMUNDS. May I interrupt the Senator?
Mr. SPOONER. Certainly.
Mr. EDMUNDS. Agreeing to all that he has said, would he not .
also be willing to require that if a rebate is made in favor of the Min-
neapolis flour, we should also make it in favor of the Worcester, Mass.,
flour? Here is a simple case, as my friend from Wisconsin states it, of
an exportation which we ought to encourage. Now, the question is
whether the man who, in Minneapolis, makes flour for exportation, on
the same line, the same car, ought to be enabled to carry his freight
cheaper than a man who is within 40 miles of the point of export, ex-
porting his flour to the same market.
Mr. SPOONER. But that is hardly the question I am discussing.
If my assumption of fact is correct, my point is that this section would
prohibit the granting by a railway company on the transportation of
flour or wheat or any other product from Minneapolis to Boston, the
transportation being precisely the same, of a rebate in favor of the
export.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If you give a rebate from Minneapolis, why should
you not give it from Worcester for the same exportation to the same
point? --
Mr. SPOONER. I will not say I would not give it. I will not say
that if flour was shipped from Worcester to Boston for export and flour
was shipped from Worcester to Boston for use in Boston, I would not
upon the same principle give the rebate. I should permit, no matter
where, remote from the seaboard or near to the port, such rebate as is
wise, reasonable, and necessary in order to stimulate the export trade-
of the country, dependent on a thousand surrounding circumstances.
As I view this rebate section it seems to me quite clear that such re-
bates, such discrimination in favor of the export trade would be pro-
303
hibited by this section and that there would be no power under the long
and short haul section to relieve from it if it should be so construed.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not understand the bill in that way at all.
I understand it on the question of foreign exportation to say that the
man who has to send from Worcester to Boston and to Liverpool shall
not be compelled to pay any more freight on his 40 miles distance from
Boston than the man in Minnesota who has 1,500 miles of transportation
to carry. It does not say he shall pay less, but that he shall not pay
more—both to go to a foreign market under the same conditions—that
he shall not be compelled to pay more for carrying flour 40 miles than
the Minneapolis man who sends it 1,500 miles.
Mr. SPOONER. As I understand the Senator from Vermont, he is
applying to the case the long haul and short haul provision, which I
am not now discussing. I ask him, with his permission, this question:
Suppose flour to be shipped by the same consignor from Worcester, if
you please, to Boston for use and sale in Boston. Suppose flour to be
shipped from Worcester to Boston for export. Suppose the railway
company, being the same in either case, in order to stimulate the de-
mand for that flour, in order to build up an export trade, grants a rea-
sonable rebate to the shipper in favor of the export flour, would it not
be in violation of this rebate section ?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I do not think it would.
Mr. SPOONER. Then the Senator is of opinion—
Mr. EDMUNDS. But I do think, if I may extend my observation,
that that rebate having been granted to the Worcester man, and granted
to the Minneapolis man, the Minneapolis man with the same export
trade should not have an advantage over the Worcester man.
Mr. SPOONER. I do not claim that.
Mr. EDMUNDS. So, if I may finish what I was saying, the
equality and justice to be applied to shippers is under the same cir-
cumstances and conditions, and therefore all that this proposed law
says is, as to the export trade, that everybody shall stand on an equal
footing as to the same trade. If it is fair and proper for a railway
company to make a small rate from Oregon to Boston for flour or grain
that is to be shipped abroad, and will not exceed that rate for any
point between, it is all right, although if it is to be consumed in Bos-
ton it may charge much more, if it treats everybody alike.
Mr. SPOONER. I am unable to agree that the mere fact, the trans-
portation service being in all other respects identical, that one ship-
ment is to be exported and another not would so distinguish it as to
take it out from the prohibition of the rebate section.
Mr. GEORGE. Let me ask the Senator, does he consider that there
is anything in the bill to prohibit an arrangement of this sort” Take
the Minneapolis shipment of flour, a part of which may be exported,
a part may be consumed in this country. Is there anything in this bill
which would prohibit the transportation company from agreeing when
the exportation is made to advance or pay to the steamer the amount
of 5 per cent. upon that portion of its freight which is transported
from Minneapolis? In other words, is there anything in this bill to
prohibit a railroad company from increasing its traffic by agreeing, after
it has performed service at the same rate that it charges everybody else,
to pay to another carrier who is to carry the product out of the country
a certain sum of money 2
Mr. SPOONER. That certainly does not answer the proposition
which I have been discussing. That would be the granting of a re-
bate. It matters not whether that rebate be paid by check or in cur-
304
rency, or whether it be by way of advance or part payment by the rail-
road company of the ocean freight. In either event it would be a re-
bate; it would be granting to a shipper for export a better rate from
Minneapolis to Boston, in whatever guise you put it, than is granted
where the shipment is to end at Boston.
Mr. GEORGE. . It would rather be a premium given to the con-
signee in Boston to export the flour. -
Mr. SPOONER, What is the difference whether you call it a pre-
mium or a rebate, or a special rate? The fact of discrimination re-
mains the same; that in the one case for carrying the flour between the
same points a lower rate is allowed than in the other, simply because
in the one case it is intended for export, and in the other it is not.
Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. Suppose a common carrier transport-
ing a ton of flour from Minneapolis to Boston for export allows a rebate
of 5 per cent., and suppose that some common carrier on the same line
of road, running through Buffalo, carries the same kind of freight on
the same road to Boston for export and makes no rebate, in that case
the Senator from Wisconsin understands that there is nothing in this
bill which would make that an unlawful discrimination. The two
Sections are entirely different, so far as that is concerned, the long and
short haul section and the discrimination section.
Mr. SPOONER. One deals, as I understand it, with one subject;
the other with an entirely different subject. One relates to difference
in distance, the long haul as it relates to the short haul; the other, in
the case I put, and in the case stated to me from Boston, which I believe
to be accurately stated, is a case of discrimination simply in favor of
export, nothing else. -
Mr. GEORGE. Does not the provision of the bill, as it now stands,
So far as it relates to a rebate, correspond exactly with the provision in
the bill as it passed the Senate?
Mr. SPOONER. That is undoubtedly true. The rebate section is
precisely the same to-day, as I understand, as it was when we passed
this bill. I examined it, as I stated, and came to the conclusion that
it was a fair rule; that it simply prohibited favoritism. I presume
this conference committee came to the same concſusion. I did not
know of the existence of the facts to which I have been calling, the
attention of the Senate. I did not know the fact that to favor exports
as compared to purely domestic commerce, under circumstances so
identical in every other respect, the rebate was given; and I venture
to say that the conference committee did not know of the fact. I
doubt very much if the Senator from Illinois will say that the con-
ference committee considered this case, and having considered it were
willing to make it a rule in the law that in such a case as the Minne-
apolis shipment for export and for domestic use there should be no law-
ful difference in charge. -
Now, Mr. President, I am as anxious as any Senator on this floor that
the popular demand for legislation upon this subject shall be met at
this session, and if the alternative were presented of endangering the
passage of this bill in any form or of voting for it as it stands, I am
frank to say that I should vote for the bill, expecting that the Senator
from Massachusetts would be able to secure the passage of an inde-
pendent enactment preventing its interference with the export trade,
and trusting that the dangerous doubt suggested as to the construc-
tion of the fourth section would be resolved in favor of what I deem
the plain public interest, and the intention, as declared by the Senate
conferees. But I am not quite willing to record my vote in favor of a
305
proposition which I fear will be deleterious until the Senate has made
a fair effort to correct it in the respects mentioned. If the bill can
be recommitted I intend to offer, by way of recommendation to the
conferees, the following proposition. -
Mr. CONGER. Before the Senator states his proposition I should
like to ask him if he understands that under the present law there is
any rebate in favor of articles exported except a return or rebate of
moneys paid in the shape of duties on some of the ordinary articles
manufactured in the United States and exported. I am speaking of
any law on our statute-book authorizing officers of the Government to
make rebates in any form except a rebate of duties or internal taxes
that had already been paid on the whole or a part of the materials of
which those articles were made. -
Mr. SPOONER. That is a rebate. -
Mr. CONGER. It is a paying back of money paid by the party, but
not any additional payment by the Government.
Mr. SPOONER. That is certainly equivalent to a rebate. I shall
propose this: - ->
Nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to prohibit any carrier
subject to the provisions hereof from making reasonable discrimination, by
special rate or otherwise, in favor of freight of any kind carried from any part
of the United States for export to foreign countries.
Mr. EDMUNDS. So that it should be equal between all the peo-
ple of the United States.
Mr. SPOONER. Yes, sir; as to all products for export.
I am not at all prepared to believe as to this section or as to the long
and short haul section, if there be in the minds of Senators substantial
disagreement as to the construction upon a point vital to the interests
of the country, that we may not reasonably expect that the conference
committee after all this debate will be able to agree upon and report to
the Senate the bill in better form than it is now in. I do not quite like
the suggestion that to recommit this bill to the committee is to kill it.
I know of no reason why that suggestion should be made. Who is there
here who does not desire the passage of a wise bill upon this subject?
Who here will not co-operate to that end? Is this question of inter-
state commerce to be the foot-ball of party politics? Is it to be sup-
posed that either-party, with nearly two months before us, will, rather
than submit to a wise amendment of this bill prefer that Congress
shall adjourn without any legislation on this subject?
I doubt if the people will take kindly to such a suggestion. No one
will dispute that a bill of so great importance, so far reaching and vital
in its effects, should be made as perfect as may be, and at least that it
should be freed from the ambiguity and uncertainty which many claim
to exist. I feel bound, in justice to the Congress, and the spirit which
pervades it upon this subject, to assume that the conference committee
of both Houses would do their utmost to agree to the modifications
suggested, and that with forty-nine days of the session still remaining,
under rules which render a conference report at all times a privileged
question, there is no danger that we shall adjourn without legislation
regulating interstate commerce. If the conferees can not agree to
change it, the bill can come back to us as it is, and we can pass it as it
is, if it should becorue necessary.
ANTI-POOLING,
I desire before taking my seat to say a few words upon the fifth sec-
tion, which is as follows: - -
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
I S C 20
306
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and
competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds
of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an
agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance
shall be deemed a separate offense.
I find in this section, Mr. President, no objection to the bill, and I
would not vote to recommit it with a recommendation that it be elim-
inated. I do not believe the railway pool, all things considered, sub-
serves the true interests either of the people or of railway companies.
It is declared that its purpose and effect is to “equalize rates.” This
is in a sense true, but it is, in my judgment, neither more nor less
than an attempt to equalize rates by stifling competition, for the pool
is operative only where there is competition and upon business which
is competitive. It is stated by the pool commissioners and by the
advocates of the pooling system, by way of vindicating it as an im-
proved railway method, that during the existence of the pools, which
for so many years have been in vogue, rates have been ‘‘ held level” and
have steadily gone down. An unqualified admission of the first state-
ment would not be founded in fact. You could fill this Senate Cham-
ber with broken pool contracts. .
Year after year, not withstanding the system of pooling freights an
dividing earnings, we have had rate wars so violent as to almost unsettle
the business of the continent. Almost every month, I might say almost
every week, the people have been advised by the press of rate cutting
and of the disruption of railway pools. That rates during the last ten
years have gone down is of course true, but by what warrant is it con-
tended that this is attributable to the system of pooling 2 The increase
in railway mileage, the great growth in population, the obliteration of
the frontier, the marvelous increase of tonnage, the legislation of the
States against extortion, and the competition existing at times, have all
tended to bring down rates. The tendency of the pool has been, how-
ever, to put them up from time to time, and that they have gone down
is on the whole, in spite of, not because of, the pool.
It is stated that this railway organization is valid. I can not now
enter upon an elaborate discussion of that question. I have never
supposed that the pool would be upheld by the courts. I have found
no satisfactory authority in this country for any such proposition. I
know that in many of the States laws have been passed, notably in the
State of Iowa, prohibiting them. I know that there have been viola-
tions of pool contracts, costing millions of dollars to the parties to
them, and that no railroad company in the United States has dared to
sue the competitor which has violated its faith aud broken the pool,
for damages. Why not, if they are valid?
The English decisions cited are not satisfactory law upon that sub-
ject in this country. The English system of railway management, and
supervision is different, and the doctrine of their courts upon one or two
pertinent principles is essentially different from ours. To illustrate: In
Shrewsbury, &c., Railway Company vs. The London, &c., Railway Com-
pany, 21 L. J. Q. B., 89, Lord Campbell, C. J., speaking of a pool agree-
ment, says:
The question, then, is, whether the agreement is void in law. And it has been
clearly settled that an agreement to withdraw [parliamentary] opposition to a
railway bill, for a pecuniary or other consideration, is not illegal. The agree-
ment in question would only be void in case it was illegal upon other grounds,
such as those suggested upon the part of the defendant—that it was injurious to,
and therefore in a legal sense a fraud upon, the public by the shareholders.
Such contracts by railway companies to withdraw opposition to bills
*
307
in Parliament granting authority to construct competing railways, &c.,
have been held valid in England, and such a principle might very well
Head to the upholding of an agreement to pool; but that doctrine is not
tolerated in the United States. It was long ago decided, and has been
steadily held, that such an agreement is subversive of good legisla-
tion and against public policy. The only argument I have seen in
any American law-book in support of the general proposition that the
pool between competing railway carriers by which the tonnage or
earnings are divided, is in harmony with public policy and valid, I
find in Wood on Railways, formulated thus:
But where by its charter, or the general law, a railroad company is author-
ized to consolidate with or lease its road to any other railroad company, upon
the principle that the greater includes the less, there would seem to be some
reason for holding that it might enter into a contract with a rival road by which
their joint earning upon their through traffic should be divided between them
upon such a basis as the companies could agree up ºn withoat impurning the
policy of the law, because in such a case they only accomplish purtially and
indifectly what they are authorized to accomplish directly. (1st Wood on Rail-
ways, 596).
If the premise of this author be correct, that rival companies are au-
thorized by statute to consolidate their stock and franchises, his con-
•clusion that they may enter legally into the ‘‘ lesser consolidation,”
which a pool certainly is, is logical; but it surely has not been the policy
of American courts to bold, as I now remember it, that under general
authority to consolidate with other railroads, or with any other rail-
road, competing companies could consolidate, nor has it been the policy
of the States to grant such power. In most of the States the consolida-
tion of such roads is prohibited. In some of the States it is prohibited
by constitutional enactment. Pennsylvania has notably sought, within
a year, to enforce a constitutional prohibition upon the subject, and
most of the States have guarded against it by direct prohibition, and
ineffectually perhaps by forbidding the ownership of stocks of one com-
peting company by another.
But the foundation of this argument is correct, that a pool is one
form of consolidation. The statutory authority to consolidate usually
is confined to railways whose lines are so situated with reference to
“each other as to make a continuous line of railway. The consolidation
of railways not competing or parallel has been in the public interest.
The consolidation, whether by pooling or otherwise, of parallel or com-
peting lines of railway, I venture to assert, can not be in the public in-
terest, and will not be authorized by the States.
I have seen something myself of the operations of the pool. I do not
deny that, although in itself an evil, it has at times seemed a lesser
evil than some of those which it was proposed to remedy: but to my
mind it has been the breeder, and a fruitful one, of almost every evil
which has disfigured the transportation system of this country. It
has been an instrument of blackmail in the hands of railway companies
unfortunately located. One Senator, speaking upon this subject, has
said that it enabled a weaker road to control its share of the business.
It has enabled the weaker roºd often to control more th in its share of the
business, and this control has been stimulated and brought about by long-
continued and vicious rate-cutting, detrimental to the interests of other
carriers and of the people; for I agree to all that the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. PLATT) has so clearly and eloquently said as to the evil
of unrestrained competition, and the uncertainty introduced into busi-
ness by rate wars.
* A railroad company competing with others between two terminals,
Anot satisfied with the proportion of business which it is receiving,
308
though it may be receiving its full share, regard being had to the ad-
vantages which it affords in comparison with its rivals, has only to cut.
rates to force a readjustment of percentages, either of tonnage or earn-
ings in the pool. 1 think I have known cases in which a railway com-
pany disadvantageously situated, its line being very much longer than,
those of its competitors, began the cutting of rates to force its admis-
sion into a pool, and continued the cutting of rates long before enter-
ing upon the negotiations for a pool, in order that its tonnage record
might give an undue proportion of business when the pool was formed.
It is manifest, and its effect has been seen in every portion of the
United States, that the possibility of forming and maintaing pools has.
put it within the power of competing railway companies, and furnished
a strong incentive to the exercise of that power to bring on rate wais,
and continue them, to the demoralization of business. And suppose.
the pool to be once formed by such means, some of the members of it
feel that they are being blackmailed, that there has been forced upon,
them an unfair division of business, and they retaliate by secret cutting
of rates, by rebates, and “specials,” and passes, and the like; and thus,
it happens that the pool, while perhaps on its lace at times operating
to steady and maintain rates, breeds secret cutting and favoritism and
discriminations which have brought intense and widespread dissatisfac-
tion to the people.
I think I may safely appeal to the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
SEWELL], who has had experience and opportunity for observation,
that there is hardly a railway company which has maintained in abso-
lute good faith for any length of time toward its associates its position.
in a pool. The pool has led to the payment of vast sums in commis-
sions, to bad faith, to unlimited free transportation, and has involved
the expenditure of vast sums as Salaries to pool commissioners and
clerks. It binds no railway company any longer than it chooses to."
obey it. It is dissolved upon the caprice or anger or jealousy of the
ruling officer of any member of it.
The pool has invited the construction of thousands of miles of rail-
way not needed by the public and not built for the public interest
which have cost legitimate railway enterprises millions of dollars.
Does any one think that the Nickel-Plate and West Shore Railroads
were legitimate ventures? Does any one think that they were under-
taken because the business necessities of the country required it? They
came because it was known that, the pool being a possibility, the new-
conners would be able so to cut rates and demoralize the business of the
Pennsylvania Railway Company, the Baltimore and Ohio Railway Com-
pany, the New York Central Railway Company, the Erie, and other
railway companies as to force a division of business by way of pool or
to compel a purchase at a profit to construction companies. Who can.
estimate the cost to the business of the country of the great and long-
continued rate wars brought about in that way ? The Senator from
Connecticut, who has said in an able and bold way all that I think can
be said in vindication of the system, insists that if pooling be not per-
mitted capitalistic consolidation will be inevitable. What is pooling
but consolidation ? - -
Mr. PLAT T. Simply this: It is co-operation; that is all.
Mr. SPOONER. Is that co-operation which is simply an agreement.
between parallel and competing carriers that they will not compete?’
What is the difference in fact and in truth, having regard to the inter-
est of the public, whether the Northern Pacific Railway Company and,
the Union Pacific Railway Company and the Southern Pacific Railway.
309
‘Company consolidate their stock into one management or whether they
agree that they will not compete with each other for business?
Mr. PLATT. If the Senator desires an answer it is altogether dif-
ferent. The combinations befween manufacturers may be used for the
purpose of illustration, although they are not by any means as defens-
ible as they are among railroad companies—the combinations among
manufacturers, or even among the anthracite coal companies, that they
will not sell their product at less than a certain sum are entirely dif-
ferent from capitalistic consolidation. The railroad company does not
"consolidate its whole business by this means; a portion of it only.
Another thing, it does not lead to what capitalistic consolidation does,
and that is the political power and the power of railroads, which is the
most dangerous thing this Government has to contend with.
Mr. SPOONER. I can see, and I think the people of this country can
see, no distinction in fact between the combination to which the Sen-
lator alludes and the partial consolidation by pooling, of competing
lines of railway. What is the difference so far as the public interest
is concerned? In the pool the only business that is affected is the
competing business. It may level rates by stifling competition with
competing roads; it does not reach the great mass of discrimination
between the competing points and the local and non-competing points.
The railway companies have their own sweet will as to that as com-
pletely, and no more so, with the pool in existence as they would have
if there were an actual consolidation of stock.
The Government of the United States granted to the Union and Central
Pacific Railway Companies millions of dollars in the way of lands; show-
rered upon them millions of dollars by way of subsidy bonds. I think
it was wise public policy to do so. I suppose it was in part for the
purpose of creating a competing line across this continent that Con-
:gress was led to grant a great domain of public land to the Northern
Pacific Railway Company. I suppose the same principle of public
policy led to the grant to the Southern Pacific Railway Company. Is
it a matter of no consequence to the public whether or not these com-
peting lines of railway compete 2 Is it of no concern to the public
whether they make a contract to divide business or earnings, so that no
matter whether the Northern Pacific Railway Company carries much
tonnage or little it gets its proportion of what the whole carry, or
whether it earns much money or little it gets its proportion of the
earnings of the whole?
Mr. PLATT. I think there is no pool in the country to-day where
a railroad gets pay for business which it does not perform. The money
pools are obsolete. . All puols in the country amount simply to a di-
vision of tonnage, and each company has and performs the amount of
business which it agrees to accept of the competing business, and if
there be any difference it is made up by letting that company have a
little more in order to keep up its share of the business, and that is
done without diversion of freight, by which I mean by sending freight
over another line than the shipper intended it to go over. There is
always enough freight which is not consigned to any particular road, so
that all those matters can be evened and adjusted.
Mr. SPOONER. I do not know of any investigation in whis country
which has given to the public the true situation and effect of the
great railway pools. I do not know but that the pool may be upon the
face of the paper—per se, as my friend from Connecticut sees fit to call
it—legitimate. That is a mere question of recital; but who has been
able to explore the influences, the methods, the effects upon a great
310
territory of a pool embracing the business of two or three or four or
five States ?
Another thing, the public have some interest in the transportation
question beyond the mere question of rates. The public have an in-
terest in the prompt, faithful, honest, and substantial performance.
by competing railway counpanies of the duty of the common carrier.
The pool, whether it be a money pool or a tonnage pool, tends to with-
draw from the carriers, who are members of it, much of the induce-
ment otherwise existing to discharge fully the duty of the carrier. By
division, by contract, one of several competing railway companies re-
ceives its proportion of the business of the country. What difference
does it make to it whether or not it pleases its shippers? What differ-
ence does it make to it whether or not it is prompt in furnishing
ears, or prompt in moving cars, or whether it deals fairly and liberally
with its patrons 2 It receives its proportion of the business whetherit,
does its duty as a carrier or not. The pool abolished, would the com-
peting carriers of the country not be placed under a stronger incentive
to attract business by merit than under the present system? Would
not they count more upon improved facilities, better service, more.
prompt payment of claims for damage, &c., quicker transit, and gem-
erally better service?
There was a time, it is said, when there was practically a pool be-
tween the Union and Central Pacific Railway Companies and the Pa-
cific Mail Steamship Company. There may be such now. From the
railroad standpoint that was well enough. Was it well enough from
the standpoint of the public interest ? It was a division of earnings.
between two carriers, each of which had been subsidized, and one of
which was enjoying a current subsidy, by the United States. Was it
not an element in the policy which granted subsidy to the Pacific Mail
Steamship Company that it would tend to keep afloat upon the ocean
a carrier to compete with the transcontinental railways? If so, was
not this great element of public policy defeated when under contract.
competition between the carriers by land and by sea was stified ? Talk
about the pool leveling rates, being a mere co-operation between com-
peting carriers mainly in the interests of the public
The public has been permitted within a fortnight to obtain a glimpse
of one phase of the inner working of one great pool. I refer to the Col-
orado pool, made up, as I understand it, of the Union Pacific Railway
Company, the Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company, the Atchi-
son, Topeka and Santa Fé Railway Company, and I do not know how
many other railway companies, for the transaction, control, division,
and regulation of the business of several States, including at least Kan-
sas, Nebraska, and Colorado. Certain steel rail companies of Chicago.
received propositions to furnish for railway construction in Colorado
about 17,000 tons of steel rails. They found that the rate from Chicago
to Council Bluffs and Kansas City was $3 per gross ton, while the rate
to Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo was $13.40 per gross ton, the
difference in distance from Chicago to the Missouri River, and from the
Missouri River to the Colorado points, being only about 60 miles. Am
I right as to this distance?
Mr. TELLER. Yes, sir. -
Mr. SPOONER. With only 60 miles difference in distance the rate.
was over four times as great per gross ton west of the Missouri River.
This rate from the Missouri River to the Colorado points is, I find in
correspondence published upon the subject, dénounced as unjust by
Mr. H. H. Porter, a gentleman of great experience in transportation,
311
and it is denounced as a prohibitory tariff by J. W. Midgely, commis-
sioner of the Southwestern Traffic Association, one of the best author-
ities upon railway rates in this country. These steel companies offered
to pay $12 per gross ton, but were unable to secure that rate. be-
cause the Colorado Traffic Association would not permit it.
'. It seems that under that contract no member of the association was per-
mitted to reduce a rate without the consent of all, however just the pub-
lic demand might be for such a reduction, and that the Denver and Rio
Grande Railway Company objected to any other than a prohibitory
tariff on these steel rails because they were destined to be used in the
construction of a rival road. Here was an offer to give to the Union
Pacific Railway Company freight, at fair rates, amounting perhaps to
a quarter of a million dollars or thereabouts, and this company, under
the operation of the pool for dividing business, for equalizing rates,
for tenderly looking after the business interests of that country, and
of the shippers, was obliged to refuse to take a pound of it. This pool
impudently put itself between this great carrier, in debt to the Gov-
ernment of the United States, under every obligation to earn as a car-
rier all that it could, and the opportunity to earn this large sum, and
precluded it from so doing, the motive of the objecting company being
that stated. No contract or arrangement under which such results
can be produced can be justified or ought to be permitted to stand.
The railway pool with its machinery and its legislation has been a
tyrant in many ways, and to the detriment of many interests.
Mr. TELLER. I would like to give the Senator from Wisconsin the
benefit of a statement as to the way this beneficent pool has worked.
Goods have been shipped for merchants of Denver from Chicago, have
been sent to San Francisco, and the low freight paid from San Francisco
back to Denver, a distance of 1,200 miles, making cheaper freight than
they could get from the East to Denver. That was under the pool, or
in defiance of the pool, at all events when the pool was in existence.
Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, I am not ready to believe that the
transportation interests of this people are to be subserved by legalizing
the railway pools of the country. Under this bill, put in fair form,
framed with reference to the interest of the people and in a spirit of
justice to the carrier, framed for the purpose not only of protecting the
people against discriminations, but of protecting railway carriers against
each other, I have no doubt that the alleged necessity for pools will
cease. At any rate I think we had better try the experiment.
This bill, if it shall become a law, prohibits favoritism by rebate.
It prohibits favoritism by special rates. It requires the publication of
rates. It prohibits the advance of rates without notice. Railway com-
panies will be very careful how they lower their rates whenever cap-
rice, anger, or temporary interest shall call for it, knowing that under
this measure the rates thus lowered can not be advanced at will. The
bill prohibits not simply the advance of rates without notice, but it
seems to prohibit the issue, at least in interstate commerce, of passes,
one of the most powerful instrumentalities used by railway companies
in pools for “cutting under’’ each other. -
It has seemed to me that with these provisions plainly enacted and
fairly enforced the railway companies of the country, as well as the
shippers of the country, would be in a much better position than by
the attempt to maintain rates in a spasmodic way by means of pools.
The Senator from Connecticut asserted the other day, with great
earnestness, his belief that without pools rates can not be main-
tained, and ruinous competition can not be prevented. Why not?
312
Very often pending the formation of the pool, and when the pool is
broken, rates are maintained by agreement. I find nothing in this bill
prohibiting an agreement to maintain rates or which will preclude the
maintenance of rates. If the pool is no longer a possibility it can not
be in the interest of any carrier to ruinously or unreasonably cut, for
any great length of time, the rates. The mere maintenance of rates,
with no division of earnings or division of tonnage, each company ob-
taining by legitimate means its proportion of business, is every way
preferable to the pool, with its temptations to rate wars and demoral-
ization and uncertainty in business, and to the secret discriminations
with which every one is familiar. -
The Senator from Connecticut fears that the prohibition of pooling
may lead to consolidation, but I hazard the assertion that the people
are not quite ready to admit that competition between railway car-
riers is a thing of the past, and that the transportation business from
this time forward can be done only at rates governed by pools. They
have the power, and will exercise it if need be, to protect themselves
from consolidation, under whatever name or by whatever means it
may be effected. -
Mr. PLATT. Mr. President, a single word in reply to the Senator
from Wisconsin [Mr. SPÖONER) with regard to what is called the Colo-
rado pool. I despair of ever being able to understand the argument
which, while admitting that a pool which is an agreement to apportion
business is resorted to by the railroads for the purpose of preventing
wars between themselves in which rates are cut, maintains that a pool
is for the cutting of rates; and therefore I shall not attempt to argue
that point. A pool is acknowledged to be a means resorted to by the
railroads to prevent ruinous rate wars and illegal competition; and yet
Senators stand up here and argue as if a pool was entered into for the
purpose of cutting rates. -
But I want to say one word in regard to the Colorado pool. Per-
haps a week ago I challenged proof that pools had resulted anywhere
in maintaining unreasonable rates in this country. That challenge
went broadcast over the country, and the only response to it is the Col-
orado pool. Now I suggest that when all the interstate business of
this country done by railroads is done under pooling arrangements, and
when the challenge has gone forth to show a single instance where a
pool has resulted in the maintenance of unreasonable rates, and we get
just one single example, it is not worth while to prohibit all the pools
in the country on that account. -
If the Colorado pool has done what it is said it has done—I do not
know whether it has or not—then clearly it is an illegal pool, and
would be held illegal before any court and by any court. But it does
not follow that all the other pooling arrangements in the country are
illegal, any more than it follows that because a Sunday-school teacher
or Sunday-school superintendent sometimes goes wrong, all Sunday-
schools ought to be prohibited and abolished; nor any more than it
follows that because down in Boston—and I am glad that the Massa-
chusetts Senators are not here, for they might take exception to this
illustration—a Baptist clergyman was charged with practices which
have scandalized the whole country, and the newspapers of the country
have been filled for weeks and months with regard to those scandalous
practices, whether true or not, that the Baptist Church and the Baptist
ministry should be prohibited.
I can not understand this argument. If the Colorado pool is endeav-
oring to enforce a bargain between railroad companies for the mainte-
313
nance of unreasonable freight charges, then that pool is an illegal pool
and it ought to be suppressed. But it does not follow, and there is no
argument in saying that because there has been somewhere an illegal
contract in the country, for the maintenance of which pooling has been
resorted to, therefore all pools which are not against public policy, but
which, as I showed the other day, sustain public policy and are for the
public welfare, should be made criminal.
One thing more with regard to the Colorado pool. There is nothing
in this bill that prevents the railroad companies from continuing that
agreement and enforcing that agreement, unless it be the clause with
regard to reasonable rates; there is nothing in this bill which prevents
railroad companies entering into agreements for just such a combina-
tion as is denounced; there is nothing in this bill which prevents their
agreeing to maintain rates and adopting every means known in their
power for the maintenance of rates when this bill is passed except just
exactly—
Mr. TELLER. Then why object to it? If it does not interfere with
pooling, what is the objection to it?
Mr. PLATT. It does interfere with pooling. I think that I shall
never be able to convince Senators who have not understood and will
not understand the pooling which is prohibited in the bill as to what
it is that is not prohibited in the bill.
Mr. TELLER. If the railroads can do exactly the same thing in
another way what is the objection to this provision? I insist that
under this law, if enacted, they will never be able to commit the enor-
mities they have committed under the Colorado pool and under hun-
dreds of others in this country.
Mr. PLATT. The Senator says hundreds of others. There is just
this one and possibly also the dressed-beef arrangement in Chicago
which has been brought to our notice, in which it is claimed that any-
thing wrong was done under pooling arrangements in this country, so
far as I have observed.
Mr. TELLER. I ask the Senator if he does not know that this has
been the complaint of the people for fifteen years against this system of
pooling in the United States, that it has gone up from every trade cen-
ter. “What about the anthracite pool?” some one says. There are a
dozen things that the public thoroughly understand growing out of
these pooling operations. -
Mr. PLATT. I am glad that some one speaks of the anthracite pool.
If gentlemen can not understand the difference between the anthracite
pool and an arrangement between railroads for apportioning their busi-
ness in order to maintain reasonable rates of transportation, then there
is no use in attempting to make any argument on the subject.
I admitted over and over again that a combination entered into for
the purpose of controlling the product of a particular district, for en-
hancing the prices of a particular product in a particular market, for
the purpose of putting up or putting down the prices of commodities,
was against public policy. There is no question about that. The dis-
tinction, however, is broad and wide, and admitted by everybody. It
is admitted by every one who has spoken here to-day that the worst
evil almost, certainly one of the greatest of railroad evils in the coun-
try, is ruinous competition, is unstable rates, is cut rates, is a war of
rates, and the Senator who has just taken his seat wants to stop them,
and the railroad companies resort to this apportionment of business for
no other purpose, so long as they keep within the legal purpose of a
pool, than to prevent exactly that thing. That is what the pool is for.
34
All over the country the testimony of shippers and farmers and
merchants and business men is that the great difficulty which they
have to contend with is that rates are not equal, they are not uniform.
One favored shipper has one rate, which makes him rich at the expense
of everybody else, and men in business do not know from day to day
at what price they can buy or at what price they can sell. That is the
result of the competition which is so much lauded on this floor; that
is the result of rate wars which are so much lauded on this floor; and
the legal pool has no other purpose and no other object and no other
result than preventing just that same thing. If under any pooling ar-
rangement something else has been accomplished, if unreasonable rates.
have been maintained, then true policy would lead us to this: to rec-
ognize the pool, to legalize it, to put it under the supervision of these
commissioners to see that that which was intended for a proper use
should not be abused.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President, I can not go fully into this debate.
now, or do more than state one or two propositions that I think I ought
to state, more in justice to myself than for any other purpose.
It was stated by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK], and also
by the Senator from Texas [Mr. CORE], that the attitude which I had
taken in regard to this bill makes it necessary that Congress should in-
terfere, or otherwise the country would be left entirely without law
to regulate the railroads. In the previous discussion which I indulged
in over this bill—I have said very little about it in the months of de-
bate that have ranged through this body on this topic—the Senate,
I think, will do me the justice to say that I took the ground that the
common law of this country was a sufficient remedy for any trouble.
that was sought to be remedied by this bill, and that the courts of the
United States with their present jurisdiction, and certainly with their
jurisdiction broadened, as we have a right to broaden it, so as to in-
clude cases of minor consequence, can administer every remedy that.
is sought to be administered through this bill, either by the courts or
by the commission. The Supreme Court of the United States and the
courts of the States have now for a century regulated common carriers
in the United States, simply by an application of common-law rules.
to their duties and their obligations, and very little complaint has
arisen anywhere out of the inefficiency or insufficiency of the common
law, when properly applied by the courts, to remedy any of the diffi-
culties that are sought to be legislated upon and removed by this
bill.
Now I will enumerate the points in this bill upon which it is sup-
posed that the statutory action of Congress is necessary, and let us see
whether there is a single one of them which is not already within the
power of the courts to remedy by proper forms of procedure either at
law or in equity. I do not refer to that section of the bill which cre-
ates new offenses and makes them punishable in the district and cir-
cuit courts of the United States. I refer to the civil remedies and the
power of the courts in connection with them. The first one is:
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reason-
able and just.
Has not that been the common law of England and of the United
States since the first decision that was ever made in respect of common
carriers, and is there any court in the United States that has law ju-
risdiction that is not competent to administer that right and that rem-
315
edy? I submit that as a lawyer, because when this bill leaves the two,
Houses of Congress and the hands of the President, if he shall ap-
prove it, the first contact it will have will be with the legal profession.
in the United States, and I should desire very much that the Congress
of the United States should go forth with a bill of this novelty and
this magnitude and this importance, having given to every feature of
it a sufficient consideration to forbid any very sharp criticism on the:
part of the bar of the United States in its interpretation.
The next point is this:
SEC. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device,
charge, demand, collect or receive from any person or persons a greater or less
compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation
of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges,
demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such
common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is here-
by prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
And so he would be held in any court of law or any court of equity
of the United States or of any of the States. That is simply a decla-
ration of an offense, you may call it, of an unjust practice on the part
of common carriers, which is denounced by the common law as fully
and as firmly as it is in this statute. The statute is a mere cumula-
tive enactment, and almost in the very language of the writers of the
common law on this subject. I am not speaking of this matter with-
out advisement, for I can cite cases in the Supreme Court of the United
States, and in every State of this Union, which have disposed of the
very question that I now present in respect of the exact parallelism
between the common law and the declaration of this statute. The
next is:
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or ad-
vantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any.
particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any
particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular de-
scription of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in
any respect whatsoever.
The common law denounced those practices just as severely as it is
done in that section, and there is not a court in the United States that
would not enforce it.
Again: -
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according to
their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the
interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, for-
warding, and delivering of passengers and property to and, from their several
lines and those connecting there with, and shall not discriminate in their rates
and charges between such connecling lines.
Another point in which the common law is all-efficient for the ad-
ministration of precisely the same declarations that are made in this
act.
Mr. ALLISON. Will it disturb the Senator if I make a remark?
Mr. MORGAN. No, sir.
Mr. ALLISON. It was stated in the House of Representatives, and
has been stated here over and over again, that there is not one prohibi-
tion in this bill that is not a prohibition at common law.
Mr. MORGAN. Very good. The next one is—
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers, &c.
316
That is new and difficult of interpretation, difficult to be understood.
"The lawyers in this body—and I presume that they average with the
‘highest range of professional ability in the Union—cannot agree about
the meaning of section 4; and weventure to go before the country with
a new enactment about which there is almost as great a diversity of opin-
ion in this country as the number of Senators who occupy seats on the
floor, a statutory regulation of commerce (which of all things else least
bears interruption by statutory interference) that the lawyers in this
body, many of them ex-judges of supreme courts, are incapable of agree-
ing upon the interpretation of. I think that is a very unfortunate situa-
tion.
I suppose that that section means in one respect what the bill de-
‘clares in another part of it, that no unreasonable charge shall be made
by a common carrier. And after we have declared that no unreason-
able charge shall be made by a common carrier, on the converse of the
position we may affirm that a common carrier may make a reasonable
charge, the statute to the contrary notwithstanding. He may make
a reasonable charge, and when you come to draw the comparison be-
tween charges made on short hauls and long hauls you must first ascer-
tain what is a reasonable charge, and put those figures down as the sum
upon which to compute the result whether or not the other charge is
reasonable or unreasonable, whether it is greater or whether it is less.
If the charge on a haul of goods from Alexandria to Washington at
50 cents a barrel for flour is a reasonable charge, and if you ascertain
that by ascertaining in the next place how much it would cost a man
to send a wagon down there and haul it up here, there being no com-
peting line, if it is a reasonable charge and the courts so hold, then the
question whether if a dollar is charged for carrying a barrel of flour to
Richmond, which is perhaps twenty times the distance that it is to
Alexandria, that is a lawful charge, must depend under your bill upon
its being reasonable, for I do not suppose that you intend to legislate
that a railroad shall be compelled to take an unreasonable charge for
carrying freight because it may have on a part of its line charged less
or more than it should have done to some other person.
After all, you have put the test in your bill that no carrier shall
charge unreasonably. If he does, it is an act of discrimination, and if
he does not, it is no act of discrimination within the meaning of this
very statute. After having made that declaration, you go on then to
make a special provision about what this man shall do and that man
shall do, losing sight absolutely of the reasonableness of the charges he
makes, but arbitrarily saying that he can not charge more to one man
than he charges to another.
But, Mr. President, I have not taken upon myself, in any stage of
this debate with which I have had any connection, the duty of trying
to sift out and unravel the different commercial propositions that are
involved in this bill and that seem to have taxed the ingenuity of some
of the ablest commercial men in the United States who occupy this
floor. I will not venture upon that discussion. But there are some
things connected with this bill which I think it my duty to bring for-
ward.
I will repeat one of them that I mentioned the other day, in a phrase,
and I do it for the purpose of calling the attention of the Senate to the
fact that they are in an unnecessary fright about the condition of de-
cisions in the Supreme Court of the United States upon this question,
for the Supreme Court have not passed upon any question arising under
£his bill or any question affecting the commerce of a State and inter-
317
state commerce except in cases where State statutes have come up for
construction. -
Now, can any Senator point to me a case that has arisen and been
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which a State-
statute has not been the subject-matter of construction and the basis.
upon which the declaration of its unconstitutionality or its constitu-
tionality has been made? Not one. In the case of Welton vs. The
State of Missouri, I beg the Senate to listen to this language of the
Supreme Court: . x
It will not be denied that that portion of commerce with foreign countries and
between the States which consists in the transportation and exchange of com-
modities is of national importance, and admits and requires uniformity of reg--
ulation. The very object of investing this power in the General Government
was to insure this uniformity against discriminating State legislation.
The object was not to enable Congress, as it proposes to do in this bill,
under the pretext of regulating interstate commerce, to go far beyond
it and lay down rules and restrictions which either amend or violate or
uproot the common law in relation to the personal and private rights.
that exist between individuals in their freedom to deal with it as Ameri-
can citizens under the guarantees of the Constitution in which those
rights are stated.
You go further, you overstep the bounds of the regulation of State
commerce, and you take hold of the power to contract, and you say to
men, “You shall not contract thus and so,” though the common law of
England and the United States says that you may, and that the con-
...tract is just and right. You trespass beyond the boundaries and in-
vade the States and say to the citizens of the States, “You shall not
contract in your own States and in your own corporations for the trans-
portation of your freight beyond your State; we limit you in your
power to contract by forbidding the railroad companies to contract with
you except upon certain terms that we prescribe.” And while you,
in your anxiety to meet what is supposed to be a very popular demand,
thus transgress the boundaries of your own jurisdiction, you invade
some of the most sacred liberties that belong to men under the Con-
stitution of the United States.
I have a perfect right, if I have got 100,000 tons of iron to ship from
Birmingham, in Alabama, to Cincinnati or to Chicago, to say to a par-
ticular railroad company, “I will give you all my patronage if you
give me a rate upon this below the common rate of transportation,”
and that railroad company has a right to give me that contract, because
I am a large contributor to its prosperity. Another comes along with
10 tons of iron and offers to this railroad company that it shall carry
his 10 tons at the same rate as the other man’s. The company says,
“I can not afford to do it.” “Why can you not afford to do it?”
“Because I am carrying this iron for a man who furnishes me 100,000
tons;” precisely the same principle that would obtain in a mercantile
house in New York.
A merchant goes there and says, “I want $100,000 worth of your
goods, and I have got the money to pay for them; I want to agree with
you about the terms of our contract.” “All right: I will deduct a lit-
tle in your favor.” Another man comes and wants to buy $50 worth of
goods. The seller says he can not afford to sell at the same rate; it may
be a package of goods; he can not afford, to do it. Now, will the law
of Congress step in there and interfere? No. Why? Because it is a
transaction between individuals in a State. Why not interfere? What.
pretext have you for interfering in a contract between the iron shippers.
318
in Birmingham, Ala., and a railroad company ? What right have you .
got to do it? No, sir; this bill goes very far beyond the powers of Con-
gress as contended for by the gentlemen who advocate it, and it is a
serious question as to the private right of a man to make a contract ac-
‘cording to the advantages of his situation; and every man has a right
to make his contract according to the advantages of his situation.
I say, therefore, that the Supreme Court of the United States have
never gone beyond that simpie declaration, and they affirm it in the
decision quoted with approbation in the Wabash Railway Company vs.
Illinois:
The very object of investing this power in the General Government was to
insure this uniformity against discriminating State legislation.
And I say that is the only object. Whenever you get beyond that
object you get out beyond the boundaries of your power, and you in
the interpretation of your powers transgress upon the rights of the
people of the States which are just as sacred as the rights of the Con-
gress of the United States. I dismiss that subject with that remark.
I trust that I have been able now to answer the statements made by
the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Kentucky by stating
that I do contend that there is and has been up to this good hour in the
United States every power at law and every power of jurisdiction in the
courts to enforce it, to protect every man in his rights against a com-
mon carrier, so that this spasm of fright or affected fright about the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States had better not get
too deep hold upon gentlemen. They had better wait awhile and see.
whether this court that has so deliberately overruled two of its own
decisions will not after awhile find a reason for overruling the last
‘OD 62.
The oscillations of the Supreme Court, its vibrations and fluctuations
upon great constitutional questions, are not to be followed in that court,
and when the very decision in the Wabash case comes up it may be
said, “We certainly could not have known what we were talking about
when we made that decision affirming that in the absence of law of the
United States the States might go on to act; we could not have con-
sidered it.” How many lawyers in this body are willing to accept the
last legal-tender decision as a final solution of the question? How
many gentlemen are there here who would vote for the increase of the
Hegal-tender issues of the United States Government to a thousand mill-
ion dollars, and put them as a substitute for all the issues we have out,
with the legal-tender quality in them, guided by the last decision of
the Supreme Court on that subject 2 Not one; it is dead timber. If
there is one he is a bold man, and I have not heard him express it.
Because the Supreme Court of the United States may take a view of
the Constitution in a particular case and upon a particular point in
which they decide, no matter what the reason, that a certain State
statute falls, not beneath an act of Congress, but beneath the Consti-
tution of the United States, I think we can very well rely on that Con-
stitution a while longer to protect us against discriminating State legis-
lation; and when we find in this bill, as the honorable Senator from
Iowa says is an acknowledged fact, that every step taken, every wrong
condemned, every right asserted, every remedy proposed, are all pro-
vided for, amply provided for by the common law, then I think we had.
better be a little quiet and remain a while longer under the old régime.
I do not find the country going to rack and ruin because it has got
railroads in it. I hear clamor about short hauls and long hauls; but
319
the clamor affects men within the States more than anywhere else.
Ninety per cent. of the troubles in respect to long hauls and short
hauls are within the States, and clearly and confessedly within the
power of the State Legislatures to control. Let me say to this honor-
able Senate that I do not want them to go into Alabama and take from
the Legislature of my State the power to regulate the long-and-short-
haul business within the limits of that State and the State commerce.
You are not invited to enter that State; and if I was the governor of
it you would never get there in your efforts to regulate the interpal
affairs of that State, for when you pass this bill it will be putting a
large, dry sponge into a basin with a little water, and it will drink the
last drop.
This bill does not mean, the friends of it do not intend it to mean,
that it shall stop at the regulation of interstate commerce. It means
to usurp the power over all commerce, and it means that when you
lift the sponge out of that basin there will not be even moisture left
in it, to say nothing of a drop of water. The whole power of com-
merce in this country, as to its regulation, will be fixed by this tribu-
nal and the other House. When we take this step, Senators around
me tell me it is experimental, and they look on it as only an entering-
wedge to go further. They will go further, and you will never be able
to repeal this law or stop its operation otherwise than by extending its
clauses as long as the United States lasts. This will be the last of
State regulation of State commerce,
The Supreme Court have declared that the States have the right by
statute to fix the rate of charges upon commerce as to the public cor-
porations and public carriers within their limits. As respecting inter-
state commerce we have therefore the right, and so they have deter-
mined, not upon an act of Congress, but incidentally, that we have the
right to fix the rates of commerce. You fix the rate upon external or
interstate commerce by an act of Congress, so much per ton per mile
and no more; and how is the State going to get along with any legis-
lation for the purpose of regulating commerce within the State? The
conflict of the laws would necessarily produce friction and wrong and
hardship; but when you take the first step in the passage of this bill
you will never cease to march upon that line. The last step will never
be taken as long as there is any demand from any popular clamor in
the country that you shall do something more, and cover steamboats
and steamships and all.
I do not flatter myself that I have the slightest financial ability in
the world, but I have an imagination in my mind to-night that if I
had the money of Mr. Jay Gould and his talents, his enterprise, his
ambition to absorb railroads and put them under a single ownership,
I would not want any better law to pass than this in regard to pooling.
I should want Congress to enact this law so that the blackmailing roads,
as they are called, the poor, weak, feeble fellows that have got to build
themselves up into prosperity and substantiality, will not have the
advantage of cutting rates upon us, or if they do they will soon go by
the board. They can not demand of us that we shall enter into pool-
ing arrangements with them; it is forbidden by law, contrary to public
policy, and denounced as criminal. e
Therefore we will absorb them; we will take them in out of the
cold. Thus the railroad ownership of the United States, instead of
being distributed among various competitive companies, will be in the
hands of two or three of the great capitalists. Then you will see a fight
worth while talking about. Then you will see the railroad kings and
320
the Congress of the United States in an antagonism that the conflicts of
the bulls and the bears in Wall street will be mere play compared with.
This legislation must have that result. You take from the weaker
railroad all power that it has got to compel the stronger one to do it
justice or to keep the crushing weight of its power off, and you just
abandon all such roads as wrecks into the hands of the great railroad
kings of the land. That is what Congress is about.
Mr. President, there is one feature of this bill against which I have
been always very seriously opposed—I can not get my consent to it—
and that is the power that is conferred on this commission. It is a
power that is derogatory of the divisions between legislative and judi-
cial powers which have existed in this country aud in Great Britain
from time immemorial.
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances
for the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from
time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may
be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
What shall we call that; a repealing power, a suspending power, a
dispensing power, or an amending power? Take it in either category
and it is contrary to the principles of the American Constitution and
contrary to every tradition which has come down to us from our Eng-
lish anceston's. That very same principle incorporated in this bill has
led to some of the grossest outrages in the history of English juris-
prudence and legislation. The Star Chamber itself had its origin in that
very principle. -
What was the principle? It was that the king by his proclamation
might make law. Parliament gave to King Henry VIII the power by
his proclamation to make laws, and the pretext upon which that de-
mand was conceded to the king was that in the north of England there
were certain eminent and powerful barons who were in the habit of set-
tling their difficulties among themselves without consulting the crown,
and they and their retainers were engaged in constant feuds, and it was
impossible to control those powerful and splendid people otherwise than
by making legislation to suit each case as each case arose. Hence the
Parliament gave to the king the power by proclamation to enact laws.
He and his councilors combined together, became not merely the en-
actors of the laws, but the judges to administer them and to execute
them, and that constituted the Star Chamber. Here is the history of it:
The celebrated statute of 31 Henry the Eighth, chapter 8, which gives the
king's proclamation, to a certain extent, the force of acts of Parliament, enacts
that offenders convicted of breaking such proclamations before certain persons
enumerated therein (being apparently the usual officers of the privy council,
together with some bishops and judges), “in the Star-Chamber or elsewhere,”
shall suffer such penalties of fine and in prisonment as they shall adjudge. “It
is the effect of this court,” Judge Smith says, “to bridle such stout noblemen or
gentlemen”—
He ought to have said railroad companies—
which would offer wrong by force to any manner of men, and cannot be con-
tent to demand or defend the right by order of the law. It began long before,
but took augmentation and authority at that time that Cardinal Wolsey, arch-
bishop of York, was chancellor of England, who of some was thought to have
first devised that court, because that he, after some intermission, by negligence
of time, augmented the authority of it, which was at that time marvelous neces-
sary to do to repress the insolency of the noblemen and gentlemen in the north
parts of England, who being far from the king and the seat of justice, made al-
most, as it were, an ordinary war among themselves, and made their force their
law, binding themselves, with their tenants and servants, to do or revenge an
injury one against another as they listed.
There is a history of the reasons which gave rise to it repeated in this
321
debate continually, that the railroad companies have got to be so strong
and so powerful that we can not handle them by statutes that we may
enact by Congress and make final in our enactment, but we must inter-
pose a commission with powers of dispensation in order that the harsh-
ness of our legislation, which we admit by the very principle in the
bill, may be mitigated in certain cases which the commissioners are to
decide after they have investigated the whole subject.
We confess here, this night, our inability to devise a just law regu-
lating long and short hauls and other matters connected with this busi-
ness. We admit our incapacity to do it, and substitute five men with
lègislative power, either to amend, or suspend, or repeal, or dispense
with—choose your own word—the statutes that we enact.
Let us see how that appears in the light of the history of British
constitutional law. I read from Dwarris on Statutes, pages 38 and 39:
So long as the king continued to grant petitions in part, and to engraft new
matter upon them (it must be admitted in candor, and as some extenuation of
the conduct of the judges), it would be extremely difficult, at a distance of
time from the petition and answer, to draw up statutes which should be the acts
<>f the whole legislature. But when bills were brought into either House of
Parliament— o
|Under our system that we proceed on here, by bills—
in a perfect shape, containing the royal assent and the whole form of a law,
which the king had no power to modify, but could only reject, it became mani-
fest, if such bills passed into a law, that they derived their entire efficacy from
the joint concurrence of the three branches of the legislature.
The King, the Lords, and the Commons. The King is mentioned as
an enactor in every bill that passes the Parliament.
This sound constitutional doctrine was happily established in England, about
two centuries ago, owing to the firmness of a chief justice (Lord Coke); while in
France to this day it is not, it is said, with exactness defined what may be done
by royal ordonnance, and what can only be done by all act of the legislature.
Here, it is ascertained that the King’s province is simply to reject or to approve.
The power of legislation given by two statutes to Henry VIII was a direct in-
fraction of the constitution effected under the Tudors, but which had never been
at all endured in the time of the Plantagenets. A royal proclamation never
properly possessed any efficacy to create but only to promulgate or enforce a law.
Under the Stuarts, indeed, this, with every other free principle, was again
* into question, and for a time trenabled in the balance, but right pre-
ValleOl.
The victory of the Commons was, by this change, complete. Their power,
as an integral and indispensable part of the legislature, which they had been
long Jaboring to establish, was now firmly consolidated, and they were effect-
ually secured against any future violation of their legislative rights.
There were two statutes of Parliament, which was said to be omnip-
otent, conferring upon Henry VIII the power to enact laws by procla-
mation, and here are the English writers declaring that that was
unconstitutional under the British constitution. If so under that con-
stitution, how can it be justified under the liberal and exact system
of Constitutional law under which we live 2 England has no written
constitution; the United States has.
Now, let us examine in view of that what is the real nature of this
power. After investigation by the commission a railroad may be au-
thorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for trans-
portation, &c. It shall be unlawful, says the first clause in the bill,
for the common carrier subject, &c., to charge or receive any greater
Compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers, &c.
There is a denunciation of illegality in the act which makes it criminal
and which, under the application of the powers of the common law and
its doctrines to a question of the violation of the statute, would subject
men to punishment. A conspiracy to violate the statute would be a
punishable offense at common law. -
I S (—21
322
But it is declared to be unlawful in the first clause of the act, and
being unlawful to do this thing the commissioners after investigation,
may do what? Pardon a man? Condone the offense? No. Repeal
the law? In effect, yes. Suspend it? Certainly. Dispense with it?
Yes. Amend it? Most unquestionably. Why? Because from time
to time they can prescribe the extent to which such designated common
carrier may be relieved from the operation of this act. There is the
amendment of it. From time to time they may prescribe the extent
to which such designated common carrier can be relieved from the op-
eration of this act—not that he shall be relieved entirely, not that the
law shall be suspended entirely or repealed or dispensed with, but.
amended in its application to a particular individual by the commission,
who may prescribe the extent to which he shail be relieved. That is
all of it.
If there is any virtue in constitutional principles in the United States
that feature of this bill is unconstitutional, and unconstitutional for
the reason that I have stated and for another reason. Suppose you as-
sume, as may be assumed Igrant you, that these commissioners are judi-
cial officers—that they are passing judgment upon a case brought to.
their attention in due form upon petition, and that they are acting as
judicial officers to excuse the party upon a trial from all liability for
the act, saying that the equitable circumstances that surround the sit-
uation are such as to enable the court to decide that the harsh rule of
law that his conduct was unlawful shall not bring punishment or dam-
age upon him.
It is a court, then; a court of equity. But can you make a court
with power to finally decide upon a man's criminality or the lawful-
ness or unlawfulness of his acts which result in damage to other peo-
ple, as is alleged in this bill, or which bring penalties upon himself
without bringing that act within the jurisdiction which is conferred in
our Constitution upon a judicial establishment whose judges are chosen
for life or good behavior by the President and,confirmed by the Senate?
No, sir, not merely is there the blending in this of the legislative
and judicial function in the hands of the same parties, but the execu-
tive function is also trampled on. The bill transgresses that universal
law which I trust still has a solemn sanction in the heart of every Sen-
ator on this floor, that the great division of the departments of this.
Government shall not be violated by any of them. It violates the law;
it does it flagrantly and openly. Whenever you strike a court with
this part of your proposed law you will find that it will go to pot. The
courts of this country are not going to submit that Congress shall thus
blend the jurisdiction of these departments for the sake of a convenience
to get out of a necessity which is incumbent upon us as conscientious
men, to enact laws that can be enforced against the people justly and
equitably, and substitute men to make legislation, or to suspend or
dispense with our laws, or amend or repeal them, because we are afraid
to say to the country that this rule which we enact is a rule that ought
not justly to be applied to the people.
There is another feature of this bill just as bad as that in regard to
these commissioners, or I believe it is a little worse. Section 14 pro-
wides: •º,
That whenever an investigation shall be made by said commission, it shall be
its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto— -
This is an investigation of a complaint made by a citizen against a
railroad company—
which shall include the findings of fact upon which the conclusions of the
323
commission are based, together with its recommendation as to what repara-
tion, if any, should be made by the common carrier to any party or parties who
may be found to have been injured; and such findings so made shall thereaf-
ter, in all judicial proceedings, be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and
every fact found. .
Here is a court proceeding ea parte, the defendant not summoned at all,
no witnesses, no pleadings, no issue made up, which proceeds in its own
way to examine witnesses of its own choice, and upon them to find facts,
which facts are to be reported to a court, and in that court are to con-
sider this prima facie evidence. Did the honorable Senator who drew
this bill imagine that because he put the words “prima facie ’’ in there
he mitigated or modified the force of the transgression of the law
which requires that juries shall try facts and courts shall pronounce
the law upon them ? -
Prima facie evidence is enough to hang a man. You can hang a man
on a presumption, although there may not have been one particle of
criminality in his act. You can hang him on a presumption of law
from the rashness of his act, as if I should turn loose a cannon down
Pennsylvania avenue and kill a baby away out of sight down by the
Treasury building. You would hang me for it because of the rash-
mess of my act. There would be no intendment at all, but you would
hang me upon a presumption, and that presumption would be fortified
by the reckless and inhuman character of my act.
That is all of it; my life would be the forfeit. It is “prima facie evi-
dence,” for the expression ‘‘p ima facie evidence ’’ when applied to
facts is precisely the Šame thing as a presumption when applied by the
law. The prima facie view required by a statute to be taken by a court
of the facts found in a case is enough upon which to found its judgment,
and the defendant in that case, unless he can come and rebut it and
overturn it, must necessarily lose.
Here go these commissioners in secret conclave, a little Star-cham-
ber. They examine their witnesses on a complaint made. The de-
fendant is not notified. They make up a statement of the testimony.
They do not refer it to a court above to ascertain whether the conclu-
sions which they have arrived at as to the facts found are justified by
the facts themselves. No, the law comes in and says your conclusion,
it makes no difference how unjust it may be, shall establish a prima
facie case against the defendant.
You have gone a long way with your case when you get the man into
your court for the first time. He is confronted with evidence, not with
evidence merely, but with evidence of a conclusive character. He is
confronted, according to the language of the proposed statute, with facts
absolutely found which make out a case against him. They ask him,
“What have you to say to this case?” He might say, “Ishould like to
have cross-examined the witnesses if I had had the opportunity. I
should like to have been confronted with the witnesses who testified
this way against me. Who are they?” “It makes no difference to
you.” “What sort of people are they?” “It makes no difference to you.
It is too late for you to impeach them. It is too late for you to ques-
tion them, to cross-examine them; we have examined them to our sat-
isfaction, and we have found the facts; here they are, and here is the
finding. Go to trial.”
If any American, in the light of our Constitution, can put a man,
with his rights or interests, upon trial under a statute like that, then
Imust confess I have under-estimated the pliancy of the American Con-
stitution and the guarantee of the rights contained in that instrument
324
when it comes to be antagonized to a popular clamor. Do not let us
go before the country with that sort of a law.
This bill needs revision; in this particular it needs it. It ought to
go back to the committee of conference, and they ought to devote two
months of their time out of the Senate, if it is necessary for us to excuse
them so long, rather than to compel us to go before the country with
a bill like that. -
There is no occasion for this haste. Let them go and frame a bill
and bring it in here which ought to be presented to the country. Let
them, out of this admixture of conflicting and controversial systems,
find something that is not a compromise between committees, a com-
promise between clanmor and the railroads, and a compromise between
justice and the Constitution on the one hand and the desire to be aggres-
sive and vindictive on the other. Let them bring in a bill that is worthy
the Senate of the United States, and they will find plenty of men here
to support, them, but let us not be in haste; there is too much depend-
ent on this bill.
The honorable Senator from Vermont [Mr. MORRILL] referred to the
inconvenience of practice under this bill, and the impossibility of ex-
ecuting it. It goes into effect in sixty days. It comes upon the country
almost as suddenly, and I fear with as great a shock, as the earthquake
which shook Charleston into ruins. - .
These commissioners, upon the petition and application of persons
in different parts of the United States, are to hear all these complaints
as well as to regulate the matter of long and short hauls. Every day
that elapses after sixty days from the passage of the bill brings men
beneath the influence of criminal responsibility, heavy fines and for-
feitures, which the commission whenever it can get to the cases would
find itself in conscience bound to relieve if it had the power to relieve
them, by saying, “We would never, if we had had time, have applied
this law to you. It is unreasonable, and in the exercise of our discer-
tion we would not have done it.” There is the damage done; there
the penalty is incurred. No man can release them, and we rush the
country into a new and entirely unanticipated state of the law, and
leave them to foot the bills, the damages, and criminal prosecutions as
best they may.
This commission of five men is required to sit here in Washington,
and it may go out to other parts of the United States. Where will it
go 2 Suppose it goes to Alabama, must a man who lives up in the
hills of Franklin County remain under the heel of the railroads until
he can get money enough to travel to Montgomery and present his peti-
tion to the commission in Montgomery before he can get any relief?
It goes to every capital in the United States and hears the com-
plaints of those men who have most convenient access to them—a few
of them, because it can not hear many—but the men who are out in
the country and who have been the real sufferers; the men who are
plowing the land to make the corn and wheat and oats for transporta-
tion from their soil, can not have the remedy because they can not get
to the commission. § - -
Five commissioners to hear a hundred thousand cases 1. Then about.
the expense of it; there are $100,000 appropriated here. The commis-
sion has the right to subpoena witnesses. From where 2 Anywhere,
everywhere; and if a witness fails to attend it can take the matter into
the circuit court, and the circuit court can punish him for contempt
and impose upon him a tremendous fine.
You can bring a witness from Washington Territory to Washington
325
*
city to give testimony before the commission, and the Government of
the United States has to pay his expenses here and back and his fees
for every day's service. The bill permits them to reach out with their
process of subpoena without any restriction in the world and bring
witnesses from all parts of the country and in any numbers that the
commissioners or the interested parties may choose to send in. It is
simply horrible. The honorable Senator from Iowa [Mr. ALLISON]
would not get done making his calculations for the appropriations
necessary for the pay of these witnesses until he is too old to be Presi-
dent of the United States, and that would be a calamity. [Laughter.]
The bill is crude; it is ill-jointed; it is not properly guarded. It is
a bill filled with passion, energy, and vigor, but it is not the sort of leg-
islation that I wish to participate in in this body.
The Senator from Vermont in a pathetic way called attention to an-
other provision of the bill which I wish the Senate to consider for just
one moment. It is in section 13:
That any person, firm, corporation, or association, or any mercantile, agricult-
ural, or manufacturing society, or any body-politic or municipal organization
complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common carrier
subject to the provisions of this act in contravention of the provisions thereof,
may apply to said commission by petition, which shall briefly state the facts,
whereupon a statement of the damages thus made shall be forwarded by the
commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the
complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time, to be
specified by the commission. If such common carrier, within the time specified,
shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, said carrier
shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular violation
of law thus complained of. If such carrier shall not satisfy the complaint
within the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for
investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the commission to investi-
gate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall
deem proper. +
He must be still proceeded with notwithstanding what the com-
mission has prescribed against him is satisfactory to the party complain-
ing. If the commission thinks he still needs investigation he must be
investigated. For what ? To make a moral point on him; to con-
vince the world that he is a bad common carrier, a bad man, to dam-
age his reputation, to hurt his feelings, to pull him and haul him about
at the will of his five judges, and yet there is no verdict to be rendered
by the commission.
Did anybody ever hear of such powers being conferred upon a court
even, when after the court had pronounced judgment as to what ought
to be done and the man had come in and paid the money, it said to the
defendant, “Stay here; we want to investigate you; we have not done
with you; you are such an opprobrious character, and you are likely to be
So dangerous to the community that we want to put you under some
sort of peace bonds about your debts and contracts and engagements?”
Mr. President, if we are dealing with American citizens let us deal
with them as such if they do happen to be owners or managers of cor-
porations. I do not find that it is a crime for a man to be the owner
or manager of a corporation, and I do not think there is any reason in
that why he should be denounced and proceeded with in this manner.’
But here comes the point: -
No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct
damage to the complainant.
A common informer who has no interest whatever in the matter is
invited by the bill to go in before these commissioners. No damage
has been done to him. “Direct damage,” the section says. Of course
that means damage by which he has suffered. He is a moiety man.
326
He is the man to whom the court can award the $500 penalty under
the bill, and stimulated by his chances in that lottery he goes and
makes his complaint against the railroad company, and if the railroad
company is cast in that complaint the Government of the United
States has to pay the costs and the attorney's fee also. That is what
the proposed statute provides. If the complainant is cast he pays
nothing; so that the only chance in the world for him and his attorney
to make anything by the operation of the law is to hunt up a case that
will probably stick, and put it before the commission.
Mr. President, I do not care what may be the power, or the justice,
or the serenity, or the composure of this commission, they will be over-
reached and the country will be defrauded. We have seen in the joint
conventions between Governments how when the Government itself was
supposed to be the actor in the case private interests and private gain
found access to the court and the commissions have been crowded to
the wall, and injustice sometimes has been done of a character to blacken
the very temples in which the decree was rendered. -
Give to your commissioners, if you please, the most upright of all
human attributes in the administration of justice, and yet they are
beset on all hands by men tempted under the bill by a bribe of $500
damages to come in and hunt up a case in which they have no interest
involved. The idea of exposing the corporations of this country or the
carriers of this country to a set of men who have no other interest in
the world in the matter than to levy blackmail and to profit by it is
something that I can not vote for. I can not stand it. That is the
measure, and you propose to enact it into a law. I say do not. Send
it back and let us see if we can not get rid of these features. Do not
let us put that provision in. Never let us say that to a man we invite
in as a common informer against honorable men and against railroads
whose stock is owned throughout the length and breadth of the land
by people of all conditions. We should not invite men to appear
against this class of citizens, merely because they happen to be railroad
owners or capitalists, to levy blackmail upon them.
There is one other feature. I suppose the commissioners are to be
sworn, because they are officers of the Government of the United States.
What oath do they take? The oath that is common to all officers of
the Government of the United States—that they will support the Con-
stitution of the United States, and obey the laws; that is all. They
are not sworn, like judges, to render justice impartially between men,
without respect to their poverty or their wealth. That is the substance
of it. - - .
I will suppose they are sworn, what penalties do you put upon the
commissioners in the event that they do not do their duty? Suppose
that one or more of them is corrupt, you have the general law perhaps
to proceed against a man who accepts a bribe, but suppose he is po-
litically corrupt in his office, and you bring in the political element,
because you say in the bill that the commission shall consist of men
not more than three of whom shall belong to the same political party;
how do you punish these men? They can not be impeached, they are
not impeachable officers; they are removable, says the bill, at the will of
the President of the United States.
I have heard of Presidents with whom I would not trust that powers
I do not say that I would not trust that power in the hands of Mr.
Cleveland, for I think he is a very honest man, but it is a dangerou.
power to put into the hands of any man. He can appoint three com-
missioners of his own political party, and then the responsibility of
*
327
.*
those commissioners is directly on him. The responsibility is not with
the Senate on impeachment; it is not with a grand jury on a question
of fraud in the administration of their offices. By this bill their re-
sponsibility is made directly to the President, and not the responsibility
merely, but all that they do. The President is the man who acts
through them, and they are responsible to him, and he removes them
if they do not suit him.
Suppose he wanted to be re-elected President of the United States
and he should say “Here is a doubtful State; ” it may be Indiana;
“I wish you would just arrange to find sufficient reasons why this law
rought to be let up on that railroad company out there. They have a
great many employés. It is a very powerful organization. There
need not be anything said about it; there is no crime about it. It is a
mere piece of political strategy. Could you not afford just quietly to
let up on that Indiana railroad company and let its competitor run-
ning north and south through Illinois, which is a dead-certain Repub-
lican State, feel all the force of the law?” Why not? This thing
will probably never be done; but how have we provided that it shall
not be done? That is the question. What safeguards are we putting
in the way of a temptation of this kind, which to my mind it seems at
least is one of the greatest that could be set 2
Mr. President, it will not do to put this sort of power of the admin-
istration of private rights into the hands of any five men in the United
States, and then leave the question of their remaining in office, and con-
tinuing to do things that they want to do in the hands of one man, and
he the President of the United States. It is autocratic and oligarchic
power, a power that American statesmen ought never to trust in the
hands of any man in the world. These commissions ought to be held
amenable to direct statutes framed with reference to their powers, and
to keep them in control whereby they shall answer to the grand juries
of the country, and be locked up in the penitentiaries if they abuse the
trust confided to them.
That is all I have to say about this pending measure.
Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, I feel that I ought to say something
in reference to this bill before the vote is taken. I believe no other
Senator has indicated a desire to speak. I have great reluctance to
saying anything on the subject myself at this late hour in the night,
and I promise the Senate that I shall detain them but a very few min-
utes, and will then allow the vote to be taken.
I have been sitting here to-day listening to assaults upon this bill
until I have almost become convinced that I am the most vicious man
toward the railroads of any man I know. I started in upon the inves-
tigation of this subject two or three years ago with no prejudices, no
bias of sentiment or judgment, no disposition whatever to do anything
except that which my deliberate judgment told me was the best thing to
do. I have believed I occupied that position ever since until within
the last twenty-four hours, when the attacks upon this bill have been
such that I have become a little doubtful whether I have not been in-
spired from the beginning, so far as my action has been concerned, with
a determination to destroy the railroads of this country. To listen to
the Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] descanting upon the pro-
visions of the bill, one can scarcely resist the conclusion that it is a bill
to destroy the commerce of the country, and especially to break down
all the railroads.
So far as I am concerned, I repeat I have had no disposition of that
kind, and I am unaware that either of the Senators upon the confer-
328 g
ence committee with me has had any such disposition. We tried to do
the best we could with the bill that the Senate passed during the last
'session, to keep the bill as near to what the Senate had it as we could
do, and to arrive at an agreement between the House and the Senate
conferees. *
I submit that the majority of the assaults on the bill now under con-
sideration have been against provisions that were in the bill when the
Senate voted for it during the last session of Congress. I am of the
opinion that if this discussion lasted another day Senators would find
in every line of the bill a very serious objection to its adoption. They
started in by objecting to some portions of the fourth and fifth sections.
The Senator who has just concluded his remarks got over to the thir-
teenth section, and I believe went one or two sections beyond that, and
if there were any more speeches to be made against the bill I suppose
the very last section of it would be attacked before a vote was taken.
The Senate conferees regarded it as their duty to cling to every por-
tion of the Senate bill as it was passed that they could cling to and
reach an agreement between the conferees of the House and the Senate.
Hence it was that all those portions of the Senate bill not objected to by
the House conferees were allowed to remain in the bill by the Senate
conferees, the Senate conferees, as a matter of course, believing that
the Senate of the United States knew what it was doing when it voted
for the bill in the first place, and thinking that it would remain of the
same mind still.
The attacks upon the fourth section have not been based so much
upon the changes the conference committee made in that section as
upon the language which was placed there by the Senate of the United
States by its vote; and yet the conferees of the Senate have been re-
garded as at fault, to say the least, because they did not strike out
the words which the Senate had put in.
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. BROWN] assaults the bill because he
says that under it the provisions are so rigid that the railroads of the
country can not do business at all. The Senator from Oregon [Mr.
MITCHELL] assaults the bill because, he says, the fourth section amounts
to nothing, and that the words “under like circumstances and con-
ditions '' ought to be taken out.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. HoAR] assaults the bill be-
cause, he says, it is going to interfere with foreign commerce, and that
the fourth section will be construed as not allowing a rebate of 5 cents a
hundred upon commerce shipped across the country for exportation. So
he thinks the bill ought not to be agreed to, while, except as to the words
‘‘ from the same original point of departure'' and ‘‘the same point of
arrival,” the section is substantially just the same as it was when it
passed the Senate before. *
So I might go on referring to every Senator who has spoken, against
the bill, and nearly every one of them has founded his objections to
the bill upon the use of language that he had previously voted for in
the Senate of the United States before the bill went to the conference
committee at all.
I shall detain the Senate only a few moments, but I desire to reiter-
ate what I uttered upon the subject before, confining myself to the short-
haul provision which is contained in the fourth section of the bill. The
Senator from Massachusetts and others have arraigned me as having
placed a construction upon the bill different from the other conferees
on the part of the Senate as to the question whether in a line made up of
a number of roads the proportion that one road was to get was a crite-
329
rion by which it should be governed in the charges over its own road ac-
cording to the published rates made out by the road itself.
In other words, as I said before, taking the Albany and Boston road
as an illustration, it may take freight from Kansas City, from Chicago,
from Detroit, or from any other point coming in on different lines, and
the rate per cent. that it gets of that through traffic has no control
whatever over the charges that it sees proper to make over its own line
and over the freight that it gets along its line. The conferees on the
part of the Senate agree with me in that proposition, and when you
agree that that is the right construction to be placed upon the bill, then
I say that all this long-haul business that goes from west to east or from
east to west is not seriously affected by the provisions of the fourth
section.
The Senator from Massachusetts has been apparently disposed to
kill the bill by taking depositions of different parties over the country
and of the conferees on the part of the House. I submit that the an-
swer by Judge CRISP to the questions put to him by the Senator from
Massachusetts is not conclusive upon the point that we have been in-
sisting upon. Judge CRISP does not say in any line or word employed
by him that the construction placed upon that provision by the Senate
conferees is different from what we have stated upon this floor. The
only thing that that conferee says in reference to it about which there
might be auy difference is simply as to the meaning of the words
“under like conditions and circumstances.”
I have not said that upon any given statement of facts as put to me
by any member of the Senate the bill meant one thing or the other;
but I have said, and I submit that any candid man must agree with
me, that in the construction of the proposed statute, in the application
to the transportation of freight from one part of the country to another,
where the words “under like circumstances and conditions” are used,
they must be considered as an element in determining whether a ship-
ment of freight from one point is to be governed by the same rule that
governs it as to charges from another point. That is all I have con-
tended for. Judge CRISP expressed the opinion on the state of facts
put by the Senator from Massachusetts to him, that the circumstances
under the bill, as he construed it, would be the same. We might differ
upon that point or we might not, but it is no ground for declaring that
the conference committee, either on the part of the Senate or the House,
disagree as to the meaning of the provisions of the bill.
Mr. President, I do not believe that I ought to talk about this meas-
ure any longer, because I know every Senator wants to vote, and I sup-
pose if I talked here two hours what I might say would not change a
vote in the Senate. *
Mr. SEWELL. Will the Senator allow me to ask him one question ?
Mr. CULLO M. Certainly.
Mr. SEWELL. I desire to satisfy my own mind before voting on
the bill. Suppose a merchant in New York, a grain shipper, orders, as
is frequently done, two or three million bushels of wheat, taking ad-
vantage of the markets of Europe and watching closely the shipments
from the Black Sea and other ports, and also the Indian market. He
finds that he can make 2 or 3 cents a bushel by the shipment of a
large lot of wheat. He will order from Duluth half a million bushels,
from Milwaukee half a million bushels, from Chicago half a million
bushels, from Saint Louis half a million bushels, dividing his order. If
the wheat is shipped by car-loads under similar circumstances in every
particular, even under the same ownership and at the same time, and it
330 A
may all arrive at Buffalo or at a point on the Pennsylvania Railroad,
the pro rata on one shipment allowed to the trunk lines, taking the
New York Central Central, for instance, going to Boston, but going
through New York, that coming from Duluth may come at 10 cents a
hundred; that coming from Milwaukee may come at 9; that coming
from Chicago, being the greatest point of competition, may come at 8,
and from Saint Louis may come at 9 or 10.
All this being similar freight, under like circumstances, by the same
ownership, in car-loads arriving at the trunk-line point at the same time,
the company having accepted the lowest rate—that is, where the great-
est competition is, say at Chicago—can that railroad company take any
more for any of the freight that comes off the other lines for the same
party?
Mr. CULLOM. The Senator's question is pretty long. I have as-
serted the proposition that a proper construction of the bill gives to
railroads the right to make combinations or arrangements for a con-
tinuous shipment. One railroad makes its own tariff rate, another
railroad makes its, and the third makes its tariff of rates, and each one
of those roads, so far as its own business is concerned, is to be governed
by that tariff of rates.
But here come two roads, or four roads, converging into one, if you
please. It is the very same illustration that I gave the other day.
One line is composed of roads from Kansas City to Boston by way of
Albany; another line is composed of the roads from Chicago to Boston
by way of Albany; a third line is composed of a railroad or railroads
from Detroit to Boston by way of Albany, and so you may go on. I
assert that the rate of one of those lines beginning at Kansas City, if
you please, and running to Boston, has nothing to do with the rate of
the road that begins at Chicago and goes to Boston, or from Detroit and
goes to Boston. In other words, those continuous routes make their
own arrangements, just what they please, so far as any other road is
concerned, and they are bound thereby, but the other roads are not.
So in a shipment from Kansas City to Albany and to Boston, if the
Albany and Boston road only got 2 cents for carrying it from Albany
to Boston it would not interfere with its right to get 5 cents on the line
carrying it from Chicago to Boston by way of Albany, or whatever
other sum it might arrange with the other roads.
Mr. SEWELL. The Senator evades the direct question.
Mr. CULLOM. I think not.
Mr. SEWELL, My point was the same ownership, the same indi-
vidual making all these shipments, and the shipments converging on
the same line -
Mr. CULLOM. Does the Senator mean the same ownership of prop-
erty; the same freight 2
Mr. SEWELL. Yes, sir; I mean that a commission merchant in New
York will order two or three million bushels from different points, and
that freight will converge from different lines. I say under the re-
striction of this bill that, having accepted the lowest pro rata rate on
that portion of the line, the company is restricted from taking a higher
rate, although the pro rata would allow it. ,
Mr. CULLOM. I contend exactly the contrary in my view of the
construction of the section. I imagine that any other construction of
it would bring upon the railroads and upon the country great confu-
sion. It does not make any difference what the railroad from Chicago
to Boston charges if it is one line, or what the railroad from Kansas City
to Boston charges if it makes another continuous line. I repeat that
331
the per cent. the railroad gets from Albany to Boston on the shipment
from Chicago to Boston has nothing to do with the per cent. that it
gets on the line from Kansas City to Boston,
That is the whole case. So the argument of the Senator from Rhode
Island [Mr. ALDRICH] with his chart amounts to nothing if my con-
struction and the construction of the conferees on the part of the Senate
is to be taken as the correct view of the bill. That is what I contend
for, and you can not put any other construction upon it consistent with
the business of the country and with the language of the bill itself.
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN] is very much exercised
on account of the extraordinary powers that are given by the bill and
on account of the difference of opinion which seems to prevail in the
Senate as to the meaning of the language of the fourth section and other
portions of the bill. He says that the Supreme Court oscillates in its
opinions upon statutes from year to year. That is true; there is no
doubt about it. So if the Supreme Court of the United States has one
opinion one year and possibly modifies it another, it is not surprising
that any language which may be incorporated in any bill brought in
here upon this subject will be differently construed by different Sen-
ators upon this floor.
I undertake to say that there are not three men in the Senate who
can draught a provision into this bill incorporating the ideas of the fourth
section, or upon the short-haul question at all, that will be construed
aliké by every member of the Senate. I defy any one to do it. We
have never supposed until to-day that any man on earth could miscon-
strue the language when it says that you shall not charge more in the
aggregate for the short haul than for the long haul on the same line
and going in the same direction, and yet the Senator from Georgia
comes in here with a telegraphic account of a decision in North Caro-
lina, which says that those words which everybody here, I think, agreed
meant in the aggregate, and not a pro rate per mile per ton, do not
even mean what we have all understood them to mean before.
So you see that you may use the plainest language that can be writ-
ten and yet courts as well as Senators may differ as to the construction
of the language when it comes to be applied to the transportation of
the country. It is a pretty difficult thing. I have done my best in
trying to get something that the country could understand, and at the
same time do something that would benefit the people of this country,
but I begin to think that I have made an utter failure in getting any-
thing at all that any one ever can understand to mean what I supposed
it meant.
The Senator from Alabama refers to the extraordinary powers of the
commission, to the fact that the testimony taken by the commission is
to be prima facie evidence of the truthfulness of the testimony in a court
of record. This is not extraordinary. Take some of the State laws of
the country to-day. Take the State of Illinois, for instance. The
commission of the State of Illinois makes out a freight bill and pub-
lishes it. It becomes the law until it is overturned by proof produced
by a transportation company that the rates which are fixed in thefreight
bill are not reasonable and just.
The provision making the testimony taken by the commission as to
the conduct of a common carrier prima facie evidence is based on the
fact that, as we all know, the railroads have locked up within their own
control and their own knowledge all the facts which operate on them
in making any given rate, and there is no way to get at the facts ex-
cept by throwing the onus of proof upon them that the rates which
332
they charge are reasonable and not unreasonable and unjust. Is there
anything wrong in that? --"
While I am talking about that I desire to say that one of the ablest
railroad commissions in the United States is the railroad commission
in New York. The chairman of that commission, Mr. Kernan, a very
able lawyer and a very able commissioner, insisted before the select
committee of the Senate that unless we did something of that sort the
railroads would beat the people every time in a controversy between
the railroads and the individual shipper as to whether the rate was
reasonable and just or not. -
So we incorporated that provision in the bill, but there has been no
disposition on the part of the Senate committee, in the first place, or
On the part of the conferees, in the second place, to insert any undue
provision in the bill that was going to do a great injury to the cor-
porations of the country. That provision, too, was in the bill reported
by the select committee of the Senate, discussed here for a month or
two during the last session of Congress, and voted in by the Senate of
the United States; and yet the conferees of the Senate are berated
to-day because there is such a provision in the bill, and that, too, it is
said, has come from the conference committee.
The trouble about this whole thing, Mr. President, is in the fact
that hardly anybody believed there was going to be an interstate-
commerce bill passed by this Congress until the conference committee
reported. When I say hardly anybody, I refer to the men who did
not believe in any legislation at all that should interfere with the
freedom of the railroad companies of the country in doing and charg-
ing what they pleased without any power on the part of the people to
prevent it.
But when they are met by a conference report, agreed to by the con-
ferees of the two Houses, and it simply becomes a question whether
the Senate will adopt the conference report, knowing that when it does
in all probability very soon thereafter the bill will become a law, then
the men interested on the other side of this question rally to the sup-
port of the transportation companies, and they find all manner of diffi-
culties with the bill which has been brought into the Senate.
Sir, it has just come to the point when you have got to face the
music and vote for an interstate-commerce bill or vote it down. That
is all there is of it. I have nothing more to say. I have discharged
my duty as best I know how. I reported on the part of the Senate
conferees the bill that is before you. I am not responsible for what
the Senate does with it. I am not going to find fault with anybody
in the Senate upon the question, whether we concur in the report or
reject it, but I warn Senators that the people of the United States for
the last ten years have been struggling to assert the principle that the
Government of the United States has the power to regulate transpor-
tation from one end of this country to the other.
We are now just at the point whether we will decide it or whether
we will set the question afloat again for another Congress that comes
in after the 4th of March. I am not going to say that I know if the
report is not concurred in we shall get no legislation. I shall not say
that, but I am going to say that I in my heart believe that it is very
doubtful, to say the least, whether, if the report is defeated, we shall get
any legislation during the present Congress. So when the Senate acts
upon the question my duty will have been done so far as I am able to
see it.
I confess that there are provisions in this bill which I do not like
333
I would have preferred the bill that I, as chairman of the select com-
mittee, reported to the Senate. I would have preferred the bill the
Senate passed during the last session. I went into the conference
committee hoping and struggling to get the bill, pure and simple, that
we had passed in the Senate during the last session of Congress. But
I could not get it. I understand that if a conferee can not get all that
he wants, and all that the body he represents asks for, in a case of
vital importance, it is his duty to do the best he can under all the cir-
cumstances, and agree, if he can afford to do it consistent with his sense
of public duty.
That we did, and we have submitted this report. As I said before,
it is for the Senate now to discharge its duty and vote for it or vote
against it, as it sees proper. If it shall vote the conference report
down, I shall hope that we may get something better in the place of
it, and if I had anything to do with the next effort, I should do the
very best I could to get a bill more in harmony with my own sense of
what is right as well as with the expressions made by Senators in the
discussions upon this bill.
But I repeat, every Senator must take his own responsibility in mak-
ing up his mind, and in the light of the uncertainty of getting any
legislation and thereby letting it go out to the country that the rail-
roads are still masters of the situation, you must vote as your judg-
ments may dictate.
I have believed from the time I have given any attention to public
affairs that it was necessary to bring into force the provision of the
Constitution giving Congress the power to regulate commerce among
the States. The Senator from New York [Mr. Eva RTs] attacked the
bill and said that it was unconstitutional, because, as I understood
him, the Constitution was framed on that subject for the purpose of
facilitating commerce, and that this was a bill to hinder or to militate
against it.
I undertake to say that the purpose of the bill, at least whatever may
be the strained construction which has been placed upon it or which
may be placed upon it by the transportation companies of the country,
has been to facilitate commerce and to protect the individual rights of
the people as against the great railroad corporations. I have no dispo-
sition to do the railroads of the country any harm. I have no dispo-
sition to interfere with their legitimate business. I have no disposition,
God knows, to interfere with the commerce of the country, properly
conducted. But I do say that it is the duty of the Congress of the
United States to place upon the statute-book some legislation which
will look to the regulation of commerce upon the railroads so that they
will not treat one man differently under similar conditions and circum-
stances from another.
It has been said over and over again here that the railroad compa-
nies would build up one man and crush another; that their policy has
been to destroy one locality or city and build up another. Here we
have undertaken to so regulate them as to prevent them from doing
those things so far as we could do so.
The Senator from Massachusetts has arrayed a great number of wit-
nesses against this bill from his own city and from other places. While
he was making his speech I received a dispatch from a man by the
name of Edward Kemble. While I do not now personally remember
exactly the individual business in which he is engaged, I do remember
that the Senator himself gave me his name before we went to his city
to take testimony as one of the men who would be well advised upon
334
the subject, and who would testify before us. Mr. Kemble says, ad-
dressing me:
BOSTON, MASS., January 14, 1887.
Don’t think the action of Chamber of Commerce here can be sustained. I am,
a member, and an exporter of breadstuffs, and heartily approve your bill.
EDWARD FOEMBLE.
Here is a telegram which I received from another citizen of that State
who, I believe, was before the committee:
BosTON, MASS., January 8, 1887.
SENATOR CULLOM, Washington, D. C. :
The interstate-commerce act ought to become a law because the railroad
management of late have built up a class of favored shippers, thus putting a
premium on disbonesty.
GEO. H. BEAMAN, 168 State Street.
I suppose the Senator from Massachusetts knows both of these gen-
tlemen.
Mr. HOAR. May I ask the Senator if he does not see very clearly
that both the gentlemen who sent in those dispatches sent them in the
belief that the bill does not mean what he says it means, but that it
means what the House conferees say ; that is, the dispatch shows that
the sender wants to break up this system of rebate for the foreign com-
merce which the Senator thinks will still be preserved by the bill ?
Mr. CULLOM. I do not understand that I have a right to draw
any such conclusion. These gentlemen have had copies of the bill.
There is not a city in the United States where there is a board of trade
or a chamber of commerce that has not given almost constant study to
the provisions of this bill for the last ten days or more. There is a
difference of opinion in reference to what the effect will be upon the
commerce of the country.
Since I have been sitting here this afternoon I have received a dis-
patch also from the city of New York, from the Board of Trade and
Transportation of that city, and I ask the Secretary to read it.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will read the dis-
patch. *
The Secretary read as follows: -
NEW YORK, Jamwary 14, 1887.
To Hon. SHELBY M. CULLOM,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. :
DEAR SIR : We have the honor to transmit here with a copy of resolutions
adopted at the monthly meeting of the New York Board of Trade and Trans-
portation, January 12. This expression represents a membership of more than
eight hundred houses of this city in active business, comprising fully two thou-
sand individuals, who have a vital interest in remedying, as far as possible, the
evils which attend interstate commerce.
If there is any difference of opinion among them as to the precise effect and
desirability of certain of the provisions in this bill it has not been developed,
and no organization in this country has given the subject a closer study than
this board; there is, however, a substantial concurrence of opinion that some-
thing must be done and that the pending bill is the best measure we are likely
to get, and should have a fair trial. These are beyond any question the true
opinions and views of the active, commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural in-
terests of the State of New York. If the bill proves defective in its workings,
it can be amended at subsequent sessions of Congress.
Of course there are favored shippers as well as railroad men who are opposed
to any legislation whatever which would insure supervision, however slight,
in the public interest, and such persons are very active at the present time in
presenting objections to the bill (in fact no bill could be drawn they would not
oppose); but it is sincerely to be hoped that the present Congress will not ad-
journ without giving the country some measure of relief from the evils which
now exist in interstate commerce :
Whereas after twelve years of study of the interstate-commerce problem, be-
ginning with the investigation of the Windom committee in 1874 and ending
335
with that of the Cullom committee in 1885, during which the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Senate have each passed different bills without the other
agreeing; and -
Whereas an agreement has been reached by a compromise between what was
known as the Cullom bill and the Reagan bill by which an interstate commerce
bill is now pending before both Houses of Congress; and
Whereas differences of opinion upon some of the ponts involved must nec-
essarily exist in any important bill of this kind.
Resolved, That in the opinion of this board it is the duty of all parties to acqui-
esce in a fair trial of the best considered measure for this purpose which has
yet been before the country, and we believe it to be for the best interests both
of the railroads and shippers that the present bill should become a law.
IResolved, That if after fair trial it shall be found to work undue hardship to any
interest that this board pledges its influence to secure such amendment as will
remedy same.
THE NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE AND TRANSPORTATION,
By FRANK S. GARDNER, Acting Secretary.
Mr. CULLOM. I have also received the following dispatch within
the last few minutes from my own State from a former railroad com-
missioner:
LELAND HOTEL, SPRINGFIELD, IL.L., January, 14, 1887.
Hon. S. M. CULLOM:
The communities and customers that have been enriched by the vicious
methods of rail transportation protest against your bill. Senator HOAR's argu-
ment would sink the general welfare and perpetuate the unjust advantages of
those favored communities and branches of business.
RICHARD P. MORGAN, JR.
Mr. President, a word or two more and I shall close. I think the
Senator from California [Mr. STANFORD] is perfectly consistent with
himself in opposing this bill, because he comes before the Senate and
frankly and honestly—and I honor him for it—says that he is against
it and states one special reason why. He says that from San Francisco
to New Orleans he can only charge a rate that would perhaps give him.
a dollar a ton, while from San Francisco half way to New Orleans at
some uncompeting place he can charge two or three times the amount,
and, therefore, he does not want the Government of the United States
to interfere with that privilege. He is perfectly honest about it. He
states the exact facts I have no doubt, and says he does not want to be
interfered with. Well, sir, I dislike very much to favor any bill that
would interfere with what the Senator from California believes to be
an honest right on his part; but I must insist that, while there may be
occasionally an instance such as the Senator referred to, it ought not
to stand in the way of general legislation needed to protect the great
masses of the people against unjust discrimination by the railroads of
the country.
The Senator from Alabama [Mr. MORGAN] says that we had better
go slow and remain quiet under the old régime. Well, Mr. President,
I remember only a few days ago hearing the Senator from Alabama al-
leging that the railroads, the common carriers of the country were
eating up the people, were destroying the interests of the people. I
do not know whether he confined that remark to his own State or ex-
tended it to the whole country, but I should have inferred from the
language he used against the railroad eompanies that he would have
been in favor of almost any legislation that would in any way restrict
them in their reckless disregard of the rights of the people. I can
only conclude that the Senator from Alabama would rather that de-
structive system should go on, as he charged it to exist when he made
his speech the other day, without control, than to trust a commission
who, he says, are individually liable to corrupt influences, either at
the hands of the President or somebody else outside.
336
Sir, we have got to trust somebody. We must either leave this
matter to the discretion and judgment and sense of honor of the officers
of the railroad companies, or we must trust the commission and the
courts of the country to protect the people against unjust discrimina-
tions and extortions on the part of common carriers. Who is it that is
most liable to be controlled wrongfully 2 Is it the President of the
United States as against a corporation? Is it an honest commission
honestly selected by the President of the United States as against a
railroad company ? I say that there are not those inducements to be
placed in the hands of a set of men selected for their integrity, selected
for their ability, selected for their capacity to regulate these railroads
and enforce the law, that are left in the hands of the officers of the rail-
road companies themselves.
I take it that there is somebody honest in this country and that the
President of the United States, if this bill becomes a law, will select
the broadest-gauge men, the men highest in integrity and intelligence
as the men to enforce this law as against the corporations and as a go-
between, if you please, between the shippers and the railroads of the
country. I am willing to trust them. If they are not honest the
President has the right to remove them, and if the shipper is unwill-
ing to submit to their judgment, under this bill he has a right to go
directly to the courts. I say that there is not anything that can be
done by these corporations against individuals where the shipper him-
self has not a right to get into court in some way or other if he is not
willing to abide by the decision of the commissioners appointed by the
President.
Sir, I shall not take up the time of the Senate longer.
Mr. COLQUITT. Mr. President, before the vote is taken I wish to
make a few remarks, and only a few, in explanation of the vote that I
shall give in support of this bill.
It has not been without a conflict of impressions that I have agreed
to cast my vote for the bill. When this bill in its original shape was
before the Senate, I made one of the four who voted against its passage.
My convictions, my political prepossessions were all against the policy
of such legislation. I hoped that the States which created the railroads
would exercise their power of control. It is my firm belief that the
States alone possess this power. Great as I regarded the causes and
the necessity for interposition, Ishrank from the risk and the tendency
of such interposition on the part of the General Government.
I do not hesitate to say now that if I hoped that the vital matters
involved in this bill could be remanded to the State authorities for
State adjustment, I would vote again as I did upon the occasion referred
to. But I am shut out from such a hope by the ruling of our highest
court. Questionable as I regard the soundness of that ruling, I shall
not gainsay it. I respect the voice of that tribunal, and I yield defer-
ence to it. I am confronted therefore by this alternative: either to
intervene and control by the power of the General Government, or to
submit to the domination of corporate wealth and power.
The power to tax and the power to exact tribute of labor and indus- .
try is the highest and most dreadful and the most dreaded attribute of
sovereignty. Wars and revolutions have sprung from the unjust exer-
cise of it. It is, as quoted by the Senator from New York [Mr. Ev-
ARTs] yesterday, “the power to destroy.” It is shocking to my sense
of popular rights and of popular liberties that a corporation, a body of
men associated together for personal ends and personal aggrandize-
ment, shall have the power to exercise this sovereign right without con-
337
trol and without limitation. They have exercised this right and this
power, and they have abused the power. A sense of justice, of fair
dealing, will not condone such abuses. The spirit of a free people will
not tolerate the exercise of such a right. -
I make no professions of my estimate of railroads or of the value I at-
tach to them. To do so would be as commonplace and as fulsome as
to express gratitude for the blessings of life and of water. But while
we rejoice in the normal results which follow upon these ministering
agents of civilization and of human progress, we cannot become the
defenders or the apologists of their abuses. These have been great and
serious. They will continue as long as the temptation lasts. The
temptation will continue until men cease to be avaricious.
I therefore think I choose by far the lesser of the two evils when I
accept the propositions of this bill; and being forced to elect, I shall
give my vote to it; and believing, as I do, that this legislation can only
be accomplished by the adoption of the measure before us, and that its
reference to a committee, with a view to reinvestigation and readjust-
ment and reharmonizing differences of opinion, will result in no legis-
lation, I shall vote against recommitment.
Mr. DAWES. Mr. President, having paired upon this bill with the
Senator from Texas [Mr. MAXEY], I shall not be able to record my vote
upon the pending question. I desiresimply to state, therefore, that I am
in favor of the main features of this bill and of the purpose sought to
be obtained by it. But I am convinced that there are provisions in
this bill, which have been discussed most ably and elaborately by my
colleague [Mr. HoAR] and others, which would, instead of producing
the beneficial results sought for and expected of this bill, be most dis-
astrous in their consequences. Therefore, in the hope that a recommit-
ment of this bill may eliminate from it those objectionable features,
if I were at liberty to vote I should vote for the recommitment.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. President, I can not cast my vote for the report of
the conference committee on this bill without recording my dissent
from some of its provisions. I do not believe that it was worth while
in a measure so tentative as this to include matters that were incon-
gruous with the main purposes of the legislation proposed, and about
the expediency and constitutionality of which there was an honest and
wide divergence of opinion. I can not gain my own assent to the prop-
osition that the prohibition contained in the fifth section, as to what
is called “pooling,” is within the competency of Congress to enact.
It would hardly be contended that if it were the only provision of the
bill, the power to regulate commerce between the States and foreign
nations included the power to interfere with the liberty of contract of
those who happened to be engaged in the business of transportation.
That the owner of a ship, for instance, engaged in foreign commerce
could be forbidden under the guise of a regulation of commerce to dis-
pose of his freight money as he pleased after he had earned it, or to
enter into an agreement to dispose of it in a particular way. There is
another provision of the bill reported by the conference committee
open to criticism, which was, no doubt, intended to be its most con-
Servative feature. I mean the establishment of a commission to which
are committed so many and so important powers—legislative, judicial,
and executive. These are questions of constitutional power, and may
require the attention and construction of the courts.
On the ground of expediency I doubt whether the long and short
haul provision will not affect disastrously the commerce of the country.
If I could by a recommittal of the bill hope to see these and per-
I S C 22 - -
338
haps some other defects remedied, I should gladly cast my vote to bring
about further conference and consideration as to the wisdom of leaving
out these sections of doubtful constitutionality or expediency. But,
sir, the parliamentary situation of this report does not admit of such
a course. The vote must be to concur or nonconcur in the report of
the conference committee, and I believe that the just demands of all
interests involved will be best consulted by not allowing this bill,
which in its main features is within the constitutional grant of power
to Congress, and fairly meets the popular demand for an assertion of
that power on the part of Congress to fail.
Time and experience before the meeting of Congress in December
next will do more to enlighten and inform the public mind than further
debate here can possibly do, and I hope and believe that this great
question will be then dealt with in a spirit of liberality and justice to
all sections and to all interests, which will be worthy of the patriotism
and intelligence of American legislators.
Now, sir, if I am mistaken in what I believe to be the parliamentary
situation of the question before the Senate, and it is competent to vote
upon a motion to recommit to the committee of conference this bill
with or without instructions, I shall be glad to give my vote for such
a recommittal; but believing, as I understand the parliamentary situ-
ation, that that is not possible, I shall record my vote in favor of the
conference report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate
agree to the report of the committee of conference?
Mr. FRY.E. I desire to make a motion to recommit.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine moves
that
Mr. FRYE. I will first, if the Chair pleases, move to recommit this
report with instructions to the Senate conferees to insist upon the strik-
ing out of section 4 as amended and inserting section 4 of the original
Senate bill; also upon striking out section 5, which is the pooling clause,
and inserting in its place section 19 of the original Senate bill, which is
the clause authorizing the commissioners to investigate the matter of
pooling, and report at Some future day.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine moves that
the report be recommitted with the instructions named by him.
Mr. CULLOM. I make the point of order on the motion to recom-
mit, and especially on the question of recommitting with instructions.
Mr. HARRIS. I would be glad to ask the Senator from Maine to
whom or to what is this bill to be recommitted? Some months ago the
House of Representatives adopted an amendment in lieu of the Senate
bill. The Senate disagreed to that amendment and insisted upon its
disagreement and asked a conference, to which the House assented.
Managers on the part of the two Houses were appointed. They con-
ferred; they agreed; and have reported their action to their respective
Houses. That committee no longer exists. It has performed the duty
assigned it; it has gone out of existence. There is now no committee,
of conference between the two Houses in respect to this bill.
But suppose the motion of the Senator from Maine is held by the
Chair to be in order, and suppose a majority of the Senate sustains it,
and I presume the construction would be in the precise form of the
motion, that the bill goes back to the same managers who had charge
of it before on the part of the Senate; if that be true, suppose our
chairman should address a note to the former managers on the part of
the House, is it to be presumed that those managers would consent to
339
entertain the proposition? What right have they to respond to any
such note and come here to conſer with us about the report which they
have already made 2 The House has taken no action upon it, but those
conferees have made their report. It is there on file, awaiting the
action of the Senate, concurring or non-concurring in the report of the
committee.
The object that the Senator from Maine has, or that any other Sen-
ator may have who desires a further conference, can be reached in a
legitimate and in a parliamentary way if it is sought to reach it and a
majority of the Senate shall favor it. When the Senate shall have dis-
agreed to this report, shall by vote have rejected the conference report,
it will then be competent and in order for any Senator who chooses to
do so to move that the Senate further insist on its disagreement with
the House amendment, and ask a further conference with the House
in respect to that disagreement.
By that method the object can be legitimately reached, and reached
in accordance with parliamentary methods and parliamentary rules and .
parliamentary law. But the motion to recommit the report of a com-
mittee composed of the managers of the two Houses, who have already
considered, who have already reported, and who have performed the
whole duty that was devolved upon them, the committee having gone
out of existence, really seems to me to be entirely out of the question,
though I am aware that there is at least one, and possibly more than
one, precedent for this proceeding. It is a most vicious precedent, in-
consistent with every method of parliamentary proceeding, and a pre-
cedent that had better be departed from at the earliest opportunity that
the body has to depart from it, than be followed, because it is vicious
and wholly contrary to every rule of parliamentary methods and sound
parliamentary law.
Mr. FRYE. Mr. President,
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate is not in order. The Chair
has indulged debate thus far by unanimous consent and is very glad to
hear the opinions of Senators.
Mr. FRYE. Will the Chair allow me to reply to the Senator from
Tennessee in a few words? --
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there be no objection the Sen-
ator from Maine may proceed.
Mr. FRY.E. I thoroughly understand that when a committee has
made a report in parliamentary law the coſmmittee is then discharged;
but it is an equally well settled principle of parliamentary law that a
recommitment to a committee revives the committee. There can not
be any question at all about that, and the United States Senate has
recommitted reports of conference committees. . . i.
Mr. HARRIS. Will the Senator allow me to ask him can any action
on our part revive a committee of the House of Representatives that
has gone out of existence? -
Mr. FRYE. We are simply acting as the United States Senate, and
we do not look at the House of Representatives at all. We instruct our
Conferees; we recommitto our conferees, and if werecommit with instruc-
tions, it is to our conferees. It has no reference to the other House at
all. They must take the responsibility of their action in the House,
and not we, - * -
Why, sir, the Senate has recommitted reports over and over and over
again to conference committees. In the case of the well known salary
grab, so called, a motion was made in the Senate to recommit that, with
instructions, and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDS], then Pre-
340
siding Officer, ruled that it was in order. The present Presiding Offi-
cer of the Senate stoutly maintained that the ruling of the then Pre-
siding Officer was clearly right. The United States Senate, on the
contrary, determined, on an appeal, that it was wrong. But that whole
discussion proceeded upon this one single idea—that you could not in-
struct conferees, because the moment you undertook to do so you took
from them their character as free conferees. In my judgment, there
is nothing in that point. But that was decided by the Senate.
I admit that the Presiding Officer here (notwithstanding his opinion
may be that under parliamentary law this motion may be in order)
may with perfect propriety cite the ruling of the Senate and decline
to accept this motion; but I prefer very much to make the motion with
the instructions, for I confess that never before in my life did I listen
to a Senatorial discussion and find my mind in such an utter state of
confusion as it is following the discussion which has taken place here
on this question.
I move to instruct the conferees to strike out the fourth section. I
should like to know what the fourth section means from this discus-
sion. I should like to know how I or my constituents are to determine
what it means from this discussion. I should like to know what lights
have been thrown upon it. The conferees disagree in relation to it;
almost every Senator who has discussed it disagrees with the other
Senators in relation to it. Boards of trade in Boston and Indianapolis,
the Chamber of Commerce in New York, Legislatures of the different
States, all absolutely disagree diametrically as to what this fourth sec-
tion is.
Now, sir, the State of Maine, which I in part represent, is away down
at one extreme of this long haul. If this fourth Section is what some
of the Senators on this floor claim it is—and it seems to me that their
claim is sound—then it affects disastrously all the interests of my State;
then it levies a tax upon every barrel of flour that comes into my State,
upon every bushel of corn, upon all the coal that comes to my State,
upon all the cotton that comes to my State; it places an embargo upon
every pound of our granite that we desire to send into the interior of
this country, upon every pound of ice, upon all our baled hay, and not
only an embargo upon the hay, but an increased tax upon our hay and
upon our lumber. And I say that, affecting, as one construction of the
fourth section does as it stands to day, the interests of my State, it is
my duty, if I can, to have the report recommitted to this committee,
and ask them to go back to the fourth section which the Senate passed,
instead of creating into law this section about which there is such con-
fusion and such doubt.
As to the fifth section, the pooling clause, there is almost the same
confusion about it. One Senator seeming to know about it insists that
pooling is a great benefit to the interests of the people of this country.
Another Senator insists that within his knowledge it ought to be made
a crime and it ought to be punished by a five-thousand-dollar fine, and
SO OD. -
Now, it seems to me that the better way is to recommit this bill with
instructions to consider these two sections further and to report again;
and I say if this motion shall be adopted by the United States Senate
it revives in parliamentary law our committee, and they can proceed.
I do not know whether the Chair will adopt the ruling of the United
States Senate in the case of the salary grab; and perhaps the Chair
remembers that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. EDMUNDs] at the next
session of the Senate gathered all the precedents (and there were
341
some eight or ten of them in number), and in a speech of great power
that he made to the Senate justified the position which he had taken
in his ruling in the matter of the salary grab
Mr. HOAR. Certainly within one or two years we have overruled
the ruling then made by the Senate, on the authority which the Sena-
tor cites.
Mr. FRYE. The Senator from Massachusetts himself cited it, and
had it read in the Senate.
Mr. HOAR. And the Senate at that time ruled that such a motion
was in order.
Mr. FRYE. But the Chair understands perfectly well that a ruling
of the Senate on a question of order is of no account whatever. When
the last post-office appropriation bill was before the Senate, within one
hour’s time this Senate ruled diametrically opposite on two different
items of that bill involving exactly the same principle. The Senate
vote on the merits of a question when a matter of order is presented,
and not on a construction of parliamentary law always.
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPooxER] desires me to add this
to my instructions, and I have no objection to it because I think it is
a matter of great importance:
Nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to prohibit any carrier
subject to its provisions from making reasonable discrimination by special rate
or otherwise in favor of freight of any kind carried for exportation from the
United States.
As an amendment, I suppose, to Some provision of the bill.
If the Chair should overrule this motion, and the report should then
be recommitted without instructions, the conferees of course will dis-
tinctly understand what the desire of the Senators who vote for re-
commitment is.” These suggestions will be regarded as instructions,
and then I will make the motion to recommit. I suppose no point of
order will be made against it.
Mr. EDMUNIDS. Mr. President
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will be heard if there
be no objection.
Mr. EDMUNDS. As my name has been drawn in question about
this matter of order, i wish to say that when the salary-grab bill, as .
it was properly called I think, was up the question that was presented
to me, being for the moment accidentally in the chair, was not a ques-
tion as to whether you could make a motion to recommit as against a
motion to agree to a report of a committee of conference, as I remem-
ber, but the only question (waiving that—nobody suggested that) was
whether it was within the power of either House to instruct their con-
ferees when they could properly appoint conferees and send them to
the other House to communicate.
I held that each House had the right to instruct any committee of
its own, that it had the right to commit anything to, to do what that
House thought it fit should be done. The Senate overruled me against
what had been its clear precedent before, as I demonstrated at the next
session, and against what I think is the true parliamentary law.
But the question that is now presented, if I correctly understand it,
is not the question that was then presented and passed upon. The
question that is now presented is not merely whether you may instruct
your representatives in a conference when you have them, but having
had a conference and the conferees having reported, and pending the
question of agreeing to that report, whether you can recommit the sub-
342 .
ject without having first voted that you will not agree to what they
have reported.
If the Senate should vote that they would not agree to this conference
report, then Ithink, as Ithought in 1873, that it is perfectly competent for
the Senate in again notifying the House that we disagree to their amend-
ment, and insist upon disagreeing to it, and ask a further conference
and appoint conferees, to instruct our conferees to do what we think
they ought to do, and to insist on what we think they ought to insist
upon; but I must say that I think it is clear on the ordinary principles
of procedure that the first question which is to be taken in this body
is on agreeing to this report.
If Senators are not satisfied with it, we all come to the same result
in the end; they will vote “no,” and having voted “no,” by a ma-
jority, then I admit it is perfectly competent in asking a further con-
ference to instruct our representatives to insist on this, that, or the
other, as we please. But as the question now is, I submit, with great
respect, that the first question must be taken on agreeing to the con-
ference report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair supposing that this ques-
tion might arise has taken occasion to look into the precedents, and
finds that Rule XLIX gives to the report of a committee of conference
a precedence in being received and considered, but makes no special
rule as to the modes of consideration, leaving that to be settled by the
order of precedence fixed by the forty-third rule.
The Chair ascertains that in all cases which can be found among the
precedents in the history of the country, going back to the beginning
of the Government, that the same order of precedence of motions has
been applied to the consideration of a report of a committee of confer-
ence as is applied to any other question pending before the Senate ex-
cept only that early in the history of the Government, as early as the
close of the last century, it was held by the Senate, and passed as an
order of the Senate, although not carried into the rules—
º a motion to amend a report of a committee of conference cannot be
In 18018,
But a conference report is open to all the other motions that can be
made; for instance, to take a recess, to proceed to the consideration of
executive business, to lay on the table, to postpone indefinitely, to post-
pone to a day certain, to commit, but not to amend. So the Chair is
clearly of the opinion that a motion to commit is in order, although it
is not a very common practice. There have been some cases found in
the books where a motion to commit such a-report has been made and
has been adopted mem. con. The Chair thinks that the motion to com-
mit can be made as a matter of right before the question is put on agree-
ing to the report itself.
The Chair, in referring to the case which was made somewhat famous,
called the salary-grab bill, finds that the ruling of the then occupant
of the chair, the Senator from Vermont LMr. EDMUNDs], was exactly
in accordance with this position. A motion was made in that case to
instruct the committee of conference which had reported a bill contain-
ing what was known as the salary-grab. An objection was made that
that motion to commit with instructions was not in order. The then
occupant of the chair, the Senator from Vermont, ruled that it was in
order. The instructions were held by him to be in order. *
That question was debated at some length. An appeal was take
from the decision on the question of instructions, and the Senate over-
ruled the decision of the Chair which held that the instructions were
\
343
in order, by a very large majority, a vote that clearly indicated the pur-
pose of the Senate to adopt that amendment. The Chair feels himself
bound by that ruling unless, as the Senator from Massachusetts says, it
has been since overruled. The Chair can find no case where the subject
has been brought before the Senate since; but the Chair feels bound to
regard that as a precedent and therefore is compelled to hold that the
instructions are not in order, but a motion to commit is clearly in order.
It appears that after the instructions had been disposed of in the case
referred to, the Presiding Officer said:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on agreeing to the report of
the committee of conference.
Mr. WRIGHT. I now move to recommit the report without instruction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa, moves that the report be
recommitted to the connmittee of conference. -
Mr. WRIGHT. On that question I call for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Then follows a long debate on the question of recommitting. Finally,
by common consent the question was put on the motion to agree, but
it was held there that the motion to recommit was in order.
Mr. HOAR. I am unable to affirm with any positiveness of recol-
lection what the Senate did in the recent case, and I am not able to
state what that case was, but I have a very distinct impression that
within the last year or two this question came up, and that I searched
for the precedents and found the argument made by the Senator from
Vermont. .2
The Senator from Vermont, at the next session of Congress, the
following December, or whenever the next session was, renewed the
subject and fortified his ruling by a citation of authorities from the
beginning, and on appealing to that my impression is, though I confess
it is a vague recollection on which I should not think for a moment to
ask the Chair to depend, that the particular measure on which this
particular motion to commit with instructions was made was admitted,
and it was so committed on the authority of that collection of prece-
dents.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The opinion of the Senator from
Vermont is here in a speech, but the question has not been decided by
the Senate since. - .
Mr. FRY.E. I take no appeal from the ruling of the Chair. I now
move to recommit. As I understand it, if this motion should prevail
then it will be competent for the Senate to instruct as it pleases.
Mr. EDMUNDS. The Chair holds not.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair
Mr. FRY.E. . After it is recommitted ?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That question has not yet arisen. If
the motion to recommit is adopted, the Chair will consider it.
Mr. FRYE, I move to recommit this report.
Mr. EDMUNDS. In reply to what the Chair has said, as I seem to
be the general scape-goat of everything that goes wrong in the Senate,
I wish to remind the Chair that the point that was before me when I
happened to be occupying the place that Vice-President Colfax was
entitled to, but had gone out for a moment, was not any question as to
the propriety of a motion to recommit, but it solely turned on the
question, the other point not being raised at all (and I confess it was
not drawn to my attention) of the right to instruct a committee of
Conference on the part of the Senate when it was proper to have a com-
mittee of conference at all.
- *
344
On that point alone I ruled, and I ruled, as I showed at the next
session, according to the uniform precedents both of the Senate and
House of Representatives, as was demonstrated by the investigation
made by my friend, Mr. Murphy, who is now taking the notes of what I
am saying, himself the most careful and impartial and best-informed
gentleman in respect to parliamentary history that there is in this Cap-
itol, or, as far as I know, anywhere else.
Nobody undertook to stand up and deny that proposition, that given
the case where the matter was in a condition to be considered by a com-
mittee you might instruct that committee to do what you chose to in-
struct them to do. But the Chair now holds that a simple motion to re-
commit is in order; but where does that leave it? When we send a
message to the House that this matter is recommitted to our committee
on conference—we can not commit to the others—where does it leave it?
The House has not possession of the papers; and when we send them over
this notice, where does that leave it? There is nothing that the House
can do because there is no pending proposition between the two Houses
on the last vote of the Senate except simply to recommit this report to
our conferees. We do not express to the House whether we stand by
what we have done before or do not stand by it, and there is the diffi-
culty.
So then, with great respect—and I do not mean to appeal or do any-
thing else, because we shall come to the substance of this thing by and
by, in spite of all the technicalities and difficulties that may be pre-
sented—when we come to the end of this matter after all, whatever
the Chair may rule according to his judgment, we come to the sub-
stantial question of whether this thing is to be set at sea again or
whether we are to take, as some people suppose, our lives in our hands
and go on with what we have.
Therefore, every Senator who is willing to trust to this experiment,
as it is, will be willing to stand by it and vote against a motion to re-
commit simply, which the Chair holds to be in order; and every Sem-
ator who wants to go to sea in a bowl, and see how in thirty days we
can manage to do something better or different, which, when it comes
forth, will be open to the same criticisms of language as we have now
no matter how clearly you, or I, or anybody else may state it, will
come back to the same difficulties of interpretation we have now; so I
do not think it is of any practical importance in what way we get at
it except as a precedent for the future.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If Senators will indulge the Chair a
moment more, the Chair, upon the question of the motion to commit,
finds this rule: - -
When a question is pending no motion shall be received but—
The motion which the Chair has already read, including the motion
to commit, and the Chair does not know from his own experience any
question that ever came before the Senate of the United States that
was not open to a motion to commit. A motion to commit is a favorite
motion in parliamentary rules, to refer a matter to a committee for in-
formation. 2
In regard to the committee of conference, the committee of confer-
ence is still in existence. The report of the committee of conference
has not been acted on in either House. The committee remains.in ex-
istence until the conclusion of the action of the two Houses on the re-
port of the committee.
Mr. HARRIS. If this motion shall prevail, how does the Senate
345
get in communication with the House of Representatives to actor, this
matter? - y
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair would think the papers,
with the action of the Senate, would be at once communicated to the
House of Representatives.
Mr. HARRIS. The papers go to the committee if they are commit-
ted, and to the Senate committee, and the Senate has no papers to send
to the House of Representatives.
Now, exactly how, by this very unusual proceeding, we are ever to
get in communication with the House of Representatives on this sub-
ject, unless we take action one way or the other, agreeing or disagree-
ing to the report, and then send a message to the House informing them
of the action we have taken, accompanied by the papers, I confess that I
Can not See.
Mr. DAWES. I should like to inquire of the Senator what occasion
there is to send any message to the House of Representatives until
there is final action upon the report of the committee? Suppose a mo-
tion is made to lay this on the table and it is carried, you do not send
a message to the House. The House waits for final action by the Sen-
ate upon the report of the committee of conference before they take it
up. When final action is had, a message is sent to the House commu-
nicating that fact. ---
Mr. HARRIS. That is all very true; but if the Senator from Massa-
chusetts will allow me, the two Houses have appointed managers; they
have met and conferred; they have made their report to both Houses.
How are you going to communicate with the House of Representatives?
Mr. DAWES. The committee on the part of the other branch do
not make a report until they hear of final action here, for we have pos-
session of the papers, and we deal with our committee, having posses-
sion of the papers. When we have taken some final vote it makes an
end of this matter, and they get a communication to that effect, and
then the report is made there.
Mr. HARRIS. I do not propose to appeal from the ruling of the
Chair, though I am satisfied that it is wholly inconsistent with parlia-
mentary law and every proper parliamentary usage; but I do desire
to say that, in view of the weeks which have already been spent in
conference on these disagreeing votes, and in view of the additional
fact that I chance to know that two of the managers on the part of the
House are each more than a thousand miles from here, and probably
will be away for a week or two, or three or four, I am satisfied as to
what the effect of recommittal is to be if a majority of the Senate shall
recommit. It is an indirect method of killing this bill. Why, I would
greatly prefer myself to confront the responsibility and either agree to
it or kill it direct rather than by shrinking from that responsibility
and slaughtering it by indirection.
But I think the conferees, three of the House of Representative and
three of the Senate, who spent two or three weeks day by day and
almost every day in considering this question, would, without one dis-
senting voice, agree with me when I.say we never got to an agreement
that approximates more nearly the views of the Senate as expressed by
the bill which passed than the measure now before us. This motion,
if adopted, whether so intended or not, will inevitably have the effect
of killing the bill; and I desire that every Senator should vote upon
the question with a knowledge of the fact that his vote to recommit is
a vote to destroy and a vote to defeat legislation on this subject.
346
Mr. HAWLEY. I understand that the motion to recommit is the
one immediately before us.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is the question before the Sen-
ate.
Mr. HAWLEY. I object very decidedly to being told that if I vote
for that I am to be justly chargeable with the defeat of the bill, should
such a defeat ensue. I do not indulge in that distrust of the Senate
manifested by the Senator from Illinois.
I admire him for his zeal in this matter, for the interest he has dis-
played in the investigation, the vigor with which he has advocated the
measure; but I think I am justified in saying that a majority of the
members of the Senate believe that the bill must be amended. I think
a majority believe there are serious defects in it; defects well worth con-
sideration and well worth another attempt at adjustment; I am led
to believe that quite a number of Senators will vote against it. I
know from conversation that there are many who will vote for it, who
criticise it very severely, and you have an illustrious example of that
in the speech of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. ING ALLs].
I am not to be driven by the intimation that I am to be considered
an enemy of action on this subject because I vote for recommittal. The
New York Chamber of Commerce made it known to us that, while in
favor of the general proposition of the bill, there were two serious objec-
tions to it. Now, the Board of Trade send us a communication to-day
urging us to vote for the bill, but they also intimate that there are ob-
jections, because they say it is the best we can get. I prefer to make
another attempt to disappoint the New York Board of Trade, and show
them it is not the best we can get.
I think it would have been an extraordinary, an illogical proceeding
if we had been compelled to come to a vote direct upon concurrence with-
out first making an attempt to improve. I might have felt bound then
to vote against the report, and then I should have been recorded upon
the final vote passing the bill as opposed to the measure, which I am
not. I very much prefer the original Senate bill. I think that all
the Senators who voted for the original Senate bill (and they were all
but four of the Senate, I believe) to-day prefer that original bill.
Now, why, for what reason in the world, shall we hesitate to see if we
can not improve it 2
I shall vote very cheerfully, very gladly, for the motion to recommit,
and while I expect to vote for the measure, I will not promise until
the last moment. I reserve my judgment till the end.
Mr. EVARTS. Mr. President, what is desired now is that we should
come as promptly as possible to the passage of the best bill regulating
this subject so far as it should be regulated. We are nearer now to the
passage of such a bill than Congress has ever been before, and we are
nearer to being able to remove the objectionable features of this legis-
lation and passing a bill that in substance shall not only be compatible
with the public interest, but in furtherance of the special interest that
has stimulated this kind of legislation, and nearer to having it in a
shape that shall be received without repugnance and with a general de-
sire to advance and complete the legislation in the sense for which it
has been sought.
I shall vote, therefore, to recommit, believing by that vote I shall
bring the Congress and the country nearer to a good bill than by any
other vote; and I insist that under the discussion of the last few days
it is apparent that we are getting nearer to the passage of a bill by giv-
\
347
ing our concurrence at once to recommit. We have not come as near
to a good bill as we shall come if we adopt the proposition to recom-
mit.
Mr. CULLOM. I only desire to say one word. I am not disposed
to take an appeal from the decision of the Chair, and I am not dis-
posed to charge that any Senator who votes for a recommittal is against
any legislation on the subject; but I do desire to say that I regard,
and I think every Senator must regard, this vote to recommit as a test
vote on the question.
Mr. HAWLEY. I protest that it is not.
Mr. CULLOM. I think it is.
Mr. FRY.E. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas and nays are demanded.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOAR. We have forty-nine days more of this session, a period
of time in which the Senate and the House many times have dealt
with, matured, and considered in every part thirteen great appropria-
tion bills; and it is utterly ridiculous, it seems to me, with all due re-
spect, to say that the doubtful question of construction as to the mean-
ing of this bill which has been raised here can not be settled between
these conferees unless anybody means to say, which is not to be sup-
posed for a moment, that they will not make an attempt to have this
bill made clear in accordance with their claim as to its meaning.
Mr. CONGER. Mr. President, I think for about seventeen years, in
the House and in the Senate, the attempt has been made, from session
to session, almost continuously, to have passed some interstate-com-
merce bill. The Committee on Commerce of the House for years under-
took to prepare such a bill and secure its passage, the best bill that
could be prepared, with seemingly a majority in the House and in the
Senate approaching unanimity almost, as we thought at the period of
its adoption, and yet by one process or another it has been cast aside.
and there has never been an actual passage of any bill whatever. That
has been so in the House for years, and so in the Senate.
I voted for this bill as it passed the Senate. I preferred and should
prefer now to vote for the present bill if it could be amended so as to
be just as it was when it passed the Senate. I have received from my
own State communications from very respectable and intelligent people
familiar with these subjects, advising me that, in their opinion, some of
the provisions of this bill are dangerous to the business interests of the
country. I took all that into my consideration; but I believe from the
observations I have made in the long years that have passed; from the
facility with which the passage of any bill of this kind has been pre-
vented, that unless we accept this report of the committee of conference
and pass this bill there will be no bill passed during this session of
Congress.
I shall therefore vote against recommittal. I shall therefore vote
to agree to the report of the committee, although I might desire that
Some of the provisions of the bill might be changed. And, sir, I con-
sider that the passage of this bill, in its effect upon the public mind,
in its effect upon railroad administration, will be very beneficial and
desirable, not only to the railroads themselves as indicating what the
will of Congress is in that direction, but in quieting the apprehensions
of the vast body of the people of the United States that the Congress
of the United States has refused to give them the relief which they
have demanded so imperatively heretofore, and never with more posi-
tive affirmation than now.
348
So, sir; I shall vote against recommittal; so I shall vote in favor of
agreeing to the report of the committee, not because it suits me in all
respects, not because it suits very many of the people of my State, but
because I think this is the last opportunity of the session to pass any
bill whatever on this subject.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion to
recommit the report, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.
The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HAMPTON (when Mr. BUTLER's name was called). My col-
league [Mr. BUTLER} is paired with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr.
WAN WYCK]. Were he present, my colleague would vote “yea.”
Mr. BECK (when Mr. CAMDEN’s name was called). The Senator
from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDENJ requested me to announce his pair
with the Senator from California [Mr. STANFORD]. The Senator from
West Virginia, if present, would vote “nay.”
Mr. DAWES (when his name was called). I am paired on this bill,
and all the questions connected with it, with the Senator from Texas
[Mr. MAXEY]. If he were present, I should vote “yea.”
Mr. BLACKBURN (when Mr. KENNA’s name was called). The
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KENNA] is paired with the Senator
from New York [Mr. MILLERJ. Were the Senator from West Vir-
ginia present, he would vote “may.”
Mr. COKE (when Mr. MAXEY’s name was called). My colleague
[Mr. MAXEY] is paired with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
DAWES]. If he were here, my colleague would vote “nay.”
Mr. MORGAN (when his name was called). I am paired with the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. Voor.HEEs]. If he were here, Ishould vote
{ { yea.”
Mr. VANCE (when Mr. RANSOM’s name was called). My colleague .
[Mr. RANSOM] is absent on account of illness.
Mr. CULLOM (when Mr. WAN WYCK’s name was called). The Sen-
ator from Nebraska [Mr. WAN WYC'K] wrote me a note asking me to
pair him in favor of the bill. I am satisfied he would vote “may ” on
this motion.
The roll-call was concluded.
Mr. MORGAN. I am informed that some arrangement has been
made by which the pair between myself and the Senator from Indiana
[Mr. WooBHEEs] has been changed to a pair between the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. WoORHEEs] and the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. MC-
PHERSON]. If that be so, I vote “yea.”
Mr. SEWELL. That is SO.
Mr. MORGAN. I vote “yea.”
Mr. SEWELL. I desire to say, on behalf of my colleague [Mr. MC-
PHERSON], who is obliged to be absent, that he desired to be paired in
favor of the recommittal of this bill, although he is in favor of the
passage of the bill in case the motion to recommit fails.
The result was announced—yeas 25, nays 36; as follows:
YEAS–25.
Aldrich, Frye, Mitchell of Oregon, Sewell,
Blair, Gray, Mitchell of Pa., Sherman,
Brown, Hale, Morgan, Spooner,
Cameron, Hampton, Morrill, Williams.
Chace, Hawley, Payne,
Cheney, Hoar, Platt,
Evarts, Mahone, Sawyer,
349
i *. NAYS-36.
Allison, Conger, Harris, Sabin,
Beck, Cullom, Ingalls, Saulsbury,
Berry, Dolph, , Jones of Arkansas, Teller,
Blackburn, Edmunds, Jones of Nevada, Vance,
Bowen, Eustis, McMillan, Vest,
Call, Fair, Manderson, Walthall,
Cockrell, George, Palmer, Whitthorne,
Coke, Gibson, Plumb, Wilson of Iowa,
Colquitt, Gorman, Pugh, Wilson of A[d.
ABSENT—14.
Butler, Jones of Florida, Miller, Van Wyck,
Camden, . Kenna, Ransom, Voorhees.
Dawes, McPherson, Riddleberger,
Harrison, Maxey, Stanford,
So the motion to recommit was not agreed to.
Mr. CULLOM. I suppose the question now is on agreeing to the
conference report? -
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on agreeing to
the conference report.
Mr. DOLPH. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate but a moment.
I have so far taken no part in the discussion of this measure, preferring
to leave that for those better qualified by experience and study of the
question to speak upon it. I shall not discuss it now; but I desire be-
fore the vote is taken upon the report of the committee to briefly give
my reasons for the vote I expect to cast.
* I have no doubt that Congress has power under the Constitution to
make needful rules for the regulation of interstate commerce. Just
how far provisions fixing rates and prescribing rules for transportation
will be upheld I am unable to say. It will probably be held that the
rates fixed and the rules prescribed must be reasonable, and reasonable
regulations will no doubt be upheld. There is, beyond question, I
think, a general demand for Congressional legislation upon the subject
of interstate commerce, and a general belief also that the pending bill,
as agreed upon in conference committee, should become a law, and I
am not sure but that the provisions of the bill which to me appear to
be the most questionable are the most popular.
I fear, however, that the provisions of the bill concerning long and
short hauls, as left by the Committee on Commerce, if construed
strictly, will work to the disadvantage of the West, and so injuriously
affect the whole country; but I do not think upon the whole it will be
seriously detrimental to the State I have the honor in part to repre-
sent. I was much impressed with the forcible, lucid, and terse state-
ments of the senior Senator from California upon the subject of long
and short hauls, and as to the effect which, according to his judg-
ment, the provisions of the pending bill upon that subject will have
upon the Pacific coast, and if I construed the fourth section of the bill
as he does I could not vote for the report, but I am inclined to think
that the section is flexible enough to be adapted to the evident neces- .
sities of commerce in cases of long hauls from competitive points men-
tioned by the Senator. -
I think that under this bill, if it becomes a law, a portion of the
through traffic from the East to the Pacific coast will be transferred to
the Canadian Pacific and to sailing vessels passing around the Horn,
and that the rates of transportation from New York and Boston to
San Francisco and Portland will probably be somewhat increased and
local rates may not be reduced. Ocean transportation and the Cana-
dian Pacific will, however, to a great extent, regulate the rate of
reight for transcontinental traffic whether this bill becomes a law or not.
35()
I doubt, however, whether freight rates from the East to interior
towns along the transportation lines will be increased, and the bill, I
think, will be beneficial, if it has any effect, to the farmers of Oregon and
Washington Territory, as the agricultural products of that region reach
the seaboard upon the Pacific by comparatively short hauls and are
shipped to foreign markets around Cape Horn; and it is quite possible
that if the effect of the bill is to increase the cost of transportation of
the wheat of Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa to the seaboard
it will to some extent increase the value of wheat in Oregon. {
The question is so complicated, important, and far-reaching, however,
that I should have preferred to have left it for further consideration,
after investigation and report by the commission to be created by the
bill, and would now vote, if I had opportunity to do so, to modify the
provision. If I could have been convinced that by a further confer-
ence and an agreement the provision in question would have been
modified, I should have been inclined to favor that course, but I am in
favor of some legislation upon the subject of the regulation of inter-
state commerce at the present session of Congress; and the friends of
the measure contend, and it is quite probable, that if the conference
report is not adopted legislation upon the subject at this session is im-
possible.
I see no practicable way, therefore, of amending the bill by striking
out the provisions I think of doubtful utility, or even of preventing by
my vote their enactment into law. If I must either vote for the pro-
visions as they stand in the bill concerning long and short hauls, or
place myself by my vote in apparent hostility to the entire measure,
and that without being able to accomplish anything practicable, I shall
vote for the bill as it stands. I voted for the Senate bill and prefer it
to the bill as agreed upon by the committee.
The States in my judgment which will be most disastrously affected
by the pending bill if it becomes a law will be the grain-producing
States of the Upper Mississippi Valley, but the representatives of those
States upon this floor generally support the bill, and I do not feel
called upon to set up for their protection my judgment against theirs.
It is quite possible also that the effect of the bill upon the Western
States will not be as detrimental as supposed. It may be well to let
the experiment be tried so that ſurther legislation upon the subject
may be had in the light of experience under the operation of the law.
At all events, I am not disposed to be so tenacious of my own opinion
concerning one or two provisions of the bill as to by my vote prevent
any legislation upon the subject.
Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President, the State which I have the honor in
part to represent has a population just about equally divided, on the
one hand agricultural, on the other mechanical, or engaged in those
pursuits and occupations which are to a great extent dependent upon
agriculture. -
The agriculture of the State is not such, however, as to afford sus-
tenance or a sufficiency of the productions of the earth for the supply
even of the farmers of the State, so that it is a fact in regard to New
Hampshire more than it is true in regard to any other State in the Union,
that our agricultural citizens as well as the remaining half of our pop-
ulation are dependent upon the far West for breadstuffs and provisions
of every description to a very great extent. Probably at least five-
sixths of the flour consumed in our State comes from the Northwest,
perhaps even a larger proportion, and the corn that feeds our animals,
and by the use of which our lumbering and other operations are carried
on, comes very largely from the West. *
351
On the other hand, the mechanical and manufacturing products of
our State find there their chief market, and thus it is that in New
Hampshire the question of the long and the short haul is the all-im-
portant question. -
With such consideration as I have been able to give to this provision
of the bill now that it has been pending these many years it is entirely
clear to my mind that its inevitable operation, if it be an honest bill
and be homestly enforced, will be very largely to increase the cost of
the long haul. -
If it be so its operation will be detrimental to the interests of my
State in both respects. It will increase the cost of a large proportion
of that which we buy and it will diminish the value of that which we
manufacture and sell.
I am satisfied, too, that the provision with reference to the lessening
of the expense of the short haul by limiting it to the expenditure of
the long haul will not be practically of any efficient service to our
State, and in fact I do not believe it will be anywhere.
I do not believe it will operate to diminish the cost of the short
haul, and for this reason: A reasonable compensation will always be
allowed to the capital of the railroads or of the transportation com-
panies. Such rates of fare and freight will always be held to be rea-
sonable as will yield a fair income on the value of the property and the
services which are employed in the business of transportation.
If that be the case, and the income be not derived from one source,
it will be reasonable to derive it from, another, and if by virtue of law
or in any way return for the long haul be diminished or inordinately
increased, then the amount of revenue to be received from the short
haul will be increased or will be lessened in the same way by the rigid
rule of law which may be adopted. So that whatever may be de-
ducted from the short haul at those stations where the amount may
exceed the aggregate which is paid from the point of competition will
be made up on the other intervening points between the two points of
competition.
There may be a general evening or leveling of the cost of the short
haul between the points of competition, but whatever is lost at one
point of the short haul may be made up at another, and thus the aggre-
gate of the receipts of the short haul will remain the same in any case,
and the actual taxation to the people will be the same under the opera-
tion of this bill that it is under existing conditions. Thus the general
benefit which it is anticipated will be derived to the shippers of the
country at large will not be realized under the operation of this act.
I believe the operation of this bill will be to the injury of the con-
sumers of the State which I represent, and from that standpoint I op-
pose the bill, and I oppose it all the way through. I voted for its
recommittal, and on the final question I shall vote to disagree to the
report.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
report. -
Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HAWLEY, and others called for the yeas and mays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. CULLOM (when Mr. DAWES's name was called). The Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWEs] left the Senate Chamber a few mo-
ments ago and asked me to announce his pair with the Senator from
Texas [Mr. MAXEY] and to state that he would vote against the mo-
tion to agree to the conference report.
352 3.
Mr. COKE.. I will announce now that my colleague [Mr. MAxEY]
who is paired with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWEs], if
here, would vote “yea.”
Mr. BLACKBURN (when Mr. KENNA’s name was called). The
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. KENNA] is paired with the Sena-
tor from New York [Mr. MILLERJ. Were the Senator from West Vir-
ginia present he would vote “yea;” and his colleague [Mr. CAMDEN }
is paired with the Senator from California [Mr. STANFORD]. Were
Mr. CAMDEN present he would vote “yea.”
Mr. SEWELL (when Mr. MCPHERSON's name was called), My col-
league [Mr. MCPHERSONj if present would vote “yea.”
Mr. MORGAN (when his name was called). I am paired with the
Senator from Indiana [Mr. WoORHEES]. If he were present I would
vote “nay.”
The roll-call was concluded. -
Mr. BECK. I was requested by the Senator from New Jersey [Mr.
MCPHERSON] to say that while he was in favor of the recommittal of
the bill, he was in favor of its passage, and if present would vote
yea. The Senator from Indiana [Mr. WooBHEEs] would also vote
yea.”
Mr. HAMPTON. I announce again the pair of my colleague [Mr.
BUTLER}, who would vote against the bill if he were present.
Mr. GORMAN. Before the vote is announced, I wish to state that
my colleague [Mr. WILSON, of Maryland], who is not present, I un-
derstand is paired with the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MAHONE].
At all events, if he were present he would vote “yea” on this propo-
sition. -.” -
The result was announced—yeas 43, nays 15; as follows:
YEAS—43.
Allison, Edmunds, Ingalls, Sawyer,
Beck, Eustis, Jones of Arkansas, Sewell,
Berry, Fair, Jones of Nevada, Sherman,
Blackburn, Frye, McMillan, Spooner,
Bowen, George, Manderson, Teller,
Cockrell, Gibson, Mitchell of Oreg., Vance,
Coke, Gorman, Palmer, Vest,
Colquitt, Gray, Plumb, Walthall,
Conger, Hale, Pugh, Whitthorne,
Cullom, Harris, Sabin, Wilson of Iowa.
Dolph, Hawley, Saulsbury,
NAYS-15.
Aldrich, Chace, Hoar, Payne,
Blair, Cheney, Mahone, Platt,
Brown, Evarts, Mitchell of Pa., Williams,
Cameron, Hampton, Morrill,
ABSENT—17.
Butler, Jones of Florida, Morgan, Voorhees,
Call, Kenna, Ransom, Wilson of Md.
Camden, McPhersen, Riddleberger,
Dawes, Maxey, Stanford,
Harrison, Miller, Van Wyck,
So the report was concurred in.
ADJOURNMENT TO MON DAY.
Mr. CAMERON. I move that when the Senate adjourns to-day it
be to meet on Monday next.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HARRIS. I move that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes p. m.)
the Senate adjourned until Monday, January 17, at 12 o'clock m.
FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS.
SEC O NID SESSION.
4-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º- --~~~~
°, D E B A T E
IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
IN T E R S T A T E C O M M E R C E.
SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 1887.
* * + -- * ** %
INTERSTATE COMIMERCE.
Mr. CRISP. I desire to present, not for the purpose of calling up at
this time, but to ask to have it printed in the RECORD, the conference
report on what is commonly known as the interstate-commerce bill.
I will not ask for the present consideration of the report, there being
some gentlemen absent who do not wish it considered to-day. But I
will ask that the report, with the explanation of the conferees, be
printed in the RECORD. Although the report has been printed, I am
told the print is entirely exhausted. A number of members have asked
me for copies and I have been unable to furnish them. And I give
notice that on an early day I will ask the House to consider the re-
port.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia presents the report
of the committee of conference, as he has a right to do, and he requests
that the report of the conference committee and the statement of the
House conferees be printed in the RECORD.
There was no objection.
Mr. CRISP. I ask also that the bill, as reported by the conference
committee, be printed in bill form.
Mr. DUNHAM. In addition to its going into the RECORD.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Would it not be well to have the
statement explaining the provisions of the bill printed in the form of
a document as well as to have the bill printed in bill form 2
Mr. CRISP. I have no objection to that.
Mr. HEPBURN. Would it not be well also to print the Senate bill,
353
I S C
23
354 t
f
for which we have a substitute, and then the bill of the committee o
conference, so that we can have the whole three of them together?
Mr. CRISP. I have no objection to that.
The SPEAKER. The House amendment is an amendment to the
Senate bill, and the order to print will include the original bill and the
amendment to it. The report of the conference committee is an amend-
ment to the Senate bill.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] asks unanimous consent to
have the report of the conference committee, with the accompanying
statement made by the managers on the part of the House, printed in
the RECORD. This will include the bill. He also asks that the bill
be printed in bill form, and that the report of the conference commit-
tee be printed in the form of a document. Is there objection ? The
Chair hears none.
The report of the conference committee is as follows: .
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 1532) to regulate
commerce, having met, after full and free conference have agreed to recom-
mend, and do recommend, to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its amendment and agree to the bill of the Sen-
ate, with the following annendment thereto, in the nature of a substitute, and
that the Senate agree to the same:
AMIENDMENT.
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the following: #
That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers
engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or
partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common
control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment,
from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to
any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or
from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any
place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the
TJnited States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped
from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such
place to a port of trans-shipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place
in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the
|United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the pro-
visions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or prop-
erty, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly
within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any
State or Territory as aforesaid.
The term “railroad'' as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries
used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the roads in use
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a
contract, agreement, or lease ; and the term “transportation ” shall include all
instrumentalities of shipment or carriage.
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivery, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reasonable
and just, and every unjust, unreasonable charge for such service is prohibited
and declared to be unlawful.
SEC. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device,
charge, demand, Collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less
compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation
of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges,
demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such
common carriershall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby
prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or
any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject
any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular
description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage
in any respect whatsoever. - ~
355
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according to
their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for
the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving,
forwarding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several
lines and those connecting there with, and shall not discriminate in their rates
and charges between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as
requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal
facilities to another carrier engaged in like business.
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a
longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being
included within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as author-
izing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as
great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however,
That upon applieation to the commission appointed under the provisions of this
act such connmon carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the com-
mission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for
the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from
time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may
be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and
competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or met proceeds of
the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an
agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance
shall be deemed a separate offense.
SEC. 6. That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall
print and keep for public inspection schedules showing the rates and fares and
charges for the transportation of passengers and property which any such com-
mon carrier has established and which are in force at the time upon its railroad,
as defined by the first section of this act. The schedules printed as aforesaid by
any such common carrier shall plainly state the places upon its railroad be-
...tween which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the
classification of freight in force upon such railroad, and shall also state sepa-
rately the terminal charges and any rules or regulations which in any wise
change, affect, or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates and
fares and charges. Such schedules shall be plainly printed in large type, of at
least the size of ordinary pica, and copies for the use of the public shall be kept
in every depot or station upon any such railroad, in such places and in such
form that they can be conveniently inspected.
Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act receiving freight in
the United States to be carried through a foreign country to any place in the
United States shall also in like manner print and keep for public inspection, at
every depot where such freight is received for shipment, schedules showing
the through rates established and charged by such common carrier to all points
in the United States beyond the foreign country to which it accepts freight for
shipment; and any freight shipped from the United States through a foreign
country into the United States, the through rate on which shall not have been
made public as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United
States from said foreign country, be subject to customs duties as if said freight
were of foreign production; and any law in conflict with this section is hereby
repealed.
No advance shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges which have been
established and published as aforesaid by any common carrier in compliance
with the requirements of this section, except after ten days’ public notice, which
shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force,
and the time when the increased rates, fares, or charges will go into effect ; and
the proposed changes shall be shown by printing new schedules, or shall be
blaimly indicated upon the schedules in force at the time and kept for public in-
Spection. Reductions in such published rates, fares, or charges may be made
Without previous public notice; but whenever any such reduction is made, no-
tice of the same shall immediately be publicly posted and the changes made shall
immediately be made public by printing new schedules, or shall immediately
be plainly indicated upon the schedules at the time in force and kept for public
inspection.
And when any such common carrier shall have established and published its
rates, fares, and charges, in compliance with the provisions of this section, it
shall be unlawful for such common carrier to charge, demand, collect, or receive
from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for the transportation
of passengers or property, or for any services in connection therewith, than is
356
specified in such published schedule of rates, fares, and charges as may at the
time be in force. -
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the
commission hereinafter provided for copies of its schedules of rates, fares, and
charges which have been established and published in compliance with the
requirements of this section, and shall promptly notify said complission of all
changes made in the same. Every such common carrier shall also file with said
commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other
common carriers in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this act
to which it may be a party. And in cases where passengers and freight pass
over continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier,
and the several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish joint,
tariffs of rates or fares or charges for such continuous lines or routes, copies of
such joint tariffs shall also, in like manner, be filed with said commission. Such
joint rates, fares, and charges on such continuous lines so filed as aforesaid shall
be made public by such common carriers when directed by said commission, in
so far as may, in the judgment of the courannissicia, be deemed practicable ; and
said commission shall from time to time prescribe the naeasure of publicity
which shall be given to such rates, fares, and charges, or to such part of them as
it may deem it practicable for such common carriers to publish, and the places
in which they shall be published; but no common carrier party to any such
, oint tariff shall be liable for the failure of any other common carrier party
#º to observe and adhere to the rates, fares, or charges thus made and pub-
ISE162C1.
If any such common carrier shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its
schedules or tariffs of rates, fares, and charges as provided in this section, or
any part of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to other penalties
lmerein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit
court of the United States in the judicial district wherein the principal office of
said common carrier is situated or wherein such offense may be committed,
and if such common carrier be a foreign corporation, in the judicial circuit
wherein such common carrier accepts traffic and has an agent to perform such
service, to compel compliance with the aforesaid provisions of this section;
and such writ shall issue in the name of the people of the United States, at the
relation of the commissioners appointed under the provisions of this act ; and
failure to comply with its requirements shall be punishable as and for a con-
tempt; and the said commissioners, as complainants, may also apply, in any
such circuit court of the United States, for a writ of injunction against such
common carrier, to restrain such common carrier from receiving or transporting
property annong the several States and Territories of the United States, or be-
tween the United States and adjacent foreign countries, or between ports of
trans-shipment and of entry and the several States and Territories of the United
States, as mentioned in the first section of this act, until such common carrier
shall have complied with the aforesaid provisions of this section of this act.
SEC. 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or agreement, ex-
pressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time schedule, carriage in different
cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage of freights from being continuous
from the place of shipment to the place of destimation ; and no break of bulk,
stoppage, or interruption made by such common carrier shall prevent the car-
riage of freights from being and being treated as one continuous carriage from
the place of shipment to the place of destimation, unless such break, stoppage,
or interruption was made in good faith for some necessary purpose, and with-
out any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous carriage or
to evade any of the provisions of this act.
SEC. 8. That in case any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act
shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any act, matter, or thing in this
act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall omit to do any act, matter, or
thing in this act required to be done, such connnnon carrier shall be liable to the
person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in
consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this act, together with a
reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of re-
covery, which attorney’s fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the costs in
the case. i *
SEC. 9. That any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act may either make complaint to the
commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit in his or their own
behalf for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may
be liable under the provisions of this act, in any district or circuit court of the
|United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person or persons shall not.
have the right to pursue both of said remedies, and must, in each ease, elect
which one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will
adopt. In any such action brought for the recovery of damages the court be-
fore which the same shall be pending may compel any director, officer, receiver,
trustee, or agent of the corporation or company defendant in such suit to at-
357
tend, appear, and testify in such case, and may compel the production of the
books and papers of such corporation or company party to any such suit; the
claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person
giving such evideuce shall not excuse such witness from testifying, but such
evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding.
SEC. 10. That any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or,
whenever such county, on carrier is a corporation, any director or officer thereof,
or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person acting for or employed by such
corporation, who, alone or with any other corporation, company, person, or
party, shall willfully do or"cause to be done, or shall willingly suffer or permit
to be done, any act, matter, or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be un-
lawful, or who shall aid or abet therein, or shall willfully onit or fail to do any
act, matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or shall cause or willingly
suffer or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act to
be dome not to be so done, or shall aid or abet any such omission or failure, or
shall be guilty of any infraction of this act, or shall aid or abet therein, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any dis-
trict court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such offense was
committed, be subject to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 for each offense.
SEC. 11. That a commission is hereby created and established, to be known as
the interstate-commerce comunission, which shall be composed of five commis-
sioners, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The conn missioners first appointed under this act shall
continue in office for the term of two, three, four, five, and six years, respectively,
from the 1st day of January, A. 1). 1887, the term of each to be designated by the
President; but their successors shall be appointed for terms of six years, except
that any person chosen to fiil a vacancy shall be appointed only for the u in ex-
pired term of the commissioner whom he shall succeed. Any commissioner
may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance
in office. Not. more than three of the commissioners shall be appointed from
the same political party. No person in the employ of, or holding any official
relation to, any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or owning
stock or bonds thereof, or who is in any way pecuniarily interested therein, shall
enter upon the duties of or hold such office, Said commissioners shall not engage
in any other business, vocation, or employment. No vacancy in the commis-
sion shall impair the right of the remaining commissioners to exercise all the
powers of the commission. .
SEC, 12. That the commission hereby created shall have authority to inquire
into the management of the business of all common carriers subjeet to the pro-
visions of this act, and shall keep itself informed as to the manner and method
in which the same is conducted, and shall have the right to obtain from such
common carriers full and connplete information necessary to enable the conn-
mission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created;
and for the purposes of this act the commission shallehave power to require the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers,
tariffs, contracts, agreements, and doeuments relating to any matter under in-
vestigation, and to that end may invoke the aid of any court of the United
States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the produc-
tion of books, papers, and documents under the provisions of this section.
And any of the circuit courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of
which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey
a subpoena issued to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act,
or other person, issue an order, requiring such common carrier or other person
to appear before said eonmission (and produce books and papers if so ordered)
and give evidence touching the matter in question ; and any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. The
claim that any such testimony, or evidence may tend to criminate the person
giving such evidence shall not exeuse such witness from testifying ; but such
evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding.
Sec. 13. That any person, firm, corporation, or association, or any mercantile,
agricultural, or manufacturing society, or any body politic or municipal organ-
ization, complaining of anything done or onnitted to be done by any connnnoll
carrier subject to the provisions of this act, in contravention of the provisions
thereof, may apply to said commission by betition, which shall briefiy state the
facts; whereupon a statement of the charges thus made shall be forwarded by
the commission to such common earrier, who shall be called upon to settisfy the
complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time, to be
specified by the commission. If such common carrier, within the time speei-
fied, shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, said Gar-
rier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular vio-
lation of law thus complained of. If such carrier shall not satisfy the eomplaint
within the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for
investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the eommission to investi-
358
gate the matters complained of in such mammer and by such means as it shall
deem proper. º
Said commission shall in like manner investigate any complaint forwarded
by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any State or Territory,
at the request of such commissioner or commission, and may institute any in-
quiry on its own motion in the same manner and to the same effect as though
complaint had been made.
No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct
damage to the complainant.
SEC. 14. That whenever an investigation shall be made by said commission,
it shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall
include the findings of fact upon which the conclusions of the commission are
based, together with its recommendation as to what reparation, if any, should
be made by the common carrier to any party or parties who may be found to
have been injured ; and such findings so made shall thereafter, in all judicial
proceedings, be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found,
All reports of investigations made by the commission shall be entered of reo-
ord, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the party who may have com-
plained, and to any common carrier that may have been complained of.
SEC. 15. That if, in any case in which an investigation shall be made by said
commission, it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the commission,
either by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence, that anything has been
done or omitted to be done in violation of the provisions of this act, or of any
law cognizable by said commission, by any common carrier, or that any injury
or damage has been sustained by the party or parties complaining, or by other
parties aggrieved in consequence of any such violation, it shall be the duty of
the commission to forth with cause a copy of its report in respect thereto to be
delivered to such common carrier, together with a notice to said common car-
rier to cease and desist from such violation, or to make reparation for the in-
jury so found to have been done, or both, within a reasonable time, to be speci-
fied by the commission; and if, within the time specified, it shall be made to
appear to the commission that such oommon carrier has ceased from such vio-
lation of law, and has made reparation for the injury found to have been done,
in compliance with the report and notice of the commission, or to the satisfac-
tion of the party complaining, a statement to that effect shall be entered of rec-
ord by the commission, and the said common carrier shall thereupon be relieved
from further liability or penalty for such particular violation of law.
SEC. 16. That whenever any common carrier, as defined in and subject to the
provisions of this act, shall violate or refuse or neglect to obey any lawful order
or requirement of the commission in this act named, it shall be the duty of the
commission, and lawful for any company or person interested in such order or
requirement, to apply, in a summary way, by petition, to the circuit court of the
United States sitting in equity in the judicial district in which the common car-
rier complained of has its principal office, or in which the violation or disobedi-
ence of such order or requirement shall happen, alleging such violation or dis-
obedience, as the case may be ; and the said court shall have power to hear and
determine the matter, on such short notice to the common carrier complained
of as the court shall deem reasonable; and such notice may be served on such
common carrier, his or its officers, agents, or servants, in such manner as the
court shall direct; and said court shall proceed to hear and determine the mat-
ter speedily as a court of equity and without the formal pleadings and proceed-
ing applicable to ordinary suits in equity, but in such a manner as to do justice
in the premises; and to this end such court shall have power, if it think fit, to
direct and prosecute, in such mode and by such persons as it may appoint, all
such inquiries as the court may think needful to enable it to form a just judg-
ment in the matter of such petition ; and on such hearing the report of said
commission shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated; and if it
be made to appear to such court, on such hearing or on report of any such person
or persons, that the lawful order or requirement of said commission drawn in
question has been violated or disobeyed, it shall be lawful for such court to issue
a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain
such common carrier from further continuing such violation or disobedience of.
such order or requirement of said commission, and enjoining obedience to the
same ; and in case of any disobedience of any such writ of injunction or other
proper process, mandatory or otherwise, it shall be lawful for such court to issue
writs of attachment, or any other process of said court incident or applicable to
writs of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, against such
common carrier, and if a corporation, against one or more of the directors, of
ficers, or agents of the same, or against any owner, lessee, trustee, receiver, or
other person failing to obey such writ of injunction or other proper process,
mandatory or otherwise; and said court may, if it shall think fit, make an order
directing such common carrier or other person so disobeying such writ of in-
junction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to pay such sum of
money not exceeding for each carrier or person in default the sum of $500 for
every day after a day to be named in the order that such carrier or other per-
359
*
son shall fail to obey such injunction or other proper process, mandatory or
otherwise; and such moneys shall be payable as the court shall direct, either
to the party complaining, or into court to abide the ultimate decision of the
court, or into the Treasury; and payment thereof may, without prejudice to
any other mode of recovering the same, be enforced by attachment or order
in the nature of a writ of execution, in like manner as if the same had been
recovered by a final decree in personam in such court. When the subject in
tºº shall be of the value of $2,000 or more, either party to such proceeding
before said court may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States,
under the same regulations now provided by law in respect of security for
such appeal; but such appeal shall not operate to stay or supersede the order
of the court or the execution of any writ or process thereon; and such court
may, in every such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as
shall be deemed reasonable. Whenever any such petition shall be filed or pre-
sented by the commission it shall be the duty of the district attorney, under the
direction of the Attorney-General of the United States, to prosecute the same;
and the costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appro-
priation for the expenses of the courts of the United States. For the purposes
of this act, excepting its penal provisions, the circuit courts of the United States
shall be deemed to be always in session.
SEC. 17. That the commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as
will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice. A
majority of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of busi-
mess, but no commissioner shall participate in any hearing or proceeding in
which he has any pecuniary interest. Said commission may, from time to time,
make or amend such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the order
and regulation of proceedings before it, including forms of notices and the serv-
ice thereof, which shall conform, as nearly as may be, to those in use in the
courts of the United States. Any party may appear before said commission and
be heard, in person or by attorney. Every vote and official act of the commis-
Sion shall be entered of record, and its proceedings shall be public upon the re-
quest of either party interested. Said commission shall have an official seal,
which shall be judicially noticed. Either of the mennbers of the commission
may administer oaths and affirmations.
SEC. 18. That each commissioner shall receive an annual salary of $7,500, pay-
able in the same manner as the salaries of judges of the courts of the United
States. The commission shall appoint a secretary, who shall receive an annual
Salary of $3,500, payable in like manner. The commission shall have authority
to employ and fix the compensation of such other employés as it nuay find neces-
sary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
The commission shall be furnished by the Secretary of the Interior with suit-
able offices and all necessary office supplies. Witnesses summoned before the
commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in
the courts of the United States. All of the expenses of the commission, including
all necessary expenses for transportation incurred by the commissioners, or by
their employés under their orders, in making any investigation in any other
places than in the city of Washington, shall be allowed and paid, on the presen-
tation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the chairman of the commis-
sion and the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 19. That the principal office of the commission shall be in the city of
Washington, where its general sessions shall be held; but whenever the con-
venience of the public or of the parties may be promoted or delay or expense
prevented thereby, the commission may hold special sessions in any part of
the United States. It may, by one or more of the commissioners, prosecute
any inquiry necessary to its duties, in any part of the United States, into any
matter or question of fact pertaining to the business of any common carrier
subject to the provisions of this act,
SEC. 20. That the commission is hereby authorized to require annual reports
from all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act, to fix the time and
prescribe the manner in which such reports shall be made, and to require from
Such carriers specific answers to all questions upon which the commission may
need information. Such annual reports shall show in detail the amount of cap-
ital stock issued, the amounts paid therefor, and the manner of payment for
the same; the dividends paid, the surplus fund, if any, and the number of stock-
holders; the funded and floating debts, and the interest paid thereon; the cost
and value of the carrier's property, franchises, and equipment; the number of
employés, and the salary paid each class; the amounts expended for improve-
ments each year, how ješ and the character of such inn provements: the
earnings and receipts from each branch of business and from all sources; the
Operating and other expenses; the balances of profit and loss; and a complete
exhibit of the financial operations of the carrier each year, including an annual
balance-sheet. Such reports shall also contain such information in relation to
rates or regulations, concerning fares or freights, or agreements, arrangements,
or Contracts with other common carriers, as the commission may require; and
360
the said commission may, within its discretion, for the purpose of enabling it
the better to carry out the purposes of this act, prescribe (if in the opinion of the
commission it is practicable to prescribe such uniformity and methods of keep-
ing accounts) a period of time within which all common carriers subject to the
provisions of this act shall have, as near as may be, a uniform system of ac-
counts, and the manner in which such accounts shall be kept.
SEC. 21. That the commission shall, on or before the 1st day of December in
each year, make a report to the Secretary of the Interior, which shall be by him
transmitted to Congress, and copies of which shall be distributed as are the
other reports issued from the Interior Department. This report shall contain
such information and data collected by the commission as may be considered of
value in the determination of questions connected with the regulation of com-
merce, together with such recommendations as to additional legislation relat-
ing thereto as the commission may deem necessary.
SEC. 22. That nothing in this act shall apply to the carriage, storage, or hand-
ling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States, State, or munici-
pal governments, or for charitable purposes, or to or from fairs and expositions
for exhibition thereat, or the issuance of mileage, excursion, or commutation
passenger tickets; nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any (ona-
mon carrier from giving reduced rates to ministers of religion; nothing in this
act shall be construed to prevent railroads from giving free carriage to their own
officers and employés, or to prevent the principal officers of any railroad com-
pany or companies from exchanging passes or tickets with other railroad com-
panies for their officers and employés; and 11 othing in this act contained shall
in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by
statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies: Provided,
That no pending litigation shall in any’ way be affected by this act.
SEC. 23. That the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropriated for the use and pur-
poses of this act for the fiscal year ending June 30, A. D. 1888, and the interven-
ing time anterior thereto.
SEC, 24. That the provisions of sections 11 and 18 of this act, relating to the ap-
pointment and organization of the connmission herein provided for, shall take
effect immediately, and the remaining provisions of this act shall take effect
sixty days after its passage.
JOHN H. REAGAN,
CHARLES F. CRISP,
A. J. WEAVER,
Managers on the part of the Howse.
S. M. CULLOM,
ISHAM G. HARRIS,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
The statement of the House conferees is as follows:
Statement of conferees on the part of the Howse.
[Required by Rule XXIX.]
The House conferees on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses on the
bill of the Senate “to regulate commerce,” and the bill of the House “to regu-
late commerce among the States, and prevent unjust discrimination by common
carriers,” make the following detailed statement of the changes between the
House bill and the substitute here with appended :
The action of the House being to adopt a single amendment, your committee,
without attempting to call attention to the precise changes made in each section
§§ bill, report to the House the substance and effect of the changes made, as
Ol IOWS :
The bill of the House applied only to the transportation of freight, and the bill
as adopted embraces the transportation of passengers as well as freight.
The bill of the House was limited to the regulation of such transportation on
railroads. The bill as reported provides for the regulation of the transporta-
tion of property partly by railroad and partly by water, when both are used un-
der a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage
or shipment from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of
Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of
Columbia. -
The bill which we report defines the term “railroad,” as used in it, to include
all bridges, ferries used or operated with any railroad, which is in addition to
the provisions of the House bill.
The second section of the substitute bill adopts substantially the provisions of
, the House bill against discrimination by spectal rates, rebates, drawbacks, and
other devices, and declares that any one making such discrimination shall be
guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared
unlawful.
The third section of the substitute embraces substantially the provisions of
the bill of the House, in requiring equal facilities and advantages for all ship-
pers, without exception, and has a provision requiring equal facilities for the
361
interchange of traffic with all other railroads for the carriage of property and ,
passengers, and forbids any discrimination by one railroad in the facilities fur-
nished against any other railroad. It contains a clause declaring that this act
shall not be construed as requiring such common carrier to give the use of its
tracks or terminal facilities to any common carrier engaged in like business.
The fourth section adopts substantially the provisions of the House bill on
the long and short haul, with the following proviso: That upon application to
the commission appointed under the provisions bf this act such common car-
rier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized
to charge less for a longer than for a shorter distance for the transportation of
passengers and property, and that the commission may, from time to time,
prescribe the extent to which such common carrier may be relieved from the
operation of this section.
The fifth section of the substitute bill is a copy of the clause in the House bill
prohibiting pooling, with an amendment striking out the words of the House
bill “ by dividing,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ or to divide,” and
with the addition of the words in line 3, after the word “combination,” “with
any other common carrier or carriers.”
The sixth section is a substitute for the provisions of the House and Senate
bills in relation to the publication of schedules showing the rates, fares, and
charges for the transportation of passengers and property. Instead of requiring
the rates to be posted up, as was provided in the House bill, it requires that,
after ninety days from the passage of the act, every common carrier subject to
its provisions shall have printed and keep for public inspection schedules, show-
ing such rates, fares, and charges, and, in addition to requiring the railroads to
give publicity at all of the depots on their several lines, it gives authority to
the commission, where it is proper and necessary, to require them to give pub-
licity to their rates to other places beyond the lines of their several railroads.
It also provides that the 'rates, fares, and clarges shall not be raised except
after ten days of public motice, but that they may be reduced without pre-
vious public notice; the notice, however, shall be simultaneous with the re-
duction itself, and it requires that all common carriers subject to the provisions
of this act shall file with the commission provided for in the bill copies of the
schedules which have been established, and shall promptly notify said commis-
Sion of all changes made in the same; and that they shall file with the commis-
Sion copies of all contracts, arrangements, or agreements with other common
carriers in relation to traffic affected by the provisions of this bili; and in cases
where passengers and freights pass over continuous lines or routes operated by
more than one common carrier, and the several common carriers operating such
lines or routes establish joint tariffs of rates or fares or charges for such contin-
uous lines or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also be filed with the com-
mission, and made public, if so directed by the commission. *
The section also provides that where a common carrier subject to its provisions
shall meglect or refuse to file or publish its schedules of tariff or rates and fares,
or any part of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to the penalties.
herein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit
court of the United States, in any judicial district wherein the principal office of
the common carrier is situated, or wherein such offense may be committed, re-
quiring a compliance with the provisions of the act.
The seventh section of the substitute bill contains substantially the provisions
of the first part of the second section of the House bill, in relation to the contin-
uous carriage of property and persons from the place of shipment to the place
of destination.
The eighth Section of the substitute bill contains the substance of the seventh
Section of the House bill, in regard to dannages and counsel's fees, but ex-
pressed in somewhat different language.
The ninth section of the substitute bill is a new section, which provides that
persons claiming to have been damaged by the action of common carriers may
proceed for recovery of their damages either in the courts of the United States
or before the commission herein provided for, as they may elect, but not before
both tribunals. This section, which gives jurisdiction to courts of the United
States, does not give jurisdiction in civil suits to the State courts, as was pro-
vided for in the House bill.
This section of the substitute bill also provides that the courts shall have
power to compel any director, officer, receiver, trustee, or agent of the corpora-
tion or company defendant in such suit to attend, appear, and testify in such
case, and may compel the production of the books and papers of such corpora-
tion or company party to any such suit; and it provides further that the claim
that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving
Such evidence shall not exeuse such witness from testifying; but that such evi-
dence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
Criminal proceeding.
The tenth section of the substitute bill makes it a penal offense to violate any
of the provisions of this act, and is substantially the eighth section of the House
362
bill, except that it puts the maximum of the fine which may be imposed at the
sum of $5,000 instead of $2,000, as was provided for by the House bill.
The eleventh and subsequent sections to the twenty-first, inclusive of the sub-
stitute bill, contain the substance of the Senate’s bill providing for a commis-
Sion, except as modified by the provisions of the substitute bill herein recited.
It provides for a commission to consist of five persons whose term of office
shall be for six years, except for the first appointments, which are to be for two,
three, four, five, and six years. The members of this commission are to be ap-
pointed by the President by and with the advice of the Senate. Their principal
office shall be in Washington, but they may hold sessions at other places than
Washington, and a single member of the commission may take testimony any-
where, as may be directed by the commission.
These commissioners have salaries of $7,500 each. The commission has the
power to appoint a secretary, with an annual salary of $3,500, and has authority
to employ and fix the compensation of such other employés as it may find nec-
essary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior.
The nineteenth section of the Senate's bill, providing for a reference of the
question of pooling to the commission, is not embraced in this substitute.
Section 22 of the substitute bill, among other things, provides that nothing in
this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing
at Common law or by statute, but that the provisions of this act are in addition
to such remedies, with a proviso that no pending litigation shall in any way be
affected by this act.
Section 24 of the substitute bill provides that the act shall go into effect sixty
days after its passage, as in the opinion of your committee it was deemed best
to give the railroads sufficient time to prepare their schedules and to modify
their mangement in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The appoint
ment of the commission, however, is to be made at once, as it has to be organ-
ized, and as said schedules of rates and charges have to be filed with said com.
mission. --- tº
J. H. BEAGAN,
CHARLES F. CRISP,
A. J. WEAVER,
Mamagers on the part of the House,
MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1887.
Mr. TOWNSHEND. I call up the unfinished business of last sus-
pension day, being the bill reported from the Committee on Patents.
Mr. CRISP. I desire to ask the House to consider the conference
report on the interstate-commerce bill.
Mr. TOWNSHEND. I am in favor of this, but not until this other
matter is disposed of.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP], as a
matter of privilege, calls up the conference report on the interstate-com-
merce bill. The Clerk will read the title of the bill.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. This is suspension day and the gen-
eral understanding has been that the pension bill would be called up.
Now if the House goes into Committee of the Whole on the interstate-
commerce bill, will not that necessarily drive over the general pension
bill? -
The SPEAKER. The House does not go into Committee of the Whole
on the interstate-commerce bill. There is a conference report on that
bill, and that, under the rules of the House, is a matter of the highest
privilege. If the House refuse to consider it, or if the House complete
the consideration of the conference report, then the motion to suspend
the rules will be in order. The third Monday in the month is not set
apart for the suspension of the rules. The rules simply provide that it
shall be in order on that day to move to suspend the rules.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. If the House refuse to consider the
conference report, then we can get at the pension bill?
363
The SPEAKER. It is for the House to say. When any privileged
matter is presented the House must decide whether it will consider it
Or not.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Then I raise the question of consid-
eration.
Mr. TOWNSHEND. Mr. Speaker, Irise to a parkiamentary inquiry.
Mr. RANDALL. I object to debate.
The SPEAKER. Debate is not in order. -
Mr. TOWNSHEND. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. If the
conference report is taken up and the day is consumed in the consider-
ation of it, will not that compel the unfinished business of last suspen-
sion day to be postponed for one month?
The SPEAKER. As a matter of course. *
Mr. TOWNSHEND. And I desire to inquire further whether the
censideration of this conference report is not in order on any day after
this? ~, -
Mr. MATSON. I desire to raise the question of consideration.
The SPEAKER. It has been raised by the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. ANDERSON]. The Clerk will report the title of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce.
Mr. PETERS. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PETERS. I desire to ask what committee will be next in order
under the call.
The SPEAKER. The Committee on Patents was called, and the
bill was under consideration.
Mr. PETERS. What will be the next committee in order.
Several MEMBERs. Regular order!
The SPEAKER. The Committee on Invalid Pensions. The ques-
tion is, Will the House now proceed to consider the conference report?
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered, 53 members voting in favor thereof.
Mr. CUTCIHEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CUTCHEON. This conference report, as I understand, is a
matter of privilege which may be brought up on any other day.
The SPEAKER. The Chair has already stated that.
The question was taken; and there were—yeas 113, nays 137, not vot-
ing 69; as follows:
YEAS—113.
Adams, J. J. Clardy, Findlay, Jones, J. H. &
Allen, J. M. Clements, Foran, Jones, J. T.
Ballentine, Compton, Ford, Laffoon,
Barbour, Cowles, Gay, Lanham,
Barksdale, Cox, Wun. R. Gibson, C. H. Le Fevre,
Barnes, , Crain, Glass, Lore,
Belmont, Crisp, Glover, Mahoney.
Bennett," Croxton, ^, Green, W. J. Martin,
Blanchard, Culberson, Hall, McAdoo,
Bland, Daniel, Halsell, McCreary,
Blount, Dargan, Hammond, McMillin,
Boyle, Davidson, A. C. Harris, McRae,
Bragg, Davidson, R. H. M. Hatch, Merriman,
Breckinridge, C. R. Dawson, Hemphill, Miller,
Breckinridge, WCPDibble, - Henderson, J. S. Mills,
Burnes, Dougherty, Herbert, Morrison,
Cabell, Dunn, Hutton, Murphy,
Caldwell, Eden, Irion, Neal,
Catchings, Ellsberry, * Johnston, T. D. Norwood,
364
Oates,
O'Ferrall,
Outhwaite,
Peel,
Perry,
Randall,
Richardson,
Riggs,
Rogers,
Rusk,
Adams, G. E.
Allen, C. H.
Anderson, C. M.
Anderson, J. A.
Atkinson,
Bacon,
Baker,
Prady,
X3rown, C. E.
Brown, W. W.
I3turrows,
Hutterworth,
Bynum,
Campbell, J. M.
Campbell, J. E.
Campbell, T. J.
Cannon,
Caswell,
Cobb,
Conger,
Cooper,
Cutcheon,
Davis,
Dingley,
Dorsey,
Dunham,
Hºldredge,
Ely,
Evans,
Aiken,
Barry,
Bingham,
Bliss,
Browne, T. M.
Buchanan,
Burleigh,
Campbell, Felix
Candler,
Carleton,
Collins,
Comstock,
Cox, S. S.
Curtin,
Davenport,
Dockery,
Erment rout,
Forney,
Sadler, Storm,
Sayers, Swope,
Scott, Tarsney,
Seney, Taylor, J. M.
Shaw, Throckmorton,
Skinner, Tillman,
Sowden, Tucker,
Springer, Turner,
Stewart, C. Van Eaton,
Stone, W. J., Mo. Ward, T. B.
NAYS-137.
Everhart, Libbey,
Farquhar, Lindsley,
Felton, Little,
Fisher, Long,
Fleeger, I_outtit,
Frederick, Lovering,
Fuller, Lyman,
Funston, Markham,
Gallinger, Matson,
Goff, McKenna,
Grosvenor, McKinley,
Grout, Millard,
Guenther, Milliken,
Hale, Moffatt,
Hayden, Morrill,
Haynes, Morrow,
IHenderson, D. B. Neece,
Hepburn, Negley,
Hermann, Nelson,
Hiestand, O’Donnell,
Hill, O'Neill, C.
Hitt, O'Neill, J. J.
Holman, Osborne.
Holmes, Owen,
Hopkins, Parker,
Howard, Perkins,
Johnson, F. A. Peters,
Johnston, J. T. Pindar,
Kelley, Pirce,
Ketchann, Plumb,
Kleiner, Ranney,
La Follette, Reed,
Landes, Rice,
Lawler, Rockwell,
Lehlbach, Romeis,
NOT WOTING—69.
Geddes, Maybury,
Gibson, E. McConnas,
Gilfillan, Mitchell,
Green, R. S. Morgan,
Hamback, Muller,
Harmer, O'Hara,
Heard, Payne,
Henderson, T. J. Payson,
Henley, Pettibone,
Hires, Phelps,
Hiscock, Pidcock,
Houk, Reagan,
Hudd, Reese,
Jackson, Robertson,
James, Sessions,
King, Singleton,
Laird, Smalls,
Lowry, Snyder,
So the House refused to consider the report.
The following named members were announced as paired until fur-
ther notice:
Mr. SNY DER with Mr. BUCHANAN.
Mr. REAGAN with Mr. Hiscock.
Warner, A. J.
Wellborn,
Wheeler,
Willis,
Winans,
Wise,
Woodburn.
Rowell,
Ryan,
Sawyer,
Scranton,
Seymour,
Spooner,
Steele,
Stone, E. F.
Strait,
Struble,
Swinburne,
Symes,
Taulbee,
Taylor, E. B.
Taylor, I. H.
Thomas, J. R.
Thomas, O. B.
Thompson,
Townshend,
Van Schaick,
Viele,
Warner, William
Weaver, J. B.
Weber,
White, A. C.
White, Milo
Wilkins,
Wolford,
Worthington.
Spriggs,
Stahlnecker,
Stephenson,
Stewart, J. W.
St. Martin,
Stone, W. J., Ky.
Taylor, Zach.
Trigg,
Wadsworth,
Wallace,
Ward, J. H.
Weaver, A. J.
West,
Whiting,
Wilson.
365
Mr. PIDCOCK. with Mr. GILFILLAN.
Mr. KING with Mr. PROWNE, of Indiana.
Mr. MORGAN with Mr. ZACH. TAYLOR.
Mr. WILSON with Mr. MCCOMAS.
Mr. MITCHELL with Mr. WHITING.
Mr. CANDLER with Mr. WEST.
Mr. Cox, of New York, with Mr. PAYSON.
Mr. REESE with Mr. WEAVER, of Nebraska.
Mr. SPRIGGS with Mr. HOUK. *,
Mr. CoMPTON with Mr. STEwART, of Vermont.
Mr. FORNEY with Mr. PAYNE,
The following named members were announced as paired for this
day:
Mr. ROBERTSON with Mr. SESSIONS.
Mr. ERMENTROUT with Mr. HARMER.
Mr. GIBSON, of West Virginia, with Mr. PETTIBONE.
Mr. MULLER with Mr. LAIRD.
Mr. FELIX CAMPBELL with Mr. BINGHAM.
Mr. LOWRY with Mr. HAN BACK. -
Mr. BARRY with Mr. JACKSON.
Mr. GEDDES with Mr. HENDERSON, of Illinois.
Mr. STONE, of Kentucky, with Mr. JAMES.
Mr. DOCKERY with Mr. BURLEIGH.
The result of the vote was announced as above Stated.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1887.
-X. %. % ;: * - *
Mr. CRISP. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the report
of the conference committee be dispensed with. It has been printed
in the RECORD by order of the Senate, and again printed in the REC-
ORD by order of the House. - I have no doubt it is familiar to members;
and any gentleman desiring to do so can send for a copy in document
form, and have it before him as we go on with the consideration of the
bill. In the interest merely of economy of time I ask unanimous con-
sent to dispense with the reading of that report.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Georgia will
permit me to say I do not desire to have any time consunied simply
for the purpose of consuming time, but I think it best that this report
should be read. It will not take more than fifteen minutes to read it.
TheSPEAKER, The gentleman from Georgia asks unanimous con-
sent 3 dispense with the reading of the report of the conference com-
mittee, it having already been printed in the RECORI). Is there ob-
jection ?
Mr. DUNHAM, I do not care to have the bill read, but I think the
report ought to be read. The report of the conferees is all that I desire
to have read.
Mr. CRISP. I do not ask to dispense with reading the explanatory
statement of the conferees, but only the formal report of the committee.
Mr. DUNHAM. It is the detailed statement of the conferees that I
desire to have read.
Mr. CRISP. I have not asked to dispense with the reading of that.
The SPEAKER. In the absence of objection, the reading of the
Conference report will be dispensed with, and the explanatory state-
ment of the conferees will be read.
366
The Clerk read as follows:
STATEMIENT OF CONFEREES ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE,
[Required by Rule XXIX.]
The House conferees on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses on.
the bill of the Senate “to regulate commerce,” and the bill of the House “to
regulate commerce among the States, and prevent unjust discrimination by
common carriers,” make the following detailed statement of the changes be-
tween the House bill and the substitute here with appended :
The action of the House being to adopt a single amendment, your committee,
without attempting to call attention to the precise changes made in each sec-
º ; the bill, report to the House the substance and effect of the changes made,
&S IO if OWS : -
The bill of the House applied only to the transportation of freight, and the
bill as adopted embraces the transportation of passengers as well as freight.
The bill of the House was limited to the regulation of such transportation on
railroads. The bill as reported provides for the regulation of the transporta-
tion of property partly by railroad and partly by water, when both are used
under a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous car-
riage or shipment from one State or Territory of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the
District of Columbia.
The bill which we report defines the term “railroad' as used in it, to include
all bridges, ferries used or operated with any railroad, which is in addition to
the provisions of the House bill.
The second section of the substitute bill adopts substantially the provisions of
the House bill against discrimination by special rates, rebates, drawbacks, and
other devices, and declares that any one making such discrimination shall be
ñº, of unjust discrimination, which is hereby probibited and declared un-
3.WTUI i.
The third section of the substitute embraces substantially the provisions of
the bill of the House, in requiring equal facilities and advantages for all ship-
pers, without exception, and has a provision requiring equal facilities for the
interchange of traffic with all other railroads for the carriage of property and
passengers, and forbids any discrimination by one railroad in the facilities fur-
nished against any other railroad. It contains a clause declaring that this act
shall not be construed as requiring such common carrier to give the use of its
tracks or terminal facilities to any common carrier engaged in like business.
The fourth section adopts substantially the provisions of the House bill on the
long and short haul, with the following proviso: That upon application to the
commission appointed under the provisions of this act such common carrier
may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized to
charge less for a longer than for a shorter distance for the transportation of pas-
sengers and property, and that the commission may, from time to time, prescribe
the extent to which such common carrier may be relieved from the operation of
this section. - -
The fifth section of the substitute bill is a copy of the clause in the House bill
prohibiting pooling, with an amendment striking out the words of the House
bill “by dividing,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “or to divide,” and
with the addition of the words in line 3, after the word “combination,” “with
any other common carrier or carriers.” *
The sixth section is a substitute for the provisions of the House and Senate
bills in relation to the publication of schedules showing the rates, fares, and
charges for the transportation of passengers and property. Instead of requiring
the rates to be posted up, as was provided in the House bill, it requires that,
after ninety days from the passage of the act, every common carrier subject to
its provision shall have printed and keep for public inspection schedules show-
ing such rates, fares, and charges, and, in addition to requiring the railroads to
give publicity at all of the depots on their several lines, it gives authority to
the commission, where it is proper and necessary to require them to give pub-
licity to their rates to other places beyond the lines of their several railroads.
It also provides that the rates, fares, and charges shall not be raised except
after ten days of public notice, but that they may be reduced without previous
public notice; the notice, however, shall be simultaneous with the reduction
itself, and it requires that all common carriers subject to the provisions of this
act shall file with the commission provided for in the bill copies of the sched-
ules which have been established, and shall promptly notify said commission
of all changes made in the same; and that they shall file with the commission
copies of all contracts, arrangements, or agreements with other common carriers
in relation to traffic affected by the provisions of this bill; and in cases where
passengers and freights pass over continuous lines or routes operated by more
than one common carrier, and the several common carriers operating such
lines or routes establish joint tariffs of rates or fares or charges of such contin-
367
uous lines or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also be filed with the com-
mission, and made public, if so directed by the commission.
The section also provides that where a common carrier subject to its provisions
shall meglect or refuse to file or publish its schedules of tariff or rates and fares,
or any part of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to the penalties
herein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit
court of the United States, in any judicial district wherein the principal office of
the common carrier is situated, or wherein such offense may be committed, re-
quiring a compliance with the provisions of the act. -
The seventh section of the substitute bill contains substantially the provisions
of the first part of the second section of the House bill, in relation to the contin-
uous carriage of property and persons from the place of shipment to the place
of destination. - .
The eighth section of the substitute bill contains the substance of the seventh
* section of the House bill, in regard to damages and counsel fees, but expressed
in somewhat different language. ‘..
The ninth section of the substitute bill is a new section, which provides that
persons claiming to have been damaged by the action of common carriers may
proceed for recovery of their damages either in the courts of the United States
or before the commission herein provided for, as they may elect, but not before
both tribunals. This section, which gives jurisdiction to courts of the United
States, does not give jurisdiction in civil suits to the State courts, as was pro-
vided for in the House bill.
This section of the substitute bill also provides that the courts shall have
power to compel any director, officer, receiver, trustee, or agent of the corpora-
tion or company defendant in such suit, to attend, appear, and testify in such.
case, and may compel the production of the books and papers of such corpora-
tion or company party to any such suit; and it provides further that the claim
that any such testinnony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving
such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying ; but that such evi-
dence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding.
The tenth section of the substitute bill makes it a penal offense to violate any
of the provisions of this act, and is substantially the eighth section of the House
foill, except that it puts the maximum of the fine which may be imposed at the
sum of $5,000 instead of $2,000, as was provided for by the House bill.
The eleventh and subsequent sections to the twenty-first, inclusive of the sub-
stitute bill, contain the substance of the Senate’s bill providing for a commis-
sion, except as modified by the provisions of the substitute bill hore in recited.
It provides for a connmission to consist of five persons whose term of office
shall be for six years, except for the first appointments, which are to be for two,
three, four, five, and six years. The members of this commission are to be ap-
pointed by the President by and with the advice of the Senate. Their principal
office shall be in Washington, but they may hold sessions at other places than
Washington, and a single member of the commission may take testimony any-
where, as may be directed by the commission.
These commissioners have salaries of $7,500 each. The commission has the
power to appoint a secretary, with an annual salary of $3,500, and has authority
to employ and fix the compensation of such other employés as it may find nee-
essary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior. *
The nineteenth section of the Senate’s bill, providing for a reference of the
question of pooling to the commission, is not embraced in this substitute.
Section 22 of the substitute bill, aunong other things, provides that nothing in
this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing
at common law or by statute, but that the provisions of this act are in addition
to such remedies, with a proviso that no pending litigation shall in any way be
affected by this act. - .
Section 24 of the substitute bill provides that the act shall go into effect sixty
days after its passage, as in the opinion of your committee it was deemed best
to give the railroads sufficient time to prepare, their schedules and to modify
their management in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The appoint-
ment of the commissiou, however, is to be made at once, as it has to be organ-
ized, and as said schedules of rates and charges have to be filed with said com-
mission. -
J. H. REAGAN,
CHARIES F. CRISP,
: A. J. WEAVER, *
Managers on the part of the Horse.
Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, I propose now to explain, somewhat, the
provisions of this bill, and the action of the managers who represented
the House in the conference. I am not informed as to the disposition of
the House with regard to debating this report. If it were possible to
368
have now any understanding looking to the fixing of such early time
for a vote on this question as may be consistent with a proper discussion
of so important a measure, I should be very glad indeed.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I think it best the debate should be per-
mitted to run on a while, before attempting at all to limit it. -
Mr. DUNHAM. After the debate has proceeded for a time, we can
then better see what limit should be fixed. Two hours hence we can
tell better than we can now when we desire the debate to stop.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The Senate occupied nearly two
weeks in the discussion of this report. -
Mr. CRISP, Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestions of gentlemen,
I shall not at this time undertake to secure any limitation of the
debate on this question. -
For many years attention has been directed to the practices of com-
mon carriers, transporters of commerce from State to State—practices
which have been generally understood and believed to be unjust to
the public. Year after year the agitation of the question of regulat-
ing such commerce has been brought to the attention of the Repre-
sentatives of the people. At the last session of Congress, this House,
by a very large majority, passed a bill known as “the Reagan bill,”
the purpose and intent of which was to protect the people from unjust
charges by common carriers engaged in interstate commerce.
At the last session, also, the Senate of the United States passed a
bill known as “the Cullom bill,” having for its object the regulation
of the carriage of commerce between the States. These bills were dis-
similar; they brought about a disagreement between the two Houses
upon a question which, as the votes of the two Houses clearly indi-
cated, each House was anxious to adjust satisfactorily. In that state
of the case a conference committee, consisting of three members of each
House, was appointed; and those conferees, before the assembling of
Congress, met in the Capitol and made an earnest effort to agree upon
a plan which would afford some relief to the people of the United States.
I need not say that, representing views so different as those which had
been expressed by the two Houses, the conferees on the one part and on
the other had to yield something of their convictions as to what ought
to be done. The result of those labors is presented in the pending re-
port. - º
I feel, as one of the conferees on the part of the House, the only one
of them now present, that an explanation should be made of this bill.
I feel you ought to be told what we understand to be the meaning of
any part of this bill any gentleman wants to inquire about, and I feel
you ought to be informed that the bill as presented is the result of a
compromise made between Representatives who earnestly desire to
afford some relief to the people of the United States.
I shall not, Mr. Speaker, at this late day, in the discussion of this
great question, undertake to present to this House all the reasons that
exist why legislation should be had on this subject. I take it for granted
that every man in the House who regards railroading as a business in
which the public has an interest understands and concedes that some
regulation, some provision, some law is necessary to protect the people
against the practices on the part of railroads, which have so unjustly
burdened the great body of shippers, and occasioned a demand for legis-
lation from every State in the Union.
In the arguments made by the representatives of these corporations
as a reason why legislation should not be had, in my judgment, Mr.
369
Speaker, the error lies in the fact that they fail to recognize the char-
acter of the corporation which they represent. They come before the
committees of the House, they go before the country making an argu-
ment in vindication of their practices, which might be, in many cases,
forcible if they were talking about a private business, if they were
talking about a business in which the public had not an interest, if
they were talking about a business which could exist without the con-
sent of the Government. If we will bring our minds to a recognition of
the fact—because there we must at last come—that a railroad com-
pany is a corporation created by the public, for the benefit of the pub-
lic, that while the corporators and owners of the franchise have a right
to charge reasonable tolls, they take that right burdened with obliga-
tions to the public which are of paramount importance and which can
not be disregarded, we can, without difficulty, arrive at just conclu-
S10(1S.
A railroad can not be built in any State of this Union except by the
exercise, on the part of such State, of the right of eminent domain.
The State can exercise that right in no case except for the public good—
for the public use. No State and no power can take from an indi-
vidual property which he owns and give it to another. It can be taken
by the State for only one purpose—for public use—and then only on
just compensation. -
Railroad companies are chartered by the States, or by the United
States. The power that grants a charter grants it, although it ma
not be so nominated in the charter, for the public good. -
Therefore it is, Mr. Speaker, the people have rights in regard to these
corporations and great transportation agencies which they would not
have if it were a business conducted by private individuals. -
The error, therefore, I say, in the arguments presented to sustain th
present practices arises from a misconception of the character of these
corporations. And I mention that now so the House and each member
may bear in mind in what we propose to do we are dealing with a cor-
poration or corporations in which the public interest is paramount.
And while we do not seek, and should not seek, to deprive investors of
reasonable returns for their investments, if the public interest demands
it private interest must give way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having called the attention of the House to that
fundamental principle, which I believe is not now disputed, I propose
to invite attention to the provisions of the bill, or some of them, which
we suggest for consideration. In many of the provisions of this bill,
I understand, we all agree. Those provisions which seek to enforce
equality between the shippers, I understand nobody objects to. The
bill provides that no preference shall be given to one shipper over
another, that no drawback, or rebate, or device shall be authorized or
permitted which allows discrimination in favor of one shipper against
another; that no practice shall be tolerated which permits discrimina-
tion for or against a particular locality, that no practice shall be allowed
which permits a railroad company to discriminate for or against a con-
necting railroad or other railroad company which may receive or want
to receive freight from the railroad company so carrying. The act also
provides that all rates charged by a common carrier engaged in inter-
state commerce shall be reasonable and just.
Those provisions, Mr. Speaker, I understand meet the approbation
all. Those, like some other provisions in this bill, to which I shall
I S c—24
370
refer, are the provisions, as I understand it, of the common law of the
land where we live. I understand that each one of these provisions
is maintained by the common law; and therefore there should be and
can be no reason, I submit, why any member should object to this por-
tion of the bill. -
The next point to which I shall refer, and which has excited some
controversy, one perhaps that has received more attention in the public
discussions and in the public press than any other section, is the fourth,
that referring to what is commonly called the long and short haul. I
will ask the Clerk to read the fourth section of the bill, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of propeyty, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
“distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance ; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
-common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great conn-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission,
be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the trans-
portation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to
time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be
relieved from the operation of this section of this act. -
Mr. CRISP. That section, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, has given
rise to a great deal of controversy, and I feel it incumbent upon me to
present to the House in the utmost candor my view of its meaning. Of
course, I do not presume to say that my view of it is the absolutely
correct one, but I can state what I believe it to mean. I can state
what I intended it to mean when I gave my assent to the placing of it
in this bill.
The great object the committee had in view was to say that a trans-
portation company should not charge unreasonable rates, and should
not discriminate against individuals or places. We believe, or I be-
lieve, that the principle upon which the rates should be fixed in the
transportation business is the cost to the company of transporting the
goods, the cost of their plant, the value of their line, the cost or ter-
minal facilities, &c., with allowance for a reasonable profit on the in-
Westment. *
I do not believe, sir, that extraneous circumstances ought to affect
the question of charges. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is any
business of the transportation company where goods come from that .
are to be shipped over their line, any more than I believe it is their
business to know where the goods go after passing from their line. I
believe that their legitimate business is the transportation, for reasona-
ble rates, of such freights as may be given to them by any individual or
by other corporations for transportation. &
Believing such to be the case, my understanding of this section is that
the purpose is to bring about reasonable rates without discrimination;
and under this section the amount charged by a railroad engaged in
interstate commerce for trainsporting freight over its entire line is the
maximum rate that may be charged for transporting freight over a part
of it only, the freight and the circumstances being substantially simi-
lar. I do not mean to say, nor does the bill say that it would be rea-
sonable and just to charge as much for the short as for the long haul,
but it does say that more shall not be charged. I do not understand
\
371
that the word “line'' as used in that section means anything different
from road as defined in the bill:
The term “railroad'' as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries
used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a
contract, agreement, or lease.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I do not want to anticipate the argument
of my friend, but I trust that he will at this point explain what is
meant by the words “substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions,” and give an illustration of what he understands by similar con-
ditions and circumstances and those which are dissimilar, and which
will authorize a change in rates. Of course he knows that we can learn
more readily by illustration than by precept.
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman has not given me a very easy task. The
provision we make is that where the circumstances are substantially
similar the shorter haul shall not be charged more than the greater. I
can not undertake in a debate like this to determine for the gentleman
exactly what would constitute “substantially similar circumstances.”
That would be a matter into which I could not now enter; and l sub-
mit it is hardly fair to ask me to define “substantially similar circum-
stances” as used in the bill.
Mr. LONG. But is it not necessarily what a judge would have to
do in instructing a jury 2
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That is the point; for if my friend were a
commissioner he would have to define it.
Mr. CRISP. If complaint is made to the commission of the violation
of the rule prescribed in the fourth section of this bill, the commission,
after hearing both sides, would determine in the particular case made
whether or not the complaint was well founded. Necessarily in decid-
ing that question they would determine whether or not the circum-
stances were substantially similar in the case of the long haul and in the
case of the short haul presented in the complaint. That is the object
and purpose of the commission in that regard. If the individual did
not go to the commission, but went to the courts, then, Mr. Speaker,
the courts, the judge, and the jury would determine that question. I
am not prepared, sir, to say, in answer to the suggestion of my friend
from Massachusetts, Governor LONG, that the court would tell the jury
what “substantially similar circumstances” meant.
Mr. LONG. No; but the judge would have to tell the jury what
the legal effect of the words is. -
Mr. CRISP. I think the judge would say to the jury, after hearing
all the evidence, that if they believed more had been charged for the
short than for the long haul of like kind of property under substan-
tially similar circumstances and conditions, then they should find for
the complainants, leaving the jury to determine in each case whether
the property was of like kind and whether the circumstances and con-
ditions were substantially similar. f
Mr. SCOTT. Will my friend from Georgia permit me to ask him a
question? *
Mr. CRISP. With pleasure. •
Mr. SCOTT. There is a line of railroad known as the New York
Central Railroad extending from Buffalo to the city of New York en-
tirely within the jurisdiction of the State of New York, and all rates
made from Buffalo to the city of New York would not come under this
bill. This bill can not affect the rates of that railroad. Then there is
what is known as the great chain of lakes extending from Buffalo to
372
Chicago entirely open to the competition of every vessel and every ves-
sel-owner competing for the great trade of the Northwest. When that
trade is brought from Duluth and from Chicago and delivered at the
port of Buffalo, it immediately becomes State commerce and is not then
within the jurisdiction of your bill.
There is another line of railroad inland extending from the city of
Chicago, and known as the Pennsylvania railroad system, being the
Pennsylvania Railroad from the city of Philadelphia to the city of
Pittsburgh, and there connecting with a line controlled by and known
as the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago Railroad, extending to the
city of Chicago. And all the trans-continental commerce consequently
carried by that system of road has to be carried inland. How can you,
therefore, possibly, under the provisions of your bill, treat equitably
and fairly these two great systems of trans-continental roads when the
competitive traffic is delivered by lake at Buffalo coming in under the
jurisdiction of New York State, and the inland line running from Chi-
cago to the city of New York, which comes in under your bill becomes
subject to the prohibitory provisions that they shall not do so and so *
Mr. CRISP. The Congress of the United States have no authority
under the Constitution to regulate the transportation of commerce
wholly within a State. The States of the American Union under the
Constitution have no right to regulate the transportation of commerce
between the States. The line is clearly marked. .
The question of my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT) involves
the idea that because we can not regulate the transportation of com-
merce within the State of New York we shall not therefore regulate
the transportation of commerce between the States. See, Mr. Speaker,
the position in which that would leave and I might say has left the
American people for many years. Until quite recently, sir, there were
many believers in the policy of railway regulation who insisted that
the true method was to leave to each State the regulation of trans-
portation through and over its territory, and you found men who rec-
ognized the necessity, for legislation, but felt that it was a dangerous
step for Congréss to take and insisted that the States should legislate
for the regulation of each line within its borders. - .
The Supreme Court of the United States before whose decisions we
all must bow, have decided that commerce, interstate commerce, com-
merce passing from one State into or through another could not be
regulated, nor could the carriage of it be regulated by the State law.
If, therefore, we are to wait before we discharge our duty under the
Constitution to the people until the State of New York, or the State of
Massachusetts, or any other State discharges its duty, in the meantime
I ask you who is to protect the great body of the people from the aggres-
sion of these vast monopolies” All that we can do in this case or in any
other is to discharge our duty under the law; to take no step that will
impair the right of the States, but to leave undone nothing that we ...
can constitutionally do that will aid the people to just and reasonable
rates of transportation of person or property between the States.
If the evil suggested by the gentleman from Pennsylvania exists, then
when we discharge our duty I think we can confidently rely upon the
people of that great State to discharge theirs. ..
Mr. NELSON. Will the gentleman permit me to make a sugges-
tion ? < . •
Mr. CRISP. Yes, sir.
Mr. NELSON. I desire to suggest to the gentleman from Georgia.
this: Whether or no the question propounded by the gentleman from
*
373
Pennsylvania was not rather in the nature of a suggestion how it was
possible to evade the provisions of this bill, than anything else?
Mr. CRISP. I was answering the suggestion of my friend from Penn-
sylvania because I urnderstood him to mean by the case that he cited,
that because perhaps the railroad wholly within the State of New York
could not be required by this act to do or leave undone anything, its
passage would be unjust to other railroads competing for the same busi-
ness who would be controlled by our legislation. Therefore, it is that
I am making the suggestion I do. 2 A
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Will the gentleman from Georgia permit
me to ask a question in furtherance of an understanding about this?
Mr. CRISP. It will be remembered my time is limited; still I will
gladly yield to any gentleman who desires to ask a question.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It is only to complete the construction of a
sentence in the question which I wished to ask a moment ago. Does
the fact that there is water competition along a part of the line and not
along the whole line change the condition within the terms of this act?
In other words, suppose from A to C there is water competition, and in
order to obtain the freight, a certain rate, about that which should be
charged for transportation by water, were charged suppose from A to B,
B being between A and C, but nearer C, there being no water competi-
tion between B and C–would you say the circumstances and condi-
tions touching the shipments to the two points B and C were substan-
tially the same, and hence that the carrier would not be authorized to
charge an increased rate to C2
Mr. BRUMM. Is not that rather a question of construction?
Mr. CRISP. I will say, because I do not wish to conceal any opin-
ion I entertain on any provision of the bill, that in my judgment the
fact that there is competition there does not affect the question.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Then my friend will agree that the long
haul is practically abolished as between A and C2 -
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Oh, no.
Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, while I agree with the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH] as to the meaning of that provision, I can
not agree in his suggestion that the long haul is abolished. Why, sir,
within the margin fixed by the bill, see the advantage that the long
haul has. It must be remembered that there is no attempt in this bill
to require any transportation company to make a pro rata or so much
per mile charge.
So far as the restriction in the fourth section of the bill is concerned,
they may charge as much for the short as for the long haul. Now
let me answer the gentleman’s question upon the idea that these rail-
roads are common carriers established for the benefit of the public.
Here is a line of railroad from New York to New Orleans, made up of
connecting lines. At New Orleans there is water transportation, as
there is at New York. That line of railroads will haul freight from
New York to New Orleans for 76 cents a hundred, while to Atlanta,
which is about half way or a little more, the charge is $1 a hundred.
Goods that go from New York to New Orleans by rail go through At-
lanta and nearly as far again as they went in reaching Atlanta, and
when they get to New Orleans they pay 76 cents a hundred; whereas,
if they had stopped at Atlanta and saved nearly half the haul they
would have had to pay $1 a hundred. -
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Now, if the gentleman will indulge me
. right there, I will not interrupt him again. He will concede that the
charge to New Orleans is based upon the competition with water—
374
that, because of that competition, the railroad companies can not charge
and receive a higher rate. Now, since they must charge that low rate
which they do charge to New Orleans in order to secure the business, I
ask the gentleman to explain to the House how it will benefit Atlantato
cut off that long-haul rate from New York to New Orleans? He will
bear in mind that it is impossible for them to get the freight for New
Orleans at all unless they charge such a rate as will enable them to
compete with water transportation. If that business is lost to the rail-
road companies because they are not allowed to charge the lower rate
to New Orleans for the reason that they can not reduce the rate to At-
lanta, will the gentleman explain how Atlanta will be benefited?
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. But your assumptions are not cor-
rect. s
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. They are correct. -
Mr. CRISP. Atlanta, I take it for granted, is entitled in the case
suggested to reasonable rates. What is or what is not a reasonable
rate is a question of fact, which must be settled by what ?
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. By all the circumstances. -
Mr. CRISP. By the question of competition, or by the question of
cost 2 - -
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Competition is one of the circumstances,
of course. When a road is built the probability of competition is one
of the circumstances to be considered, because it will get no freight
unless it can carry as cheaply as its competitors. .
Mr. CRISP. I suggest to my friend that right there, in my humble
judgment, is one great error which is made by the transportation com-
panies. They lose sight of the business for which they were organized.
The gentleman says that if the railroads do not haul at such a price from
New York to New Orleans they can not get any business. They ought
not to have any business unless they can make a reasonable profit upon
it, and if the rate of 76 cents between New York and New Orleans pays
a reasonable profit, what kind of a profit, I ask you, does the dollar
rate from Atlanta to New York pay, the distance being only about half
as great? - -
* ANDERSON, of Kansas. Why, it amounts to larceny . [Laugh-
ter. -
Mr. CRISP. But if they make no money by doing business at the
rate between New York and New Orleans, then there is a double burden
upon the intermediate points along the line, because they are taxed to
make up what has been lost upon the through transportation. So at
last, my friend from Ohio, it is a question of the reasonableness of the
Tate.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Certainly, all things considered.
Mr. CRISP. Under the fourth section of this bill discrimination
can be made to this extent, that the railroad company may charge as
much for the short haul as for the long haul. Let the question be ad-
dressed to any man of ordinary understanding: Is it reasonable and
just that a corporation which owes its existence to the public, and is
bound to exercise its franchises for the benefit of the public, shall take
an article of freight in the city of New York, and if it delivers that
article at a distance of 500 miles from New York shall receive a dollar
for carrying it, but if it carries it 500 miles farther shall receive but 75
cents? What must be the answer? Does that strike any gentleman
as a reasonable and fair business proposition
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. My friend knows very well that to get the
375
* {
freight at all to a given point the railroads must compete with their
competitors. That is true, is it not ? - •º.
Mr. CRISP. Undoubtedly. - r
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Now, if competing rates do not pay any
profit, but barely the cost of the transportation, must the railroads turn
that business away? If not, if they are allowed to carry it, it certainly
helps to pay expenses, and thereby, to some extent, takes the burden.
off the short haul. Just how the public is injured by that is what I ask
the gentleman to explain.
Here is a little town, if you please, twenty miles from this city
where the people have been accustomed to pay 6 cents a bushel for
hauling all their coal. A railroad company builds a line passing that
town and extending to some point beyond, where there is water com-
petition. The railroad company says to the people at this intermedi-
ate point, “What has it been your custom to pay for hauling your
coal?” The answer is “6 cents a bushel.” The company says, “We
will haul it for 3 cents a bushel; but to the point beyond at which
there is competition we must haul it for 2 cents a bushel, because our
competitor will haul it for that price.” Now, does it injure the people
who previously have paid 6 cents a bushel to get their coal hauled at
3 cents? If it does, how does it injure them? .
Mr. CRISP. That, Mr. Speaker, is a plausible statement. It is, how-
ever, based upon the inquiry, which I think an erroneous test, “What
is the work worth to the shipper?” I maintain the question should
be, “What does it cost the transporter?” That is the difference be-
tween the proposition made by the gentlemen and that insisted upon
by this committee. You ask “what are certain services worth to the
shippers?” What is it worth to the man halting along the highway
to meet a conveyance which will carry him out of the storm and the
darkness to a place of shelter? If you ask what it is worth to him, it
may be worth all that he has. But is that the reasonable rule to ap-
ply in fixing the compensation of a corporation established for the pub-
lic good and not solely for the private benefit of the corporators who
have it in charge? -
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That is not the case I put by any means.
Mr. CRISP. I understood the case put by the gentleman to be that
of a railroad company, who say to the people in a certain locality, “Yout
have been paying 6 cents a bushel for hauling; will you not agree to
give us 32” Does not that question look to what it is worth to the
people who receive the service, and not to the cost to the transporter?
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. No; for the company that builds the road
takes into consideration when building it what competition there will
be, what the local traffic will be, what the through traffic will be-it
takes into consideration all the circumstances which go to fix the price.
And I say, instead of the man at the intermediate point being in-
jured, he saves 3 cents a bushel; and ultimately, according to the ex-
perience, we have had in this country, he may save still more. He is
not injured by reason of the fact that the company run their cars 10
miles beyond, to a point where, in order to compete, they must make
a lower charge. •
Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] before he
resumes will allow me to make one suggestion. He referred in the case
he put to the rate between New York and Atlanta as compared with
the rate between New York and New Orleans. He said that the rail-
road companies were charging 75 cents a hundred from New Orleans.
*
376.
*N ew York, and a dollar a hundred to Atlanta, which was not half
the distance. - - - -
Mr. CRISP. A little more than half.
Mr. SCOTT. A little more than half. Now the gentleman must re-
member that the competitor with the railroad from New Orleans to
New York is the Atlantic Ocean. Steamships plying between New
York and New Orleans fix, to a certain extent, the rates between those
two cities. By the competition of the railroads from New Orleans to
New York, these ocean rates are kept down. Your bill proposes to
drive these railroads out of that competitive business; and such a pol-
icy must result in placing the entire control of the business between
New Orleans and New York in the hands of the steamships, while the
only satisfaction the people of Atlanta get is that possibly the people
of New Orleans are compelled to pay eventually a dollar a hundred for
transportation from New Orleans to New York, whereas if they were
allowed the competition of the railroads that business might be done
for 75 cents a hundred. “Misery loves company.”
Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, I confess I can pot see, as suggested by
my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. SCOTT] and my friend from Ohio
[Mr. BUTTERworth J, that the effect of this proposition will be to in-
crease the through rates unless the present through-rate system is based
upon a rule which requires the local shippers to sustain the loss in-
curred on the through rates. If the charge from New York to New
Orleans of 76 cents pays a small profit to the railroad company, I ask
again, what kind of a profit must be paid for a haul which is half the
distance, when the charge is 33% per cent. more ? We do not seek, as
I was going on to say, to establish any pro rata arrangement of so much
a mile. We agree by this bill that the companies may charge, if it is
reasonable to do so, as much for the short haul as for the long haul,
and no more. .." -
Mr. ZACH. TAYLOR. Is not the proposition of the bill designed
to meet a case of this kind : Between Covington and Memphis, a dis-
tance of 37 miles, the charge for transportation of cotton is $1.15 a bale,
but from Memphis to New York the charge is only 90 cents, and it
passes over the same line? .
Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, if it were not going over a subject already
exhausted, I could occupy an hour in bringing to the attention of the
House actual cases which have arisen in the transaction of business
by interstate carriers which would shock the sense of justice of any
man who feels that the public has a right to demand absolute equality
in transportation, rates. .”
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. But do not the other Sections of the bill
correct that, leaving no necessity for an arbitrary law fixing a rate
without reference to circumstances? -
Mr. CRISP. If my friend will pardom me, I must go on. I will say
to him, however, that the other sections of the bill are designed to
do that, but in view of the fact that some court, some jury, somebody
charged with the execution of this law might think it the intention or
design that more should be charged for the shorter than the longer
haul, we, by a provision inserted in the bill, give the decision of the legis-
lative branch of the Government, that in no case, except it be a special
one, can such a rate be reasonable or just. That is the pmrpose of the
provision referred to.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I do not wish to interrupt the gen-
tleman; but in reference to this question, whether these charges for
Jreight pay or do not pay the railroad companies for hauling, I want
377
to ask him the simple question, whether the people of this coun try&re
complaining that within the last ten or fifteen years freights have been
reduced from 24 cents per ton per mile to less than 1 cent—to seven-
eighths of 1 cent?
Mr. CRISP. My good friend from Pennsylvania will pardon me for
not replying fully, as I have already occupied so much time. I will
say, however, that this is not the first time I have heard the claim set
up that the railroad companies are entitled to great credit for having
during the last twenty years reduced their rates.
We are told by gentlemen representing the railroads that this reduc-
tion of rates is a mere matter of grace to the people, who should rise
up in thankfulness therefor; and figures are presented to show how
much greater the incomes of the roads would have been if they had
maintained the rates of twenty years ago. To be truly grateful we
must believe that all the advance and progress made in machinery and
cars used for the transportation of freight are for the benefit of the rail-
roads and not for the public. Such a proposition denies to the public
the saving derived from the use of the discoveries in steam appliances.
It denies to the public the advantage of the reduction in the price of
steel. It denies to the public the benefit of the reduction in the price
of everything that is necessary to sustain life. It denies to the public
and claims for the railroads all the benefits arising from a general re-
duction in the value of all property and is entirely indefensible.
I do not wish to be understood as underrating these corporations as a
means to advance civilization and promote the general welfare; but I
do mean to enter a protest against the claim that under any sort of
rule they would have a right to maintain charges of twenty years ago
when everything else has diminished in value, and to mildly suggest
that perhaps they have not been altogether so generous in reductions
as their advocates would have us believe. Has the reduction of local
rates on any line of railroad in the United States been as great during
the past twenty years as the reduction in the price of clothing, as the
reduction in the price of sugar, as the reduction in the price of shoes,
as, the reduction in the price of cotton, as the reduction in the price of
almost every article which humanity uses? I grant you at the great
competing centers reductions have been made; but I submit that an
inspection of the tariffs of corporations will show that there has been
no commensurate reduction at intermediate points.
For what purpose do the people of Pennsylvania grant to a company
the right to build a railroad on the territory of the State? What is
the object of the grant? Is it because somebody not living in Pennsyl-
vania may be benefited by the road 2 Is not the paramount object the
benefit of the people who own the soil? Is not that the primary ob-
ject 2 Are people living along the line of this great road—people de-
pendent on that means of transportation—are they to be charged with
burdensome rates in order that the railroad may obtain freight at a
point some distance from it? -
I say the true policy of a railroad is to build up shippers along its
lime. At last on them it must depend for its life. The contrary policy
must result in breaking down those upon whom the road must depend
for support. It depreciates the value of property along the line. It
diminishes population and defeats, in every way, the object and pur-
pose of the public in authorizing the construction of the road.
Mr. McKINLEY. I ask the gentleman to yield to me for a single
question, - -
Mr. CRISP. Certainly.
3' S
$ºr. McKINLEY. I would be glad if the gentleman from Georgia
would give the House an example which would realize an exception to
relieve the carrier from the operation of this act—if he can give us an
example in practical business which would justify the commission in
making the exception that is provided for in the last clause of section
four.
Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, I should not like to undertake to do that,
but I will say very frankly, speaking my own views, the other House
conferees not being present can not speak for themselves, nor can I speak
for them. I was of the opinion the general rule ought to be that in no
case should a greater charge be made for a shorter distance than was
made for the longer one when the shorter is included in the longer.
That is my own opinion aboutit, but in deference to the sentiment which
existed in some breasts that there might be a hardship in an iron-bound
rule, believing as I do the commission organized under this act would
be slow to relax the general rule, believing that in nearly every case,
if not every one, it would be found the enforcement of the rule would
work no hardship, I agreed to this provision. I had another reason for
agreeing to it, one that always has weight with the practical legislator.
I had to do it to get an agreement between the conferees of the two
Houses.
Mr. McKINLEY. What particular case?
Mr. CRISP. None were cited. I understand it to be like this: Here
is a universal rule which we propose to establish. There may possibly
be a case, though I confess I can not see it, when the enforcement of this
rule would work a hardship to a transportation company, and out of
abundance of caution, to do no injustice, whenever a complaimant can
establish that in a specific case the operation of the general rule would
be unjust in that particular case the commission may relieve him from
the operation of the rule.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I ask unanimous consent that the time
of the gentleman from Georgia be extended. -
Mr. BYNUM. If I can be recognized, I will yield to the gentleman
from Georgia. - :
Mr. ADAMS, of Illinois. I hope the gentleman’s time will be ex-
tended.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the extension of the time of
the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRISP. I thank the House for its courtesy and indulgence.
Mr. HEPBURN. I would be glad if my friend from Georgia would
allow me a question here before he proceeds with his remarks.
Mr. CRISP. Certainly. -
Mr. HEPBURN. Does the word “cases,” in the fourteenth line of
the fourth section, in your judgment, refer to shipments or to roads?
I refer to the use of the word in connection with the proviso:
Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after in-
vestigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property.
Mr. CRISP. In my judgment it applies to shipments.
Mr. HEPBURN. If I believed that I would not vote for your bill.
Mr. CRISP. I should be sorry to lose the support of my friend from
Iowa. I do not want to be misunderstood in the answer I have given.
*
379
I think that it applies to shipments in this sense, that all like cases dº
that railroad should be operated under the same rule.
Mr. HEPBURN. Would it divert the gentleman from his argu-
ment to permit me to give an illustration of the point I mean, and
then ask his opinion in connection with it?
Mr. CRISP. I would be glad if the gentleman would wait a mo-
ment, as I prefer to get through as soon as possible with my remarks,
"and think I may perhaps answer the point to which he refers in the
course of the discussion. - -
There are only one or two other points, Mr. Speaker, to which I
wish to call the attention of the House. That exception, or authority
to suspend the rule, was granted by the committee and put in upon
the idea that there might be conceivable cases where injury or injus-
tice would result, and hence we would give power to the commission
to relieve them.
The next section that has excited comment is that which prohibits
the pooling of rates. I take it for granted that every member present
knows what is meant by the words “pooling rates.” The railroad
companies, or their representatives, or rather the leading representa-
tive of the system of pooling, object to that term as offensive, and say
that a very great amount of misconception exists in the public mind on
the subject of pooling, largely resulting from the unfortunate use of that
term; and suggest in lieu ofit that it is a system for the “maintenance
of rates and traffic unity.” That is what he calls the system which we
seek to prohibit in this bill.
Pooling, Mr. Speaker is a device—and of course I do not use that
word in any offensive sense—on the part of independent monopolies to
build up and maintain one great monopoly. It is a device to defeat
competition; and when they talk of the “maintenance of rates and
traffic unity,” they mean that railroads that were built to give the people
the benefit of competition shall be united with each other by this new
device, so as to make them practically, for rate purposes, one line.
We have heard much of the importance to the general public of sta-
bility of rates, and I agree that it is important. We hear much said
in defense of this system, and the allegation is made that it is merely
a system to preserve and maintain regularity of rates and prevent rail-
road wars. A significant fact in this connection is that in no case on
record, I undertake to say, can you find where two railroad companies
have pooled their local rates. Wherever the railroad is omnipotent, so
far as the shipments are concerned, wherever they can put upon the
shipper any rate suggested by their cupidity or avarice, or suggested, if
you please, by the other rule so lauded by these gentlemen what the
freight will bear, in every such case you find each road standing by
itself and making no pool.
Therefore I aver the object of pooling is to destroy competition.
You may present it in any light you choose, call it by any name
you please, that is its object and it never was discovered until the
competing lines, which had been built for the public interest, were
requiring these corporations to transport for the public at such reduced
rates that they were not making what they thought they ought to
make. I maintain, sir, that the railroad business, or the business of
transportation, is no exception in one respect from any other business,
and that is that it is to the interest of the public to have competition.
While it is true that under the railway system as it exists to-day it
seems that railroads will not quietly submit to competition, yet I sug-
gest that is the fault of the railway companies and not of the public.
i
380
Here is a line of railway extending from Atlanta, in the State of
Georgia, to Macon in the same State. If investors conceive the idea
that the business of that line is sufficient to justify another, they go to
the Legislature, which represents the people, and ask the right to build
the line, they ask that the State exercise and grant to them the right
of eminent domain in order that they may acquire a right of way.
What is the inducement to the State to grant the charter; is it not that
the people may have the benefit of competition and thus perhaps get
better and cheaper rates? Unquestionably this is so.
The Legislature that grants to the corporation a charter that enables
it to transact its business represents the public and grants the franchise
only for the public good, to wit, that the people between the two points
shall have the benefit of competition. That is true everywhere where
there are competitive lines.
What is the effect of pooling? It is to defeat the object of the Leg-
islature. It is to defeat the interest of the public. It is to place those
lines in the same condition that they would be if one great railway
magnate or great railway corporation should become the owner of both
lines. Gentlemen who sustain this practice say to us that if you pro-
hibit pooling, the result will be a railroad war, that the irresponsible,
bankrupt concern will reduce its rates and undercut, that the other
will undercut, and one will go under, and it will be a case of the sur-
vival of the fittest. If that lamentable state of affairs should exist,
it will be the fault of the railway companies themselves, who will not
brook that legitimate competition that every other enterprise has to
bear ; but even if this dire result should occur, then, Mr. Speaker, we
would be in no worse condition than we are to-day, where the effect of
the pool is practically to make one line. g
Mr. HOPKINS. Will the gentleman from Georgia permit me to ask
him a question?
Mr. CRISP. Yes, sir. ~ --
Mr. HOPKINS. I ask the gentleman if the clause in section 4 will
not have a tendency to prohibit these rate wars? If they put down
the price of freight at a terminal point they will be compelled to put
it down all along the line, and no road can afford to engage in such a
war with section 4 in the bill.
Mr. CRISP. There may perhaps be some tendency of that sort; but
to me it occurred that there could be no justification looking to the
public interest for a practice of this sort. Why, Mr. Speaker, it is not
an uncommon thing in a State for the Legislature to provide that such
and such a railroad company shall not own or operate another. In my
judgment one of the wisest things a State Legislature could do in
granting a charter would be to provide that a company should not en-
gage in any other business but the business of transportation, and that
it should not acquire the ownership of any other line. Why not ?
There is nothing in this bill, you understand, that prevents traffic ar-
rangements by which continuous carriages are made. That is not pro-
hibited. The prohibition is against the pooling of freights or the re-
ceipts of competitive railroads. You all know what kind of pools
have existed and do exist in this country to-day.
Under the pooling system there is no inducement to the railroad com-
pany to furnish good transportation; there is no incentive to the enter-
prise and the energy so typical of the American character. They gointo
the pool, and, according to the agreement, so you receive, whether you
carry a pound of freight or a million pounds of freight. The amount of
money that comes in on all the roads is put into a pool. A commis-
*
381
sioner is appointed at a great salary, paid by these railroads, and it is his
duty to divide the receipts according to the agreement, one receiving
five, another ten, another twenty, or whatever may be the per cent.
agreed upon. -
There are other kinds of pools, pools which agree that a certain rail-
road company not in the pool shall not have a right to ship its freight
over their line. When I say it shall not have the right I mean the rate
is prohibitory. They put such a rate on the competing line that the
shipper can not ship over it, but must take one of the lines within the
pool. They have an arrangement by which the water transportation
of the country can not be used and at the same time give the people
the benefit of the railway. .
The Central Pacific Railroad Company, the evidence shows, has ar-
rangements of this sort, that they will make special rates to a shipper
over their road provided he will agree he will give them all his freight
and will not ship a dollar’s worth by water. If he will do that he
will have a special rate. If he will exercise the freedom and inde-
pendence and manhood that are supposed to belong to our people, then
he has to pay to this creature of the public an increased price for his
transportation. - - .
They have had pools by which railways in the city of Chicago agreed
to pay to a single live-stock firm in that city $15 for every car-load
they carried for anybody; and in consideration of that the firm was to
“even up” according to an understanding they had. He was to “even
up;” that is, the firm was to give each railroad the amount of transporta-
tion that according to the bargain it was to have, not according to
the public demand, not according to the choice of the shipper, but
what they in their magnanimity or wisdom thought was satisfactory
or sufficient between themselves, and they directed where your cattle
would go and where yours would go, and you would be bound to
ship them in that way. {.
That is another kind of pool they have had in this country. Now,
Mr. Speaker, I propose to break up that system.
Mr. HAYDEN. I ask the gentleman whether they do not have these
pools abroad or some similar arrangement?
Mr. CRISP. I have heard that they do.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. That is upon the principle of total
depravity. [Laughter.] -
Mr. CRISP. There are some very remarkable things in connection
with that which, if I had the time, I might relate. I would suggest,
however, to my good friend from Massachusetts in passing that the
system abroad can hardly be compared fairly to the system in this
country in view of the difference in the circumstances. But the point
we make is that any system or practice which tends to destroy compe-
tition is an injury to the people who must use the roads.
Why is it not so? Can any good reason be given 2 The only reply
made by the railroads is: “If you do not allow us to pool we will com-
pete, and our competition will be ruinous; we will ruin ourselves if
you do not stop us !” Why can not they compete legitimately as peo-
ple do in other business? We think that they ought to do so, and
therefore we prohibit pooling.
By the terms of this bill we create a railroad commission, and I
ask the attention of gentlemen interested for a few moments to that
point. }
I say with the utmost frankness, that, as an individual, I preferred
the bill without the commission, but I say also in the same breath that
382
I am not to be classed with those who will not take anything unless
they can get all they want, and that, with all respect I submit, must
be the attitude of those gentiemen who oppose this bill because of the
commission. What are the powers of that commission ? In particular
cases, under the fourth section of the bill, they may relax the rule
therein set up. As to other matters, they may require the railroads
to make returns of their accounts, their stocks and bonds, their run-
ning expenses, rates of charge, &c.
Where the complainant invokes their authority they may pass upon
a given case between the individual and the railroad company. When
they so pass upon the case their finding upon the facts is prima facie
true. They have no power to give vital force and effect to their judg-
ment, but it is prima facie true in the courts of the country. Is there
anything in this power that is alarming or dangerous to the public?
Is there anything in this bill that should lead representative men, men
who have had large experience in public affairs, to say that nowhere in
this country are to be found men of power enough, men good enough,
men honest enough to administer the law 2 . .
I should be ashamed, sir, of my people if I believed in any such
theory as that. I should be ashamed to come before the country
and state that I did not believe it was in the power of the President
of the United States, with the concurrence of the Senate, to select men
wise and upright and honest enough to carry out this law. I am not
one of those who believe that human nature is so utterly depraved
that we can find nobody left who is honest and upright. What other
powers are there than those I have enumerated? - -
Mr. Speaker, we do not drive the complainant to the Railroad Com-
mission. If he chooses to go there he has the right to go and invoke
this power which is created by the Government for his protection; but
if he prefers, for any reason, to go to the courts of the country, they
are open to him. The same judge who passes upon his rights of prop-
erty, his rights of life and liberty, will there pass upon his rights in
his dealings with the railroads.
Objection is made by some gentlemen who are, in the main, friendly
to this bill, because we have not conferred jurisdiction upon the State
courts to hear and determine these questions. Waiving for the present
the question of our power, by an act of Congress, to give to the courts -
of a State jurisdiction to try a matter of this character—a statutory
case—waiving that, I say to those gentlemen that if we had insisted
upon putting that provision in this bill, we would have had no agree-
ment. Under the bill as it stands no great injustice or hardship cau
arise to the citizen. . .
He can go to the commission, but if he is one of those who, either
from suspicion or for any other reason, believe that this commission
will not do right, then he can go into court and file his suit and have
it tried as every other case is tried, the only difference being that it is
proposed by this bill to allow to such an individual in every case of
recovery a reasonable attorney fee, to be taxed by the court. That
provision is, I admit, an exceptional one, and some complaint has been
made of it as a hardship. * x *
The answer I make to that complaint is, that, on the one hand, is the
humble individual, the small shipper; while, on the other, is the great
corporation with its wealth, its employés, and its power. To put them
upon something like an equal footing we say to the poorest man in the
land, who feels that he has suffered a wrong at the hands of one of these
corporations, that he shall be enabled to test the question before the
§ -- 383
courts; we say to him, if you prove to have been correct in your
judgment as to the wrong inflicted upon you, then we will enable you
to enforce your rights by paying the counsel that you employ for that
purpose. Is not that fair enough? Are we to be told that because we
do not provide that these matters may be tried and determined in the
State courts we leave the railroads free to discriminate, and that they
are still permitted to go on in their oppression of the people 2
I commend this idea to those gentlemen who base their opposition
upon that ground. --
Now, Mr. Speaker, the other provisions of this bill relate to the
powers
Mr. CALDWELL. Will it interrupt my friend if I ask him a ques-
tion? -
Mr. CRISP. Not at all.
Mr. CALDWELL. In the proviso of the fourth section power is
granted to this commission to make exceptions under the long-and-
short-haul clause. That was my great objection to the original Cul-
lom bill, because I believed such a grant of power ought never, under
any circumstances, to be given to the commission or anybody else—a
power to make some and break others. Now, will my friend tell me
the difference between the clause as contained in the bill agreed upon
by the conference committee and the original grant of power to the
commission under the Cullom bill? -
Mr. CRISP. From the Cullom bill, Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman
will find by turning to it, these words are stricken out, ‘‘and from
the same original point of departure or to the same point of arrival.”
Those words were stricken out because, in our judgment, they put a
limitation upon what we understand to be the rule that in no case
should a greater amount be charged for a shorter than a longer haul.
With that language in the Cullom bill implied that there might be
cases where a greater charge might be made for a shorter than a longer
haul. By striking out those words we made the rule general that in
mo case could such a charge be made, no matter what the point of de-
parture or the point of arrival might be.
As the gentleman understands, a practice exists among the railroad
companies by virtue of which, at competitive points, freight received
over one line goes cheaper than if received over another. Now, with
those words in, there would always be a question in regard to the point
of departure or the point of arrival. With those words stricken out,
the law is general; and that was the sole object in making the change.
The Senate bill provided that the commission might make general
regulations exempting common carriers from the operation of that rule.
We restricted that by requiring it to be done only in special cases after
examination. That is the only difference between the two sections, as
I understand. -
Now, the only power of the commission after that is to require pub-
licity of the rates of the railroads, to require them to make return of
the amount of their stocks and bonds. Gentlemen all recognize the
importance of a provision of this kind. One of the great troubles in
the way of ascertaining to-day what is a reasonable charge by a com-
mon carrier is the fact that stocks are watered, and it is hard to find
out what is the actual cost of a railroad.
Watered stocks, bonds issued for speculative purposes, all these enter
into the present computation of the railroad companies in fixing the
sum upon which they must earn a reasonable interest. The object of
the publicity required in this bill is that when resort is had to the
*
384
courts, when you appeal to the enlightened conscience of an intelli-
gent jury, they may understand exactly the cost of the plant and the
cost of transportation, so as to determine what is or is not a reasonable
charge. The bill provides that you can search at law the conscience
of every officer of a railroad. You can force him to disclose any fact con-
nected with transportation. If the fact is such that it would expose him
to criminal indictment, then we provide it shall not be so used against
him. If it is a mere question affecting damages, then of course it may
be used ; and it enables the suitor to get his case fairly and fully be-
fore a jury. -
There is one other provision to which I call attention, and then I
shall close. As I said at the outset, nearly all the provisions of this
bill are to be found in the common law. One of the great purposes we
have in view is to aid the common law by providing a penalty for its
violation other than the penalty of damages. At common law a tres-
pass or a wrong gives the party aggrieved the right to sue and recover
damages. We propose to say that, in addition to the common law lia-
bility, any transportation company violating this law shall be liable to
have its officers indicted, and if found guilty they shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding $5,000. . g
If gentlemen will examine the bill they will observe that it is
framed in such a way as to declare certain practices unlawful. Turn-
ing to the penal section of the bill, you will find that if a common
carrier shall be found guilty of doing anything in this act forbidden,
or failing to do anything in this act required to be dome, the officers of
the company may be indicted in the district courts of the United States,
and if found guilty may be punished by a fine not exceeding $5,000.
This provision was intended to aid the common law. It was designed
for the protection of every individual, no matter how humble, who may
be wronged by the act of these corporations.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the bill. It is not, as I have already said,
exactly as I would like it. It contains one or two propositions which
I would be glad to have out; and there have been omitted from it one
or two propositions which I would like to have in. But taken as a
whole, 1 commend this bill to those Representatives of the people who
believe that wrong is being done by these corporations, who believe
that the murmurs of the people all over this country do not come to
us except as the expression of some injury perpetrated upon them by
transportation companies.
To those gentlemen who desire to make the assertion of the power
of the Government to control these corporations I commend this bill,
and ask them to sustain it. The practices which it condemns are unjust
to the people. An honest investigation of the rights of the railroad
companies and the people would forbid them; and in my judgment
such practices, and the arguments by which they have been sustained,
amount to an absolute assault upon public justice.
I believe in the paramount right of the people. I would not harm
the railroads. I would allow them to pursue their legitimate calling,
but I would bear in mind always the rights of the people. In my judg-
ment the bill I now commend to you protects and preserves all the
rights of the railroads, while at the same time it gives some modicum
of relief to a long-suffering and oppressed people. [Loud applause. T
* * * * * * *
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I hardly think it is
necessary for me to say that I feel just as much interest in conserving
f
385,
the rights of the people of this country as the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. CRISP] or any other gentleman. I am against wrongs done by
railroad companies as I am against wrongs done by individuals, and
with the gentleman from Georgia I am ready at all times to act in the
direction of protecting one against the other. -
I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, there has been a series of misfortunes
attending legislation on interstate commerce from the date of the intro-
duction of the first bill down almost to the present time, or down, at
least, to the close of the first session of this Congress. I am extremely
sorry that the chairman of the Committee on Commerce [Mr. REAGAN]
is not present to-day, because I must state this fact that from the time
of the introduction of the first bill from the Committee on Commerce
down to the period of the taking up of this bill in the House last July
things have been done which I would not have done. This bill was
taken up then against a promise made that it should not be touched
until the beginning of this session of Congress.
And last of all, when the committee of conference was appointed on
the disagreement of the two Houses no member of the minority on this
question of that Committee on Commerce, no member of this House
who was in the minority on this question, was placed on that com-
mittee of conference among the conferees of the House. The gentle-
man from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. JoHNSON], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUNHAM], not to
speak of myself, were members of that committee in that minority .
which reported on this subject, and voted for the Cullom bill when
offered by Mr. Hiscock as a substitute, and all of whom voted against
the Reagan bill when it was passed by the House. Yet, sir, not one
of that minority was placed upon the committee of conference. So I
say this conference report came into this House without the approval of
one of the minority of the Committee on Commerce, because not one
of them was placed upon the conference committee.
And I say, moreover, that in the report of this conference committee,
using the parliamentary language applicable to such reports, that nec-
essarily and logically there has not been that “full and free confer-
ence ’’ on the subject as has been stated in the report to the House and
Senate on the bill. -
Now, why that was done I do not know; I do not stop to inquire.
It could not have been defended upon the ground that one of a minor-
ity of the political divisions of the House was put upon the conference;
but for some reason unknown to me every one who was selected for the
conference had favored the Reagan bill, and voted for it—I mean of
members of the Committee on Commerce—and the minority was not
represented at all. What disadvantage that may have been to the
House when the report now before us was being considered in the con-
ference I do not want to say, nor do I undertake to say. It may have
been no disadvantage. I say that I regret very much that Mr. REA-
GAN is not present to-day. -
I do not mean to say that it is not legitimate and proper in him to
be in Texas to try to obtain what he wants, for I think it well that
every man should make known what he wants in that direction; and
I only express my regret for his absence; but do not find fault with him
on account of it, nor do I reflect upon him for being absent. It was
not with that view that I made the remark.
Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman permit me to ask if he does not
I S C–25
386
Rnow it is customary in appointing conference committees on the part
of the House to appoint gentlemen who represent the measure—who
are favorable to the bill ? - . -
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. No, sir.
Mr. CRISP. And does not the gentleman know that the Senate con-
ferees were all in favor of the Senate bill ?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. No, sir; I do not know. I can
not answer that question; but my understanding is, and has always
been, that one of the three conferees shall represent the minority view.
Mr. DUNHAM. And especially when, there is a minority report
from the committee.
Mr. CRISP. I am very sorry that I have never heard of this griev-
ance before.
Mr. CALDWELL. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania think
that he could have taken care of the Cullom bill in conference better
than Mr. CULLOM himself.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I am glad the gentleman asked
the question, and I will answer it directly and pertinently. I believe,
sir, that I–and I will mention myself, as the gentleman has referred
to me—I believe that I or any other member of the minority of the
Committee on Commerce would have had as good a chance of persuad-
ing Senators to adhere to the Cullom bill as the gentleman from Texas
or the gentleman from Georgia had of persuading them to incorporate
in their report certain clauses of the Reagan bill. A.
I do not profess to have the obstinacy and great persistency that seems
to be the moving power with some gentlemen, and I will name among
them my friend from Texas, who is absent, and I say again that I am
sorry for his absence to-day, because he has been most persistent in his
views on this question. But I have, sir, somewhat of persistency my-
self in my character, and I never yield until the absolutely inevitable
comes. I would not yield upon a question of this kind merely to meet
what I call the demands of persons who are asking legislation they do
not understand, and the effects and consequences of which they have
not taken time to consider. I believe that any one of the four gentle-
men who made the minority report on the bill from the Committee on
Commerce would have been able to have withstood the power of the
chairman of the Committee on Commerce over the wills and senses of
the eonferees, if I may be allowed to make that statement. I am glad,
therefore, the question was asked, because I would not like to have
referred to it myself unless the question had been asked. -
Mr. CRISP. May I ask the gentleman another question ?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Certainly. ---
Mr. CRISP. Was the gentleman from Pennsylvania present when
the conferees were appointed on the part of the House?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Yes, sir; and I have heard that
was given as a reason why I was not put on the conference. It was told .
me by a member of the House at the time that on account of my not
being present when the conference was appointed I was not made a
conferee. I was present when the conference was appointed, and voted
on a roll-call by yeas and nays ten or fifteen minutes before it was
appointed, and on another roll-call ten or fifteen minutes afterwards.
I was present when the appointment was made, and went away that
afternoon about fifteen minutes after four o’clock—went away know-
ing that the committee had been appointed.
Mr. CRISP. I had no information except that the gentleman was
absent. I did not know myself the facts.
387
Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. That is another thing I did not
intend to mention. I was here. I should not have mentioned that if
I had not been asked. Are there any other questions ? But let me
say before leaving this point that not only was I present, but so also
were Mr. DAVIs, of Massachusetts, and Mr. JoHNSON, of New York,
who bad united in the minority report.
Bowever, Mr. Speaker, we have this conference report before us now.
It has come down to us now and here as a practical point that this
House has got to decide upon one way or the other. In my view we
have to vote down or adopt the conference report. I wish there were
power in the House to recommit it, for I know the majority of this
House desires to pass some legislation to eontrol railroads. I know
that and feel it, and I myself would to-day vote for the Cullom bill as
I did before, and am only amazed, if I can refer to it under the rules, to
find in another body of this legislature sitting at the other end of the
Capitol that those sustaining that bill were meager indeed in number,
while it had been passed in the same Senate a few months before by a .
Harge majority, and in accordance with the wishes of people in many
parts of the country as expressed to us by joint resolutions of State
Legislatures, by the action of boards of trade, by the action of cham-
bers of commerce, and by the action of other commercial associations
known by different names.
I am going to begin perhaps at the wrong end, because it is natural
for us to look to our own localities and homes; and I shall incorporate
in my remarks and adopt the suggestions as my own and ask the Clerk
to read these resolutions of the Board of Trade of Philadelphia, which
were passed last night. I speak of that board of trade as an associa-
tion of gentlemen of the highest integrity and of the greatest commer-
-cial importance. It is a board known everywhere, and I believe is the
oldest organization of the kind in this country. I ask to have these
resolutions read; and as they seem to embrace almost every point on
which I ask for a vote against the report of the conference committee,
the reading of them will shorten my remarks very much.
The Clerk read as follows: e
The memorial of the Board of Trade of the city of Philadelphia respectfully
represents : . -
That your memorialists favor the passage of a bill by Congress under which
a supervisory power shall be exercised through a board of commissioners over
the interstate commerce of the country, and approve of the general provisions
of the bill which has just passed the Senate of the United States, in that it pro-
hibits all drawbacks and preferences, the effect of which shall be to create an
unfair or unjust discrimination in favor of any particular person or locality, and
also in that it secures the open publication of the rates upon such traffic, and
also gives the commission the aid of the proper law officers of the United States,
and of the processes of the courts to enforce their decisions upon any questions
that may be brought before them. - -
But your memorialists beg to protest against the fourth section of said bill,
known as the “long and short haul clause,” under which any carrier is prohib-
ited from charging or receiving “any greater compensation in the aggregate for
the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property for a shorter than
for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being
included in the longer distance.” That this provision of the bill would, in the
judgment of your memoralists. largely cripple and embarrass the movement of
through traffic between the East and the West, and would result not only in
increasing the cost of the necessaries of life to the consumer in the East, but
would also reduce the value of grain, provisions, cotton, tobacco, and other
staples to the producer in the West and South.
That as the interstate railways are mainiy dependent for their revenue upon
their local traffic, and as such a provision would compel them to accept for the
transportation of such local traffic a sum of money not exceeding the proportien
of the gross charge to which they would be entitled on through traffic, they would
as a matter of inevitable necessity, be compelled either to reduce the rates on their
local traffic to such a point as to bankrupt themselves and make them unable
3SS
to meet their fixed charges, or to charge on the through business the same rates
that they do upon their local traffic. That the effect of this would be to prevent
such through traffic from being exchanged between the East and the West for
the reason that the rates on through traffic are largely fixed over the entire coun-
try by the competition of water routes; and as the railroads, in order to get any
portion of the through traffic, are compelled to approximate their rates to those
charged by the water routes, they are necessarily obliged to accept on this
through traffic a compensation but little in excess of the cost of carrying the same.
That in the judgment of your memorialists, no injury results from this course on
the part of the railway companies, but, on the contrary, as it not only furnishes
cheap flour and other provisions to the laboring classes of our own country, but
also enables an enormous volume of provisions, cereals, and other staples to
reach the seaboard and thence by ocean transportation the markets of other
countries, and there meet on favorable terms the products of other parts of the
world, thus placing the balance of trade in favor of the United States and mak-
ing it a creditor of other nations rather than their debtor. That anything
which prevents the free and unrestricted movement of this traffic must work
a most serious financial injury to the producer, consumer, and transporter.
They therefore beg of your honorable body to so amend the bill referred to
as to remove or modify the Objectionable section known as the “long-and-short-
haul clause,” believing that in making the request they are acting irf harmony
with the views expressed by a majority of the commercial organizations of the
entire country. * - .
Your memorialists also beg to protest against the fifth section of the bill re-
ferred to, which prohibits what is known as pooling by the railway companies.
Your memorialists believe that the effect of pools has been to secure uniform
rates to shippers and prevent discriminations between individuals; but they
recommend that all pool agreements between the railway companies should be
submitted to the board of interstate-commerce commissioners, and that nome
should be valid until so submitted and approved by said board. That in this
manner only such agreements as are fair and just to all interests, and would
secure the public against unjust and unfair discrimination would be sanctioned
and approved; and that with the power vested in a board to approve only such
as in their judgment are fair and just, the railways would be able to enforce these
agreements, and prevent the reckless destruction of property which has been
caused in the past by what are known as railroad wars. That in this manner,
also, a fair rate would always be secured on the through traffic of the country,
and while no charge would be levied upon it which would interfere with its free
movement, or in any manner check the development of the West and South or
the general prosperity of the United States, such a revenue would be derived
from the through traffic as would prevent any imposition by the railways of
unjust charges upon their local traffic.
Your memorialists therefore urge upon your honorable body the recommittal
of the said bill to a conference committee for the purpose of amending the fourth
and fifth sections thereof as already stated. -
And your memorialists will &ver pray, &c.
[SEAL.] FRED. FRALEY,
d Vice-President.
J. P. TUCKER,
Secretary.
- PHILADELPHIA, Janwary 17, 1887.
DEAR SIR : I inclose here with the memorial of the Board of Trade of the city of
Philadelphia to the House of Representatives, protesting against the passage of
the interstate-commerce bill in its present shape, and asking your honorable
body to recommit the said bill to a conference committee for purpose of amend-
ing the fourth and fifth sections thereof. - -
Yours truly, - -
- J. P. TUCKER, Secretary.
Hon. CHAs. O’NEILL,
- Washington, D. C. * .
Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, while on this subject
I will state here that the National Board of Trade, composed of repre-
sentatives from all the boards of trade of the country—I presume from
all the boards of trade of the country and the chambers of commerce,
&c.—met here during the pendency of the Reagan bill in the course of
one winter and were here again last winter; and they advised Congress
not to pass the Reagan bill, and especially not to pass some of the very
features of this conference committee's bill. This National Board of
Trade is meeting here to-day or to-morrow. I do not want to fore-
shadow what they may do, but in my opinion they will pass a resolu-
389
tion asking this House to hesitate before it adopts the conference com-
mittee’s report and the bill, and will advise against at least some pro-
visions of it.
Why, sir, my friend from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] has changed his line
very much. He did not vote for the Cullom bill. He might have voted
for the Cullom bill, which had in it the provision for the appointment
of a commission. He might have voted for that bill, and I never under-
stood why he did not do it, being a gentleman of very conservative
VleWS.
Mr. CRISP, Will the gentleman permit me a remark? Am I to
understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania as thinking that this bill
is the Cullom bill ?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. No, sir; I only wish it were. I
am amazed to find it is not the Cullom bill, and I believe it would
have been the Cullom bill if there had been a proper representation
of the views of the minority of this House on the conference.
Mr. CRISP. Of course, as I was one of the conferees, I can make
no reply to that.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Of course the gentleman under-
stands that the Cullom bill has the commission clause in it; but I sup-
pose something had to be yielded on the question of the courts. There
was the trouble, and the provision now creating this commission makes
it almost a court. It does not make a trial by jury exactly, but it
makes the commission almost a court, and makes the proceedings
almost similar to proceedings in courts. There will be delay in de-
cisions upon the question of short and long haul, and not the practical
general rules as contemplated in the Cullom bill. The proposition in
the Cullom bill as passed by the Senate, and as voted for by 102 mem-
bers of this House against 126 against it, was for a commission, but did
not in itself create any of the delays that the bill now reported does.
It meant that there should be a speedy settlement of these questions
of long and short haul, and that general rules should be made—not a
long investigation, as it is supposed will be had under the provisions of
this bill.
As I believe in the knowledge and experience of the commercial asso-
ciations of the country, I want to refer to them again after I have alluded
to the concurrent resolution passed by the Legislature of Iowa favoring
the passage of the Cullom bill regulating interstate commerce, a res-
olution passed by both branches of the Iowa Legislature, sent to this
House and presented by a member from Iowa, I think Mr. HENDER-
SON, and copies presented by other members of that State. And so
were resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee, Wis.; so
also of the association entitled the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ Com-
pany, of Cincinnati; so also the resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce
of Saint Paul, and so on. They have come here from nearly all the
great centers of trade.
I might refer also to the many, many editorials which appeared at the
time when the report was made, and the many, many editorials which
appear now that could be selected from the papers of the country urging
the House to adhere to the Cullom bill and not to vote for the adop-
tion of this conference report and the passage of the bill recommended
by the conference committee. I speak for instance now of the Louis-
ville Courier-Journal;' I speak of one of the Cincinnati papers: I speak
of the North American of the city of Philadelphia, and valious other
papers well known throughout this country giving this advice to the
House now. I presume gentlemen read their local papers at least and
390
learn the feeling expressed by editors; for we are so much dependent
upon the information we receive through the channel of newspapers
that the views of the press ought to have influence on the House.
I refer more particularly to commercial associations. They are com-
posed of men engaged in business, men who understand all about these
questions of transportation, men who have no desire to crush the rail-
roads, who do not wish to disturb the rights of the individual citizen,
but who do, on the contrary, wish to see the progress of the railroads
continued in the direction of conforming their charges to the demands
of the people. Does any gentleman dispute that progress? I have
heretofore asserted, and it cannot be denied, that within a compara-
tively short period the average charges have fallen from 23 cents per
ton per mile to about seven-eights of a cent per ton per mile. I take
it that such legislation as this is calculated to retard railroad progress
and to interfere seriously with the movement of freight—especially
freight at points far distant from the seaboard. Hence I find myself
unable to subscribe to legislation which, in any iron-clad way, inter-
feres with the right to charge less per ton per mile for the long haul
than for the short haul, I do not believe that legislation of that char-
acter is good legislation.
I think it will inevitably disturb, greatly, the interests of the trans-
portation lines and, of course, disturb, at the same time, the interests of
the people, who desire cheap and rapid transportation, and to whom it
is as advantageous as it is to the railroads. Any one who looks at the
record of the proceedings upon this bill in the body at the other end of
this building can see plainly that many a gentleman who voted for it
doubted whether he understood what he was voting for. [Laughter.]
Many gentlemen who voted for the bill admitted that they did not un-
derstand the operations of some of its provisions, and some who voted
against it made the same admission. [Renewed laughter.] I was very
glad of the compliment paid to my friend from Georgia [Mr. CRISP],
a member of the committee of conference. I refer to the fact that there
was a correspondence between him and a member of the Senate as to
how the gentleman from Georgia understood certain provisions of the
bill.
That was a very gratifying compliment, a distinguished Senator ask-
ing information from a member of the House ! [Laughter.] I thought
it a very high compliment to the House and to the understanding which
the Senator knew the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] to possess
and his ability to explain, as well as he could [laughter], the pro-
visions of this bill. I do not think it detracts at all from the ability
of the gentleman that he is not able to explain all its provisions. I do
not wonder at it. Nobody in the Senate who asked for a satisfactory
explanation of the bill received it, and nobody here has received such
an explanation. But that is not the question. I fear, and I think I
can perceive, that many gentlemen will vote for this bill without under-
standing what it will result in. They think that the pressure has been
so great from the country that there ought to be some bill passed upon
this subject. Now, I do not see this day where the great pressure from
the people is to be discovered. h
I admit that there is occasionally a locality where there is complaint
about the railroads and from which there is a pressure for the passage
of some bill; but, take the great producers of the country and the
great shippers of the country, is there any pressure here from them
for the passage of such a bill as the one which has passed the Sen-
ate and is likely to pass the House? Some years ago, I admit, there
391
were complaints and there were reasons for complaints of the railroad
corporations, but to-day those reasons have largely disappeared. In
the great State of Pennsylvania. I do not know where to find a com-
plaint on the part of shippers against the railroads. I recollect when
there used to be complaints, but I do not know of any there now, and
I believe the same is true of other States to a very great extent. -
The fact is that the building of railroads has been of such immense
advantage to the country that the people are willing to let the men
who understand the railroad business manage it themselves.
Mr. ROWELL. If the gentleman will permit a question, does he
not think that the legislation which has been enacted in twenty-six
States and Territories, and which has been in operation for several
years, has had a good deal to do with reducing the complaints and the
grounds for complaint”
Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Yes; I do not doubt that. Several
of the States have enacted laws creating railroad commissions, and un-
doubtedly those have had great effect, and there, perhaps, is where this
power had better be left, for there is less danger from this question in
State legislation than in National legislation, less danger of injury to the
people as well as to those who have their means invested in the trans-
portation lines. Railroad commissions have been created in Massa-
chusetts and in other States, and they have been to a great extent suc-
cessful in removing the grounds of complaint against the railroads.
The legislation of the State of Pennsylvania, the constitutional pro-
visions adopted by that State, have done good. Pennsylvania is against
discrimination; her Legislature is against it, her people are against it,
everybody there is opposed to discrimination. My colleagues know that
as well as I do. We could not stand up here and favor anything look-
ing like discrimination and be considered representatives of our people.
Mr. WEBER. Have you a railroad commission?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. We have no such commission in
Pennsylvania. I only wish we had. I think we would be in a fair
way of getting such a commission but for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the railroad companies, so far as I know, appear to be
totally unconcerned on this question. I know nothing of them; and
I hear nothing from them. I do not know that their representatives
are here; I have not seen any of them. Some of these companies may
like some of the provisions of this bill, as I do; and some of them may
differ with me in my ideas in regard to this bill. But I do not know
and do not care how they feel. I have had my convictions upon this
subject for years; and I feel to-day more strongly convinced than ever
that we should be very careful how we legislate in this general way
by passing an almost iron-clad bill. I do not regards the bill as now
recommended by the conferees as an improvement upon the Cullom
bill. I regard the long-and-short-haul clause in its present form as so
very binding that there can be no redress. -
I have thought all along that the shipper and the railroad company
could agree as to what would be “similar circumstances.” So they
could. They have agreed in the past, and they could agree now. I do
not think legislation upon that question is required. I know that since
we passed the “Reagan bill’’ in the House, the freights charged by the
railroad companies have been diminishing in a slight degree, as much
as could be expected when you take into account what should be a fair
profit to the railroad companies and what accommodations should be
extended to the shippers of freight. It is not to be supposed that a rail-
road company wants to carry freight at a loss.
392
Those companies are generally looking to the interests of their stock-
holders; they generally seek a return upon the capital they have in-
vested. I think their great desire is to make their investments yield
a profit. But when you come to consult with those who understand
the financial affairs of the railroad companies you find that, while the
aggregate of reductions for transportation is so great, the trunk lines
are generally paying dividends upon their stock, and all of them are
paying interest upon their bonds. There must be some profit, even if
some man in Minnesota gets his freight carried from Saint Paul to the
East for less than is paid by some one a few miles east of Chicago.
This question of profit is a very material one; and the railroad compa-
nies desire to make a profit for those whose interests are under their care.
It is not necessary to mention the fact—the whole House knows it—that
nearly eight billions are invested in railroads. The aggregate is largely
more than the aggregate invested in almost any other line of business;
and this business employs a larger number of persons than almost any
other branch of industry. Why, sir, the progress of railroad building
in the State of Pennsylvania has made that State a great 'empire in it-
self. It has increased within my recollection from a Commonwealth
of a little over 2,000,000 people to a State of nearly 6,000,000 inhabit-
ants. The development of our railroad system has built up our State
almost like a continuous city from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, as well
as in other directions where railroad lines have extended.
Our State entered early upon the working out of the railroad idea;
earlier almost than any other State. Our Commonwealth was al-
most the pioneer in railroading. Before any of these other great lines
of railroads were completed the State of Pennsylvania had crossed the
Alleghany Mountains with a railroad by means of inclined planes—a
wonderfully skillful feat of engineering in those early days—so as to
connect the waters of the Delaware with the waters of the Ohio, partly
by rail and partly by canal. But the misfortune was that those lines
of canal were managed by a canal board, as it was called in Pennsyl-
vania, which became a powerful machine of political corruption. When
I reflect upon some of the provisions of this bill and the views of some
gentlemen here upon them the idea suggests itself to my mind that
eventually the Government may be asked to purchase these roads.
They may be pushed upon the Government of the United States for
the purpose of bringing value to some bankrupt railroads and for the
purpose of centralizing the railroad system and using that system po-
litically. There is danger in that direction; for I believe such is the
tendency in the minds of those who have for years been so eager to
adopt legislation even more stringent than that proposed in this bill.
Another consideration suggests itself to me. What protection have
we in this bill from the railroads in Canada? Can my friend from
Georgia explain that ? What protection have the trunk lines of this
country as against the trunk lines of Canada? The gentleman does not
answer. I will give the answer. Of course it is well known that there
is a line of railroads runuing through Canada from Montreal in the di-
rection of Chicago, and beyond to the northwest, competing to a con-
siderable extent with trunk lines running from our seaboard in the
same direction. There is nothing in this bill which binds these roads;
nothing at all. But an attempt has been made to bring them within
the power of this enactment and to require them to stand by some of
its provisions. I do not believe that can be done by legislation. The
great competitor of the American trunk lines is in Canada, where they
Gan do everything they want to do, where they can adopt one charge
w
393
for a long haul and another for a short haul, just as they may please to
do against our roads. There, of course, another interest comes in.
Then, there are the water-ways of the country. Why are not they
legislated for in like manner? Take the steamship lines upon the lakes,
take the steamboat lines on our rivers, and they are nearly all com-
binations of various people, they are nearly all associated lines, and why
not by legislative authority in like manner control,the rates of their
freights as you do in the case of railroad corporations? Yet, while it
would seem that should be done in one case as in the other, there is
nothing in this bill bringing them within its provisions. All the re-
strictions are put upon the railroad corporations, and the transportation
on our water-ways is allowed to remain as it is, and these steamship and
steamboat lines are permitted to make charges for carrying freight as
they please, to undercut—to use the customary phrase—as much as they
please, the charges of railroad lines. They can pool freights, and do
pool them. They can charge as it suits them for a long or a short haul.
While railroads are charged with attempts to defeat this interstate-
commerce legislation, we must not forget the influence that the water-
ways may be exerting for the success of such a measure as we have be-
fore us.
As I have said before in this House, our great care should be as to
how we are legislating, and upon what assumption, and upon what
condition of facts. Some gentlemen say whatever may be wrong here
we can remedy hereafter, that we have the power of amendment.
We have the admission that this is an experiment. I should think so
by the vote at the other end of the Capitol, and by the remarks there.
But we are told, let us try it. Well, we may try it to the ruin of the
transportation business in the approaching spring of this year, and
next fall. We can not legislate in reference to the matter for another
year, and so we can not remedy any defect which may be found in this
law in less than that time. We are now going into the business of
this year—the spring trade is about to open, and the enactment of such
a law must lead to embarrassment in the transportation lines of the
country at least for months to come. I do not see how it can be other-
wise. I know there is a provision in the bill that this law shall not
take effect until 60 days after its passage. I believe there is such a
provision. -
Mr. CRISP. They are to have 60 days.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Sixty days in which to make the
necessary changes relating to a business which covers the whole coun-
try—which, in extent, may be counted not only by the use of thou-
sands of miles of railroads, but by over a hundred thousand of miles.
There are one hundred and twenty-five thousand and more miles of
railroads now built, and five or six thousand miles of railroad are built
every year. They have been built at that rate, and are being built at
that rate this year. Yet, in this bill it is proposed to enact a law to
throw that whole railroad system into embarrassment. It overturns
the system which they have been years in establishing, and which has
had the effect of reducing the rate of transportation to the lowest figures,
cutting it down at the average rate of reduction in the past in a few
years of the future to less than seven-eighths of a cent per ton per mile,
...the average rate now the country over. -
I will say this, that in the years I have been permitted to live and
permitted, by the pleasure of the people who sent me to this House,
to occupy a legislative capacity, I remember the inception of the great
railroad movement in Pennsylvania, and I am proud to say, after look-
394
ing into the matter carefully, I rejoice that I acted with those in fa-
vor of such legislation as would provide by municipal subscription in
Philadelphia millions of dollars to build the great Pennsylvania Rail-
road in order to connect the Delaware with the Ohio. I know some-
thing of its enterprise. I know what it has done for Philadelphia and
Pennsylvania, and I think I know that in the opinions I have here ex-
pressed upon the provisions of this bill I represent the people who,
sent me here. They would be satisfied with the Cullom bill. I know
I represent them on this subject when I vote against a proposition con-
taining so many iron-clad provisions and so radical when we consider
that we are enacting an entirely new national system of railroad man- .
agement. -
I would be glad to vote for the Cullom bill, as we voted for it last
summer, in favor of a grand national commission, and the legislation
proposed in that bill that would, I believe, cure all evils as commis-
sions have cured evils in many of the States. Let such a bill be put
forward, and let such a commission be appointed by the President.
Let the commissioners be selected because of their integrity and known
ability, and let them look into the matter and see what is necessary
to be done to protect the people, what is necessary to restrain the
railroads. I believe in a few months’ time such a . commission would
furnish us with such information as might be necessary and upon
which we could legislate with safety.
I am going to end what I had to say by repeating, as I began, that I
am against discrimination. The people are against discrimination and
I am for reasonable freight charges. I am for no man being preferred
over another in the transaction of business with the railroads, or in any
other character of business; and so I am ready as I ever have been ready
to act upon reasonable and desirable legislation on the part of Congress
to make any proper and legitimate change in the railroad system. This
House is not likely to vote down this report; and yet it seems to me
that it is a dangerous experiment, and what its effect will be upon the
great transportation movement of the country is what no man can pre-
dict. Whether it will be for good or bad the future alone will deter-
mine. Whether the railroads will suffer or not—and when I speak of
railroads I mean the people who have $8,000,000,000 invested in them—
or whether the business people will be made to suffer is disficult to de-
termine. I want neither the business people nor those whose means are
honestly in railroad investments to be the losers by our enactments.
I say it is a dangerous experiment and one which should be proceeded
with in a cautious manner. The majority must rule and must be re-
sponsible for what it does.
I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. HoPKINS].
Mr. HOPKINS. Mr. Speaker, disguise it as we may the fact exists
that the members of this House must meet and settle the question
whether the people of this country are to have any legislation during this.
Congress on the much-vexed and much-talked interstate-commerce law
to regulate and control the transportation of goods over the great rail-
roads which span the land in every direction. The bill which has
been reported by the conference committee, after a most elaborate,
able, and exhaustive debate in the Senate, has passed that body by
a vote which certainly must be gratifying to the distinguished Sen-
ator who is chairman of the Senate committee that had the bill in
charge. The consideration of the bill here naturally suggests two
leading thoughts: First, has Congress the power to regulate interstate
commerce in the manner proposed in the bill? And, secondly, does
395
a necessity exist for the exercise of that power if it shall be found to
be warranted by the Constitution and the decision of the courts?
The power of Congress to legislate upon this subject and the consti-
tutionality of the bill under consideration were seriously questioned by
some of the ablest and most distinguished Senators, and the same ob-
jections are again heard in this House in opposition to the passage of
the bill. . . .
I confess it seems a little strange to me that after the wealth of learn-
ing shown upon this subject by State and Federal judges, including the
learned justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, that there
should still be found doubting Thomases among the members of this
House or in the legal profession wherever found. If there is any ques-
tion in the whole domain of our jurisprudence which has been fixed
and settled by an unbroken line of decisions of the courts from the ear-
liest history of our constitutional Government to the present, it is this
of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce or the com-
merce contemplated in this bill.
Chief Justice Marshall, away back in the case of Gibbons vs. Ogden,
reported in the 9th of Wheaton, examined this whole subject, and in a
most luminous opinion asserted and demonstrated this power of Con-
gress. And in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
recently given in the case of the Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific Rail-
road Company vs. The People of the State of Illinois, Mr. Justice Miller,
in delivering the opinion of the court, uses this language :
This clause giving to Congress the power to regulate commerce among the
States and with foreign nations, as this court has said before, was among the
most important of the subjects which prompted the formation of the Constitu-
tion. * * * The argument on this subject can never be better stated than it
is by Chief-Justice Marshall, in Gibbons vs. Ogden. He there demonstrates
that commerce among the States, like commerce among foreign nations, is
necessarily a commerce which crosses State lines and extends into the States,
and the power of Congress to regulate it exists wherever the commerce is
found.
To those who, like the distinguished Senator from California [Mr.
STANFORD), hold that railroads do not come within the meaning and
intendment of that clause of the Constitution giving to Congress the
right and power to regulate the transportation of goods from one State
to another, and that railroad corporations partake more of the nature
of private property, and should be treated as private and not public
enterprises, I would commend the following language of Mr. Justice
Bradley in giving expression to the views of the minority of the court
on the questions involved in the Wabash case; already referred to:
The highways in a State are the highways of the State. Convenient ways and
means of inter-communication are the first evidence of the civilization of a
people. The highways of a country are not of private but of public institution
and regulation.
In modern times, it is true, government is in the habit in some countries of
letting out the construction of important highways requiring a large expendi-
ture of capital to agents, generally corporate bodies creatéd for the purpose, and
giving to them the right of taxing those who travel or transport goods thereon
as a means of obtaining compensation for their outlay. But a superintending
power over the highways and the charges imposed upon the public for their
use always remains in the Government. This is not only its indefeasible right,
but is necessary for the protection of the people against extortion and abuse.
These positions we deem to be incontrovertible. Indeed, they are adjudged law
in the decisions of this court. Railroads and railroad corporations are in this
category. -
This language is plain and unequivocal. It settles the power of this
Congress to act in the premises. In other words, it holds to the axiom
that the creature can never be greater or more powerful than the cre-
ator. This question of the power of the Government to regulate and
396
control railroads, in one form or another, has been litigated in and de-
cided by the courts of last resort in many, if not all, the States of the
Union. Powers once conferred upon these corporations have been tena-
ciously held and enlarged upon. The Dartmouth College case has been
invoked in their aid again and again. But to the honor of the judiciary
of our country, both State and Federal, be it said, the judges before
whom these questions have been brought for final arbitrament between
the people and the railroads have arisen to the demands of the occasion,
and by their learning, their integrity, and their patriotism have held
and demonstrated that State Legislatures and Congress can not invest
corporate bodies with power more imperial than that exercised by the
State or with authority which becomes “vested rights,” and hence
amenable to no subsequent legislation. They have held that the peo-
ple are sovereign, and that all, of whatever station or condition, corpora-
tions and persons alike, must bend to their will when expressed.
So I think, Mr. Speaker, with power and authority so full and ample
possessed by Congress this House can not hesitate upon that ground to
consider and pass the pending bill.
That there is a necessity for some such legislation I think is appar-
ent to all who have given the subject any thought and study. The
railroads of this country, with an aggregated capital almost beyond
the computation of man, possess a power over the commerce of the
country and all kinds of industry truly regal. That power has not
been always exercised to promote the greatest good to the greatest
number; but has been used to still further enhance the power of the
railroads and increase their wealth and that too to the detriment and
even ruin of the individual and sometimes of whole communities.
I cannot stop here and now to illustrate this truth by numerous ex-
amples. They are known to all men. The farmer, the merchant, and
the manufacturer has each his grievance and story of wrecked fortunes
from unjust discriminations in railroad transportation. That this is
not idle talk is shown from the fact that the legislatures of twenty-
three States of the Union have passed laws prohibiting unjust discrimi-
nation and other railroad abuses within the limits of their respective
territories. But the State is powerless to meet the evils sought to be
remedied by this bill. This is happily illustrated in the Wabash case
to which I have already made reference.
There is a statute in the State of Illinois which holds that if any rail-
road corporation shall charge, Collect, or receive for the transportation
of any passenger or freight of any description, upon its railroad for any
distance within the State, the same or greater amount of toll or com-
pensation than is at the same time charged, collected, or, received for
the transportation in the same direction of any passenger or like quan-
tity of freight of the same class over a greater distance of the same road,
all such discriminating rates, charges, collections, or receipts, whether
made directly or by means of rebate, drawback, or other shift or eva-
sion, shall be deemed and taken against any such railroad corporation
as prima facie evidence of unjust discrimination prohibited by the pro-
visions of the act. - :
The statute provides a penalty for every offense. That statute was
attempted to be enforced against the Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific
Railroad Company by the State authorities on the following state of
facts: The railroad company charged Elder & McKinney 15 cents per
hundred pounds for carrying a load of freight from Peoria, in the State
of Illinois, to New York, 109 miles of the distance being in Illinois,
while at the same time it charged Bailey & Swannell 25 cents per
397
hundred pounds for carrying a like load of the same class of freight
from Gilman, also in the State of Illinois, to New York, 23 miles of
the distance being in Illinois. Both places were on the line of the road,
and the freight of Elder & McKinney being carried 86 miles further in
the State of Illinois than the like kind of freight of Bailey & Swannell.
The Wabash road defended the action brought against it, and asked
the trial court to hold the following to be the law of the case:
The court further holds as matter of law that the transportation in question
falls within the proper description of commerce among the States, and as such
can only be regulated by the Congress of the United States under the terms of
the third clause of section 8 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States.
The court refused to so hold, and found that the facts recited consti-
tuted a violation of the statute, and imposed the penalty provided by
the law for such unjust discriminations. The company appealed to the
supreme court of the State, and there the judgment of the lower court
was affirmed. The precise ground upon which the Illinois court held
jurisdiction of the case can best be expressed in the language of the
learned judge who delivered the opinion of the court. The court say:
We understand and simply hold that in the absence of anything showing to
the contrary a single and entire contract to carry for a gross sum from Gillman
in this State to the city of New York implies necessarily that that sum is charged
proportionately for the carriage on every part of that distance; and that a single
and entire contract to carry for a gross sum from Peoria in this State to the
city of New York implies the same thing; and that therefore when it is shown
that there is charged for carriage upon the same line less from Peoria to New
York (the greater distance) than from Gilman to New York (the less distance),
and nothing is shown to the effect that such inequality in charge is all for car-
riage entirely beyond the limits of this State, a prima facie case is made out of
unjust discrimination under our statute occurring within this State. We hold
that the excess in the charge for the less distance presumably affects every part
of the line of carriage between Gilman and the State line proportionately with
the balance of the line. .
If this wise and just interpretation of the Illinois statute had been
adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States there would be less
necessity for the enactment into law of the pending bill. But the com-
pany refused to abide by the decision of the supreme court of Illinois,
and brought the case for review before the Supreme Court of the United
States, where it was reversed and remanded. Mr. Justice Miller, in
giving expression to the opinion of the court, said:
Of the justice or propriety of the principle which lies at the foundation of the
Illinois statute, it is not the province of this court to speak. As restricted to a
transportation which begins and ends within the limits of the State, it may be
very just and equitable, and it certainly is the province of the State Ilegislature,
to determine that question. -
But when it is attempted to apply to transportation through an entire series of
States a principle of this kind, and each one of the States shall attempt to estab-
lish its own rates of transportation, its own methods to prevent discrimination
in rates, or to permit it, the deleterious influence upon the freedom of com-
merce annong the States and upon the transit of goods through those States,
can not be overestimated. That this species of regulation is one which must be,
if established at all, of a general and national character, and ean not be safely
and wisely remitted to local rules and local regulations, we think this is clear
from what has already been said. And if it be a regulation of commerce, as we
think we have demonstrated it is, and as the Illinois court concedes it to be, it
must be of that national character, and the regulation can only appropriately
exist by general rules and principles, which demand that it should be done by
the Congress of the United States under the commerce clause of the Constitu-
tion.
This opinion renders all the States powerless to check or control the
growing sovereignty of railroads. The great bulk of the traffic of the
various roads comes within the principle announced by Mr. Justice
Miller, and hence Congress, and Congress alone can protect the people
from extortion, discrimination, and other railroad corporate abuses. It
398
is contended by some that the railroads should not be hampered by any
legislation and that they will see that no injustice or extortion is prac-
ticed upon the people. That the officers and managers of some of the
great railroads of the country are just and honorable men can not be
denied, and that they manage the affairs of their roads in a spirit of
fairness to the public must, too, I think, be admitted. -
But that is no argument against the right or propriety of passing such
a law as is contemplated in this bill. They possess a power which, if
they choose to exercise it, will spread ruin upon the person or locality
that offends them. They have not the responsibility or interest of a gov-
ernment in the people. Their interest in the welfare and prosperity of
different individuals or communities may be only incidental, while the
government is always direct; and yet, without any interstate-commerce
law to regulate and control them, they are more powerful and exercise
a more direct influence upon the people than the State. Their power
for evil is well illustrated in the building up of the Standard Oil mo-
nopoly. It has been fittingly characterized by one author as “The
History of a Commercial Crime.” -
My time is limited and I can not speak at any length upon a condi-
tion of affairs brought about by the combination and discriminations
of railroads which would permit a giant monopoly to accumulate $100,-
000,000 in a little less than fifteen years. The history of the manner
in which that company has been enabled to accumulate so vast a for-
tune is enough to make the members of this House, who are the repre-
sentatives of the people, hasten the work of this conference committee
into a law. The people look to the members of this House as their
agents to honestly, fairly, and fearlessly guard their rights.
The railroads and their managers and agents profess to be friendly
to Congressional legislation, and some even go so far as to maintain
that it is in the interest of honest railroading to have Congress enact a
law regulating the transportation of traffic over interstate roads, and I
incline to the opinion that many of the leading railroad managers of
the country are honest in the expression of these views; but the bill
now before us has been attacked in a manner which, if we were to as-
sume the criticisms to be just, would lead us to believe it the most
villainous piece of legislation ever attempted to be forced through Con-
gress. I have studied its provisions with much care, with no prejudice
against railroads, and with a desire to fairly and intelligently represent
the interests of the people who have honored me with a seat in this
House and the interests of our common country. My study and in-
vestigation have led me to different conclusions respecting the bill than
those of the prophets of ill omen whose forebodings picture the utter
destruction of all commerce among the States and gaunt want and de-
spair upon every corner if the bill becomes a law.
I assert what can not successfully be denied, that the sections of the
bill which are so fiercely assailed are but the enactment into statutory
law of common law principles. The mode of enforcing those sections
are different from common law remedies—made so to meet a condition
of affairs which was not contemplated at common law. I am not say-
ing that the bill is perfect or that it could not be improved by amend-
ment, but that is denied us. We must take the bill as it comes from
the conference committee or reject it. The fourth and fifth sections of
the bill seem to be most objectionable, or at least the opposition to the
bill is centered upon those sections.
Section 4 makes it unlawful for any common carrier subject to the
provisions of the act to charge or receive any greater compensation in
399
the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or like kind of prop-
erty under substantially similar circumstances and conditions for a
shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same di-
rection, the shorter being included in the longer distance with a pro-
viso that in special cases the commissioner appointed in the bill might
permit a less charge for a longer than for a shorter distance for the
transportation of passengers or property, with the saving clause that
these provisions should not be construed as authorizing any common
carrier within the terms of the act to charge or receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance. What is there in this
section so novel as to cause such a furor of debate over its provisions?
The principle is as old as the law of common carriers.
That its application to the regulation and control of railroads and
their traffic is not new is apparent from the fact that four States, namely,
Arkansas, California, Missouri, and Pennsylvania, have that principle in
the constitutions of their States, and Massachusetts and Illinois by stat-
utory law have emphasized its justice and equity. Able and eloquent,
men like my distinguished friend from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH],
men who can make the worse appear the better reason, may torture the
language of that section into something detrimental to the commerce
among the States; but, after their brilliant assaults shall have spent
their force, plain people will see nothing in this section but the asser-
tion of a just principle of law, made necessary by the unjust discrim-
inations and extortions of railroads.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. OATES in the chair). The time
of the gentléman has expired.
Mr. HOPKINS. I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have some time re.
maining. I have not occupied thirty minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognized the gentleman
for the fifteen minutes remaining in the time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania. -.
Mr. CRISP. How much additional time does the gentleman want?
Mr. HOPKINS. I do not intend to occupy more than thirty min-
utes if I can avoid it. .
Mr. CRISP. I ask consent that the gentleman be permitted to pro-
ºceed with his remarks.
There was no objection.
Mr. HOPKINS. Now, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to supplement
these remarks by an examination in detail of the various sections of
the bill, and especially of sections 4 and 5, but the lateness of the hour
forbids such an extended examination, and I shall content myself by
referring briefly to a few of the important points in connection with
them. |
The construction which has been placed on section 4 by the confer-
•ence committee of the Senate avoids all of the difficulties raised by
gentlemen who oppose the bill on account of its provision relating to
the so-called long and short haul. -
That construction will secure to the farmers and shippers of Illinois
and the West as favorable rates for through freight, otherwise known
as the long haul, as they have now; while under the provisions of the
bill all shippers at intermediate points on the line of the road or roads
forming the line over which the long haul shipments are made will be
protected from unjust discriminations or extortion. -
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP], who presented to the House
this afternoon the reasons which actuated the conference committee
in agreeing upon the bill in the form we are now considering it, spoke
400
of the disastrous results to the commerce of the country, and shippers,
and the people generally from a war of rates between two or more of
the great trunk-line railways at competing points, such as Kansas City,
Omaha, or Chicago, for through freight to New York city, or some other
seaboard city. What the railroads lose by such wars at these terminal
points, it is claimed, are imposed upon the people and shippers at in-
termediate points on the line of the roads between their Eastern and
Western termini, so that the people are the ones upon whom finally
the great burden falls. Now, by this section of the bill, provision is
made that the charge for the shorter haul on such a line shall not be
more than for the longer haul, except in special cases, and whatever the
rates at the terminal points of such competing roads may be reduced
to all the intermediate points will get the benefit of such reduction.
This fact will serve as a most effective check upon the hostilities of
competing railroads, and Secure fair and uniform rates. s
The final construction which will be placed upon the words “under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions” must of course be
left with the courts and the commission. Any construction given to
them by a member in debate can not be authoritative or binding.
They are placed in the section to give such flexibility to charges on the
long and short haul as will not interfere with the commerce of the coun-
try. Railroad managers who were examined before the Commerce
Committee of the Senate all agreed, it is said, that as a general propo-
sition, as much should not be charged for the transportation of passen-
gers or freight on any railroad for a short as for a longer distance. This
section then is in harmony with the views of expert railroad men. The
exceptions mentioned by them before the Commerce Committee of the
Senate are provided for by the powers given the commission to author-
ize a less charge for longer than for shorter distances for the transporta-
tion of passengers or property.
Mr. REED. Then you differ with the gentleman from Georgia in
that interpretation?
Mr. HOPKINS. I am not the keeper of the conscience or of the
judgment of the gentleman from Georgia. I am simply giving my
construction to this bill. *
Mr. REED. And which differs from that of the gentleman from
Georgia. •s
Mr. HOPKINS. That may be.
Mr. REED: I wish to draw attention to the divergency.
A MEMBER. Why is the commission authorized to sit in Washing-
ton 2 -
Mr. HOPKINS. That is a question I can not answer. Washington
is the seat of the National Government, and it would seem proper that
the meetings of the commission should be here. But the bill provides
that the commission shall go to Chicago or Cincinnati, or anywhere
else. -
Mr. STEELE. At the expense of the Government.
Mr. HOPKINS. But in the interest of the people.
Section 5, which relates to pooling, is but a re-enactment of the com-
mon-law principle. It seems to me there is no member of this House
who will maintain that it is right or just to permit railroad companies
to engage in pooling when it is a violation of the interests of all other
industries. It is an offense at common law, and has been so decided in
the State of Ohio and in the State of New York, and has been so decided
wherever the question has been fairly put to the courts. -
I am aware that railroad managers claim it is in the interest of cheap.
401
freight rates, but it will be difficult to make any man believe that such
combinations benefit anybody other than those who are parties to them.
Had I the time I would gladly show the results of the pooling con-
tracts prohibited by this bill. But I am reminded that my time has
expired. The bill, Mr. Speaker, may be crude, and experience may teach
us that it should be amended and modified. If such be the case no
person will more cheerfully correct by further legislation any errors or
defects in the bill than myself. The railroads of the country have
worked wonders in the settlement of our Western States and Terri-
tories and in the development of our interstate commerce, and I would
not knowingly strike down any of their legitimate rights or cripple them
in carrying on this great commerce. What, for one, I wish to do, and
what I think the members of this House wish, is to so regulate them in
the transportation of passengers and freight from one State to another
that they can work no injustice upon each other or the public, and
that reasonable rates shall be secured to all classes of shippers and those
engaged in the transportation of goods for a short or long distance over
any of their lines. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The SPEAKER. The Chair does not know whether the gentleman
from Illinois has any time left or not. The present occupant of the
chair understands that the floor was yielded to the gentleman from
Illinois by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O’NEILL], and that
when his time expired, on the request of the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. CRISP], it was extended.
A MEMBER. Until he had finished his remarks.
The SPEAKER. And having done that, the Chair thinks the gen-
tleman has no time remaining. -
19, 1887.
* * *
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY
.# * -X:
Mr. CRISP. Before we proceed to the further consideration of this
conference report, I should like to obtain, if possible, some understand-
ing as to when a vote can be had on this proposition. While, of course,
I do not wish to be understood as desiring a vote before reasonable op-
portunity has been given to members to express their views, I do feel
the necessity of early action on this subject, so that other business
which is pressing may be considered by the House. If there could be
any intimation or agreement as to when the vote could be taken, it
would greatly convenience members and relieve me of the necessity of
calling the previous question on my own responsibility.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Georgia
might perhaps postpone until later in the day the effort to reach an
agreement in regard to taking the vote. At that time we may be able
to see how many gentleman desire to speak. We are now just resum-
ing the debate at 2 o’clock. At 5 o'clock this afternoon there will be
perhaps some indication as to the members who may still desire to
speak, and when the debate may be closed without shutting any one off.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I have no objection to the early conglu-
sion of the debate on this question; but I should be opposed to any
arrangement by which those of us who desire to talk against this bill
would be deprived of the privilege of doing so. It is well understood
that the rule is to recognize, first, members of the committee; and if
we make any agreement now, they may consume all the time, de-
priving all other members of the House of the right to say one word
I S C–26
*
402
on a bill which has never heretofore been before the House and a bill
which can not now be amended, which must be either rejected or
adopted as a whole. I ask that members who are opposed to this bill
and want to vote against it may have an opportunity to express them-
selves. There are members here who will speak against the bill but
will vote for it; and they have no right to be recognized as opposed to
the bill. . - -
The SPEAKER. The Chair did not understand the gentleman from
Georgia to make any motion at this time.
Mr. CRISP. My purpose was to arrive, if possible, at an under-
standing. -
Mr. REED. I suggest to the gentleman it would be wisest under
all the circumstances if he should let the debate go on for the present.
Mr. CRISP. In the absence, then, of any agreement, I give notice
now that if the House will sustain me I shall ask a vote upon this bill
as soon to-morrow morning as I can be recognized after the second
morning hour. {
Mr. DOUGHERTY, But not before to-morrow morning?
Mr. CRISP. Not before that time. - • *
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUNHAM] is
entitled to the floor.
Mr. DUNHAM. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this bill has been under
discussion in both branches of Congress for several years it does not
seem to me it is necessary now to take up any great amount of time
with its further consideration. As one of the minority of the House
Committee on Commerce I desire to congratulate the House and the
country that we have at last relieved ourselves from what has always
seemed to me the unwise and unjust provisions of the so-called Reagan
bill. Through a committee of conference of the two Houses we have
succeeded in eliminating many of the unreasonable and objectionable
featuers of that bill, and having presented to us a measure which
somewhere near meets the public desire, and without .crippling, or
seriously crippling, the great railroad interests of the country.
Representing great commercial, financial, and agricultural sections—
northern constituencies interested in building up rather than pulling
down, believers in the doctrine that railroads and the people can work
together for the mutual good, and that they are willing so to do—the
minority of the House Committee on Commerce, although denied repre-
sentation on the conference committee, are now convinced that our argu-
ments against injustice did not fall wholly upon stony ground.
The conference report has been before the country for several weeks
and meets with quite general approval, except the two clauses that
refer to the “long and short haul’’ and the question of “pooling.”
To these two matters I intend to confine my remarks. Upon these
two points “hang all the law and the prophets,” perhaps more prop-
erly called “loss or profits.”
Aside from these two matters I do not propose to discuss the bill at
any length. The fourth section, referring to the long and short haul,
has never been satisfactorily explained. -
Lawyers and statesmen are badly at sea as to its interpretation. A
clause susceptible of so many different constructions is a good subject
for litigation, and my legal friends may congratulate themselves that
a liberal amount of courting is before them, and even if no good comes
from it to the community at large they may reap a profit.
So then the final determination of its hidden and uncertain meaning
must come from the judicial branch of the Government. - r
403
Mr. STEELE. Let me ask the gentleman from Illinois whether he
thinks it is right to send a provision to the country inviting lawsuits.
Mr. DUNHAM. No; I do not, aud I disapprove of such legislation.
Mr. PETTIBONE. I thought you were in favor of it.
Mr. DUNHAM. Now, Mr. Speaker, the fourth section provides, in
the first part of it, that it shall be unlawful for any common carrier sub-
ject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater com-
pensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of like
Hirid of property, under substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the
same direction. -
I will not undertake to say what those three words, “in the aggre-
gate,” mean. I will leave it to any member of the committee, or any
member of the House; but to reduce this to a supposed case, so that we
may, in a measure, find out what it means, I understand this section
to say that a line of railroad that charges 10 cents a bushel to take a
car of corn from Chicago to Boston shall not charge 12 cents to take
another car of corn from Chicago to Worcester in the State of Massa-
chusetts, 44 miles west of Boston, and over the same line. I think
there can be no question as to that. The general understanding has
been by all parties, and even admitted as fair, that they could charge
as much for taking a car of corn from Chicago to Worcester as they could
for taking a car of corn from Chicago to Boston. I will say here the
people of New England, at all times for the last ten years, have been
perfectly satisfied if they had the same rates from the West as were
given to Boston. The people of Springfield, Worcester, Nashua, Con-
cord, Hartford, New Haven, Montpelier, and other points east of New
York were perfectly satisfied if the rates were the same, even though
the distances were not so great, but their objection came when those
nearer to the place of shipment than Boston were compelled to pay
more than Boston rates. This discrimination, it is understood, the
authors of this bill seek to prevent, and it is believed they do not ask
or do not mean to say that railroad companies may not charge as much
from Chicago to Worcester as from Chicago to Boston over the same line.
Now, then, let us see what the rest of section 4 says:
But this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within
the terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter
as for a longer distance.
This clause, in effect, says they shall not charge and shall not collect
as much on a car of corn from Chicago to Worcester as they do from
Chicago to Boston; and, as before, over the same line. -
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Does not the bill give them the right
to charge— -
Mr. DUNHAM. No; I think not. -
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Where it allows a railroad company to
charge as much to Worcester as to Boston, does it not confer on the
railroad company the right to charge to Worcester more than to Bos-
ton?
Mr. DUNHAM. I think not. I have stated that it was notintended
to say they should not charge as much, but not any more. I do not
think they have any such right under the clause of the bill the gentle-
man refers to. The bill says, in the first place, that they shall not
charge more to Worcester than to Boston. -
Mr. ADAMS, of New York, But it says they may charge as much.
Mr. DUNHAM. No, it does not say that; but it says they can not
charge more, leaving it to be inferred they may charge as much, and then
404
comes in the next clause that in so many words says they shall not be
authorized to charge as much to Worcester as to Boston.
Mr. CRISP. That is the point to which I wish to call the attention
of the House. - *
Mr. DUNHAM, The bill provides “that this shall not be construed
as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge
and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance.”
Now, I am unable to see that that means anything but just what it
says in plain English. It says distinctly that a railroad shall not charge
as much for a car of corn from Chicago to Worcester as for a car of corn
from Chicago to Boston. I think the bill is objectionable in that re-
Spect. It has two provisions in one section; one saying one thing, and
the other another thing. At the proper time I shall move to recommit
this bill to the committee of conference, with the hope that such mo-
tion may be ruled in order, and with the further hope that it may be
returned to us without this fourth section.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. You can not make that motion.
Mr. DUNHAM. . It can be made, but the question of its regularity
may become an issue. We will try it at all events. I will say to the
gentleman from New York that it has been held in another legislative
body somewhat connected with this to be in order. -
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. No, it was held to be 'not in order.
Mr. DUNHAM. The gentleman is in error.
Mr. PETTIBONE. It was held to be in order by the Chair, but was
voted down. -
Mr. DUNHAM. If the gentleman from Tennessee will examine the
RECORD he will discover that I am correct. -
I desire to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the lower rate of
freight, or a lower rate of freight on a long over a short haul that has
been charged by railroad companies in the past fifteen years, has surely
brought about favorable results to many sections of the United States.
I admit that there may have been towns, there may have been counties
or sections of the country, or classes of the people who have felt that
they were injured because train-loads of property passed through their
towns at a lower rate than they themselves were allowed to have; but
as a general thing, and on the whole, I am confident the low long-haul
charge has proved beneficial to the United States.
Now, the consuming sections of this country are largely in the East,
and the Western States being the producing States, desire to reach the
consuming regions of the East and also Europe with their products.
The farther West you go if you have a mileage law, and I fear a part of
the fourth section may be construed in that direction, the lower prices
the farmer must expect for his property. Fifteen to twenty-five years
ago it was claimed in the West, when we were paying 25 to 50 cents a
bushel as freight on our grain to the East, that if we could reduce the
freights the Western people would receive much more for their agricult-
ural products. Since the time mentioned there has been a very large
reduction in freight rates, and yet the farmer in the West is compelled
to take less for his products. Possibly lower freights are of advantage
to him now, but the consumer in the East has practically won the
best results in the battle of freight reduction.
Fifteen years ago wheat would bring $1.25 per bushel in New York,
and the Western farmer believed that if he could get the rate of freight
reduced that instead of receiving a dollar for his wheat he would get
$1.10. Freights have been reduced to a very low rate, and yet the
farmer of the West does not get his $1 a bushelor anything like it. If,
| 405
then, you pass a bill to compel the railroads to put up the through
rates to local rates, then you are going to force the Western farmers
to take still lower prices for their products.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. If it will not interrupt the gentleman
in the course of his argument, I would like to ask him a question.
Mr. DUNHAM. Very well.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I would like to ask the gentleman to
give me his construction of that portion of the fourth section which
reads as follows:
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for a longer than for a shorter dis-
tance.
What construction do you put on those words?
Mr. DUNHAM. The only construction, as I understand it, is that
you can apply to the commissioners, and if you can satisfy them you
ought to have the privilege of shipping property a longer distance at a
lower rate than a shorter distance they are authorized to grant the con-
cession. It is a question about which they are to be the judges. I
might as well say here that many seriously question the propriety of
putting such power into the hands of five men. Humanity is full of
prejudices Benefits...to localities often influence such rulings among
the fairest of men. I do not claim that this will be so with these
commissioners; on the contrary, I believe otherwise, and am disposed
to look for only the best results. -
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Then it gives the commission power
to nullify the preceding portion of the section, and authorize the trans-
portation company to charge more for a shorter than for a longer haul ?
Mr. DUNHAM. Certainly, and that is one of the advantages of
this bill as now constructed over the former Reagan bill. That was an
absolute prohibition. It compelled every railroad company to charge
practically mileage rates; and I claim that this bill, the fourth section
of it, may be construed as a mileage law unless the commission exer-
cise their power to allow a long haul at a cheaper charge than the
short distance. -
I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, in regard to how the West has
looked upon this reduction of freights and the danger we are liable to
be in if we legislate so as to force the railroad companies to advance the
through rates of freight. I can give you a few illustrations. For in-
stance, through the past Summer the railroad companies, six in num-
ber, have been competing for business at Minneapolis. These roads
have been taking wheat from Minneapolis to Chicago as low as 43 cents
per bushel, a rate which was never expected to be reached, it being so
much less than has prevailed for years before. I maintain, and the
railroad officers tell me it is true, that if they were prevented from doing
that—that is, unless they could continue to make low rates from com-
peting points—they would be obliged to go back and charge local rates.
Gentlemen will understand that while these roads are competing in
Minneapolis for business, they are driven, at times, to accept rates they
would prefer to avoid. But if you go ten or fifteen miles out from the
city of Minneapolis towards the lakes you will reach points on any one
of these roads which are not competing points, and from such points
they have been in the habit of charging higher rates on such freights
than from the city of Minneapolis. I feel very sure that the railroad
companies will not give up the local rates or bring them down to the
through rates, simply because they can not live if all their business
406,
must be done at such sacrifices. The same kind of traffic was illustrated,
by the gentleman from Georgia yesterday, where 76 cents per hundred.
pounds is charged from New York to New Orleans, and $1 to, Atlanta.
over the same line. It may be that when the railroad company trans-
ports property from New York to New Orleans at 76 cents a hundred
pounds they do it at a loss and simply to compete with the water-
ways. -
Mr. BUCHANAN. Why do they transport it at all if they do it at
a loss? -
Mr. DUNHAM. I think the gentleman well understands the prac-
tice of railroads, factories, mills, and like institutions to keep in the
market. A large manufacturing concern must run or discharge their
men. Necessity may compel selling goods temporarily at some loss.
They hope to get improvement in some other direction. Business men
expect aid from railroads. Competition at times compels unreasonable
concessions. In this New York and New Orleans shipment something /
for use of cars is better than lying idle, even though it may figure a
temporary loss. The kind of freight will determine in this case whether.
76 cents is a loss or not. - - -
I have just given reasons why work is done at times at an apparent
loss. Let me give another illustration. Twenty-five years ago sail
vessels on the lakes occasionally obtained 25 cents per bushel to trans-
port corn from Chicago to Buffalo. Within the last three years I have.
seen them chartered at less than 2 cents. Evidently the vessel was
doing that at a loss so far as running expenses were concerned.
The owner when asked why he chartered said it was better for his
vessel to be in use than rotting at the dock. If it was suggested that in
some storm the vessel might be lost, the reply came: In that event the
insurance company is my protector. Does not the gentleman know
that many a passenger train makes its trips at a loss—not even passen-
gers enough to pay its crew. What would the people on its line say if
the officers of the road should say: We can not run to-day—not tickets
enough sold to pay expenses? What is a railroad to do that is com-
pelled to be idle or make a low rate of freight? The gentleman asks if
it is right to transport property at a loss. It seems hard, but if it is
necessary it may be right. There are so many questions that come
into the consideration of such an issue that I must content myself with
this explanation as an answer to the gentleman's question. -
Now, let me give another practical illustration.
The heavy winter business from the West to the East decreases as
spring approaches; demand for property checks; railroads discover their
cars standing idle; accepting the situation, competition visible in the
distance, they drop their prices; shippers no longer beg for cars, but
declining railroad treasuries plead for income; the winter charge gives,
way, and shippers at a great business and competing point, like Chi-
cago, dictate terms; a through rate from Chicago to seaboard points is
made that would never be allowed if the entire business on the same
line must be done for the same. I have known wheat to be shipped
all rail from Chicago to the seaboard, thence by steamer to London, at
less than 10 cents per bushel. Surely such a rate was an advantage to
every farmer west of Chicago, and how could it harm any other in this
country 2 - - - . º
The English grower might complain, but no American would have
the right.
Now, then, who will undertake to say that the low rate I have pre-
viously quoted of 4} cents per bushel on wheat from Minneapolis to
407
Chicago has not been beneficial to over one hundred millions of wheat
raised in Minnesota, Dakota, Northern Iowa, and Nebraska 2. It not
only applies to wheat, but to all grain and live-stock. Shippers in Chi-
cago are complaining at this very time that Minneapolis, 500 miles
farther from the seaboard, is given precisely the same rate as Chicago.
Here comes evidence of injustice to my own city, and yet it does not
alter the fact that the Northwest has become the gainer. Probably
Chicago more than gets even on other low rates—in fact a city with
such natural advantages must share in the cheap long hauls. It is easy
for commercial men to understand why such points must profit, but
residents of non-competing localities are troubled to fathom the mys-
tery. I admit the natural feeling, but the law of competition, coupled
with supply and demand, is a great regulator.
The Reagan bill, as it passed the House, positively forced all places
with great natural advantages down to the level of insignificant way
stations. This bill would be the same except for the saving clause giv-
ing flexibility to the commission. Let the commission refuse necessary.
concessions, then it practically makes rates from Chicago to Worcester
less than to Boston, less to Springfield than to Worcester, less to Al-
bany than to Springfield, and so on with different roads all over the
country. :
I have read this fourth section very carefully, submitted it to several
lawyers, and the majority agree that without consent of the commission
we have a practical mileage law. All agree it would be better if the
whole of the fourth section could be stricken out.
The last clause of section 1 covers the situation, as any one can see by
reading. It says:
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reason-
able and just ; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service is pro-
hibited and declared to be unlawful.
It can not be possible the conferees intended to report this bill in such
shape as to invite litigation. If the part of section 1 that I have quoted
will not answer for the fourth, then let us see if there is not virtue
enough in the first part of section 3. It reads as follows:
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or
any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject
any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular
description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage
in any respect whatsoever. h
Mr. CRISP. If the gentleman will allow me just there, I can state.
what I understand to be the purpose of those qualifying words to which
he has just referred. The general rule is stated in the bill to be that
a greater sum shall not be charged for a shorter than for a longer dis-
tance. For fear some construing authority might determine that was
a legislative indication that as much might be charged for the short
as for the long distance we say, “but nothing in this section shall be
construed to authorize the charging as much for the short as for the
long distance.” - -
Mr. DUN.H.A.M. I have already referred to the original intention
of the Reagan bill to allow the shorter distance to be subject to the
longer charge, and have insisted that the conference report practically
denies it. Now; my Georgia friend tries to explain it, but there is.
nothing in this talk of “not authorizing.” They not only can not
charge more, but the commission and courts are informed that they are
408
not to construe this section so that they may collect as much. Let us.
read it again. Here it is— -
But this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the
terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as
for a longer distauce. -
Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman read the language of that clause?
Mr. DUNHAM. It says: * ... -
But this shall not be construed as authorizing—
Mr. CRISP. That means, but this prohibition upon receiving more
for a short than for a long haul shall not be construed as authorizing
the charging as much. If it is reasonable to charge as much under
the other provisions of the bill it may be charged, but that is left to
the question of the reasonableness of the charge. -
Mr. DUNHAM. You may, possibly, in connection with other sec-
tions of the bill bring in the question of reasonableness. But if you
take that fourth section by itself you are forbidden, in the first place, to
charge more from New York to Trenton than from New York to Phil-
adelphia; and then you are told afterwards, in the same section, you
shall have no authority to charge as much from New York to Trenton
as from New York to Philadelphia. -
The meaning of that provision may be for the courts to decide, but
it is there. Now, it may be possible that, with this bill enacted into
law, the railroad companies of this country will give up their local
rates. If they do there is a chance for bankruptcy. How many rail-
roads in this country are paying any dividends to their stockholders,
at least fair dividends 2
Mr. BUCHANAN. And there are very few of them without watered
Stock.
Mr. DUNHAM. The question of watered stock does not come in
here. If they can not pay anything on watered stock then they can
not pay reasonable dividends on any stock, watered or unwatered,
Now, if we are to lose the long-haul rate, and railroads, rather than
surrender local rates, go back to the terms of years ago, it occurs to me
that the West is liable to feel it more than the East. The people lo-
cated in the far West will suffer the worst of all.
Let us look at this matter in connection with our exports of bread-
stuffs. We have a wheat-raising country; we must ship our surplus
abroad. Western Europe, including the United Kingdom, is always
a buyer. Russia, Chili, India, Australia, and the United States are al-
ways sellers. England is the heavy buyer, taking yearly more than
all the other buying countries. India is her own province, and she
uses it to drive other countries into low prices. The 6-cents-per-day
harvest hand comes in contact with the American farmer. We must
meet all competition, and low rates of freight from the great Western
farms have been our salvation.
During the past six months we have exported some seventy-seven
millions of wheat, and by the end of the Government year will prob-
ably have sent out nearly one hundred and fifty millions.
It so happens that the European crops of 1886 fell materially under
1885, leaving America in a more independent position as regards “sup-
plying wants,’’ and yet no gainer in prices. Australia is now harvest-
ing. March will find India at the same work, so that sixty days hence
our rivals will dictate and control the situation. Without some such
disturbing cause as war we can not expect foreign buyers to raise their
bids. If this bill forces an advance in freights, the farmer must be the
409
sufferer. As wheat is affected so shall be other breadstuffs, while the
great cattle and pork interests must share in any depreciation.
During the season of navigation property can be shipped from lake
ports to seaboard at fair rates, but under what terms it shall be trans-
sported from distant farms to the lakes depends on the decision of rail-
roads to abolish through rates or bring locals down. I maintain that
the competition of railroads under the cheap long-haul rate has been
an important factor in the great rate reduction that has taken place
during the last twenty-five years; in fact, they forced down the water
rates. Nothing is more certain than that if rail freights advance the
water transportation will follow them. If European or eastern prices
do no better the West must lose.
Any one familiar with the subject knows that the consumer usually
beats the farmer, who must have money and must sell. How are goods
shipped from the East to the West and South to be affected? If rates
advance one or the other must give way. Often such disarrangements
cut both ways. One thing is now certain, our farmers are suffering
-terribly under an era of low prices. I have a fear of the result, and
yet my confidence in the success of Americans is unbounded. This
may work out good results. If discriminations cease and Tailroads
come to the point of treating all alike, then one grand thing will have
been accomplished. -
Before I pass from this through-rate matter I would like to call at-
tention to the “across continent” business, that seems to me at this
time to be just in its infancy. Abolish the cheap long haul and the
new route from China and Japan must be surrendered. The business
can not stand local rates, and the long ocean voyage must again come
in play.
Take the shipment of goods from Boston to San Francisco, the freight
divided as it is among seven roads. Each road simply connects an en-
gine with the loaded car and delivers it to the next line. Must the
local business of each road come to the through rate 2 Must each road
keep men at each freight depot to handle every pound of freight and
get no more for it than for the long haul?
But you say the commission can regulate all this. True, but will
they always do it. Is not there a chance that they may at times yield
to public clamor and arbitrarily refuse.
We have had the question of what “one line of road' means quite
thoroughly discussed in other places, but it still is not understood and
never will be until the courts pass upon it. It is claimed that roads
“starting from Kansas City, Omaha, and Saint Paul may each make con-
tracts at different rates to New York via Chicago, and all the freight go
from Chicago by the same line to New York. Therefore the same en-
gine may haul from Chicago ten cars each from Kansas City, Omaha,
and Saint Paul, and at entirely different rates, and yet these through
rates have nothing to do with the local rates charged and collected east
of Chicago. If this be true, then Saint Paul may ship at 25 cents per
100 pounds and yet 30 cents be charged on a shipment originating at
Chicago.
Then again, we are told that if a rate of 10 cents per bushel on grain
is made from Chicago to Buffalo it can not be raised from any other
point on the main lime. Suppose, however, that 60 miles east of Chi-
cago a road only 10 miles long comes in from the north or south. We
are told that from any point on that short road a rate may be made of
15 cents to Buffalo, even though the car goes with the Chicago car and
4:10,
behind the same engine to Buffalo. If this is not discrimination then
I should like to have some one describe it. * ,
I hope this bill, or the fourth section, will not be construed to allow an
increase of evils, but surely its friends in their definition of its meaning.
have opened up schemes for its violation that ought to have been left to
its enemies. . - -
This bill prohibits rebates. The grain rate from the West to Boston
and other New England points usually exceeds by 5 cents per 100 pounds.
the New York rate, but the practice is to allow a rebate of this sum on
all grain exported—the proportionate figure being allowed on flour and
provisions.
If the property is consumed in New England then the freight stands
at 5 cents over New York. The bill, by its preventing rebates, prevents.
exportation of products from Boston. ,” . .
Mr. CANNON. The gentleman says that in the case stated by him
the rebate would be prohibited by this bill. I call his attention to
section 2 of the bill, and I submit that, while certain rebates are pro-
hibited, it does not contain a prohibition which would apply to such a
CàSe. -
Section 2 of the bill is as follows: -
SEc. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device,
charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less,
compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation
of passengers or property subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges,
demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such
common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby
prohibited and declared to be unlawful. -
Under “similar circumstances and conditions.” Now, as I under-
stand the terms of this section, the two cases which the gentleman has
stated are not similar. In the one case the wheat is shipped from Chi-
cago to Boston for domestic consumption, while in the other case it is
shipped from Chicago to Boston for export, and would not be shipped
there unless it could be shipped at the cheaper rate. Therefore the
circumstances and conditions are not similar, and I ask the gentleman
would not the rebate be authorized in such a case as the one stated by
him under the provisions of this second section of the bill?
Mr. DUNHAM. The circumstances are not always similar. The
grain starts from Chicago to Boston, and it is not known whether it is
to be exported or not, but the railroad contractor says to the shipper:
“If you do export this grain, we will give you a rebate of 5 cents a
hundred. You pay full rate—if, after arrival at Boston, you'decide
to export you shall have the rebate.” Possibly this section may be con-
strued as my colleague suggests. The commission may do so.
Mr. CRISP. Would it interrupt my friend if I should ask him an-
other question?
Mr. D.U.N.H.A.M. Not at all.
Mr. CRISP. Would the gentleman justify the practice of a railroad
company which should determine its charge upon a shipment by the
destimation of the goods after leaving its line?
Mr. DUNHAM. J can not tell the gentleman whether they would
justify it— Af .
Mr. CRISP. I say, would the gentleman justify a practice of that.
Sort,” * -
Mr. DUNHAM. Do you mean a charge upon goods for export?
Mr. CRISP. I mean for any purpose. Would the gentleman justify
41 l
a transportation company regulating its charges according to what is
to be done with the property after it gets through transporting it?
Mr. DUNHAM. Commercial necessity might— .
Mr. CRISP. I understood the gentleman to say that where grain is
intended for export the railroad companies make a less charge for
transportation over the entire line than if it were intended for consump-
tion in New England. -
Mr. DUNHAM. That is true. That is just what they do.
Mr. CRISP. Then, is not that a discrimination in favor of the ex-
ort?
Mr. DUNHAM. It may be so accepted, and also be perfectly fair and
proper, and for the benefit of the country.
Mr. CRISP. Ah then, as I understand, the railroad companies are
to determine their charges according to their ideas of what is for the
general benefit of the country, and not according to the cost of trans-
portation ? *. -
Mr. DUNHAM. The gentleman must understand that the principal
exporting cities of the East are New York, Boston, Portland, Phila-
delphia, and Baltimore. The railroad companies have been in more or
less dispute as to what they call differential rates between the various
cities. For instance, Philadelphia and Baltimore have for years de-
manded that they should have a less rate from the West than New
York. New York has demanded that Boston should have a greater rate.
than New York, and the New England railroads, the haul being longer,
have been perfectly willing to concede that the Boston rate should be
a little more than the New York rate,
But when you come to the question of the exportation of grain, inas-
much as the difference in ocean freights from these various cities is
practically nothing, if the Boston and Albany Railroad, for instance,
is to get any part of a haul from the West to the seaboard, it must make
a concession and get the roads West of them to join in the concession in
order that they may get some business, and that the city of Boston and
its vessel interest may have some of the benefit of the export trade.
Therefore, they make a rate of freight from Chicago to the seaboard of,
say, 223 cents to Philadelphia, 25 cents to New York, and 30 cents to
Boston. But when you come to the question of exports, then they
have been in the habit of allowing a rebate to the man who ships by
the way of Boston so as to put him on a par with the man who ships
by way of New York. If they ship property to New England for
consumption, they maintain their 30-cent rate to Boston; but if the
commodity is destined to be exported, they allow a rebate, which places
the Chicago shipper by way of Boston, on a par with the man who ships.
by way of New York. What reasonable man will object to this?
Mr. CRISP. I trust the gentleman will pardon me for using so.
much of his time. I understood what the practice was, but my idea.
in propounding my interrogatory was to ascertain whether the gentle-
man could justify the practice. -
Mr. DUNHAM, I justify it. I think it proper.
Mr. CRISP. I ask, the gentleman whether he thinks it right*—
Mr. DUNHAM. I do.
Mr. CRISP. For the benefit, if you please, of the city of Boston or
other cities—— -
Mr. DUNHAM. It is not for the benefit of the city of Boston ex-
clusively. .
Mr. CRISP. I sounderstood.
412
Mr. DUNHAM. No, sir; it simply puts Boston as an exporting city
on a par with New York as an exporting city. - -
Mr. CRISP. I ask the gentleman what business it is of the railroad
companies whether Boston is an exporting city or not. Is it just that
people of our own country, in Boston or elsewhere, who buy goods for
their own consumption should be discriminated against by the railroad
in favor of the foreign trade? - --
Mr. DUNHAM. They are not discriminated against; their rate is
not interfered with. It is just and for the benefit of the whole country
to encourage the exportation of our products in all legitimate ways; and
if in order that Boston as an exporting or seaboard city may be placed
even with the cities of New York and Philadelphia the railroad com-
panies are pleased to allow a rebate to shippers by way of Boston (the
shipper paying the same price for the property as the man who ships by
way of New York) it is certainly for the benefit of the country, and it
is not an injury to American consumers.
Mr. CRISP. One more suggestion, and I will refrain from further
interrupting the gentleman. f - -
Mr. CANNON. Before the gentleman from Georgia asks a further
question, I would like to put to my colleague [Mr. DUNHAM] an in-
quiry which may be regarded as a twin question to that of the gentle-
man from Georgia. I wish to ask whether this rebate of 5 cents on
wheat to be exported is not eminently just to the man who grows the
wheat in the far West.
Mr. DUNHAM. Certainly. - -
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Then, if the first charge is “reason-
able,” is not the larger charge which is imposed when the grain is not
to be exported robbery upon the producer in the West?
Mr. DUNHAM. Not at all; because he sells on the basis of export
rate from New York. -
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. The railroads undertake to establish a
tariff; that is it. -
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. If the lower rate is reasonable com-
pensation in the one case, why should not the railroad companies be
satisfied with it in the other ? -
I explained this when referring to the differential rates between
Philadelphia, New York, and Boston.
Mr. CRISP. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will allow me just
one further suggestion. The whole difficulty which arises in the
transportation problem is, as suggested by gentlemen here, due to the
fact that the railroad companies lose sight of their legitimate function
and office—to transport at equal rates freight presented to them under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions. They seek to play
the part of Providence by determining what shall be the value of wheat
in one place and corn in another. -
Mr. DUNHAM. No, sir. -
Mr. CRISP. A matter with which they have nothing to do.
Mr. DUNHAM. Now, just let me tell you right here how it hap-
pens. Suppose ten millions of bushels are to go from Chicago to Europe.
There are railroads running to New York and railroads running to Bos-
ton which are asking for that shipment. The owner of that wheat
says, “I must deliver this grain in London or Liverpool, but I do not
care which way I ship it. Now, you can take part of it to New York,
you can give your New York people your laborers, your warehouse men,
your insurance companies the benefit of it passing through that city.”
He says to the railroad company which runs from Chicago to Boston,
413
“If you desire to have part of this business go over your road for export
so that you may give the Boston laborers pay for handling a part of it,
so your Boston warehouses may receive something for transferring it,
so you may put Boston and Boston interests in all respects even with
New York very well, but you must not charge me any more for Boston
than New York charges me. I can not have anything to do with your
claim for Boston unless your road from Chicago to Boston makes the
same charge as the road from Chicago to New York, because I must
put this wheat in London or Liverpool at one price, and I can not pay
you more than I pay to New York.” For instance, if the Boston and
Albany Railroad wants to haul a part of this property so Boston may
have the benefit of exporting it, then it must get the railroads west
of Albany to make concession so as to put the two cities of Boston and
New York on an equal footing in carrying the grain from Chicago for
exportation.
Mr. ROWELL. Would not the provision against pooling by bring-
ing them into competition bring these railroads to an agreement with-
out the necessity for this, so that the rate by Boston to London or Liver-
pool would be the same as by New-York?
Mr. DUNHAM. That is not pooling.
Mr. ROWELL. But suppose the rate is 30 cents from Chicago to
New York and 25 cents from Chicago to Boston?
Mr. DUNHAM. That is not pooling, but the rate agreed upon by
the railroad as to the charge it will make.
Mr. ROWELL. What is that but pooling?
Mr. DUNHAM. No, it is nothing more than the rate agreed upon
by the railroad.
Mr. ROWELL. It will compel them to come to some agreement by
which they will charge the same rate or do without the business.
Mr. DUNHAM. By means of the rebate they practically make the
same rate to the exporter. *.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Let me inquire of the gentleman from
Illinois, if, upon the statement he made a few minutes ago in reference
to rebate to Boston, that does not give to the railroad company the
right to assess, without legislation, a protection to the extent of 5 cents
in favor of Boston 2 -
Mr. HOPKINS. I suggest that matter be postponed until they
bring up their bill.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Does it not do that thing?
Mr. DUNHAM. Not in the line the gentleman has in mind.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Does it not amount to that?
Mr. DUNHAM. That will more properly be a legitimate question
when you discuss the tariff.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Does not the gentleman know he and
others would not let us discuss the tariff? -
Mr. DUNHAM. Now, the gentleman ſrom Kansas will not claim
for one moment it is not for the benefit of the farmer in his State to
get as low rates as possible to the seaboard, and he will not claim, nor
will he or his farmers care whether their wheat goes by Boston or New
York.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Let me ask the gentleman a question
right there. x
Mr. DUNHAM If the rate of freight is a certain rate from Kansas
City it makes no difference to the man who grows the wheat whether
the railroads allow a rebate of 5 per cent, or not. That comes out of
4 F4
the railroad company and not out of the farmer. The price to the lat-
ter is the same. - - -
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. What is the difference in distance be-
tween Chicago and Boston and Chicago and New York?
iMr. DUNHAM. About 50 miles farther to Boston than to New York.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I thought it was more than that.
Mr. DUNHA.M. N.O. !.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Assume that the distance from Kan-
sas City to New York is 200 miles less than from Kansas City to Bos-
ton. Assume that the plant or investment of the trunkline from Kansas
City to New York is the same per mile and the cost of operation is the
same per mile as the trunk line from Kansas City to Boston, then,
clearly, the New York line could afford to give, while making reason-
able profit, a less rate than the Boston line. Is not that clear?
Mr. DUNHAM. Yes; and they often do so, as Ihave shown, and your,
farmer gets the benefit of the inside rate.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. If the Boston trunk line makes rea-
sonable rate by hauling at 5 cents less than the New York line, or for
a greater distance for the same pride, which is the same thing, then the
New York line is making an unreasonable rate which the farmer in
'my State pays? •.
Mr. DUNHAM. Not at all; for on the theory of the gentleman he
might carry the rate of freight down to nearly nothing.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. But it is perfectly clear because the
two trunk lines have the same investment, the same facilities, and the
same cost of carriage, and their pretension they are giving this lesser
rate out of philantrophy to the people is something so audacious, so
perfectly absurd [applause]—
Mr. DUNHAM. Does it occur to the gentleman from Kansas that
he is taking up my time? [Laughter.]
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. That I am surprised my friend should
make any such proposition. *
Mr. DUNHAM. I would like to say this, in response to the gentle-
man from Kansas, that if the rate of freight is 30 cents a hundred from
Yansas City to New York and 35 cents a hundred from Kansas City to
Boston, and the price of wheat, the selling price, in Kansas City is 60
cents a bushel, the farmer having sold his wheat at that price, it
makes no difference to him whether the rate is 25 or 30 cents
to New York or Boston. It does not benefit him or injure him.
If the railroad companies see fit to rebate their freight rates between
themselves between Boston and New York what effect, I would ask
the gentleman, does that have upon the farmers or what business is it
Of theirs? - . -
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Oh, I know it is generally considered
to be nobody’s business to inquire into anything that a railroad com-
pany does—
Mr. CRISP. The farmer is not benefited by the rebate and gets no
benefit under the circumstances suggested in the question of the col-
league of the gentleman from Illinois a few moments ago; and hence it
is immaterial to the farmer whether the wheat goes to New York or to
Boston. -
Mr. DUNHAM. It is immaterial to the farmer whether it goes to
‘Europe via Boston or New York. -
Mr. CRISP. I am speaking now as between New York and Boston.
Mr. DUNHAM. It would be immaterial. But one thing is true,
that there is no necessity for the railroad companies doing anything
415
in particular to build up one city at the expense of another; and if
they are willing to concede among themselves a rate that will place
New York and Boston and Philadelphia on a par and give each one a fair
share of business, it certainly can be no injury to the farmer or any
One else. -
Mr. CRISP. Except that they must not do that to burden the local
people along the line. That is the point I desire to make.
Mr. DUNHA.M. Nobody objects to that statement.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Will the gentleman permit me an-
sother question?
Mr. DUNHAM. Yes, sir; I will yield for a question only.
Mr. ANT).ERSON, of Kansas. You must remember that you intro-
duced me into this discussion. [Laughter.]
Mr. DUNHAM. Very well; I will hear the question.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Is not the reason why a lower rate is
given by the railroads to Boston than to New York because of the com-
petition between Boston and New York; that is, between the different
roads terminating in those cities?
Mr. DUNHAM. The rate to Boston is actually higher than to New
York, except in case of exportation; then they are made the same.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Is not competition the chief reason?
Mr. DUN HAM. Well, they both want business; there is no ques-
tion about that.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I fancy that is the chief reason they
make an agreed raté, commou to both cities, because if they do not the
New England road will compete. It is for the benefit of the farmers
of the West to have a lower rate by reason of competition, since these
farmers really pay the freight.
Mr. DUN HAM. No one here will undertake to claim, I apprehend,
that it is for the good of the people or of the railroads that these rail-
road wars should go on; and when the rates have been agreed upon be-
tween the great trunk lines it has saved the wars. I have seen grain
taken from Kansas City to Chicago for 5 cents per bushel; but the gen-
tleman from Kansas will not say that it is not at an absolute loss to the
failroad companies.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Then why do they take it?
Mr. DUNHAM. Because they get into a war of rates.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. The road should not have the right to
get into a war of rates so that the people are made to suffer. They are
not an irresponsible set of pirates, are they? [Laughter.]
Mr. DUN HAM. The gentleman never knew an instance where the
people suffered when rate wars prevail. On the contrary, both producer
and consumer reap profits, and the pirates, as the gentleman politely
terms the companies, make the loss.
My time is about up and I must decline to be interrupted further.
There is a class of rebates, Mr. Speaker, to which I object, and which
no man who is disposed to be reasonable or to treat others fairly would
consent to. A rate is established from Chicago to New York, at 25 cents
per hundred, and a private cut is given to a particular individual. That
ought to be prohibited, and so far as this bill prohibits it I favor it.
Then as to pooling. A pool itself I have no objection to; but it is the
private cut of a pool for particular corporations, or for individuals, that
we have good reason to object to, and so far as the bill prohibits that I
am for it. {
Now then, this bill the people imagine they want. I admit they
want something. I admit that railroads have been guilty of unjust
416
discriminations and of abuses, and that it is proper that legislation
should be invoked to prevent it in the future, but I do not admit that
in order to prevent discriminations or abuses it is necessary to pass laws
that are so unreasonable as to tend to cripple the railroads. This com-
mission bill is better, as it is, than nothing, and I think the people of
the United States would rather have this than nothing. I know that
the people of the city I have the honor in part to represent largely de-
sire that we should have something; and merchants, some indeed of
the officers of the railroads themselves, are willing to take this bill,
and while I think it is inconsistent in places, yet I am committed to
the commission features of the bill because in the first session of this
Congress I voted to amend the Reagan bill by inserting the Cullom
bill. In the absence, them, of something better than this, in the ab-
sence of what I would like to have, and following what seems to be
the wishes of my constituents, I shall vote for it, but believe I ought to
say that I am in doubt as to its accomplishing the purposes expected.
I believe that we have reached that point in this country where we
need something to be done. ... I believe that many rates and many re-
bates and many drawbacks have been unreasonable. I believe that.
the railroad companies in many cases are doing very much to the ben-
efit of the country. I believe that the long and the short haul ques-
tion has annihilated distances. I do not believe that you will ever see:
the day again under such a bill as this when you can ship the grain,
from the West to the East or to Europe by rail to the seaboard as low
as you can to-day; because I do not believe the railroad companies will.
throw aside their local rates and bring them down to the through,
rateS. * -
I do not believe that the flour makers of Minneapolis, who are getting:
flour to-day to the seaboard cheaper than the flour makers in Chicago,
can have that continued under this bill. For I tell you that, as a mat-
ter of fact, flour is taken to-day from Minneapolis to the seaboard cheaper
than you can get it from Chicago or Milwaukee. It is the long haul that
does it, and the long and short haul is about all that there is in this bill.
I fear the great agricultural sections of the West and South will suffer
somewhat by the enforcement of this law.
With so much competition as I have already detailed, I think it doubt-
ful if we can sustain our present farm prices, provided we are forced to
higher rates of freight.
If the definition of the “line of road'’ that has been given proves
correct then, from many points this bill will not interfere, and the country
Sections that have so long pressed for this legislation will have gained
practically nothing.
I promised others part of my time, but find I have occupied almost the
whole of it.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. Before the gentleman from Illinois.
yields the floor I would like to ask him a question as to this commis-
sion. I desire to ask him how he construes these words:
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances.
Now, I ask the gentleman this question: Suppose this bill receives
the signature of the President and becomes a law to-morrow, must the
common carrier, under the long-haul portion of this provision, apply
to the commission before the freight is shipped over its line to receive
the benefit? Or does it apply to the case in which the freight has been
shipped ? -
417
Mr. DUNHAM. He would hardly be allowed to violate the law
first and then ask permission to do it.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. The case I suggest is this. Suppose
$100 is charged for a car-load of freight from here to Chicago and it is
paid, will the railroad receiving that large freight for that long dis-
tance go to the commission seeking to bite its own nose off to ask to
reduce this freight on the long haul and remit to the shipper the amount
Over and above what the commission would allow 2
Mr. DUNHAM. I think it is really an unknown question, and no
man can athswer what the result of this bill will be. I have only stated
what I thought it would be so far as the West is concerned. I do not
think this bill will very much affect the Eastern States, but I do believe
that we must lose on our property in the West to get even with it on
this theory that the railroad company will not bring down their local
rates to their through rates, and therefore will advance their through
rates. In the summer season, when navigation is open, it will not
make the difference that it does in the winter. Iowa, Nebraska, and
Kansas may send their grain to the lake cities cheaper, and get more in
the summer season than in the winter. But this vast eastern country
must have a large quantity of grain and provisions in the winter season,
and if they will not advance their prices, then the West must feel the
loss. Prices may be determined by the one who can hold out the
longest.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. And yet you will vote for it?
Mr. DUNHAM. I have already explained my position. If the rail-
road companies determined to continue their low through rates and
bring their local rates to them, then we shall lose nothing by this bill.
The question is what the railroads will decide fo do. I do not believe
that the railroad companies can do business and pay their expenses if
they are obliged to give up their local rates.
Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman explain to the House why it would
cost a railroad company any more to transport this freight at one sea-
son than at another ?
Mr. DUNHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman has just said that in summer time there
would be no complaint, but in winter there might be. §
Mr. DUNHAMI. I will go back a little. Twenty-five years ago the
railroad men never dreamed that they could carry grain all the way
from the West to the East; so in summer the grain went by water, by
the lakes and canal, and in winter the West was practically closed up
so far as transportation of grain was concerned. Now, by improved
devices and by the general progress in railroading, by building cars
that carry six or seven hundred bushels, instead of three hundred
bushels, by using steel rails and engines of double the old power, they
carry a vast quantity of grain to the seaboard, and are able to carry it
at 25 cents a hundred from Chicago to New York, instead of 60 cents
a hundred, which was the charge only twelve years ago.
Mr. CRISP. When the gentleman said that in summer the trans-
portation would be satisfactory to the farmers, but not in winter, I un-
derstood him to mean that it would be satisfactory in summer because
then the water-ways were open and could compete.
Mr. DUNHAM. Yes; but the gentleman is aware that water navi-
gation has always been the cheapest. --
Mr. CRISP. But that in the winter time it would not be satisfac-
I S C–27
418
tory, because the railroads would then have a monopoly and would put
up rates.
Mr. DUNHAM. Oh, no; the multiplicity of roads has about disposed
of the monopoly cry. In the summer season the farmers would have
but a short haul, from Iowa for instance, to Chicago, and then the grain
could go by water to the Eastern cities; but in the winter it would have
to go entirely by rail if it went at all; and, therefore, if the through
rate was advanced the farmer must lose by it. In addition, the gen-
tleman must well know that storms and blockades render railroad move-
ments more expensive than in summer. ... •
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Will the gentleman yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. DUNHAM. My time has expired.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I think the time of
the gentleman should be extended. ~.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I must object to any extension of time.
Mr. BYNUM was recognized, and yielded three minutes to Mr. DUN-
FIAM.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I wish to call the gentleman’s atten-
tion to the fact that in summer time much of the grain goes by rail
from Kansas City by way of Saint Louis to the East, and the railroads
that carry it are not losing anything either. -
Mr. DUNHAM. Perhaps not on the long haul, but they might if
doing the local at same rate. The railroads do now take the stuff from
Kansas City to the seaboard on a low rate for the long haul, but if they
were compelled to carry freight from every little station between Kan-
sas City and the seaboard at the same rate, then they would not make
such a rate for the long haul. &
Mr. BYNUM. Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose or intention to
take up the time of the House in a lengthy discussion of the provisions
of this bill. It would be impossible for me to enter into such a discus-
sion, because I have not given the subject that careful study and thought
which would be necessary in order to present the subject in all its phases.
For a great many years this question has been before the country, has
been discussed by the people, has been before Congress, has been dis-
cussed before the committees of this House, has been discussed in this
House, and it seems to me that the ground has been gone over so often
that it is almost impossible to present anything new upon the question,
or to present any reason that has not been already advanced in favor of
this measure, or any objection which has not been made in opposition
to it.
Mr. Speaker, I regard this legislation at best, as experimental. I
believe that no question has ever been examined more carefully, or
has received more attention from any committee than this question bas
received from the Committees on Commerce. We have heard it dis-
cussed by the ablest representatives of the railroad companies and by
those who are in favor of this character of legislation. Those discus-
sions have been printed; they have been circulated; they have been
read; and yet we are no nearer a solution of the question than we were
ten, or even five, years ago. 2.
The demand for legislation upon the subject by the people remains as
great as it has been for a number of years, and the only thing we can
do now is to pass this measure and trust to the future to remedy any
mistakes that we may make.
There are three provisions of this bill that meet with some opposition,
and I believe they are the only provisions that have received attention
419
to any great extent in the discussion either in this or in the other branch
of Congress. They are, first, the provision which prohibits pooling;
second, the provision in regard to the long and the short haul; and,
third, the provision which allows the commission, in certain cases, to
grant the privilege to haul the long distance at a less rate than is charged
for the shorter distance.
I believe that these three provisions are the only ones which have
received any extended consideration at the hands of the members who
have engaged in this discussion.
In regard to the question of pooling, we should look at it not in the
light of the past, but in the light of the future. We should look at it
in view of the conditions and surrounding circumstances after the other
provisions of this bill shall have been enacted into law. Suppose we
should strike out the provision in regard to pooling; suppose we should
pass the bill without that provision. In that case I undertake to say
the other provisions of the bill will prevent such a war between the
railroad companies, such a cutting of rates between competing lines, as
have been engaged in by these corporations, and which, it is claimed
by them, are injurious alike to shippers and the companies, and which
it is insisted can only be prevented by pools.
. It is claimed that the pools which have been formed by railroad com-
panies have been made for the purpose of maintaining a stability of
reasonable rates, and not for the purpose of advancing them; have been
for the purpose of preventing a war of rates, or a cutting of rates to
such an extent that freights and passengers would really have been
carried for a less sum than the companies could afford. We all admit
that such wars have often been engaged in by competing lines. Would
it be possible for the railroad companies to engage in such wars, would
it be possible that such things should fake place after the other pro-
visions of this bill have been enacted into a law? I do not think it
would, because the companies will be compelled to publish their rates,
and can not advance them without giving ten days’ notice. They will
be slow to reduce their rates to such figures as will result in a loss
when they know they can not restore them for ten days. Any great
reduction of rates would probably require a complete change of sched-
ule along the entire length of the line. Consequently, I think the
other provisions of this bill will prevent a reduction of rates, and
especially a war of rates, even should the provisions against pooling be
eliminated. Now. if the other provisions of the bill have a tendency
to maintain a stability of rates, is there any danger of pooling for the
purpose of advancing rates to an unreasonable point? I think there
will be. I think, after the other provisions of this bill are adopted,
the railroad companies, if they are permitted to pool will do so, not for
the purpose of maintaining reasonable rates, but for the purpose of ad-
vancing them, especially on the long hauls, in order to maintain high
freights on short hauls.
Therefore, I believe that the provision which prevents pooling should
be retained in the bill and be adopted with the other provisions.
Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentleman allow me a suggestion?
Mr. BYNUM. Certainly.
Mr. SCOTT. There are certain lines of railroad in this country
which have great natural advantages over other lines. A mutual pool-
ing of the tonnage, which would not interfere with rates, would enable
the main trunklines having these advantages to distribute this tonnage
equally among lines which topographically have not the same advan-
tages. Does the gentleman get my idea?
420
Mr. BYNUM. I do. I understand the pool to be a division of traffic
or rates between different competing lines. *
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir; between lines some of which have natural
advantages over others. The maintenance of rates would not distrib-
ute the tonnage to a line which was inferior in respect to natural ad-
vantages; whereas if the companies were allowed to pool the tonnage,
it would not interfere with the rates and would give to certain lines
which do not possess equal natural advantages with others, a portion
of the tonnage. In other words, the question is whether this measure
legislates for “the survival of the fittest.” e
Mr. BYNUM. I understand the pooling arrangement to be this:
The trunk lines are willing to grant a certain division of freights to
other roads which can carry the freight between the same points, but
which have not the natural advantages for doing so; that is to say, a
division of freights in a certain ratio is agreed upon between compet-
ing lines, so as to prevent a reduction of rates. In short, to prevent a
road which is not the direct or natural route from cutting under those
which are such routes.
Mr. SCOTT. That is it.
Mr. BYNUM. Ibelieve the other provisions of this bill will prevent
anything of that kind, even though you might strike out the provision
in regard to pooling.
Mr. SCOTT. Let me put a case to the gentleman. Suppose I am a
shipper of cattle from Chicago to New York. There are certain lines
which, owing to their alignment, their grades, their length, are able,
on account of these natural advantages, to take the entire cattle trans-
portation from Chicago to New York city. There are other lines which
are a little more circuitous and a little longer. As a shipper, I should
always be inclined to send my cattle over the line having the shortest
and most direct route; so that the longer and more circuitous line gets
none of that traffic, unless the company having the natural advantages
agrees to divide that cattle transportation with the other lines.
Mr. BYNUM. I understand that the evil which the railroads desire
to guard against is this: While the shipper, if the rates were the same,
would naturally select the route having the greatest natural advan-
tages, the shortest and quickest line, still there is danger that the road
which lacks such advantages may cut under and bring about a war of
rates, and the natural routes or lines are willing to grant a division of
the traffic, to concede a certain portion of the freights to the lines hav-
ing less advantages in order to prevent a reduction.
Mr. SCOTT. Oh, no.
Mr. BYNUM. I want to answer the gentleman's question as I un-
derstand it. I understand the objectio be to prevent those lines which
do not command the natural routes between certain points from cut-
ting under those which do command such routes. Now, I say the line
which has not the advantages of the natural route will not be able to
cut under the others, because it will be compelled to fix and publish
its rates and can not raise them except upon ten days' notice.
Mr. SCOTT. Then the line which does not command the natural
route will get no part of the business.
Mr. BYNUM. It has no business with any part of it at the expense
of the shippers. Let the traffic take its natural channel. -
Mr. SCOTT. Then the other line will monopolize all the traffic, and
the line having inferior natural advantages will be destroyed.
Mr. BYNUM. There is no danger of monopoly so long as there is
competition.
421
Mr. ROWELL. I wish to ask the gentleman this question: By means
of pooling and by sending freight through an unnatural channel, thus
insuring a reasonable compensation to the company which has a round-
about route, is not the road having command of the natural channel
enabled to charge an unreasonable compensation?
Mr. BYNUM. I think that is true. I thank the gentleman for the
suggestion. Otherwise they would not pool.
On the question of a long and short haul, a great many instances
have been cited, a great many illustrations have been given, where it
may work a hardship, and for that reason, probably, the provision was
incorporated in the bill giving the commissioners the right to relax
this rule in certain cases. Take the case, for instance, cited by the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] yesterday, where the rates from
New York to Atlanta were greater than from New York to New Or-
leans. I merely take that case as it furnishes a basis for the argument.
It can not and will not be contended by any person who opposes the
passage of this bill that railroad companies will and do carry freights
for a less amount than they can afford ; or, in other words, that they
will carry freights at losing rates. So the question comes up at once,
if they can afford to carry freights from New York to New Orleans for
75 cents a hundred, they can afford to carry them from New York to
Atlanta for 75 cents a hundred, because it is only half the distance,
If they can make a reasonable profit for carrying the longer distance
they can afford to carry the shorter distance for the same amount of
money.
In answer to the objection of the gentleman that this bill will pro-
hibit them from charging as much for the shorter as for the longer dis-
tance, I say that is incorrect. The provision which the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. DUNHAM] cited, which reads as follows: “But this
shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the
terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a
shorter as for a longer distance,” was inserted in the bill no doubt by
the conferees for the reason that they feared that the provisions of the
bill might be construed to authorize railroad companies to charge as
much for a shorter as for a longer distance, even though the rate for
the shorter might be an unreasonable one. That is, when the charge
for the shorter distance was unreasonable it should be held illegal
under the other provisions of the act, notwithstanding it might be as
low as the rate for a longer distance. It simply leaves the question to
be determined whether the amount charged for the shorter distance is
a reasonable rate, notwithstanding it may be as low as the rate charged
for a longer distance.
If it is a reasonable rate to charge the same amount for the shorter
as for the longer distance, then, under the provisions of the bill, they
have the right to do so; but if it is unreasonable, then, under the other
provisions of the bill, they will not have the right to do so.
It will not be contended, as I stated before, that the railroad com-
panies are carrying freights for longer hauls at losing rates, and that
they now insist on the privilege of doing so. The argument in favor
of such a proposition is something like the shoe-dealer who said he
was selling his shoes at a loss of 25 cents a pair, and when asked how
he could afford to do that, he said “that if he did not sell so many
pair he could not afford it.” [Laughter.] It is on that same princi-
ple that the railroad companies contend that they are carrying freights
for a longer distance at a losing rate, and that they must continue to
do so because the more they can carry the cheaper they can make the
4:22
rates to intermediate points. I think, therefore, it is only a reasonable
restriction to provide in this bill that they shall not receive more for a
shorter than for a longer distance.
I know of no company, although I have not investigated the facts
thoroughly, that now indulges extensively in this practice. I am satis-
fied that there is much less complaint of this evil now than a few years
ago. True competition and increased railroad facilities have remedied
to a great extent this matter in the last few years. I do not think
that it is necessary for any railroad company to make such unjust dis-
criminations. The power to discriminate against intermediate points
is certainly great enough under the terms and limitations of the bill.
Shippers who are without competition, who are at the mercy of a single
corporation, are certainly entitled to some protection against the arbi-
trary power of these monopolies. I am firmly of the opinion that these
corporations can and will manage successfully their roads under the
provisions of this bill; and the greatest benefits I expect the people to
derive from its enactment are that it will place all shippers, both great
and small, upon terms of equality, and compel the companies to do
equal andexact justice to all.
I come now to the other question, and I find that I am taking more
time than I intended when I commenced. I intended merely to state
my reasons and not attempt to make any argument. I come to the
other question, about which I have more serious doubts, that is, the
provision which allows the commission, under any circumstances, to
relax the stringency of the provision which prohibits the companies
from charging less for a longer than for a shorter haul. The gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] when questioned on that point yesterday
could give no instance of such an exception and which might call for
the exercise of so dangerous a power. I can not conceive of any instance
where that rule would be relaxed, or where that provision would be set
aside by the commissioners, unless it be in cases of competition with
water carriage; that is, where water carriage comes into competition
with railroad carriage. Take the line from Chicago to New York;
probably if they relax the provisionin any case they would relax it there.
Mr. ROWELL rose.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman yield?
Mr. BYNUM. No; not now. Take Chicago, take Saint Louis, take
Cincinnati, take Louisville, to a greater or less extent they have com-
petition by water-ways. Take the city of Indianapolis, one of the
greatest railroad centers in the country, the largest inland town in the
world, where we have spent enormous sums of money aiding in the
construction of railroads, and in providing terminal facilites, and in
the construction of a belt line, connecting all the lines, so that freights
can be transferred from one to the other without the least difficulty and
at small expense; take that city, located as it is, without competition
from water-ways, is there not danger that there will be discrimination
in favor of surrounding cities, and that Indianapolis will be made to
suffer thereby. *
I have greater fears of the effects of this provision than any other in
the bill and for that reason, while I shall vote for its passage, it will not
be without some misgivings. I shall vote for it because, Mr. Speaker,
I believe it is demanded by the people whom I represent, and by the
people in general, who will not be satisfied without some legislation
upon the subject. Although, I repeat, I have great fears that a large
portion of my constituency may be injured in some respects. I hope
not, but if I am right—if evil consequences do follow the passage of
423
this law—if any of its provisions work injustice to any locality or sec-
tion of the country—I have sufficient confidence in the integrity and
patriotism of Congress to believe that justice will hereafter be done.
Inow yield to the gentleman from Illinois for his question.
Mr. ROWELL. The question I wanted to ask is this, whether at
places where there is no water competition may there not be circum-
stances of return freight or other conditions that would not only au-
thorize but demand a different rule from that laid down in the provis-
ion which you have been discussing?
Mr. BYNUM. Mr. Speaker, I will not undertake to answer as to
the condition or circumstances under which there may be a necessity
for changes of the rule, for I recognize the fact that with 128,000 miles
of railroad with which we have to deal, representing $8,000,000,000 of
capital, with an annual traffic of $800,000,000, that so many conflicting
interests are likely to be involved that it is impossible to frame any
law that will not work hardships in some instances.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Then the provision is proper under
your own admission.
Mr. BYNUM. No; I do not admit that. That provision goes further
than we ought to go in the beginning; it is clothing the commission
with too great a power. When I say that it is difficult to ſrame a law
upon this subject which will not, in some instances, work a hardship,
I have reference to the other provisions of the bill as well as to this
extraordinary power with which the commission is clothed to suspend
the operation of the provision in regard to long and short hauls.
I now desire to yield ten minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. GUENTHER..].
% X: % + * * 3-
Mr. GUENTHER. Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States
have just reason to feel gratified that after ten years or more of con-
tinuous efforts to enact a law to regulate interstate commerce they at
last are about to succeed, for I take it for granted that this conference
report already adopted by the Senate will meet a like fate in this
House.
This result, Mr. Speaker, will be most satisfactory. It will inspire
renewed confidence among the people in their Representatives in Con-
gress. Year after year, session after session, the railroad magnates,
through their attorneys and lobbyists, have succeeded in defeating all
legislation upon the subject of interstate commerce.
The best legal, oratorical and lobby talent has ever been at their dis-
posal. Session after session, for weeks and months they appeared be-
fore the Committee on Commerce, presenting the most elaborate argu-
ments why bills for the regulation of interstate commerce should not
pass. They always had the advantage because the people, the farmers,
the shippers, and the merchants had not the organization nor the means
to employ the high-priced talent which the railroad corporations can
always command. By the most ingenious arguments they always
succeeded in impressing upon the minds of many Representatives that
great disaster to the commerce of the country would follow any such
legislation.
In the darkest colors they painted the consequences of what they
were pleased to term “demagogical and suicidal laws.” Everybody
who advocated laws for the regulation of railroads was called a dema-
Ogue.
g I was a member of the Committee on Commercein the Forty-seventh-
424
Congress. I listened for weeks to the arguments of the greatest cor-
poration lawyers in the land, and I must admit that I became almost
frightened—I was younger, greener, and more unsophisticated then
than I am to-day [laughter]—I became almost frightened at the pros-
pect of utter ruin which would befall the Western farmer and business
man should the interstate-commerce bill pass.
The picture was a gloomy one. No more railroads would be built. .
No longer would grain, flour, and other Western and Southern products:
find a profitable Eastern market. Lands would become almost value-
less, farmers and business men would be bankrupted, and general ruin
would prevail. These railroad lawyers always protested against that
their opposition was due to their connection with the railroads, but came
solely from the deep interest they felt in the general welfare of the dear
public; and they said that, in fact, the railroads cared but very little. I
must confess they acted well, kept up a sober face, and almost created
the impression as if they really believed what they professed.
Boards of trade and other guileless commercial bodies were influenced
by their peculiar methods to protest against the passage of the Reagan
bill, which was the most conspicuous one, knowing full well that its
defeat would sound the death-knell to similar measures. Every effort,
open and secret, was brought into action, and the railroads were always
successful, and every bill for the regulation of interstate commerce was
defeated. Meanwhile the discriminations of the railroads, their ex-
tortions. the Standard Oil Company outrage, the coal combines, and
other motorious and crying evils went on, merrily and uninterruptedly.
The railroads felt serene and safe in the sweet consciousness of their
ability to continue their successful opposition ad infinitum, and I know
that many members of Congress even, and a great portion of the people
of the United States, had given up all hope to ever be able to correct
the many abuses of the railroad management of the United States, and
became resigned to what seemed the inevitable, namely, unconditional
surrender of the people to the power, the greed, the avarice, the extor-
tion, the iniquity, the injustice, the tyranny of these railroad corpora-
tions.
I therefore said, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the United States
have reason to congratulate themselves that at last they will be able to
assert their supremacy over these powerful monopolies. A bright ray
of hope is at last breaking through the dark clouds that have been
hovering over us.
For myself, Mr. Speaker, I had never given up hope, although I had
not a great deal of that useful article, but still I clung to the belief
that the people would triumph in the end, and that patience and per-
severance would finally win. --
In a speech in this House, some five years ago, I said that some day
the people, that mighty giant, would awaken, and, springing to his
feet, with one fierce blow would crush the thieves who had rifled his
pockets while he was asleep.
The time has come. The day of judgment has arrived. The peo-
ple have had their eyes opened; they are wide awake. They are de-
termined at last that they will be the masters of their creatures, these
ingrates who have amassed colossal fortunes by cheating and defraud-
ing those who have been so generous and lenient.
The struggle has been fierce. Arrayed against the people have been
the millions and millions of the gold of gigantic corporations, all bound
together by a fellow-feeling produced by one common interest, spurred
on by one common impulse, to defeat all measures that threatened the
supremacy of their omnipotent power. The passage of this bill will
be the greatest triumph the people have achieved in many years.
I do not claim that this bill is perfect in every particular, but this
is no good reason why it should not pass. º
What bill is—
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. CALDWELL was recognized and yielded three minutes to Mr.
-GUENTHER.
Mr. GUENTHER. Should the law prove to be too harsh or unjust
to the railroads, or should its operation disturb any of the business in-
'terests of the country, after a fair trial has been given it, the people of
the United States, through their representatives in Congress, will make
such changes as will do justice to all concerned.
The people of the United States do not seek vengeance upon the rail-
roads. They do not wish to retaliate for wrongs inflicted upon them
in the past. All they want is fair play, “with malice towards none,
with charity for all.”
To amend the bill in the future in the direction indicated will be a
very easy task, because we will then meet with the hearty co-operation
of the railroads, while heretofore we have encountered their powerful
and stubborn opposition. I have no prejudice against railroads if prop-
erly conducted, but I maintain that, being common carriers, having
received extraordinary rights and concessions from the people—the
people have a right to demand that their charges. shall be reasonable
and equal, and that excessive rates and unjust discriminations will not
be tolerated.
I also assert as my candid belief that the railroads themselves will
be better off in the end if all their charges and the general conduct of
their business is regulated by law. I wish we could have had the time
and the experience to pass a bill which would leave no doubt in our
minds as to its perfection, and its just operation to both the people and
the railroads. But as we have neither the time at this hour of the
session, nor have we the knowledge gained by experience, and as we
may not again, in years to come, have a chance to vote on a conference
report on an interstate-commerce bill, I sincerely trust that the report
will be adopted without amendment.
Bear in mind that the people have spoken in no uncertain tones.
They demand some legislation to correct the many abuses to which
they have been subjected by the railroads, and their demands are just.
Pass the bill as it has come from the conference committee, and you
may rest assured that all the calamities that are predicted by its oppo-
ments will prove mere phantoms which will disappear like darkness be-
fore the rising sun as soon as the law goes into operation.
Let us pass this bill, imperfect as it may be, but vastly better than
no bill at all; and then let us correct any defects and imperfections
after º law has been given a fair test in its practical workings. [Ap-
plause.
Mr. BYNUM. I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. NELSON].
Mr. NELSON. How much time have I?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McMILLIN). The gentleman has
thirty minutes. Af
Mr. NELSON. Mr. Speaker, the bulk of our interstate-carrying
trade is now and for many years has been in the hands of our great
railroad companies. These companies, representing millions of capital,
have for years been accustomed to pay little or no heed to the wants or
426
wishes of their patrons, the producers, but seem, in the main, to have been
chiefly governed by their own selfish greed and rapacity. The rights
of individuals, business interests and communities have at times been
utterly ignored and disregarded; nay, more cruelly and ruthlessly
trampled upon and destroyed with a cold-blooded indifference and ob-
liviousness as transcendent as it was unreasonable and malignant.
When in the early '70's the people—especially of the West and
Northwest—commenced to cry out against this growing evil and to de-
liberate upon modes of relief, they were met at the very threshold by
the claim on the part of the railway companies that their business was
of that peculiar character that it did not tolerate and could not thrive
under any kind of legislative control, and that their rights, such as
they construed them, were of that vested and sacred character under
the Constitution that no legislative power could constitutionally reach
out to regulate or control them in the least degree. In other words,
that having acquired their charters and rights of way, they were, as to
all else, above and beyond all law.
The Dartmouth College case was made the basis and groundwork for
all such claims. Could Marshall and Webster have heard how much of
iniquity there was attempted to be justified under this case they would
have no doubt been as astonished as were our unsophisticated gran-
gers. At the early stage of the controversy between the railroads
and the people, about the only rule of law the former would admit was
that rates ought to be reasonable; but there was not much concession
even in this, as they coupled it with the further assertion that they
themselves were the best, if not the sole, judges of what was reason-
able.
And so the railroads, practicing extortion and unjust discrimination,
while continuing to taunt the people with a want of power to effect a
change, aroused a popular sentiment and feeling on the subject, which
still exists.unabated and unsatisfied, and justly so till this bill passes.
In their first efforts to obtain relief the people applied to their own
State Legislatures, and these, by various acts—some wise and effective,
others crude and abortive—attempted to regulate and control the rail-
ways. All such legislation was vigorously questioned and fought by
the railways through all the courts from the lowest up to the Supreme
Court of the United States; and for a long time the people had grave
fears whether our highest court would award them any power in the
premises at all, but finally the gloomy doubt was removed, when, in
1876, our Supreme Court, in the case of Munn vs. Illinois (94 U. S. S.
C. R., p. 113), substantially declared that—
It is a power inherent in every government to regulate the conduct of its citi-
zens toward each other, and the manner in which each shall use his own prop-
erty; and this power includes the right to regulate common carriers and to fix
their rates. When the owner devotes his property to a public use or public
employment, he grants the public an interest in such use or employment, and
must, to the extent of such interest, submit to public control.
And to the same effect was the much earlier (New Jersey) case of
Messenger vs. Railroad Company (7 Vroom, 407), decided in 1873. And
ever since the Munn case there never has been any doubt, among rea-
sonable men, of the power of our State Legislatures and of Congress—
each within their respective and proper spheres—to regulate and con-
trol common carriers in State or interstate commerce, as the case may
be. -
This Munn case and the Granger Railway cases on the heels of it
had a soothing and quieting effect. The people had got maddened and
exasperated by the denial of all right and power, and so had undoubtedly
427
in some cases gone to legislative extremes. But this judicial admission
of full and plenary legislative power in the premises mollified the pop-
ular impulse. The sense of power made the people more moderate in
the exercise and use of it.
But while full legislative power was thus awarded to the States, it
was found that by reason of our complex and dual system of Govern-
ment, the relief given was bounded and circumscribed by State lines;
and that Congress alone could afford relief for all that commerce and
traffic which crosses State, territorial, or international lines, and which
in volume and importance far exceeds purely local State commerce;
and so the people with this knowledge and with ample and ever contin-
uing grounds for seeking relief, have for the last dozen years or more
been knocking at the doors of Congress for relief. And it is curious to
note that not to this moment has there been any immediate prospect
for national legislation on this all-important subject. Mr. Poor—he
of railroad statistics—has kindly sent us, lately, a table showing, among
other things, the reduction in rates of freight from 1865—a period of
inflated paper currency standard for which he makes no allowance——to
1885.
Now, I am satisfied, if some other ingenious Poor would go to work
to compile a table and list of the rights, privileges, and immunities
claimed by the railway companies in respect to legislative discretion
and legislative power from 1870 down to the present time, he would
discover a much greater abatement and reduction in such claims than
in the tariff rates. In 1870 and from thence down to the Munn case
in 1876 all legislative power or discretion was denied to the States.
And you, who were here in the late seventies and early eighties, will
remember how persistently the counsel and high officers of these cor-
porations argued and contended, to a greater or lesser extent, that
Congress lacked the power, and that even conceding the power, yet that
the matter of interstate railway transportation was of that unique and
peculiarly delicate and sensitive character that legislative regulation
in any form or degree however mild was fatal and destructive.
It was a most sensitive plant, that would utterly wilt under the
mildest rays of the legislative sun. Natural laws, so it was said, would
work out the whole problem, and natural laws in these cases generally
meant watered stock, modified by pools, rebates, and discriminations,
personal and local. It is said of Archimedes that he once exclaimed,
“Give me a fulcrum for my lever and I will move the world.” So
the modern Fink or Blanchard a few years ago in substance ex-
claimed, “Give me the free and untrammeled use of pools and discrim-
inations, local and personal, and I will anthracite-coal and standard-oil
the entire country.” But mark what an abatement in pretense there is.
On January 5, 1887, the New York Times published a letter from the
railroad magnate, Mr. Blanchard—he who ranks next to Mr. Fink as
a railroad expert—wherein he attacks sections 4 and 5 of this bill—the
long and short haul and the pooling sections. He commences his letter
with the following pregnant and suggestive paragraph:
To the Editor of the New York Times:
Permit a response to your comment of the 28th of December touching long and
short haül rates, as treated by the pending interstate-commerce bill, and some
observations upon its other features. Conservative railway managers admit
that it should prohibit discriminating preferences and unreasonable rates, and
require publicity and adequate legal penalties. This entitles their grounds of
. rom its long and short haul and anti-pooling provisions to fair consid-
©I’āºlo Ile 4.
&
428
Just note the admission: “Conservative railroad men admit”—admit
what? Why, that everything in this billis just and right, except sec-
tions 4 to 5. Compare this with the attitude of the railroads before the
Committee of Commerce in this House in 1882—yes, 1882, no longer ago
than that—and you will be astonished and forced to exclaim, “O Lord!
how are the mighty fallen ''' But by this admission we think, and shall
attempt to show, that Mr. Blanchard practically and substantially con-
cedes the justice of the entire bill.
The evils against which relief is sought may very properly be grouped
under two heads, exorbitant rates and unjust discrimination. Too high
rates or odious discrimination in some form are the evils against which
we seek protection. All railroad maladministration, as practiced, and
with which we are at all familiar, leads to one or the other of these
results. We are oppressed, as individuals or as communities, because
the rates are either too high or because they are unequal in some form
or other, and our point objective in any remedial measure must neces.
sarily be to secure cheapness and equality; and whatever tends—nec-
essarily and controllingly tends—to produce exorbitant rates or unjust
discrimination must be eradicated, curtailed, or checked in some form.
This is the true logical and true legislative problem under all circum-
stances, and no sophistry should divert us from the true seat of danger.
Experience, as demonstrated by the live-stock pool in Chicago prior
to 1880, the Standard Oil pool, the Anthracite Coal pool, the late pool
of the Central Union and Southern Pacific Railways, and the present
Colorado pool, all goes to show that there is no instrumentality so
effective to keep up high and crushing discriminations, so as to be almost
prohibitory in their character, as pools, whether of freight or earnings.
As a sample of the Standard Oil pool and extortion, I beg leave to quote
the following from the Drovers’ Journal, of Chicago, of December 21,
1886:
SOMETIIING ABOUT RAILROAD EXTORTION.
The Chicago Tribune, yesterday morning, in speaking of the interstate rail-
road law, gives the following illustrations, showing the relentless and unjust
discriminations practiced against individual shippers in favor of monstrous
monopolies: The Standard Oil Company demanded and received of the Cleve-
land and Marietta Railroad the following terms:
“The Standard Oil Company threatens to store and afterward pipe all oils
under its control unless you make the following arrangement, namely: You
shall make a uniform rate of 35 cents per barrel to all persons except the Stand-
ard Oil Company; you shall charge them 10 cents per barrel for their oil, and
also pay them 25 cents per barrel out of the 35 cents collected &f other shippers.”
The manager of the road allowed the Standard Oil Company a rate more than
60 per cent, below the ordinary charge, and also paid it 70 per cent. of the
* collected from other shippers. What does the thinking public think of
this 2
The following letter was written to the Louisville and Nashville road by their
local agent at Louisville, Ky.:
LOUISVILLE, KY.
DEAR SIR: Wilkinson & Co., Nashville, received car of oil Monday, 13th, sev-
enty barrels, which we suspect, shipped through on the usual fifth-class rate—in
fact, we might say we know it did—paying only $41.50 freight from here; charges,
$57.40. Please turn on another screw.
Yours, truly,
J. M. CULP,
G. F. A., L. and N. Railroad Company.
CHESS CARLEY COMPANY.
The railroad officials complied with the demand, “turned on another scre",7,”
and on the next shipment made to Wilkinson & Co. the rate was $63.
Are outrages like these to continue unchecked? Is the business of the coun-
try to remain subject to blood-letting by pools whenever they desire, and ruin
shippers and producers by extortionate freight rates?
On the 1st of last March the east-bound pool increased the freight on live-stock
40 per cent. and on dressed beef 50 per cent. from Chicago to the seaboard; and
#º 4:9 3.
by this one act, alone they have taken from the pockets of the producers of live-
stock, not thousands, but millions of dollars, which has been divided between
the six trunk lines comprising the east-bound pool.
No doubt the railroad managers and pool commissioners will claim that the
rate made by the Standard Oil Company and the rebates paid them, also the
extortionate freight rates on live stock and dressed beef, were all done for the
interest of the public. No such outrages as those cited above could take place ,
under the Cullom bill, and therefore it is entirely reasonable to suppose that
the measure will be opposed with all the power of the Standard Oil Company,
which has its agents not only in the Senate but in the Cabinet also.
It will also be bitterly opposed by the managers of the leading railroads and
all pool commissioners with the hope of deceiving the public, only to retain
their power and “turn on another screw '' whenever ordered by the railroad
magnates. *
We earnestly hope that every honestly-disposed paper in the country, and
especially those interested in the live-stock industry, will do everything in
their power to further the passage of the Cullom interstate-commerce bill.
And the New York Times of this month, in speaking of the present
Colorado prohibitive pool and of Mr. Adams’s connection with it, uses
this pregnant and suggestive language:
&TNE EFFECT OF POOLING—CUT-THRO AT POLICY OF THE UNION PACIFIC COMPANY.
While railroad managers are making protests against the features of the in-
terstate-commerce bill which prohibit pooling and charging more for short than
for long distances under like conditions, and getting the help of such commer-
cial bodies as the New York Chamber of Commerce, it will be well not to over-
look the existence of actual wrongs and abuses which these provisions are in-
tended to remedy. The correspondence which we published yesterday between
President Porter, of the North Chicago Rolling-Mills, and the officers of the
Southwestern Railway Association and the Union Pacific Railway Company
[copied from the Chicago Tribune] throws a strong light on certain railroad
methods which certainly call for correction.
The Union Pacific Railroad Company has an agreement with the Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fé and the Denver and Rio Grande whereby a division of all
Colorado business is made between the parties to the agreement, to the exclu-
sion of other competing lines. One result of this agreement is the refusal of the
Union Pacific to carry steel rails from Chicago to Colorado intended for the Col-
orado Midland, except at rates which are prohibitory. By putting rates at $16
per ton, when nearly half the distance—to Kansas City—they are only $3 a ton,
the Union Pacific practically refuses a business which President Porter declares
would amount to from $200 000 to $300,000, one-half profit. The purpose of the
refusal is to prevent the building up of a rival to the Denver and Rio Grande
road. An incidental effect is to interfere seriously with the legitimate business
of the Chicago steel manufacturers and to hamper the development of the rail-
road interests of Colorado. It also results in throwing away profitable business
which the Union Pacific might have at a time when it is pleading poverty as an
excuse for having its obligations to the Government placed upon a more favor-
able basis. The treatment of President Porter’s appeal for justice by President
Charles Francis Adams is worthy of the worst days of the Union Pacific man-
agement under Jay Gould and Sidney Dillon.
A still more flagrant instance of the injustice wrought by the Colorado pool is
set forth in the first annual report of the railroad commissioner of Colorado.
From this it appears that in consequence of the tripartite agreement with the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé and the Denver and Rio Grande, the Union
Pacific refused to interchange traffic with the Denver and New Orleans line un-
der arrangements for through rates and a continuous shipment. At a time when
the latter was prepared to guarantee from a single shipper business which
would annount to a train-load of freight a day for months and lead to other profit-
able business, the Union Pacific obstinately refused to provide for it. It refused
to furnish stock-cars at Pueblo for cattle to be carried over its own line when it
was furnishing the Denver and Rio Grande all it wanted, and had others by the
score lying idle on side tracks at Denver week after week. The interests of
shippers at Pueblo and Colorado Springs were seriously injured, and the busi-
mess of the whole region interfered with by unjust discrimination through an
agreement which was not intended to maintain stable rates, but to prevent com-
petition with a party to the pooling agreement. The appeal of the Colorado
railroad commission to Mr. Charles Francis Adams was treated in the same cav-
alier manner as the more recent protest of Mr. Porter.
Mr. Adams, the president of the Union Pacific, seems to be a different man from
Charles Francis Adams, jr., railroad commissioner of Massachusetts and writer
on the abuses of railroad management of years ago. “I cannot understand,”
says Mr. Porter, “how a sincere and honest man could have written the articles
Mr. Adams did and advocate the principles he did as a railroad commissioner
430
of Massachusetts, and now make such communications as president of the rail-
road.” Commissioner Felker, of Colorado, in writing to Mr. Adams, quoted to
him his own language concerning pooling abuses used at Portland, Oreg., as fol-
lows: “The railroad management which undertakes in that way to hamper the
natural freedom of trade is not minding its own business. Whether it is mak-
ing a fortune or not, it does not deserve to make one.” According to the rep-
resentations of its president the Union Pacific is not now making a fortune, and
according to the principles he formerly enunciated it does not deserve to make
one. Its conduct in making discriminating rates, in refusing traffic, and in trying
to crush competition in connecting lines should be taken into account when it
claims to be treated with tenderness in its relations with the Government. The
abuses in railroad management, of which such cases as those referred to above
are samples, have also an important bearing on the protests against the interstate-
commerce bill. &
Is not all this ample evidence of the crushing effect of these pools?
It is possible that, like some great poisons, under certain conditions
these pools may do some good. But the power for goodness is so
out of all proportion to the power for evil that salvation lies only in
absolute prohibition. On the uppermost coast of Norway there is said
to be an ocean whirlpool—called the Maelstrom—of such hideous char-
acter that it absorbs and forever swallows up all boats, vessels, or other
craft that venture near its vortex. And so it seems that these railroad
pools—railroad maelstroms, if you please—are of such malevolent mature
as not only to crush out such shippers as Mr. Porter, and absolutely
debar them from marketing their goods, but also to utterly strangle
such great and good men as Mr. Adams—I mean strangle and oblit-
erate all that anti-monopoly goodness that was considered as apper-
taining to him before he became president of the Union Pacific. His
reply to Mr. Porter was but a polite way of saying, “What are you
going to do about it, anyway?” -
Professor Hadley, of Yale, in his work on Railroad Transportation,
pages 74–76, says, in speaking of pools to prevent too low rates:
There is but one way to prevent these results. If competition is ruinous to
all parties, all parties must stop competing. If it finds no natural limit it must
be artificially limited; it must end in combination. And the moment you have
established an effective combination you have introduced the principle of mo–
nopoly. You have determined prices, not in open market, but by an agreement
among all the sellers.
This agreement may take any one of four forms: 1, agreement to maintain
rates; 2, to divide the field; 3, to divide the traffic; 4, to divide : the earnings.
The last three are commonly known as pools. -
The first is the simplest, but least-effective. There is scarcely an organized in-
dustry where the dealers do not meet and settle upon a schedule of rates and
discounts, agreeing that no one shall sell below these prices. Such agreements
are rarely kept. It is for the interest of all that rates in general should be main-
tained, but it is for the interest of each concern to secure business for itself by
not quite maintaining them. This constitutes a great temptation to depart from
schedule priees; a temptation all the stronger because it is so easy to violate the
general agreement indirectly, and so hard to detect any such violation. The re-
sult is apt to be a system of underhand competition, worse in many respects
than the open competition which existed before there was any agreement at all.
This is why it is found necessary to divide the business among the different
competitors by a pooling agreement. Such agreements are hard to arrange.
There is almost always a dispute about their terms. But as long as they are in
force it is hard to violate them without actual fraud, and it is comparatively
easy to detect such violations and deal with them severely. -
when it is possible to “divide the field '' this course is usually the simplest.
We see it illustrated where different gas or water companies parcel off the dif-
ferent districts of a city to one another, or where nnanufacturers in different
cities agree to leave one another in undisturbed possession of the home market.
We see it not infrequently in agreements between railroads. But in the ma-
jority of cases this arrangement is impracticable, and the rival concerns agree
upon the proportion of business which each is to do. The companies in the
anthracite-coal combination have arranged how much coal each company may
mine. Factory combinations determine how much each concern may manu-
facture. Railroads agree just what percentage of competitive traffic each, road
shall carry.
When one railroad receives more than its agreed share of business, it is gen-
431
•erally inconvenient to send the goods by a rival route, and easier to arrange
matters by a money payment. This brings us to the fourth and closest form of
combination, where there is a division of earnings. The machinery for secur-
ing this division may have any degree of organization up to the point of actual
consolidation of the competing interests.
The dangers of a pool lie in the arbitrary power which it places in the hands
of a few men to deal as they will with the business of the country. Even grant-
-ing that the actual abuses of combination are less than those of competition, it
seems like taking refuge from the excesses of democracy in an enlightened
despotism. There is some slight truth in the analogy, but we are likely to
carry it too far. *
Our courts have always set their faces sternly against pools in what-
soever form. -
Pooling is a violation of the common law, because it is a restraint upon the
freedom of trade and a conspiracy against the public welfare. And this doc-
trine is maintained in the following American cases : 8 Mass., 223; 1 Pickering,
450; 35 Pickering, 188; 19 Piekering, 51: 35 Ohio State Reports, 672; 68 Pennsyl-
vania State, 173; 5 Denio, 434; 4 Demio, 349.
Judge Gibson, in the case of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against
Carlisle (Brightly, 40), says:
“I take it that a combination is criminal whenever the act has a necessary
tendency to prejudice the public or to oppress individuals by unjustly subject-
‘ing them to the power of confederates. ‘The object of these combinations is
to raise the rate of freight, and the means adopted is to suspend competition
and place the traffic under the exclusive control of the combination.’”
&
So contracts to prevent competition, as for instance, not to extend a
railroad to a given point to prevent its competing with another road,
held void and against public policy. (R. R. Co. vs. R. R. Co., 3 Prob.
N. Y., 411.)
The attorneys in this case were William Tracy on one side and W.
iM. Evarts on the other, and both conceded this point. Also State vs.
R. R. Co., 29 Conn. 538, to the same effect.
The following is a recent and fresh sample of how our courts regard
pools. I read from a clipping of one of our public journals of January
4, 1887, as follows:
POOLS TO ADVANCE TEIE PRICE OF LAND ARE UNI, AWFUL CONSPIRACIES.
NEw York, January 3.
James R. Keene, N. G. Miller, and Washington Butcher's Sons, in December,
1880, formed a pool to advance the price of land, and employed E. A. Kent &
Co., of this city, and Poole, Kent & Co., as brokers, for the purehase and sale of
land. It is said that a small fortune was realized. The members of the pool
charged that their brokers had defrauded them by making fictitious purchases
and sales. Keene suéd Kent and others in the supreme court to recover his
shafe of the profits of the pool. They interposed in defense that the transac-
tions were gambling, and that the law would not force them to account, &
Judge Daniels, of the general term of the supreme court, has rendered his opin-
ion in the matter, reversing the opinion of the court below directing the brokers to
file a bill of particulars of the pool transactions. He holds that the defense in-
terposed is valid, and that the law does not sanction the form of gambling.
Combinations to keep articles of food or other necessaries off the market, with
‘the view of getting a higher price for it, are unlawful conspiracies punishable
as a crime. Where successfully carried out, the effect would be to impose an
additional-burden on the public. It is little less than respectabie robbery un-
'sanctioned by law. There are no legal means to force a division of the plunder.
They cannot appeal to the courts.
The decision concludes by saying that Keene has no right to expect the court
will interpose its authority in his behalf to enforce that well-known principle
of honor upon which his alleged rights must be successfully dependent.
Not a single decision can be found to the contrary in this country.
The nearest to 1t is an ew parte direction of Judge Deady in Oregon to
the receiver of a railroad company, where the judge seemed to have
ºforgotten for the time being his judicial functions and assumed the rôle
of a railroad manager. The English cases are no authority as to what
the common law is, for the reason that under their railroad laws pool-
ing is, under certain circumstances, if consented to by the shareholders
432
of the respective companies and approved by the board of trade (an in-
corporate body, the head of which is a member of the British cabinet or
Government), permitted to a limited extent.
If pools are dangerous, and ought to be restrained, as a matter of
public policy in respect to all these smaller classes of business, how
much more important and vital is it not that this the root of so many
evils be entirely checked and restrained in respect to this the greatest,
most omnipresent, and most omnipotent of all employments. The
right of pooling being destroyed, we know that one of the greatest.
weapons for extortion and discrimination is fully sheathed. The Colo-
rado pool is a complete bar between Mr. Porter and his customers.
Our aim should be to so legislate—and that the present bill does—that,
the erection of such pool-barriers can not be possible in the future.
Mr. Blanchard says that railroads can not get along without the right to.
make such pools. Has it got to this pass, that carriers can not thrive,
without the power to inflict discriminatory, extortionate, and prohibi—
tory rates, as in the case of Mr. Porter.
Conservative railroad men agree, says Mr. Blanchard, “that dis-
criminating preferences should be prohibited.” So say we all. And
in order to effectually prevent it, we forbid that which is most pro-
ductive of such preferences—pooling.
The other feature of the bill which Mr. Blanchard attacks is the
so-called long and short haul clause. And yet, bitterly as he opposes
this section, by his own admission it rests on as strong foundation as
the other features of the bill which he says conservative railroad men
approve. Before proceeding to discuss this feature of the bill, I cannot
help considering one of the so-called protests—evidently made to
order—-with which we have of late been so plentifully favored. I espe-
cially desire to refer to that of the Chamber of Commerce of New York,
found in the RECORD of January 14, 1887, where it is dwelt upon with
much favor and unction.
The committee of the New York Chamber of Commerce say:
Your committee are of opinion that (section 4) the prohibition to charge more
for a shorter haul than a longer one is objectionable and certain to work against
the public welfare. If enacted, it would do little good to any one. Local rates,
would not be thereby reduced, but “through traffic,” which, on the average, fur-
nishes not to exceed one-quarter of the revenues of the trunk lines, would be
either refused, or raised to a standard of local rate—thus obstructing and mate-
rially decreasing the moving and exportation of cotton, grain, petroleum, and,
other products.
“Local rates would not be reduced thereby,” “but through traffic
* * would be either refused or raised to a standard of local
rates.” “Local rates would not be reduced thereby.” Wise men of
Gotham, we thank-you for the frank admission. But, then, this being
true, why should “through traffic ’’ be either refused or put up to
local rates? Pray, why, except through innate, inborn railroad “cus-
sedness,” and as defiance to the legislative will?
There are, according to Professor Hadley (page 111), three forms of
discriminations—between classes of business, localities, and individ-
uals. And of all these the most dangerous, because the most far-
reaching and business-destroying is discrimination between localities.
Professor Hadley (pages 120, 121, 122) bears unwilling and uncon-
scious testimony to this. Here is what he says:
Aspecial contract, for instance, is given to millers at Niagara. It produces new
business at that point. But if it discriminates unfairly against the millers at
Rochester or Buffalo, the gain of business at one place is made up by a loss at
the other. Not a direct loss, be it observed; the mills will not shut down; but
the natural growth of business will be checked. The railroad manager sees the
\
433
mill at Niagara with its new traffic; he does not see how he may have prevented
the growth of the old traffic at Rochester.
On the other hand, the great majority of local and personal discriminations are
in favor of the strong. As such they do great harm to the community by in-
creasing inequalities of power; and in the end they are apt to do harm to the
roads themselves. The Standard Oil Company was fostered by a system of
special rates until it became strong enough to dictate its own terms.
This was an extreme case; but there is almost always a certain opposition
between the present and future interests of a railroad. If a company’s object
simply is to make as good a dividend as possible for the current year, that
object is best obtained by squeezing the local business, of which it is sure, and
securing competitive business on almost any terms, however low. But for the
permanent interests of the road this is bad policy. The local business may bear
the squeezing for a year or two, but it will gradually die under the effects.
Such a policy destroys a road's best customers and strengthens the hands of
those who are in a position to dictate their own terms.
Again, on pages 20 and 21 of his work, the professor remarks:
JReference has already been made to the inequality of railroad rates. This in-
equality always operates in favor of large cities. The reduction in rates was
made under the stress of competition. It was made first and fullest where com-
petition was sharpest. Even in those countries in Europe where the State
owned many of the railroads but feeble opposition was offered to this tendency
during the years 1850–1872. In England and the United States it was pursued
with utter recklessness.
The aggregation of business in cities of itself gives the large establishment an
advantage over the small dealer. The latter has no longer a local custom of
which he is sure. His personal attention to details begins to count for less. His
competitor's large capital and wide connection count for more. Too often mere
unscrupulousness in business may seem to count for most of all. The Small cap-
italist and the independent workman are crushed out. The distinction of em-
ployers and employed becomes more sharply drawn. The workman can no
longer confidently hope to become the employer of his own labor. It is these
tendencies which give force to the agitation in favor of socialism. Unfortunately,
the effect of the policy of most of our railroads is to intensify these tendencies.
They do not merely favor cities; they favor individual producers. The largest
or most unscrupulous concern gets the best rates. Differences are made which
are sufficient to cripple all smaller competitors and sooner or later drive them
to the wall, and concentrate industry in a few hands.
But where one set of men own a railroad and another set of men use it, the
two only coming in contact through the medium of the railroad management,
we have a state of things corresponding to the “absenteeism '’ of Irish landlords
and involving conflicts or dangers of the same kind.
And again the professor, on page 138, adds:
If the object of a railroad manager is simply to pay as large a dividend as pos-
sible for the current year, he can best do it by squeezing his local traffic, of which
he is sure, and securing through traffic at the expense of other roads by specially
low rates—that is, by a policy of heavy discrimination. But the permanent
effect of such a policy is to destroy the local trade, which gives a road its best
and surest custom, and to build up a trade which can go by another route when-
ever it pleases. The permanent effect of such a policy is thus ruinous to the
railroad as well as the local shipper.
Mark the language. “The permanent effect,” mark you, “of such a
policy”—that is, discrimination between localities—“is thus ruinous to
the railroads as well as the local shipper.” Here is a calm, “conserva-
tive ’’ railroad authority—for manifestly he leans that way—as to the
short-sightedness, deleterious and baleful effect, of local discrimina-
tions. Undue and unjust discriminations have always been frowned
upon and held illegal by our courts, in whatsoever form manifested.
Our courts have always aimed to uphold and enforce equality in rates
and facilities. (Messenger vs. Railroad Company, 7 Vroom (N. J.),
407; Railroad Company vs. Railroad Company, 110 United States Su-
preme Court Rep., 667; Pierce on Railroads, 498; Hutchinson on Car-
tiers, sections 297-303; McDuffie vs. Railroad Company, 52 N. H., 430.)
In the Messenger case the court says: “I am not able to see how it can be ad-
missible for a common carrier to demand a different hire from various persons
I S C 28
434
;
for an identical kind of service under indentical conditions. A person having
a public duty to discharge is undoubtedly bound to exercise such office for the
equal benefit of all, and, therefore, to permit the common carrier to charge va-
rious prices, according to the person with whom he deals, for the same services,
is to forget that he owes a duty to the community.” The very groundwork of
the Mumm case was clearly outlined in the Messenger case. . .
The bill in sections 2 and 3 prohibits unjust discriminations between
individuals and classes of business. Mr. Blanchard says that conser-
vative railroad men concede the justice of this prohibition. As a
matter of law and ethics there can be no question of its justice. If it
is our duty as legislators to protect individuals against unjust discrimi-
nations, surely it is much more our duty, as greater interests are in-
volved, to protect our little communities against the rapacity of the
large cities and large terminal points. Discriminations between indi-
viduals are unjust and illegal because they tend to crush out the weak
and poor, the small shippers, and build up the rich and strong, the
big shippers. So discriminations between localities, while it builds up
large terminal points, utterly dries up and crushes out the numerous
small intermediate points. The life blood of these smaller places is
transfused by discriminating rates into the vitals of the large terminal
points. My motion is, I am free to state, and I can see no other honest con-
clusion, that remedial legislation should be extended to protect the
weak and helpless locality as well as the weak and helpless individual.
We owe a duty to both, and it would be gross shortsightedness, may
more, it would be cowardly at this juncture to forego our duty to
either.
In this connection, too, we must not lose sight of the fact that while
the bill absolutely and totally prohibits unjust discriminations between
individuals, it is only to a limited extent and in a qualified degree that
discriminations between localities are prohibited; it must be as to the
like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions, over the same line, in the same direction, and where the
shorter distance is included within the longer, that no more can be
charged for a shorter than a longer haul, and even this limited inhibi-
tion the commission may, in its discretion, in particular instances, waive
or modify, thus leaving the provision with ample elasticity.
When the railroads now contend that the right of unlimited local dis-
crimination, as distinguished from personal discrimination, is essen-
tial, and a sine qua mom to their well-being and existence, we have
good ground to question and doubt the sincerity and truthfulness of
such contention. For it is but a very short time ago that they made
exactly the same claims as to the necessity and justice of personal dis-
criminations. We were then gravely told that it was both just and
necessary to discriminate in favor of the great shipper as against the
smaller—railroads could not well exist or prosper without this privilege.
But all this, Mr. Blanchard informs us, is now obsolete and a thing of
the past. Not only is the power of unlimited local discrimination
not necessary or essential to the railroads, but the free exercise of such
power is in the long run detrimental and destructive to the best inter-
ests of the roads. Professor Hadley is clearly of this opinion, for he
says, in speaking of such practice (page 138):
“But the permanent effect of such a policy is to destroy the local trade,
which gives a road its best and surest custom, and to build up a trade
which can go by another route whenever it pleases. The permanent
effect of such a policy is ruinous to the railroad as well as the local
shipper.” This is the unbiased opinion and judgment of a great thinker
and student on this subject—a gentleman who certainly can not be
;
435
accused of unfairness or unfriendliness to the railroads. We have no
fears that this trifling and limited protection which section 4 aims to
throw around our small towns, cities, and villages will of itself occasion
any increase of rates from the large terminal cities or large terminal
points. These “competitive” places, under a law prohibiting pooling,
will take care of themselves, and suffer no harm; and we believe, as
Mr. Hadley suggests, that this bit of relief and justice given to the
smaller towns will so stimulate the business at these non-competitive
points that the slight reduction in rates will be more than made up by
the increased volume of business, and that prosperity and commercial
success will be more evenly distributed and diffused, and not confined,
as now, to a very large extent, to the large terminal points.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is involved in this section 4 something still
more important than anything I have so far suggested, or than any
mere commercial considerations. The discriminations between locali-
ties as practiced by our great trunk lines builds up abnormally fast,
at the expense of the small intermediate towns, a few large and
immense terminal points; and it is in these great commercial centers
where, along with their huge volumes of traffic and commerce, large
masses of combustible human material are gathered together and stored.
This human dynamite is attracted by and the product of the concen-
trative policy of the railroads; and we are already clearly admonished
that the weak point in our social fabric is in these greaf human masses
concentrated in our larger cities, and that if any harm happens to the
Republic it will be found that the seat of danger and the stress and
strain are in our New Yorks, Chicagos, and other great terminal points.
Not that these poor, toiling human masses thus gathered together are to
blame for all this. They are thus driven and huddled together by the
stress of traffic, propelled by concentrated capital back of a locomotive
engine.
The mainstay and balance-wheel of free institutions—the seat of a
pure and honest ballot—is ever mainly to be sought among our smaller
towns and rural communities. These, therefore, as a matter of sound
State policy, it is folly and sheer wantonness to neglect or suffer to be
overrun. We are convinced that, looking to the great future of our
country—and our legislative vision surely ought to extend beyond the
ruffled and fleeting present—that true wisdom and true statesmanship
lie in diffusing rather than concentrating, territorially speaking, our
labor, capital, manufactures, commerce, and traffic. The prosperity of
all this multitude of small hamlets can alone render our country truly
prosperous and progressive.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, in compliance with oft-re-
peated pledges made to my constituents when they elected me to this
and to the Fiftieth Congress, in obedience to the dictates of my con-
science, and following my best judgment, I rise to oppose this measure.
For eight years—ever since I became acquainted with the provisions
of what is so widely known as the Reagan bill, I have given it my
unqualified support. I voted for its consideration in the Forty-sixth
Congress. Under the leadership of the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
REAGAN] I voted with the majority of this House at the last session
to strike out all after the enacting clause of the Cullom bill, and to sub-
stitute in its stead the Reagan bill. The motion was adopted, and I
then voted for its passage. In common with my constituents, I con-
sidered the Reagan bill a wise and well-guarded measure for the regula-
tion of commerce among the States. I considered it both safe and
conservative, and free from dangerous experimental provisions.
436
But the bill now under consideration is in no sense the Reagan bill,
nor does it bear the slightest resemblance to that measure. To prove
this, I first quote from the conference report signed by Mr. REAGAN
and the other managers on the part of both the House and the Senate:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the House to the bill (S. 1532) “to regulate commerce,” hav-
ing met, after full and free conference have agreed to recommend, and do re-
commend, to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its amendment, and agree to the bill of the Senate,
with the following amendment thereto in the nature of a substitute, and that
the Senate agree to the same:
In other words, the managers recommend that the House recede
from the Reagan bill, which it has passed, and agree to substantially the
Cullom bill, which it has beretofore refused to pass.
The author of the bill, Senator CULLOM, in closing the debate, said
concerning the action of the Senate conferees:
We tried to do the best we could with the bill that the Senate passed during
the last session, to keep the bill as near to what the Senate had it as we could
; and to arrive at an agreement between the House and the Senate con-
€reeS.
I submit that the majority of the assaults on the bill now under consideration
have been against provisions that were in the bill when the Senate voted for it
during the last session of Congress.
And I submit that the assaults made on the bill in this House to-day
have been on sections which were in the Cullom bill when the House
rejected it at the last session. Again, he declares that “the Senate con-
ferees considered it their duty to cling as far as possible to every por-
tion of the bill as it was passed by the Senate.” The bill under con-
sideration shows that they held their grip successfully. This will still
more clearly appear as we proceed with a comparison of the two-rival
bills.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Whom are you quoting now?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I am quoting from Mr. CULLOM. /
The third section of the Reagan bill relates to rebates, and is as follows:
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the
transportation of property as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to allow any re-
bate, drawback, or other advantage in any form upon shipments made or serv-
ices rendered as aforesaid by him or them.
There the section stops, just as the commandment stops when it says
“Thou shalt not steal.” [Laughter. T
The language is plain and unequivocal. It carries with it no doubt,
no uncertainty. But it was discarded by the conferees and the second
section of the Cullom bill substituted in its place. It is as follows:
That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, directly
or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge,
demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less com-
pensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation of
passengers or property subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges, de-
mands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for him
or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind
of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such com-
mon carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby
prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
It will be noticed that this is taken from the Cullom bill word for
word. In the name of all the schoolmasters at once, I want to know
what this section means. One thing is clear: it allows special rates,
rebates, drawbacks, and other devices whereby a common carrier may
receive from one person greater compensation for services rendered than
it receives from other persons for like services, provided the service is
not “contemporaneous” and “under substantially similar circum-
*.
437
stances and conditions.” No provision of this character was ever in-
serted in the Reagan bill from the time it was first introduced in the
Forty-fourth Congress down to the present hour. The language used
in the Reagan bill is, as I have shown, an unequivocal prohibition;
but this conference bill merely limits the right to give rebates, draw-
backs, &c.; nothing more.
A common carrier may continue to grant special rates, rebates, draw-
backs, &c., subject only to this limitation. The gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. BUTTERworTH] yesterday asked the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. CRISP] to give him an illustration of how this provision would
work. I will give the House an illustration : Here is a poor shipper
who has annually four car-loads of freight to ship from a given point
in the West to the city of Chicago. For that freight he is charged a
certain rate. Here is another shipper, right along side of him, who, ,
by reason of special favor, rebates, drawbacks, &c., received in the past,
has become rich and is a cattle merchant, an extensive lumber dealer,
and a grain merchant, and he ships, perhaps, 200 car-loads annually
from the same point to the same market. The poor shipper is charged,
we will say, $60 a car; the rich shipper, having fifty times the amount
of business per annum, is charged the same rate per car, but is al-
lowed a rebate of $20 per car. I want to know whether the granting
of such a rebate would be a violation of this section?
Mr. CRISP. I will answer the gentleman.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Let me answer my own question first, and
then I will hear your answer. I undertake to say, Mr. Speaker, that
that would not be a violation of this section, because the services ren-
dered to these two shippers would not be likely to be rendered “con-
temporaneously ’’ nor “under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions.” I say that is the meaning that will be given to this sec-
tion. I yield now for the answer of the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. CRISP. I only wish to say, in reply to the question of my friend
from Iowa [Mr. WEAver], that that section of the bill is intended to
prohibit a rebate in just such cases as the one he has stated, and the
terms employed in the section, “substantially similar circumstances
and conditions,” were put there in the interest of the people, so that
the railroads might not say that because one shipper had two car-loads
and the other had two hundred they should not be treated allke. The
section provides that there shall be no discrimination in cases substan-
tially alike.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. That is the gentleman’s interpretation of it.
Mr. CRISP. It is the uniform interpretation of it. *
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. There was no such provision in the Reagan
bill. It was in the Cullom bill, which the gentleman voted against at
the last session of Congress, but it never was in the Reagan bill from
the time it was first presented down to the present hour.
Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman permit me to inquire—
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Wait a minute. The gentleman says that
provision was put in there to prevent such discriminations. If so, why
was it not put into the Reagan bill at some time during the protracted
controversy that has taken place during the past ten or fifteen years?
If the gentleman is right it is a little strange that the distinguished gen-
tleman from Texas never thought it was necessary during those long
years. 'Why was it not put into the Reagan bill at the last session of
Congress?
Mr. CRISP. One word, if the gentleman will allow me. The dis-
tinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] being absent, and the
438
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVERI seeming to put great stress upon
the name, “Reagan bill,” I say to him on my authority, and I ven-
ture to say that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] will sustain
me, that that gentleman did approve this language, and thought it was
an improvement upon the section as he had it in his bill, in the interest
of preventing discriminations. [Laughter and applause.]
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. It is a very strange thing, Mr. Speaker,
that the gentleman from Texas approved that section at the instance of
the author of the Senate bill, and approved it in this conference com-
mittee, although he had never approved it before at any time in the long
history of this controversy. How can it possibly be an improvement
upon the corresponding section of the Reagan bill, which prohibits re-
bates under all circumstances?
I pass to the section of this bill which relates to “preferences and
advantages.” This third section of the pending bill is shrouded in the
same mystery and uncertainty as the Second section. It is taken bodily
from the Cullom bill, and provides as follows:
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or ad-
vantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any
particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any par-
ticular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular descrip-
tion of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any
respect whatsoever.
Does anybody know what is the meaning of this language, “undue
or unreasonable?” I will tell you what it means. It means that the
railroad companies are to be the judges of whether the preference or
advantage is “undue or unreasonable.” Where will the people be
compelled to go to ascertain whether the construction of the railroad
companies is right? Into the Federal courts, where business is three
years behind hand, or before a commission sitting a thousand miles away
from their homes. If they go into the Federal courts they must await
the slow process of litigation in those tribunals, during which time the
railroad companies will be allowed to put their own construction upon.
the meaning of that section. That is what it means.
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman understands that a railroad company
can not continue to do what it has been enjoined from doing.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I know that; but the party injured must
go into a Federal court to enjoin the company.
Mr. CRISP. But he can obtain an injunction pending the suit; and
while the injunction continues to operate the railroad company can
not collect the tariff in question.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Is it to be supposed that a poor man, such
as I spoke of awhile ago, transporting only 4 car-loads or less per an-
num, and whose loss under the discrimination is only $80 or less, will
go to a Federal court for an injunction or to litigate with these pow-
erful corporations, who can transport their own witnesses without ex-
pense to them from one State or one part of the Union to another?
The remedy suggested is without value.
Now, take the long and short haul clause, and let us see whether we
have any of the Reagan bill in that. The following is section 4 of the
Reagan bill, as it passed the House, in regard to long and short hauls;
and the language is clear and unmistakable:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the
transportation of property, as provided in the first section of this act, to charge
or receive any greater compensation for a similar amount and kind of property,
for carrying, receiving, storing, forwarding, or handling the same for a shorter
than for a longer distance, which includes the shorter distance, on any one rail-
\
439
road ; and the road of a corporation shall include all the road in use by such cor-
poration, whether owned or operated by it under a contract, agreement, or lease
by such corporation.
This is the whole of section 4 of the Reagan bill. Is there any doubt
about what it means? Now, observe that the committee of conference
have abandoned this fourth section as they have the other section of
the Reagan bill to which I alluded, and have adopted the fourth sec-
tion of the Cullom bill:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gace for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a
longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being in-
cluded within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authoriz-
ing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as
great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however,
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances
for the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may
from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common car-
rier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
Now, this is substantially the Cullom bill, the only difference being
that the commission, while prohibited from making general rules for
the exemption of common carriers in special cases, are clothed with the
dangerous power of prescribing the extent to which the common carrier
may be relieved, which means practically the same thing. And their
action is final; there is no appeal from it to any court. Can all the
lawyers in Philadelphia combined tell me what is meant by “in the
aggregate,” or “under substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions,” in this section?
Why, the Senate conferees disagree. So do the House conferees.
They each disagree among themselves. The Senate disagrees and the
Płouse disagrees. And can it be supposed that the five commissioners
appointed under the provisions of this act will agree? Is it not to be
presumed that they will disagree also as to the meaning of the section?
One other word. The act of the commission is final; and it is an
ea, parte hearing. It is done on application of the railroad company,
and there is no provision whatever in the section for the apperance of
anybody in behalf of the people. It is purely and simply a provision
for the railroad companies to the exclusion of the interests and rights
of the people. -- .*
Gentlemen may say the commissioners will gladly hear persons repre-
senting localities. How may we know in the long years during which
this commission will exist, in all probability, there will not come a
time when the right of the people to be heard will be denied by this
commission, or when this commission may hear in a star-chamber the
application of a railroad company to be exempted from the fourth sec-
tion of the bill.
I protest against it, Mr. Speaker, in the name of the people who have
the right to have ample provision for their appearance and for their
right to be heard in a tribunal which is to pass upon their rights.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Suppose they were disposed to hear these
complaints, at what time might an applicant hope to be heard in view
of the number of questions which would arise, what time in the cen-
tury 2 [Laughter.]
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. That is only a repetition of the question
that John asked on the Island of Patmos, How long, O Lord, how
long? [Renewed laughter.]
440
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Now, how long? [Laughter.]
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Never. .
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. So I think. *.
Mr. CRISP. May I ask the gentleman a question ? -
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Yes. -
Mr. CRISP. Suppose the gentleman from Iowa was charged with the
investigation of a particular question, would he or would he not give
both sides an opportunity to be heard 2
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. There is not any doubt about that, but I
shall not be on the commission. [Laughter and applause.]
Mr. CRISP. I am glad we have. material, then, out of which to
make an honest commission. # .
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us come to the
clause of the Reagan bill prohibiting combinations for pooling. It is
as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons carrying property as aforesaid
to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination for pooling of freights, or
pooling freights of different or competing railroads by dividing between them
the aggregate or net proceeds of such railroads or any portion of them, and in
any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights or earnings as aforesaid,
each day of its continuance, shall be deemed a separate offense.
It will be observed the freight pools were alone referred to in the
Reagan bill, but the Reagan bill only relates to the freight traffic, and
this is in harmony with the other provisions of that bill. But the bill
now under consideration undertakes to deal with freight and passenger
traffic, and why should it stop with a proposition for freight pools and
leave the passenger pool undisturbed. There can be no question this
is the plain meaning of section 5, and I will quote the exact language.
It is as follows:
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provis-
ions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with any
other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and
competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds
of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an
agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance
shall be deemed a separate offense. -
Now in construing that section, and I doubt whether there is any
one on this floor who will differ with me, pooling of freight and freight
earnings is alone prohibited. Does the gentleman from Georgia take
issue with me on that point?
Mr. CRISP. He does.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. In what respect? . *
Mr. CRISP. , I can give you the reason for the transposition of those
words.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I shall be glad to hear it.
Mr. CRISP. The Reagan bill prohibited the pooling of freights.
That was the language of the bill. It was conceived that that might
relate to pools, some of which exist in the United States, by which rail-
roads agree what proportion of freight each one will carry. The other
provision was put in to reach the other character of pool, which is not
a pooling of freights, but a pooling of the earnings of the road. In
the case of pooling freights of course it can apply only to the trans-
portation of freights, while in the case of pooling the aggregate receipts
of the roads it applies to the receipts from all sources.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Now the gentleman from Georgia avoids
Scylla but strikes Charybdis. He jumps from one difficulty into an-
...”
441
other if he takes that position. It will not be claimed that the Reagan
bill prohibited pooling of anything but freights and freight earnings.
Mr. CRISP. Not freight rates. _-
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Well, freights. But I will read the lan-
guage of the bill itself, so that there can be no question about it:
Or to pool the freights of different and competing railroads by dividing be-
tween them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such railroads or
any portion of them. And in any case of an agreement for the pooling of
freights or earnings, as aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be deemed a
separate offense. .*
The gentleman will not claim, then, that the Reagan bill prohibited
passenger pools. It clearly did not relate to passenger traffic in any
sense whatever.
Mr. CRISP. It did not.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. It did not, as is admitted now by the
gentleman from Georgia himself.
Now you have copied almost exactly the language of the fifth sec-
tion of the Reagan bill. You have not changed its meaning at all ;
and one thing is certain, that the penalty prescribed here :
And in any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights or earnings, as
aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be deemed a separate offense.
In no event could a passenger pool be guilty of a separate offense
for each day under the plain language of this section. -
Mr. CRISP. I know the gentleman from Iowa wants to be entirely
frank.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Of course. . -
Mr. CRISP. I must have been unfortunate in my explanation of the
loilſ. The Reagan bill provided that it should be illegal for the carrier
to pool—have you got the language there of the bill?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I have.
Mr. CRISP. Will you be kind enough to read that provision ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Certainly. ,
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons carrying property as aforesaid
-to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination for the pooling of freights,
or to pool the freights of different and competing railroads, by dividing, &c.
Mr. CRISP. “By dividing ;” and I ask the attention of the House
to this, for that is a clear distinction. It provided that it should be
unlawful to pool freights of competing roads, by dividing the aggre-
gate of the net proceeds of the earnings of the roads.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Yes, sir.
Mr. CRISP. Now, there are pools in the country, as I said a moment
ago, that do not relate to money received for the transportation of freight,
but which relate to the freight itself. Railroads agree that a certain
road shall carry so much of the freight, another so much, and so on,
but this is a pool of the freight itself. The language of the Reagan
bill we thought was improved when we said we prohibited that, and
also the division of money arising from freights. -
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. That is entirely another interpretation of
a doubtful section. But one thing is certain, that the penalty pre-
scribed by this section making each day of its continuance a separate
offense would not apply. The maximum 'fine of $5,000 would alone
apply. If they pool the earnings, it will be but one offense, if it con-
tinues for a year. If they pool passenger rates or earnings even under
the gentleman’s construction, it is only one offense, for which $5,000
is the maximum fine, although the pool may continue throughout the
442
year. It is a mere bagatelle, not sufficient to deter the railroads from
entering into a passenger pool, or sufficient to deter them from pooling:
their earnings from that source where they perhaps make millions of
dollars each out of the pool. It might be only the minimum penalty
of $1. Is that, I ask, sufficient to deter the railroads from pooling or
from going into a passenger pool? Certainly not.
Mr. CRISP. I beg the gentleman’s pardon—
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Well, what is it then 2
Mr. CRISP. The provision to which you refer makes each day a
Separate offense. -
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Yes, sir; in the Reagan bill.
Mr. CRISP. That clause is not the clause under which the railroad
would be punished for a violation of this law. The punitory pro-
vision says that for the commission of every act declared by this act to
be unlawful the officers shall be punished by a fine.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. By a fine of $5,000. Now suppose they
make a pool that lasts twelve months, of the passenger earnings or the
freight earnings, what is the penalty under your bill?
Mr. CRISP. Why, undoubtedly the penalty would be the $5,000
fine put upon the corporation, and every day would be a separate of
fense.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. If it were the pooling of freights. -
Mr. CRISP. It would, in my humble judgment, if it were the pool-
ing of passenger fares. But did the gentleman ever know of a pas-
Senger pool? * -
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Certainly. I am astonished at the ques-
tion. There have been such pools all over the country. They were
referred to in the debates in the Senate. They exist. There are pas-
senger pools all over the country. And there are instances where rail-
roads have cut passenger rates to one dollar and kept it up for months
to force their way into a passenger pool, and they had to be received
into that passenger pool in order to save the other roads and restore the
old rates.
Here you have another section which is doubtful.
Now, these are the controlling provisions of this bill except the pro-
visions which relate to the commission and that portion which relates
to the courts that shall have jurisdiction to hear complaints under this.
act. Neither the commission clause nor the court clause that you have
in this bill were in the Reagan bill. Neither were your rebate section,
your preference section, your long and short haul section—none of those
were in the Reagan bill, and they are the controlling and important
sections of the bill.
It seems to be the theory of the pending bill to do as little for the
people as possible; and in making that remark I wish to say I am en-
tirely impersonal in everything I say here, and desire to be so. It seems
to be the theory of the pending bill, I repeat, to do as little for the peo-
ple as possible and to render those sections of the bill relating to the
rights of the people as obscure and unintelligible as human ingenuity
can make them. To use the language of a distinguished member of
this House, “If the hand of a Talleyrand was not present in the con-
struction of this bill then all appearances are deceptive.”
Suppose the great Lawgiver had constructed the Ten Commandments
with the same uncertainty. Suppose he had said: “Thou shalt not
steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet—con-
temporaneously or under substantially similar circumstances and con-
ditions” [laughter]; or suppose, at the conclusion of the decalogue
443
the following provision had been added: “Provided, however, that
upon application to the high priest or ecclesiastical commissioner ap-
pointed under the provisions of this act persons so designated may be
authorized to cheat, steal, bear false witness, or covet, and said com-
mission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which said per-
sons may be relieved from any or all of said commandments.” Under
such circumstances would not the world have been without moral law
from Moses to CULLOM and from Mount Sinai to Pike's Peak? [Great
laughter.]
A distinguished gentleman [Senator FRYE] discussing this bill said,
in another place:
I should like to know what the fourth section means from this discussion. I
should like to know how I or my constituents are to determine what it means
from this discussion. I should like to know what lights have been thrown upon
it. The conferees disagree in relation to it; almost every Senator who has dis-
cussed it disagrees with the other Senators in relation to it. Boards of trade
in Boston and Indianapolis, the Chamber of Commerce in New York, Legisla-
tures of the different States, all absolutely disagree diametrically as to what this
fourth section is.
And another Senator, in another place not mentionable here, character-
ized the bill as follows: -
But there are matters in which, in my opinion, the bill is even more fatally de-
fective, if that were possible, than in the particulars to which attention has been
Galled. I regret that I have to vote for it, and I think there are a great many
others in the same condition. This is a bill which practically nobody wants and
which everybody intends to vote for, a bill which nobody is satisfied with and
which everybody intends to accept, a bill which nobody knows what it means
and yet we have all agreed it ought to pass.
But the distinguished gentleman is too broad and sweeping when
he says the bill is in the condition he describes. It is only those por-
tions of the measure which refer to the rights of the people which are
obscure and shrouded in mystery. The things which are certain in
this bill are precisely the things which the people do not want, and
the things which are uncertain are precisely those about which the
people demand the greatest possible certainty. All the safeguards
thrown around the corporations are plain and unmistakable. There
is no uncertainty whatever here. We will examine them in their
order.
THREE THINGS THAT ARE CERTAIN.
The commission clause is certain. Does this House know that per-
force of the very provision creating this commission it is provided that
the terms of four of the commissioners will expire during the next
Presidential term? The commissioners hold their office for two, three,
four, five, six years from the 1st of January, 1887.
And only one of the five appointed can be reappointed by the pres-
ent administration; four out of five of the commissioners must be ap-
pointed by the next incumbent of the Presidential office.
Mr. STEELE. Do you object to that because we are going to have
a Republican 2 [Laughter.]
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. This is to be a political board, and it is
expressiy made so by section 11, which provides that not more than
three of the commissioners shall be appointed from the same political
party. Why is that provision in the bill? Why is politics expressly
legislated into this bill? -
Mr. ROWELL. Does not that give permission to appoint men who
do not belong to either party ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Oh, yes; but does anybody believe they
will do it?
444
The construction which these men place upon the law will be of the
highest possible political consequence, and does anybody doubt that, if
the next President of the United States should be a Republican, and
having the appointment of the new members of the commission, that
three of the members appointed by the present administration will
go out, and three Republicans be placed on the board 2 I say that
the functions of this board will make their decisions of the highest
political significance, and unless the commissioners are stronger than
human nature has generally been found to be when tempted, they will
have the strongest possible temptation to make their decisions such as
to gain the greatest amount of political power. Have we not seen that
manifested upon the highest bench in the world 2 Have we not seen
it in the subordinate courts of the country, political bias everywhere?.
Why, it is foolish to suppose that these men will be above political
bias, political preference, and political leanings.
Another point with regard to this commission. It will be absolutely
impotent to do anything for the people. Why, my colleagues, we have
in this country 135,000 miles of railway, rapidly increasing, existing
in thirty-eight States and nine Territories, with depots every 6 or 8
miles along the whole 135,000 miles, doing business every hour of every
day with sixty millions of people ; how will it be possible for a little
court of five men, holding their sessions here in Washington, 1,200
miles away from my constituents and much farther from those who live
nearer the setting sun—how will it be possible, I ask, for such a little
court to determine the matters in controversy arising between sixty
millions of people and this vast net-work of corporations covering the
whole country 2 They can not do it. It is impossible. Five commis-
Sioners can not properly attend to the business of any one of the great
trunk lines of this country, much less to all the interstate commerce
of America. It is utterly impossible.
Why, sir, we have in this country in every State circuit courts and
district courts, mayors of cities, superior courts, two justices of the peace
in every township, circuit courts of the United States, district courts of
the United States, supreme courts of the States and of the nation, and
yet so great is the business arising from the multiplied transactions of
our sixty millions of people that delay, delay, delay, is the rule now,
even with all these courts constantly in operation throughout all the
States and Territories. Yet you are going to relegate those sixty mill-
ions of people to one little court of five men, holding its sessions here at
the capital of the nation, the most inconvenient point that could pos-
sibly be designated. This commission, sir, is useless, if it is not vicious.
Again, by the fourth section of the bill the commission are given
power to suspend the operation of the law, and their action is final.
This bill undertakes in the fourth section to prohibit certain things be-
ing done; in another section it prescribes a penalty of $5,000 for the
violation of that provision; and then in the last part of the fourth sec-
tion it authorizes these five men, who are not responsible to anybody
on earth, to take final action, suspending both the prohibition and the
penal sections of the act.
I come now to another important feature of the bill, the exclusive
jurisdiction which it gives to the Federal courts to hear causes arising
under the provisions of the act. Why not the State courts? We have
the power, and I appeal to Democratic members of this House, is it
according to the traditions of your party, is it Democratic, to build up
the jurisdiction and the power of the Federal courts of this country? Is
it not Democratic rather to open the State courts and keep them open—
|
445
those courts created by the people for their own protection—is it not
Democratic to enlarge their powers rather than to increase the pow-
ers of the Federal courts? I have said that we have the power to
confer jurisdiction on the State courts. The gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. CRISP] yesterday said that, “waiving the question’’ as to the
power of the Government to confer jurisdiction on State courts, he had
simply this to say, that if the House conferees had insisted upon re-
taining the State-court clause of the Reagan bill, we would have
had no bill to pass this session. Aye, aye, a clear confession of Sur-
render on the part of the conferees of this House to the clamor of the
Senate conferees and to the theory contained in the Senate bill. It
can be nothing else.
Mr. CRISP. Did the gentleman hope or expect that all the sur-
rendering was to be done on the part of the Senate and none on the
part of the House? .*
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Not at all. In matters involving no great
question of principle, in matters of trivial importance, I would expect
the conferees of the House to be conciliatory and yielding; but in mat-
ters that are fundamental, matters that go to the very marrow of this
question, I for one did expect, and my constituents expected, and this
country expected, that the House conferees would stand like a wall of
iron and a tower of adamant against the encroachments of the corpo-
rate influences of this country. [Applause.]
Mr. CRISP. If the gentleman will allow me, I think that the cor-
porate influences of this country were very much in hope that the con-
ference would result in just such a failure as the gentleman says he
expected.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Not at all, Mr. Speaker. No railroad
man has ever risen, no man who is suspected of being in the interest
of the railroads has ever risen in the discussion of this compromise bill,
either in the Senate or in this House, to denounce the features of the
bill that I am denouncing here now. It is true these railroad men have
clamored against this bill, but they have clamored against the provis-
ions which were in the Cullom bill when it passed the Senate, and we
have repeatedly declared that to be a railroad bill. They have also
clamored for the very provisions which the people from the start have
said ought never to be incorporated in any interstate-commerce bill.
No railroad man has ever objected to the commission; no railroad man
has ever objected to the Federal court clause; no railroad man has ever
objected to the power on the part of the commission to suspend the
operation of the fourth section of this bill. They have at all times
insisted that these sections should go into the bill if any bill was to
pass.
Mr. HEPBURN. The gentleman will allow me to ask whether he
was satisfied with the provision of the Reagan bill with reference to
court jurisdiction ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Not entirely. I thought the jurisdiction
ought to be exclusively in the State courts. But the Reagan bill did
clothe the State courts with jurisdiction of the questions arising under
it.
Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. The gentleman will allow me to ask
whether he is in favor of the long and short haul provision ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Yes, of the Reagan bill, but I am now
discussing another provision, and I prefer not to be diverted from my
line of argument.
Mr. HEPBURN. Before the gentleman leaves this point will he
4.46
allow me to call his attention to the exact language of the Reagan bill
on this subject?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Certainly.
Mr. HEPBURN. (Reading)— \ *
Which attorney’s fee shall be taxed and collected as costs in the case, to be
recovered by the person or persons so damaged by suit in any State or United
States court of competent jurisdiction.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Certainly.
Mr. HEPBURN. Does that language confer jurisdiction, or does it
simply permit suit to be brought where jurisdiction now exists 2
, Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Oh, it was intended to confer jurisdiction
as to damages as well as to costs, and that is what it did. I was dis-
cussing the power of Congress to confer jurisdiction on the State courts.
Upon this point I desire to quote from 24 Howard, 108. I shall read
very briefly from the language of Chief-Justice Taney in that case:
It is trne that in the early days of the Government, Congress relied with con-
fidence upon the co-operation and support of the States when exercising the
legitimate powers of the General Government, and were accustomed to receive
it upon principles of comity, and from a sense of mutual and common interest,
where no such duty was imposed by the Constitution. And laws were passed
authorizing State courts to entertain jurisdiction in proceedings by the United
.States to recover penalties and forfeitures incurred by breaches of their revenue
laws and giving to the State courts the same authority with the district court of
the United States to enforce such penalties and forfeitures, and also the power
to hear the allegations of parties and to take proofs if an application for a re-
mission of the penalty or forfeiture should be made according to the provisions
of the acts of Congress.
Mr. BRUMM. That is not exclusive jurisdiction ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Oh, no.
Mr. BRUMM. Has the gentleman any authority on the point of
giving the State courts exclusive jurisdiction ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. No, sir; that question is not involved here.
Now, I wish to read from the decision of the Supreme Court delivered
by Mr. Justice Field in the case of the United States vs. Jones, United
States Reports 109, page 519:
Whether the tribunal shall be created directly by an act of Congress, or one
already established by the States shall be adopted for the occasion, is a mere
matter of legislative discretion.
Thus it is clearly established that it is a “mere matter of legislative
discretion ” whether we shall create a tribunal to carry out the pro-
visions of an act of Congress, or whether we shall confer authority upon
State tribunals to do it. Pursuing this same subject Justice Field on
page 520 uses this language:
At different times various duties have been imposed by acts of Congress upon
State tribunals; they have been invested with jurisdiction in civil suits and
over complaints and prosecutions for fines, penalties, and forfeitures arising
under laws of the United States.
Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman allow me to call his attention to
a passage from the decision in 24 Howard to which he has already re-
ferred ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Certainly.
Mr. CRISP (reading).
And in these cases the co-operation of the States was a matter of comity,
which the several sovereignties extended to one another for their mutual benefit.
It was not regarded by either party as an obligation imposed by the Constitu-
tion. And the acts of Congress conferring the jurisdiction merely give the
power to the State tribunals, but do not purport to regard it as a duty, and they
leave it to the States to exercise it or not, as might best comport with their own
sense of justice, and their own interest and convenience.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Undoubtedly that is correct.
447
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman will allow me to say that this was a case
where the State authority was required to do a certain thing; and the
Supreme Court held it had not the right to do it under the circumstances.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I know what that case is; I think the gen-
tleman is not familiar with it.
Mr. CRISP. Here it is in this volume ; it speaks for itself.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I will state that case. It is the case of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Governor Dennison, of Ohio. There
was a mandamus proceeding commenced to compel Governor Dennison
to surrender a fugitive from justice from the State of Kentucky. The
act of 1793 provided that when the requisition was made, it should be
the duty of the governor to surrender the fugitive. The Supreme Court
held that the State officer could not be compelled in that way. Now,
of course, I do not take the position that we can compel a State court
or any State officer to discharge a duty under United States law. The
court, in the very language which I have read, declared that the action
‘of the State authorities in such cases is a matter of comity. But does
anybody suppose for a moment that the State courts would refuse to
exercise jurisdiction under a law to probibit wrongful discriminations
on the part of railroad companies?
Those decisions go on to say the State Legislatures may give con-
sent—that is, that they may pass an act consenting to give jurisdiction
to the State courts under the Federal law. That would make their
jurisdiction complete, and, furthermore, make it compulsory on the
part of State courts to entertain that jurisdiction. There is no fear in
that regard, for they will be responsible to the people for the manner
in which they exercise their authority; but when you come to the Fed-
eral court you have no such safeguard thrown around that tribunal.
Mr. OATES. That question first came before the Supreme Court of
the United States in the case of Prigg against the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, in 16 Peters, and ever since then it has been settled and
accepted by all the State tribunals whose decisions I have ever seen.
That statute conferring jurisdiction on State courts did not oblige them
to exercise it, but they could exercise it if they saw proper unless pro-
hibited by some State statute. -
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Yes; a State could accept the burden.
Mr. OATES. They can accept it unless there is a prohibitory State
Statute. f
Mr. CRISP. There is no issue on that point.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I should like to go on for twenty min-
utes. -
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the gentleman continuing
bis remarks beyond the hour?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I do not desire to detain the House much
longer. But, Mr. Speaker, it is conceded here that there is power on
the part of the Government to confer jurisdiction on the State courts.
Mr. CRISP. Let me call the gentleman’s attention to another fact,
and I will not interrupt him again. I thank him for his courtesy in
yielding to me.
If any remedy exists in State courts, it exists at common law, does
it not ?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Certainly.
Mr. CRISP. For any violation of the common-law rule—we concede
most of these provisions are the same as the common-law rule—this act
448
provides that nothing therein shall in any way abridge or alter the
remedies now existing at common law or the statutes, but the provis-
ions of this act are in addition to such remedies.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. But it is well known to every member of
the House and to the gentleman, as well as to any other member, that
all the practices we are now seeking to prohibit by this act have grown
up under the common law. The remedies provided at common law
were not sufficient. Has it not been recently decided in matters of in-
terstate commerce the Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction? That
is my understanding; that it has been decided in two cases the Fed-
eral courts have exclusive jurisdiction in regard to interstate commerce.
This act should relax that rule and confer jurisdiction upon the State
courts. The people have asked for bread, and you give them a stone.
They have asked for fish, and you give them a serpent.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I wish to ask my colleague a ques-
tion. Does not he know if the vote which he intends to give should
be followed by the majority of this House and this bill be defeated it
would be gratifying to all the railroad interests of this country from
ocean to ocean and lake to gulf?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. No, sir.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Let me finish my question. Does
he not know that this city has been swarming with agents of railroad
corporate power in order to defeat this bill as it has been reported by
the conferees?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Do not take up my time. They, of course,
do not want any bill to pass; but if one must pass they want, in my
opinion, just such provisions as are in this bill.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. But do you not know that the people
of Iowa, whom you and I in part represent, are appealing for the pas-
Sage of this bill into a law, so that the railroads may enter under the
control of the national power?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I know that the people of Iowa want no
such bill. I know my constituents, and, so far as I am able to ascer-
tain the public sentiment in Iowa, it is diametrically opposed to any such
bill. They want the Reagan bill.
Mr. CUTCHEON. Does the gentleman desire to be understood that
he prefers no legislation at all on this subject than to have this bill?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I am going to vote against the passage of
this bill. I do not propose to criticise or find fault with it, and then,
demagogue like, go and vote for it, and I ask the gentleman from Iowa
(my colleague) to answer me yes or no, is he satisfied with the provis-
ions of this bill—yes or no?
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I will say Mr. Speaker—
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Give me a categorical answer; yes or no.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Let me proceed a moment and answer
in my own way. I say I thank my God that I have an opportunity
to vote for a bill that lays the strong hand of the General Government
upon the railroads of this country.
Do you vote against the passage of this bill because it does not sat-
isfy you in every provision?
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. No, sir; but when there is no important
feature in it to which I can give my assent I must vote against it.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Ah, we have then your estimate of
the bill.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I want to ask the gentleman from Iowa
this question: Does it necessarily follow because we vote against the
449
passage of this bill, that our vote is to be taken as an indication that
we favor no legislation on this subject 2
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. No, sir; not by any means. When a man
opposes the bill it does not therefore follow that he opposes legislation
against the railroads, and no fair-minded man would say or think so.
It is our right and duty to criticise such measures. That is what we
are sent here for; and if they are inconsistent with our ideas of what
is right to vote against them.
Mr. Speaker, having the power to confer jurisdiction either upon the
State courts or upon the Federal courts, we deliberately refuse to ex-
ercise that power as to the State courts and force the people to go into
courts where, as is publicly known, the railroads are all powerful, and
where the corporations control, or are likely to control, the machinery
of the courts, and where adjudications are longest delayed.
What is this but legislation in the interest of the powerful and the
opulent 2 What is this but an attempt to make the way for the people
dark, difficult, and thorny? How dare we refuse to prepare the way
of the people to enter the courts which they have created for their
own safety and protection? Dare we say to our constituents that
neither they nor their State courts can be trusted to deal fairly with
the railroads? Certainly not.
Now, one word as to the political features of this bill. I have already
shown that the commission must be reconstituted during the next Pres-
idential administration, and I have taken the pains to run over the regis-
ter of the Department of Justice, and I find that five out of the nine
supreme judges have passed three score and ten, and during the next
Presidential term will, in all probability, in the course of human affairs
have to be replaced. I have also ſound that out of the circuit and dis-
trict judges of the United States a score of these Federal judges will
also have to be replaced during the next Presidential administration.
What a powerful temptation to the railroad interests of this country
to take part in your Presidential election, to set up the primaries, con-
trol your conventions, furnish the money to carry on your Presidential
campaign, for the great prize of the commission that must construe
this law, and the Supreme Court of the United States that must finally
construe it, and the intermediary circuit and district courts that must
construe it before it reaches the Supreme Court. It ought to be en-
titled a bill to more completely give over the control of the business and
political interests of the people into the hands of the confederated mo–
nopolies.
Democrats, I adjure you to take heed to what I am saying. Is that
the kind of a bill you want to pass—a bill that will enthrone the
corporations in the politics of the country—that will make them all
directly interested in every Presidential election?
Where did this movement originate but with the Democratic party ?
The author of the Reagan bill has been the champion of this contro-
versy with the railroads for more than ten years; and the Democratic
party, the Nationals, and the Anti-Monopolists have stood behind him,
while the Senate has stood like a wall of iron against the passage of
that measure. Finally, seeing they had to let us have something, they
licked their bill into a shape satisfactory to themselves, but most
dangerous to the people. w
I appeal to the Democrats here to-day, and to all fair-minded men,
whether Democrats or not, do they want that kind of a measure ? Can
any man shut his eyes to the fact that these railroad corporations have
I S C–29
450
for the past decade exercised a powerful control in the politics of this
nation? Does any man deny that? And will they not have an addi-
tional reason for interposing and intermeddling in the politics of this
country if this bill passes?
Now, with a determination to do my duty conscientiously, I say that
I shall oppose this bill not only with my voice but with my vote, act-
ing in obedience to the express and oft-repeated pledges which I made
to my constituency.
Mr. CALDWELL obtained the floor.
Mr. CRISP. I ask unanimous consent that the House take a recess
until half past 7 o'clock, the evening session to be for debate on this
bill only.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Is it understood, then, that my friend from
Georgia will press the demand for the previous question in the morn-
ing? The House is very thin now. Gentlemen who had expected to
take part in the discussion are not here. If the suggestion had been
made earlier in the day it might have met with a favorable response;
but I do not want that the discussion shall take place to empty seats,
and that after discussion of that kind the previous question shall be
ordered. .
The House, as my friend will observe, is very thin. This is an im-
portant question; a more important question has not been presented
to this House, as he will admit. It seems to me, therefore, that a little
time may properly be taken in discussing it; and, for one, I hope that,
whatever may be done touching this evening session, my friend will
not insist upon the previous question in the morning. *
THURSDAY, JANUARV 20, 1887.
< * +
*K- -X- -K- +&
ORDER OF BUSINESS.
Mr. CRISP. I rise to a privileged motion.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it,
Mr. CRISP. I call up for present consideration the conference re-
port on what is known as the interstate-commerce bill.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP], as a
matter of privilege, calls up the conference report on the interstate-
commerce bill. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. CALDWELL] has
the floor.
Mr. CRISP. With the consent of the gentleman from Tennessee
[Mr. CALDWELL], I wish to say a word to gentlemen who desire to dis-
cuss this bill and to the House, in the hope of coming to an agreement,
if possible, as to when the vote shall be taken. It is needless for me
to say that if every gentleman in the House who desires to speak on
this bill should get the floor and use the time that the rules would give
him the 4th of March would find us still discussing the bill. While
I recognize the Importance of the measure, yet we all know that this
is not a new question; we all know how business is pressing upon us,
and, in view of these facts, I would like to have an understanding by
which at some hour to-day we may have a vote upon this bill.
Mr. DUN HAM. With the permission of the gentleman from Ten-
nessee [Mr. CALDWELL], I would suggest to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. CRISP] that this bill is probably the most important matter that
has been presented to this Congress. It was discussed in the other
451
branch some three weeks before the original bill was passed; the con-
ference report has been discussed about two weeks, and now it seems
to me that, inasmuch as several gentlemen desire to be heard upon the
bill, we ought to allow the debate to go along to-day, let to-morrow
be given to private bills, and have an understanding that the vote upon
this bill shall be taken at 3 o'clock on Saturday. Then everybody
will understand the bill; and the time, it seems to me, is no more
than may reasonably be asked for the consideration of a question So
important as this. . --
Mr. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, anxious as I am to do no injustice to any
member, in view of the condition of the public business and the history
of this proposed legislation, I feel that I must, at least, test the sense of
the House upon the question of taking the vote at some hour to-day.
Mr. TOWNSHEND. Can not the gentleman call the previous ques-
tion now, and settle the matter? Every man’s mind is made up.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I would like to suggest to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] that even if the vote be postponed until 3
o'clock on Saturday, that will only leave five or six hours all told for
the discussion of this bill. I do not think that is an unreasonable time,
and if we can agree upon having a vote at 3 o'clock on Saturday, we
will dispose of the matter satisfactorily, and give gentlemen, who desire
it, an opportunity to be heard upon a bill which is so important to their
constituents: -
Mr. CRISP. How would it satisfy gentlemen to agree that the pre-
vious question shall be ordered upon the adoption of the conference
report at the adjournment this evening—no vote to be taken this even-
ing, but the debate to be closed?
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I think the time suggested is not too much,
three hours to-day and two hours on Saturday. In fact, it is a very
brief time for the discussion of so important a measure.
Mr. CRISP. With such an understanding as I have suggested, we
could meet to-morrow and take the vote upon this matter, and dispose
of it without interfering to any considerable extent with the con-
sideration of private bills.
Mr. DUNHAM. I would suggest to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. CRISP] that that gives us only about three hours to-day and one
hour on Saturday.
Mr. RYAN. Then there is only one hour's difference between the
two propositions.
Mr. CRISP. Personally, I should be willing, and I have no doubt
that others would be willing to emulate the example set us at the other
end of this Capitol and, if necessary, stay here until 10 or 11 o’clock
to-night debating this bill.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. They are in the habit of adjourning
over Saturday. - -
Mr. CRISP. I ask gentlemen to consider whether they will not agree
that at the end of this session to-day or to-night the previous question
shall be considered as ordered.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. Why not agree to have the vote taken at 3
o'clock on Saturday?
Mr. ADAMS, of Illinois. Let the previous question be considered
as ordered on Saturday at 3 o'clock.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Georgia
[Mr. CRISP] that this being a privileged matter, it can be called up, if
the gentleman desires, on Saturday morning immediately after the read-
ing of the Journal.
452
Mr. CRISP. I understood that; but what is to be accomplished by
postponing the vote until Saturday, if the debate is closed at the end
of to-day’s session?
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It gives two hours for discussion on Satur-
day.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Suppose we have a night session.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. This is a pretty large body, and a great
many gentlemen do not like to come here at night. I do not think the
time I have suggested is any too long.
Mr. CRISP. Gentlemen will allow me to say that Saturday is a bad
day to be fixed for taking the vote—not for gentlemen situated like
myself; but members whose homes are within a short distance of this
city are often absent from the House on that day.
Mr. DUNHAM. That is their neglect, not ours.
Mr. CRISP. Now, why not agree to close debate at the end of the
session to-night, and vote on the bill to-morrow morning immediately
after the reading of the Journal?
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. That is, with the understanding that there
shall be a session to-night for discussion.
Mr. CRISP. My proposition is that the previous question shall be
considered as ordered whenever we adjourn to-day.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Will the gentleman permit me to sug-
gest that there are many gentlemen who desire to be heard on this
bill who are not members of the committee and who can not hope toº
obtain an hour; and therefore I think it would be for the general ad-
vantage to agree that debate at the evening session be confined to ten-
minute speeches.
Several MEMBERS. Oh, no.
Mr. MORRILL. Give everybody permission to print.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. The gentleman from Georgia proposes, as
I understand, that the discussion go on to-night, that the previous ques-
tion be ordered at the adjournment to-night, and the vote be taken to-
Iſlorſ OW.
Mr. CRISP. That to-morrow, after the reading of the Journal, the
vote be taken on the report, the previous question to be considered as
ordered at the adjournment of this legislative day.
Several MEMBERs. That is right.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. It is a part of the understanding that we
are to have a session to-night?
Mr. CRISP. Yes, sir. I ask the Chair to test the sense of the House
on the proposition I have made.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia asks unanimous con-
sent that there be a session this evening for the discussion of this re-
port—no other business to be transacted—and that when the House
adjourns on this legislative day the previous question shall be consid-
ered as ordered, and that the vote be taken to-morrow morning imme-
diately after the reading of the Journal. Is there objection ? The
Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. CRISP. Now, I ask unanimous consent that we have a session
to-night. What hour do gentlemen suggest ?
Several MEMBERS. Half past seven.
Mr. CRISP. I ask unanimous consent that the House take a recess
to-day from half past 5 o'clock till half past 7 o'clock.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia asks unanimous con-
sent that the House take a recess at half past 5 o'clock to-day until
half past 7 o'clock, the evening session to be for the discussion of this
report under the order already made. Is there objection?
453
Mr. CUTCHEON. I ask the gentleman to incorporate in his prop.
osition a provision that the debate at the evening session be had under
the five-minute rule.
Several MEMBERS. Oh, no.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the proposition just stated by
the Chair for a recess from half past 5 o'clock until half past 7? The
Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Inow request that debate at the even-
ing session be had under the five-minute rule.
The SPEAKER. That proposition has been objected to.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Is it in order to make that motion?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman can ask unanimous consent.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Then I ask unanimous consent that
the debate this evening be confined to ten-minute speeches.
Several MEMBERS. That is right.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kansas asks unanimous
consent that in the discussion this evening each speaker be limited to
ten minutes. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is So
ordered.
LEAVE TO PRINT.
Mr. CRISP. I ask unanimous consent that any gentleman desiring
to print speeches in the RECORD on the pending bill may have the
privilege of doing so.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia asks unanimous con-
sent that any gentleman desiring to print remarks on this subject, or,
as the Chair would suggest, to extend remarks in the RECORD–
Mr. CRISP. Yes, sir; or to extend remarks.
The SPEAKER. May have leave to do so. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and leave is granted. The gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. CALDWELL] is now entitled to the floor.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Mr. CALDWELL. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to consume more
than a few minutes in submitting what I have to say on this report.
The fourth section of this bill, or what is known as the long and short
haul provision of the Reagan bill, was objected to, as I thought, with
a great deal of force because it provided an iron rule which, by reason
of its universality, might work hardship in individual instances. It
is certainly true that cases were supposed, and cases may readily be
imagined, in which, under the clause of the Reagan bill in reference to
the long and short haul, great disadvantage and injury might be worked
to the railroad transportation business.
A similar clause in the Cullom bill provided for what I considered
the lodgment of a dangerous power of suspension in the hands of the
railroad commission provided for in that bill. In other words, I un-
derstood under that clause in the Cullom bill the commission had the
power to exempt a road from the operation of the long and short haul
clause, and hence could break up a road not enjoying the favor of such
exemption, and that power was too dangerous to be lodged in any
tribunal or any set of men, commissioners or otherwise. The bill as
reported by the conference contains both propositions. It contains
not only the Reagan proposition of long and short haul, but also the
proposition for the suspension of the operations of that section in
particular instances only. The distinction is an obvious one from the
power given in the Cullom bill to provide general rules for suspen-
454
sions, and I think the original proposition has been bettered by the
one now before the House. "
There must be some way to give an equitable administration of the
long and short haul clause, if there is anything at all in the long and
labored arguments which have been made against it, and the prophesies
of evil which are to follow its enactment. This proviso in the fourth
Section of the bill is to apply to the operation of this law that equitable
jurisdiction which has been found to work well in every other depart-
ment of law. It is to supply that wherein the law by reason of its uni-
versality is deficient, and which may work hardship in particular cases.
It would be an astonishing thing if this bill, the result of full and
careful consideration on the part of both Houses, should be a perfect
measure. The number of failures which have been made in England
over this question are a part of the history of this subject. If this law
is defective, like every other law, it will reveal its defects on being put
into actual practice. In other words, every statute which is upon your
books has had to go through the test of practical operation and the
test of judicial interpretation and decision. If this law reveals patent
and manifest impracticabilities, it will be an easy matter to remedy
them when they are pointed out by experience. No gentleman knows
what is going to happen about anything.
There is no prophet, or son of a prophet, on this floor or anywhere
else. We have here the germ of legislation in a new field in which
Congress puts its foot for the first time, and from that germ experience
will develop the full growth which will govern all these great questions
of transportation by railroad. There is but one way to get at it and
that is to start the practical operation of the great principles of the
common law. The question narrows itself down at last to this: Shall
the principles of the common law governing common carriers be ad-
ministered in the courts of this country or by commission? My prefer-
ence would be to open the courts of the vicinage and leave the matter
to local decision. But I am willing to yield that proposition and have
the common carriers of the country governed by a commission, rather
than not have them governed at all.
The principal objection I had to the commission bill having been re-
moved, I will vote for this bill; not as a perfect code, for perfect codes
are not now handed down from heaven on Mount Sinai or Pike's Peak,
as the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVERJ seemed to demand. The
law is no longer a revelation, but it is a growth. Every law has to have
that growth before it is perfected. It has at last to be decided on by
the courts, and tested by experience.
I believe we are starting in the right direction; and I do not believe
the long catalogue of woes and calamities that chambers of commerce,
which have never read the bill, and which have been stirred up by these
lines of transportation and induced to put on the mantle of prophesy—
I say I do not believe the enactment of this law will be followed by
such calamities and that everybody is going to be ruined. I believe
there is no chartered sacredness about these great interests. I admit
they are great. I admit the railroad interests of this country have
been great factors in its development, but I do not believe there is
any constitutional delicacy or weakness in them which will prevent
them from flourishing under the principles of the common law, like
every other enterprise charged with a public use.
I yield now for forty-five minutes to the gentleman from South Caro-
lina [Mr. DIBBLE].
•k 3% + X- X: *
455
R
Mr. DIBBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee
for his courtesy in yielding time to me.
Before entering upon the discussion of the features of this bill it is
well to consider the parliamentary position in which the House finds
itself at present in relation to it. The pending motion is for the adop-
tion of this conference report. There has been a Senate bill (the Cul-
lom bill), there has been a House bill (the Reagan bill), and now comes,
as a substitute for both, a bill presented for the first time to this House
without the privilege of amendment, to be taken as it is or rejected as
it is; and the first question is, what is the effect of a failure to adopt the
conference report 2 Does it kill the bill? Not at all.
It opens the bill simply to a further conference between the two
Houses. In that conference amendments which may be suggested,
which have been already suggested in the course of this debate, may
be incorporated; and there is no reason to doubt that, on such further
conference, this bill would come back in ample time for the action of
both Houses, improved upon in its present terms, by reason of the criti-
cisms which it has received in the course of the debate, both in the
Senate and in the House.
But, Mr. Speaker, supposing the result should be to defeat the bill;
that the six weeks remaining of this session are not sufficient for con-
ferees already familiar with the subject to get together and agree upon
a proposition to present, and the bill is thereby defeated, I propose to
advance some views in connection with my study of the bill which lead
me to say that it would be better than the enactment of this bill into
a law in its present shape.
The effect of enacting the bill as it is will be to throw into the
courts for judicial determination and construction points which the
two Houses can and should settle now. That difference of opinion,
which is attendant (and necessarily so) upon this bill in its present
form, will bring its ambiguities into litigation in the circuit courts and
in the Supreme Court, and it will be five years before the highest ju-
dicial interpretation is given to the points which are at issue. The
inevitable result, it appears to me, will be that the passage of this bill
will set the subject at rest on the basis of its enactment and postpone
the remedies which are required to correct the wrongs under which
the people suffer to-day. There will be a truce of legislation, as it
were, while the matter is being fought in the courts, and it would be
infinitely better, in view of the ambiguities of the bill and the uncer-
tainty of its meaning, that it should be postponed to another Congress
rather than be passed and throw the subject into the courts on such a
statute as this.
I do not believe, sir, that it is the part of Congress to agree on
words while not agreeing to the sense of those words. What is the
meaning of judicial interpretation of statutes? It is the determina-
tion of the legislative intention. It arises only where the legislative
body, through inadvertence in the use of words, fails to declare its
true intention; but it is a remarkable position for the legislative branch
of the Government to assume, when it voluntarily uses words inter-
preted by one in one sense, and by another in another, and then votes
on these words; for they are really, when they come to vote in such
cases, voting on distinct propositions, and there is no consensus of leg-
islative intention.
When one member says, “I will vote for that phraseology, because
it means so and so, '' and another says, “I will vote for it because it
means exactly the reverse, ’’ I say in that case there is not that con-
456
sensus of legislative intention which marks the proper enactment of
law. Let us put what we mean in plain and unambiguous terms. We
do not have courts constituted to arbitrate legislative differences, and
to take the chances of their arbitrament, and I have only to refer to
this debate to show that there are serious differences not only between
the members of the two Houses but between the members of each
House as to the meaning of certain words used in the bill.
It appears to me that the gravest objection to this bill is contained
in the powers conferred upon the commission. I have no objection to
a commission exercising proper functions, but as I read-this bill, it
seems to me that Congress confers upon that commission legislative
powers. Now, under the Constitution the three departments of the
Government are to be kept distinct in their operations in their agencies.
Under the Constitution all legislative powers shall be vested in the
Congress. *
The fourth section of this act, in the long and short haul clause,
provides certain legislation on that subject, but is followed by this
proviso: -
Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after in-
vestigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the
commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such desig-
nated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this
act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is conferring legislative power. It is the
power of suspending the operation of the statute, not in certain cases
specified and laid down by Congress, but in the discretion of the com-
mission itself. I grant that Congress might pass a statute general in
its terms, and provide exceptions, and say that when those cases arise
the executive department may proclaim a suspension. But there is
no way to put that suspension of the statute in the discretion of an-
other body without delegating to that body legislative power which
the people have delegated to us; and our delegated power can not be
thus delegated, and not only is it legislative power, but it is special
legislative power. The commission has no power under that fourth
section to establish a general principle, a general rule of exception ap-
plicable to all carriers alike. &
That section first gives to the commission the power to exempt a cer-
tain common carrier in a special case—just one case; and then it goes
on and says it can exempt that common carrier (not a class of common
carriers, but that single common carrier) in a certain class of cases. It
gives to that commission the power to say to one railroad, “We will
release you from the provisions of the long and short haul clause,”
and it gives them the power to say to another railroad, “We will not
release you.” But if nowhere confers the power on the commission to
say, ‘‘We will exempt this railroad and all other railroads in the same
class from the operation of the long and short haul clause.” The lan-
guage is explicit: - t
Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after in-
vestigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the com-
mission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated
common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
Note that the words are “such designated common carrier.” The
commission can only act upon particular common carriers, and can not
45.7
establish a general rule of exceptions. Why, Mr. Speaker, that is a
terrible power over the transportation of this country— *
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. Favoritism, too. -
Mr. DIBBLE. Where competition is so active, where influences so
powerful can be brought to bear upon five men, where representations
so strong will be made; why, sir, it has the power to make fish of one
and flesh of another, and the only way in which they can act tends
to favoritism and partiality. I object to it on that ground; and to my
mind, Mr. Speaker, that seems to be a fatal obstacle to the passage of
this bill in its present form.
Let us look further into the question of the power of this commis-
ision. While in that particular it is endowed with legislative faculties,
in another it appears to have judicial-functions bestowed upon it. Let
us cite a case. Take section 15. It appears by the terms of this act
that this commission acts judicially in three ways, either on the com-
plaint of a party who claims to have been injured, or at the request of
a State railroad commission, or of its own motion.
Now, suppose, Mr. Speaker, that a railroad shall have committed an
act of injustice against some citizen, and that citizen desires to exer-
cise the option, which this act purports to give him, of going into the
courts of the country rather than to go before the commission, why it
is in the power of that commission, of its own motion, to initiate pro-
ceedings and have an investigation; and if it should so happen that the
-commission investigating that grievance should find against the rail-
road company, and should impose by way of reparation some insignifi-
cant penalty—some insignificant amount of damages, if you please, to
be paid to that complainant—why, sir, whether that complainant ac-
quiesced in this process or not, under this bill the payment of those
insignificant damages, the making of that insignificant reparation, re-
lieves that common carrier forever from the criminal and civil conse-
-quences of that act. And if the commission happens to get ahead of
the complainant in initiating the investigation before he files his com-
plaint in the court (and perhaps in other cases, but certainly in that),
the action of the commission nominally against the carrier, but really
in his favor, would be cited to make it res adjudicata, and bar his right
of recovery in the circuit and district courts of the United States.
Mr. ROWELL. Will the gentleman permit me a question?
Mr. DIBBLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROWELL. If the proceeding is instituted by the commission,
and not at the request of the party, is he by this bill barred?
Mr. DIBBLE. I will read the words of the bill. I think he is ex-
plicitly barred of recovery, and I will show that very plainly. It
says that “in any case in which an investigation shall be made;’’
any case; and just before that it provides the three ways in which it
can be made. First, by the complaint of the party; secondly, by the
request of the railroad commission of a State; thirdly, it may institute
any inquiry in its own motion in the same manner and to the same
effect as if complaint had been made. Now, if it is to have the same
effect as if complaint had been made, I think that answers the ques-
tion of the gentleman from Illinois.
Then there is another injustice which appears amid the mass of
language composing this bill.
It is this, Mr. Speaker: While an option is apparently given to the
complainant to go to the courts or to go to the commission, if he ever
gets before the commission there is no right of review or appeal for
him. By ingenious phraseology the right of appeal to the courts of
458
the country is given to the common carrier, but I do not find that the
same right is given to the complainant. What does the bill say? It
says, in substance, that if the commission should happen to find ad-
versely to the carrier—not that the carrier shall take a regular appeal,
but it gives him practically the right of appeal, because all he has to
do is to refuse to obey the finding of the commission—then, in case of
his refusal to acquiesce in their decision, the commission may carry the
question to the courts for adjudication, and where the amount involved
is $2,000 to the Supreme Court of the United States. But I fail to
find in the act any provision for carrying the question into the courts
when the decision is adverse to the complainant.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. There is none.
Mr. DIBBLE. The appeal, therefore, from the decisions of the
commission to the regular tribunals of the country is given to the
common carrier, and is not given to the party who complains. I say
that such a provision in the conferring of judicial powers is a violation
of all the principles that should govern appeals, and this appeal is very
singular. The commission can find damages like a special jury, and
can say: “This complainant has been injured so many dollars, and you
must pay so much by way of reparation.” But instead of going on and
appealing regularly the common carrier simply sits down and does
not do anything at all; he simply disregards the finding of the com-
mission. Does he suffer for contumacy? Not at all. Does his course
increase the damages? Not at all. The case is carried to a court, and
that court sits as a court of equity, and a court of equity does not as-
sess damages.
Mr. HEPBURN. Will the gentleman please point out the section
of the bill that authorizes any appeal at all by any person. According
to my understanding of the bill, it does not contemplate that any ap-
peal will be taken.
Mr. DIBBLE. I will go over the ground again, I have already
stated distinctly that there is no formal appeal granted, but I say there
is a provision in favor of the common carrier which is equivalent to an
appeal. I will explain my meaning again. The bill provides that in
case the commission decide that the common carrier has to make rep-
aration to such an amount, or to pay such and such damages to the
claimant, they shall notify the common carrier of that decision. Then,
if the decision be disregarded by the common carrier, the commission
has the right to take it to court, and that right is given only in a case
where the common carrier disobeys the decision. Therefore, the mode
of appeal provided for the common carrier is to disobey the decision of
the commission, and that will give him practically all the rights of an
appeal in a form heretofore unknown to the jurisprudence of this or any
other civilized country, so far as I am informed.
Mr. HEPBURN. If the gentleman will permit me, the bill simply
provides that means of compelling obedience on the part of the com-
mon carrier. It is not a provision for an appeal, but it is the method
which the commission must use in order to effectuate their decree.
Mr. DIBBLE. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is distinctly asserted in the
act that the decision of the commission, when that mode of compelling
obedience is adopted, stands exactly like the decision of an inferior
court. The bill provides that on an appeal to a higher court the decis-
ion of the commission shall not be conclusive, but only prima facie.
That opens the defense and gives practically an appeal and a review
upon appeal to the common carrier in the higher court. If the report
and the findings of the commission were to be conclusive in the higher
459
court, then I grant that the position of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr.
HEPBURNI would be well taken; but when it is simply prima facie,
that puts the decision of the commission exactly in the position of
the judgment of an inferior court when an appeal is taken to a higher
court, and gives the common carrier the right to put in a case against
that prima facie case, and to do substantially all that he would have a
right to do on a regular appeal.
Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman permit me to interrupt him ?
Mr. DIBBLE. With pleasure.
Mr. CRISP. I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, that I apprehend the gen-
tleman’s argument. The bill provides that when complaint is made
to the commission they may investigate, and if they think proper
order the carrier to desist from the practice complained of and to pay
certain damages. The commission have not, I agree, the power to force
the carrier to comply with their order. If the carrier fails to comply.
with the decision of the commission then the commission or the indi-
vidual can go into court and enjoin him, pending the litigation, from
the continuance of that practice; and when the case comes into court
the report of the commission stands exactly as the report of an auditor
or master in chancery would stand in a case in court; it is prima
facie true on the facts. That is all.
Mr. DIBBLE. But the distinction I draw is this: Of course this
is the exercise of judicial power by the commission. Suppose the com-
mission, instead of finding adversely to the carrier, should find ad-
versely to the complainant; there is no way for him to get his case into
court. But there is a clear way—although it is a roundabout way it
is a clear and plain way—by which the common carrier may get the
adjudication of a court. The complainant, however, by going to the
commission, has taken his election and can not go to the court; he has
no way to get there.
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman will allow me to say—of course I do
not wish to inturrupt him—that is exactly what the bill contemplates,
that the party who thinks he is injured shall have his election to go
in the first place to the courts and set up his case like any one else or
to go before the commission. If he goes before the commission he is
bound by their judgment, and ought he not to be?
Mr. DIBBLE. I do not think he ought to be bound by the judg-
ment of the commission unless the other side is also to be bound by the
judgment of that commission. I do not think there is any fair judicial
tribunal that does not give the same right of appeal to the plaintiff
who has elected to go there that it gives to the defendant who makes
his answer. I can not conceive or admit that it is fair that the com-
plainant, in case of a judgment adverse to him by the commission, should
not have the same right as the common carrier to get the judgment of
a court upon it, or to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Yet under this bill one party has a practical way to go to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and the other has not.
But, Mr. Speaker, as time is passing, there are one or two other
points in this bill—
Mr. HEPBURN. Before the gentleman passes from this branch of
the subject, I desire, if it will not interrupt him
Mr. DIBBLE. Not at all.
Mr. HEPBURN. I wish to call his attention to line 13, page 29 of
this bill, where he will find the following language:
And nothing in this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the rem-
edies now existing at common law, or by statute.
460
Now, if an individual would have the right under the existing law
to go to the courts, would he not still have that right under this bill,
although he might have elected first to go before the commission ? In
my judgment, this provision is clear and explicit. .
Mr. DIBBLE. There is an express clause in the bill to the con-
trary. It is to be found in section 9:
SEC.9. That any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act may either make complaint to the
commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit in his or their own
behalf for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may be
liable under the provisions of this act, in any district or circuit eourt of the
United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person or persons shall not
have the right to pursue both of said remedies, and must in each case elect
. one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will
aCiopu.
Mr. ROWELL. Does not that clause, as I have already suggested,
provide that only such proceedings as are instituted by the commis-
sion upon the request of the party complaining bar him—not proceed-
ings instituted by the commissioners on their own motion ? &
Mr. DIBBLE. I concede the position the gentleman takes. I have
never maintained the contrary. The distinction is this: in a case where
the commission, of its own motion, takes the initiative, makes a deter-
mination and mulcts a common carrier in an insignificant sum named
as the reparation in a particular case, that does not bar the complainant
of his election to go into court; but when he gets into court that is
pleaded against him as res adjudicata. Therefore he is estopped, be-
cause the other section provides that he can not enforce any further lia-
bility or penalty, including both the civil and the criminal branches of the
subject, if there is an adjudication against the common carrier, however
small, and the carrier complies with the terms of that adjudication.
That is a provision of this bill. If I had time I would like to read it
again to satisfy the gentleman; but he can read it for himself. When
the commission commences an investigation of its own motion, it of
course must summon both parties interested. This does not bar a com-
plainant from going into court, but the relief is barred if the common
carrier has complied with the decision of the commission as to repa-
ration, made in a proceeding on the motion of the commission, begun
prior to his suit. There is another part of this act, Mr. Speaker, which
I approach with Some hesitation, as there is in it a good deal of that am-
biguity which is one of the objections to this act. I refer to the provisions
with reference to the long and the short haul. Now, I agree with the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia, who so ably advocated the adop-
tion of this report two days ago, in his definition of the word “line”
in the fourth section of this act. I agree with him where he says in
relation to that—
I do not understand that the word “line” as used in that section means any-
thing different from road as defined in the bill: - * , *
“The term ‘railroad' as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries
used or Operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a
contract, agreement, or lease.”
We agree, then, that the word “line '' is synonymous with the word
“ railroad; ” and if that be the case, I would call the attention of the
House to the fact that some of the instances which have been cited in
this debate would not find in this act anything applicable to them. An
instance was cited of 76 cents a hundred for freight from New York to
New Orleans, and $1 a hundred on freight from New York to Atlanta.
Why, Mr. Speaker, if the word “line'' means “railroad,” neither the
*
461
route from New York to New Orleans nor the route from New York
to Atlanta is embraced within the terms of the bill, because there is
no provision in the fourth section for a long and a short haul over con-
necting lines, but the language refers only to transportation over the
same line.
If that line means one railroad operating under one control and one
management there is nothing in that section which forbids discrimina-
tion on a through route. Let us take the language of the section, and
let us compare it with the language of the preceding section. In sec-
tion 3 of the bill we have the word “line” again where it speaks of
the common carriers giving equal facilities for interchange of traffic
“between their respective lines”—“and delivering passengers and
property to and from their several lines and those connecting there-
with ”—“and shall not discriminate in their rates and charges between
such connecting lines.” That is through travel. There is nothing
like that in the fourth section.
And instead of providing it shall be unlawful for a common carrier
to receive greater compensation for a shorter than for a longer distance
over the same line or over connecting lines, the words “connecting
lines” are left out, and, as the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP]
says, that simply means over the same railroad. Then the question
comes down to this: -
Suppose a complaint is made against a single common carrier. And
by that, Mr. Speaker, I desire to explain I accept the term railroad to
mean the railroad itself and all the lines controlled by it, whether
leased or otherwise. For instance, I would call the Piedmont Air-
Line, controlling half a dozen connecting roads, a single railroad for
the purpose of this act, because they are all under one management;
but I would not call the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Piedmont Air-
Line Railroad as one in this act, because, while they connect and have
an agreement, under the third section, for the interchange of passen-
gers and traffic, and have an agreement for joint tariff, they are not
actually operated under the same management. They would consti-
tute two railroads, or lines of railroad, and are not the same line.
The question arising here may be put in this way. It is true, no-
body can complain except against a single common carrier which has
charged for passage over the whole of its line less than the charge on its
local tariff for intermediate points. Then comes the inquiry as to the
meaning of these words: “Substantially similar circumstances and
conditions.” (>
It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, in this very bill the joint tariff for con-
necting lines is recognized as being different, and not “substantially
similar” to the “circumstances” of the local tariff. It provides every
road shall post its local tariff, or keep it in an accessible place, so the
public can see it. It also provides that it shall be filed with the com-
mission. It is also provided that it shall exhibit its local rates from
every point of departure to every point of destination upon its line of
road.
What is the provision as to joint tariffs? It is that the joint tariffs
need not be published; they are to be filed with the commission, and
we then leave it to the discretion of the commission whether the com-
mon carriers shall publish one item, or no item, in those joint tariffs.
I call the attention of the House to that section, showing a marked
distinction made between through travel with connecting lines trans-
ferring freight and passengers under a joint tariff and the case of a single
line as specified in section 4. -
462
It appears to me that this act applies only to cases where a railroad
or various railroads or lines under a single controlling management go
from one State to another, and are therefore brought within the juris-
diction of Congress. And, as I read the bill, so far as long and short
hauls are concerned, they are not brought under the fourth section
where connecting lines take up freight or passengers going, for instance,
from New York to New Orleans, because they are not operated under
one management, but each line as a road by itself. And it is provided
expressly in the bill that where there is a joint tariff one road shall not
be held responsible for the action of another road in the connection.
Now let us see how that operates between two points, such as Chi-
cago and New York. Suppose there is one line from New York to Chi-
cago operated under a single control, a management like the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad, which, I believe, has through communication under its
own control. There is also another route or connection between New
York and Chicago, but instead of being under one control it is com-
posed of two connecting lines. In the one case the tariff comes under
the local tariff provision; it is to be published for the benefit of all con-
cerned, everybody must have access to it; while under the other it
comes under the provision of a joint tariff of connecting lines. And, as
I understand the fourth section, in one case the commission has juris-
diction, and in the other it has not, although the points of departure
and arrival are identical. This and many other inconsistencies could
be corrected if further conference is had on the bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the bill unfair to the people in
some of its provisions and unfair to the common carriers in others;
and I do not believe that a piece of glaring injustice to one party in
one section is properly compensated by similar injustice to the other
party in another section. And I can not agree with those gentlemen who
think that the main thing to be done is to pass an interstate-commerce
bill, whatever may be its defects. -
When I consider the great benefits which have been realized from the
intercourse of trade and travel between different parts of our common
country by means of our lines of railroad I would foster and encourage
them in every way in the proper discharge of their duties to the pub-
lic; while I would give to the people every remedy against extortion
and unjust discrimination which our courts of justice can afford and
which Congress has power to enact. This bill, in my humble judg-
ment, accomplishes neither of these ends; but it proposes instead to
clothe five men with the power to make discriminations between com-
mon carriers equally as odious and unjust as any of which such car-
riers have been guilty in their dealings with the public, and it couches
the relief which it professes to give against the real grievances of the
people in such ambiguous phrases that scarcely any two persons inter-
pret it alike. From it will spring, not relief but long, expensive, and
fruitless litigation. . -
Such will be the inevitable result from the passage of a bill which
no one understands, which members who vote for it 'condemn, and
which, in the grant of arbitrary power of suspension of our action to a
body of five men, is a confession that we fear the consequences of our
own legislation. Better far would it be to confer jurisdiction on the
established tribunals of justice, both State and Federal, to hear and
determine the complaints of those who have been wronged, according
to those well-defined principles of the law of common carriers which
the experience of many years has ascertained and illustrated. Surely
the courts which can render judgment concerning the life, liberty, and
463
property of the citizen might well be intrusted with the adjudica-
tion of his rights as a traveler and a shipper of goods or against a com-
mon carrier and of the rights existing between common carriers in
their mutual relations with each other.
[Here the hammer fell.] .
Mr. CALDWELL. Whatever time may be remaining I will reserve,
as I propose to yield it to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OATES].
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MCMILLIN in the chair). The gen-
tleman has five minutes of his hour remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I yield ten minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. BRAGG].
Mr. BRAGG. Mr. Speaker, I take the floor in order that my vote
upon the pending bill may neither be misconstrued nor misunderstood.
I am opposed to this bill and shall vote, as my judgment dictates as
right, against the bill.
In a former Congress I had the honor to address this House in oppo-
sition to the bill upon the question of general policy. I shall here
very briefly state my opposition to it from a political view.
If the history of the times is right and if public opinion has not been
formed upon imperfect or, perhaps want of, evidence, it was but a few
years since that the legal-tender decisions of the Supreme Court of the
United States were reversed. Public opinion said that they were re-
versed by the votes of two judges appointed at the request of certain
railway companies. Still later than that public opinion has it that a
large amount of ‘‘ boodle” was furnished to carry a campaign in In-
diana as the price of an appointment. I do not say whether public
opinion was correct or incorrect; I desire to express no opinion what-
ever upon that subject, but I do express an opinion thus far on this
question, that if Congress assumes control of all the railroad corpora-
tions in the United States, Congress masses all the capital of the rail-
way companies and makes it a factor in Federal elections; and if Con-
gress votes for the appointment of persons who are to determine
ultimately upon the construction of the law it passes, we force railroad
capital into the canvass to secure the election of a man who will bend
his knee to their wishes in order to secure their support.
Therefore I regard it as a dangerous exércise of power, and one which,
although it may temporarily relieve the people in some respects from
injuries and grievances under which they now suffer, will ultimately
hang a millstone around their necks by which they will be drowned in
the deep sea. 3. * }
I oppose the bill, sir, secondly, because I am opposed to the fourth
section of the bill known as the long and short haul provision. I be-
lieve that section is not founded upon business principles, and for that
reason it would be unwise legislation. I believe it to be opposed to
the interests of my constituents. I believe it to be a deadly blow at
the great agricultural interests of the Northwest, and for that reason I
oppose it.
I am not to be driven from my position by newspaper articles or by
intimidation, for fear of being called an attorney of a railway company.
These things have no sort of terror to me. I have prosecuted railway com-
panies for the last thirty-five years in every court in the circuit wherein
I live. I oppose it because I believe it to be wrong, as I have said, upon
business principles. The merchant who sells a million dollars’ worth
of goods can sell that quantity at a much less rate per cent. of profit
than he who sells but $50,000 worth of goods, and at the same time
receive much more remunerative profit from his sales. Why? Because
464
the smaller percentage on the larger amount nets in the aggregate a
greater sum than the larger percentage on the smaller amount of sales.
So, the railroad company that transports twenty millions of dollars of
freight for one community can, for the purpose of securing that trans-
portation, take that freight to market at a reduced rate, much less than
it could for the community that furnishes but one million dollars of
freight. .
The principle to my mind is exactly the same. We of the West are
indebted for its immense development, to the rich fields of grain which
it raises every year, to its tremendous herds of cattle which are raised
there and find their way to market, to the butter and cheese which it
produces for export, and very largely to the railways. The energetic in-
tellect which manages the railway systems of the country discovered
early that the true way for them to make money was to strike their lines.
with feeders into every section of the rich Northwest, with its fertile
fields; that when the farms were cultivated and the towns and cities.
grew up it would furnish not only tons by the hundreds for transpor-
tation but by the million for carriage to the markets of the country.
Their foresight has proved, at last, to be true in realization; for while
there were but about eleven million of tons of freight shipped East from
Chicago in 1865, in 1885 there were nearly sixty-six million of tons.
shipped, and that shipment came from the development of the agricult-
ural fields of the West—Dakota, that furnishes so much wheat, and Min-
nesota, that furnishes so much flour. When the amount of this export
trade is taken into consideration and the railway companies negotiate
for the purpose of securing that freight to the seaboard they can make
better rates where they are to be furnished with so large a supply of
tonnage than they can make with us in Wisconsin, where they will be
furnished with a less amount. And so if they have received from us,
from Wisconsin, a greater quantity of any article, they can make terms
with us better than with Ohio, which will furnish less; and with Ohio
they can make better terms than they can make with Pennsylvania.
It is a question which can only be solved by the men who deal prac-
tically with it day by day. -
In addition to this large increase of freight the result is that there has
been a reduction of rates in the ratio of four to one, showing that all
other sections, besides these sections where these products came from,
receive proportionately a reduction in their rates, by reason of the
increased business of the transportation companies.
As I said, it is a question that can only be settled by the practical
men who handle it and deal with it. It can not be settled by men
dreaming and then talking philosophy over it. It can not be settled
by newspaper men, who know nothing at all of the problem of trans-
portation; and it can not be settled by legislators who are as ignorant
as the newspaper men. -
In this identical bill and in this section the conference committee
and the Senate of the United States have filed their cognovit that they
do not know enough to make the regulations to regulate trade. They
have passed the long and the short haul, but they added to it a proviso
as follows: -
Provided, however, that upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may in special cases, after in-
vestigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the
commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such desig-
hº common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of
this act.
465
Here we have, then, Congress making a law prescribing what shall
not be done, and in the same breath delegating to a commission in its
discretion to nullify its provisions.
This, I say, is a confession of incompetency. It is saying, with a
grand flourish to the shippers: We have relieved you from all discrimina-
tion, but have provided for the appointment of men who may legalize
and authorize the thing forbidden to be done. I do not believe this is
sound legislation, or that it will have any other effect than to disturb
business, to upturn, for a time, all the freighting interest of the West,
increase freights, and reduce the price of all export products. The
burden of the law will be borne, like all the other burdens of the Gov-
ernment, by the producer, whom this law pretends to shield and whose
interests it pretends to protect.
“But, sir, another illustration occurs to me as I am speaking in elab-
oration of the views before suggested, that the bill was not framed on
business principles. - -
When the grain crops are being moved all of the rolling-stock of the
corporation will be in use and be productive. After that comes a period
when a portion of it and the working force in connection with it are
scarcely earning their wages. Certainly you would hardly expect as
low rates as when everything was in use. As business decreases so
rates must increase, or the carrier is running at a loss, which no one
asks for. -
It therefore seems to me, sir, that no law can be passed by us which
can properly adjust this great transportation problem. The only law
that occurs to me which can deal properly with it is the law of self-
interest under certain legislative restrictions which may be imposed
without danger. -
In what I here have said my reference has been to through freights
to the seaboard. In these there may be more or less of discrimination
at certain points. There can be no restrictions imposed that will not
leave some ground for complaint. Legislation, however, can not be
framed upon exceptional cases; it must confine itself to general rules;
and while we are studying the problem how to get the product of the
grain-fields of the West to the market so that the cost of production
and the cost of transportation will not exceed the value of the product
when it reaches the market, we must remember that in all governments
the individual has to yield measurably his natural rights to constitute
an organization that will promote the interest and welfare of the greater
number. Society rests upon this principle, and there is no good reason
why transportation may not, in a measure, be governed by the same
law.
The West and South, more remote from market, may safely have
extended to them advantages of shipment, which develop their sec-
tions and enrich the whole country, although certain States nearest to
markets may not obtain as large profits as they otherwise would but
for the competition thus furnished. -
The contention here is precisely, in principle, the contention be-
tween Pennsylvania and New England with the West and South—
high tariff taxation enriches the former and impoverishes the latter,
while I contend that a medium is the true rule. The former States
must lose some of their profits, because a proper regard for the interests
of the other States requires that they shall let up that the remainder
of our people may live and prosper.
I S C–30
466
My belief is that the prohibition against pooling is the true solution
of the question so far as we may be able to reach it on through freight,
and local State laws guarding against unreasonable and unjust dis-
crimination in the States upon local trade where other principles are in-
volved in the question. -
By prohibiting pooling and consolidation of roads, the latter being
under State jurisdiction, you create a healthy business competition,
controlled by the law of self-interest. The road that is worth what
its stock and mortgages represent can carry cheaper, of course, than
roads with large issues of stock and large indebtedness exceeding pres-
ent values. These latter roads, it seems to me, are kept up by pools.
Do away with that system and fictitious values must go, and the stock
of the road must be re-capitalized upon basis of actual valuation.
When that is done I think self-interest will do the rest, and we shall
have reached as near as we may the solution of the question. My
views may be crude and impracticable, but as I now look at the ques-
tion they justify my vote.
One word in addition and I have done, What sense is there in hav-
ing this great commission sit in Washington? Why not make it Florida
in the winter and the White Mountains in midsummer? There would
be just as much practical sense in such location as to make Washington
the central point. -
The commission should be where the business to be watched and ex-
amined is—where freight is shipped and contracts of shipment are
made—I mean by this that the place of location should be upon some
point easily accessible, upon the great trunk lines—like Chicago for in-
stance, where all the lines converge and where all the Northwestern
lines and the lines from the Pacific coast terminate. There would be
some sense in that; but Washington is way at the end of the tail of
railroad business. And the place could only have been selected, with
a view of having the commissioners near at hand, to be labored with by
politicians when Congress is in session. .
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McMILLIN). The time of the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin has expired. -
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I yield five minutes to the gentle-
man from Michigan [Mr. CUTCHEON].
Mr. CUTCHEON. It would be impossible in the five minutes which
the gentleman from New York has kindly yielded to me to discuss the
provisions of this biil. I do not expect to discuss them, but simply to
state in a few words the reasons why I expect to vote for the bill.
In the Forty-eighth Congress I voted for the commission bill and
against the so-called Reagan bill. I thought at that time that as the
first step in a new field of legislation the commission bill was the
preferable form of legislation. I still believe that for a first step the
Senate bill would be the better bill. Nevertheless I have come to the
conclusion that I shall vote for this bill simply because I do not expect
to have the opportunity in this Congress of voting for any other bill;
and I do believe that it will be better for the country to have this bill,
with all its faults and with all its uncertainties, than to have no legis-
lation at all upon this great and important subject. .
As I said, we are entering upon a new field of legislation as a Federal
Legislature. We are about to lay our hands upon the greatest mate-
rial interest that this country possesses; and that is its internal com-
merce. The vastness of that interest is measured not by hundreds of
millions, but by thousands of millions of dollars annually. Under
such circumstances it seems to me that the danger is in attempting too
467
much as a first step. And I fear that this bill attempts too much.
When the great commercial bodies of this country in all its great com-
mercial centers are sending up their protests, I think it ought to give
us serious reason to pause before taking so long a step as this.
I expect, Mr. Speaker, that this bill, if it becomes a law, will be at-
tended with friction, with loss, and perhaps bankruptcy to some rail-
roads; with some loss to producers by the increased cost of transporta-
tion, and more or less confusion in our internal commerce. And yet I
intend to vote for the bill because I believe upon the whole, balancing
gain against loss, balancing the profit that is to come to the entire people
of this country against the loss that will come to particular classes and
particular organizations, the balance is on the side of the good and not
on the side of the evil.
I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, that when we meet again in two years
from now we shall be ready, almost all of us, to vote to modify some of
the provisions and, if it becomes a law, perhaps to repeal some of the
provisions of this bill. I say, frankly, that if I had the power I would
strike the fourth section out of the bill entirely. I believe that it will
strike the State which I have the honor in part to represent a serious
blow, because we depend very largely upon cheap transportation of
bulky and weighty products, such as salt, lumber, iron, and copper.
I believe that the long haul and the short haul discrimination as it
has been practiced by the railroads of this country is based upon sound
business principles. It is the difference between the wholesale and
the retail of commerce, and I believe that it is not a discrimination
against the people, but, on the contrary, a discrimination in the inter-
est of the great masses of the community who, by means of the long-
haul rate, are enabled to dispose of their produce and acquire their
necessaries to better advantage. In other words, I believe that the
system brings the meat and the bread of the Western producers cheaper
to the consumers of the great Atlantic seaboard and returns a larger
compensation to the producers of the West and Northwest. Yet, not-
withstanding this belief, believing also that this is a bill in the inter-
est of the many as against the few, I expect to give it my vote. I wish
it were a better bill, but I despair of a better bill in this Congress, and
I shall therefore vote for this one. -
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I yield now to the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. FULLERJ.
Mr. FULLER. Mr. Speaker, the question of the regulation of inter-
state commerce has been before Congress for many years, and as yet no
action has been taken The people have been patiently waiting, in ex-
pectation that the law-making power would take some steps toward
remedying the great evils which have arisen growing out of the manner
in which the great corporations have treated the shippers of the country.
The people have not expected that a perfect law would be draughted at
once, but they have expected that some steps would be taken to insure
a remedy. Every attempt at control has been met by the determined
opposition of the corporations. .
. It mattered not whether it was State or National control, the corpora-
tions were always on hand with their objections to the proposed plan;
these objections presented by the most astute counsel that could be se-
cured. Never in the history of this question have you found the great
minds who manage these great enterprises present giving counsel and
in good faith assisting the law-making powerinformulating a law which
would be fair to the people as well as the corporations.
468
I presume each member of this body has received a score of news-
papers containing carefully prepared articles arguing against the pro-
posed legislation, but how many railway presidents and managers have
in good faith said a word which was calculated to assist Congress in the
framing of a law. -
In my own State this question has been before the Legislature for
years, and at every session the best talent in the country has been in
attendance negativing every proposition looking toward the control of .
rates on railways. The corporations come before legislative commit-
tees, and even obtain the use of legislative halls, where they adroitly
pick out the flaws in the proposed legislation, but never attempt to
render any assistance in framing a law. The time has come when the
people expect legislation. They have heard from the corporations.
They have permitted their representatives to make haste slowly in the
enactment of a law, but they now derhand that a law be passed. Any
law that may be enacted will undoubtedly be crude, and will need
much amendment before it meets the end in view. -
The bill as presented by the conference committee should, in my
judgment, be amended in several particulars, but rather than have
this session close without some legislation on this great question I shall
vote for the bill.
My first criticism to the present bill is that too much is expected of
the commission. I am afraid that in its practical workings it will
prove a failure and a delusion. It seems to me perfectly idle to sup-
pose that a commission of five men can properly and fairly settle and
pass upon the multiplicity of questions arising between shippers and
railways on 130,000 miles of railway, extending from Maine to Califor-
nia and from Oregon to Florida. It will, in my judgment, only be a
few months before there will be accumulated before this commission
hundreds of cases, and that it will be years before the parties will see
the settlement of their differences. . -
Giving parties the right to go into the Federal courts will give a
remedy which will be more satisfactory to the people than the com-
mission. The Federal courts are better than no forum at all, but the bill
should be so amended as to permit the aggrieved party to go into the
State courts, in any county through which the railway runs, and there
seek his remedy. Why should a shipper be obliged to enter his com-
plaint at Washington before a commission or seek the expensive Fed-
eral court situated perhaps 200 miles from his home 2 Why not give
the State courts jurisdiction and permit a jury of twelve men of the
county to decide on the merits of the case? -
My own State last winter passed a law compelling foreign corpora-
tions doing business in the State of Iowa to incorporate under State
law. The people of Iowa believe in having the same forum for corpora-
tions as for the people. -
The people are jealous of that old-fashioned right of trial by jury.
It took the English-speaking people many hundred years to secure that
right. It was one of those great rights which they demanded and se-
cured when they wrung from ICing John the famous Magna Charta.
The people will look with suspicion upon any process different from
the ordinary courts of the land for the redress of their grievances.
The railways have, as a rule, favored the commission, but I find one
railway magnate who is fair enough to state that he doubts the effi-
ciency of the commission system. I find that the president of the New
York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad, as reported in the New York
469
Tribune of December 19, 1886, says in reference to the commission be-
ing capable of handling the question:
The proposed board of commissioners will, at least for a long time, only aggra-
vate the situation. Five commissioners to examine and decide promptly such
Adelicate, difficult and complicated questions as these !. Seventy-five commis-
sioners well trained in the necessary requirements of their positions could not
do it. It would require the whole time of five commissioners to hear and pass
upon the grievances of this company alone. It would take five for each of the
other trunk lines. It would take months of careful and diligent examination to
I believe there is much truth in the foregoing statement. But while
the commission may not be effective as a mode of redress there is much
that it can do in the way of gathering statistics, making reports, ex-
amination of the manner in which railways are conducted which will
be of benefit to the people. I could not vote for this bill if the only
remedy was through a commission. The courts being open to the
people they will furnish to them a forum in accordance with our sys-
tem of government. And I have faith to believe that jurisdiction will
soon be given to State courts in accordance with the demand of the
people.
There is much that is good in this bill. It provides that all charges
shall be reasonable and just; that discriminating rates shall be pro-
hibited; that no preferences shall be shown; that pooling shall be
unlawful; that rates shall be published; that notice shall be given
of advance in rates; that no combinations shall be formed to prevent
continuous carriage of freights; that these common carriers shall be
liable to all damages incurred by party injured. A bill containing such
excellent provisions, if passed, will be an indication to the people that
the law-making power propose to control these gigantic monopolies
which have in the past paid so little respect to the rights of the people.
What an indictment could be presented against these railway corpora-
tions if time would permit to enter into all the details. Probably 75
per cent. of the railways west of Indiana have not cost the companies
a dollar for right of way and road bed. The public has given millions
upon millions of the best and most fertile portion of the land to secure
their construction.
, Not only this, but they have bonded their cities and towns—levied
taxes in aid of railway construction until the people groaned under the
load. Notwithstanding the liberality of the people, how have they
been treated?' We find unjust and unreasonable charges have been
the rule. That there has been such discrimination between persons and
places that men have been driven out of business because they were
not the favorites of corporations. That this discrimination has extended
to towns and cities to such an extent that in cases where located in the
same part of the State of equal advantages and size twenty-five years
ago, one has felt the powerful hand of the railway and has been dis-
criminated against while the other has been favored with special rates.
To-day one is a thriving city, while the other has been at a stand-still
all these years. . . .
The same has been true of the country. We find sections where
land is worth sixty and one hundred dollars per acre, the farms are
well improved with fine houses and barns, while another section with
equal natural advantages is making no progress, and land worth 50
per cent. less, because the one community was favored in rates by the
railways, and the other not. The railways have insisted on a rate of
exorbitant charges, demanded in order to pay an interest on stock
470
watered in many cases to several times the amount of the original cost
of the road.
The corporations said a few years ago the building of rival railroads
will settle all questions in the competition which will follow. But we
find as soon as competitive lines were built that a system of pooling
was inaugurated, and the people were in no better condition than they
were with one line.
The railways insisted for years that the public had no right to con-
trol their rates. They insisted that as they were quasi public corpo-
rations they had, under the power of eminent domain, the right to run
a railway where they pleased, it mattered not if the homestead of gen-
erations had to be removed, or the remains of the ancestors of the people
had to be scattered, in order to secure a road-bed for the railway. And
now, when the people say, that, under this same power of eminent do-
main, we shall control your charges to the extent that they shall be
fair, that they shall not discriminate between the people, they should
find no fault.
The railway corporations should not expect the people to remain quiet
under the exactions imposed upon them. To-day, if you are a resident of
Iowa City and desire to buy corn to feed steers, the Chicago and Rock
Island Company will inform you if you will buy your corn in Nebraska,
andshipit on their road, they will give you a 40 percent. better rate than
they will if you purchase the corn in western Iowa on their line of road.
I received a letter from one of my constituents in northeastern Iowa, a
few days since, in which he stated that the rate from Council Bluffs to
Strawberry Point was 123 cents per hundred, while from any other point
in western or southwestern Iowa it was 20 cents per hundred. This
discrimination is to the injury of every one except the dealers in Council
Bluffs. t
The Central Pacific Railway grants reduced rates to shippers, pro-
vided that no part of their shipments shall be transported by water.
All are familiar with the anthracite coal combination, the discrimi-
nation at Chicago against dressed beef, and the notorious Standard oil
combination with the leading railways of the East. The estimated
resources of the Standard Oil Company in 1873 was $1,000,000, and
now it is said to be $100,000,000. Mr. Cassatt, a member of the Penn-
sylvania Railway Company, admitted before an investigating commit-
tee that in eighteen months the railroads had paid the Standard Oil
Company $10,000,000 in rebates. When a monopoly like this can
be fostered and sustained in this country by combinations with rail-
ways to such an extent that they can increase their resources from one
million to one hundred million in fourteen years, it seems to me it is
time for the law-making power to take hold of this question with a
firm hand. -
The people demand equal rights. That railroads shall not charge a
low rate to their favorites and a higher to others. Every one knows
that it is a common practice at places where the pool is in force for the
railway at the end of the year when settlement is made between ship-
per and railway to give a drawback to the shipper who ships all his
produce over the one line. To such an extent is this carried on that
in the Western States a man who has no private understanding with
railways as to drawbacks cannot successfully compete with his more
fortunate competitor in the purchase of produce. An investigating.
committee appointed by the New York Legislature use five thousand
pages in showing the discriminations in that one State, and it was
y 471
shown to that committee that the books of the New York Central Rail-
way contained over six thousand special rates.
It is said that on account of the discrimination between points that
goods can be shipped cheaper from Pittsburgh to Texas by first ship-
ping to New York and then back via Pittsburgh to Texas than to ship
direct from Pittsburgh to Texas. Again, a system has been inaugu-
rated by the railways of charging “what the freight will bear.” But
why particularize further. The country fully understands the power
of these corporations—the manner in which they have carried on the
business of the country, and the outrages committed by them upon the
rights of the people.
The people are making no war upon railways. They do feel, how-
ever, as if they should not be considered as common plunder for corpo-
rations. They recognize the necessity of railways in this age of prog-
ress and advanced civilization. They know that railways have had
much to do in the wonderful development of this country during the
past twenty-five years; that they are a necessity to the people. Yet
they believe the time has come for the public to insist that the right
of control of charges shall now be enforced. The fact is there should
be a community of interest between the people and railways. They
are to a great extent dependent on each other for prosperity, and it is
surprising that the men who control railways have not on their own
motion taken the initiative in protecting the rights of the people.
The time has come for affirmative action by the law-making power,
and while the present bill is not in my judgment complete in providing
a remedy for the people, yet I will vote for the bill, believing that
action is better than no action, and believing that in the near future
the law will be so amended that the rights of the people will be more
fully protected.
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I yield now to the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR.I.
Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Speaker, I approach the discussion of this
question with a good deal of doubt as to my ability to say anything that
will be new or valuable to the House. It is a remarkable fact that
after nearly three weeks’ discussion of it in the Senate, and after the ex
pressions of opinion that have been made by a large number of the mem-
bers of this House, no member of either the Senate or the House has
been found who believes that this is a proper bill. No single member
has unreservedly approved it, unless, indeed, the magnificent panegyric
which the eloquent gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. GUENTHERJ deliv-
ered yesterday, in the form of a eulogy on the “rising sun,” which he
says is bursting through the clouds of the tyranny, outrage, degradation,
and criminality of the railroad companies of this country, may be said
to be a wholesale indorsement of the provisions of this measure.
There have occupied the floor of the Senate and of the House the
distinguished lawyers of both those bodies, and the authors of this
conference report, and no two of them agree as to the construction
which will ultimately be given by the court of last resort to the lan-
guage of any of the sections of the bill about which there is any con-
troversy. In other words, it is admitted that the law-making power.
of the country, the Congress of the United States, is about to seize
directly upon 130,000 miles of railroad, valued at something like eight
thousand millions of dollars, and indirectly all the industries of the
country, and to turn the whole thing over to an authority whose juris-
diction is not defined in the statute, by an act, the construction of
which is as uncertain as the depths of the waters at various points in
472
the ocean. The farmers of the country, it is said, are in favor of this
enactment. The farmers of my district have not asked for it. I think
I know something of the burdens borne by the farmers of my district
and State, and do not find in any provision of this bill anything which
holds out a reasonable hope of relief. If I did I would waive some o
my objections and vote for it. As it is I can not do so. -
The farmers of the country sometimes complain that the lawyers in
the legislative bodies of the country enact legislation that gives rise to
and multiplies litigation in the courts. If this bill becomes law it will
certainly belong to that category. If it becomes law—and it certainly
will, because, in my humble judgment, it is being driven to an issue
which must result in its triumphant passage in this House, driven by
a condition of things which produces a refusal on the part of the mem-
bers of the House to examine and understand its provisions—it will
produce more litigation than has any law of Congress passed during this
session. I have yet to find around me here a single gentleman who
does not say to me, privately and in great confidence, that he thinks
the bill is utterly worthless for the purpose for which it is designed,
or else that he could suggest a vastly better scheme, and yet, Mr.
Speaker, underlying the whole of this discussion there runs a vein of
certainty upon one point, namely, that every line and every section of
the bill, if passed into a law, will produce in some court in this coun-
try a lawsuit. It is a bill to fatten lawyers and impoverish everybody
else. . -
The bill, as I will try to show when I come to that feature of it, is
so worded as to mask under the uncertainties of its language enough
to show that the construction of every provision of it will be fought
over in the courts, contended over by the lawyers of the country, and
ultimately, if we live long enough, must be decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States. - -
I recognize the force of the argument made by the distinguished
lawyer from South Carolina [Mr. DIBBLE], that there is no provision
whereby the shipper will be able to have his appeal prosecuted in the
upper courts. He claims that the carrier can appeal, but the shipper
can not. But that is a matter of so little importance, in view of the
construction which I am compelled to put upon certain language in
this bill, that I will not, at least at this time, enlarge upon it. :
Mr. Speaker, this bill of uncertainties, this bundle of incongruities,
which has been worked out by compromises, worked out by conces-
sions made between the two Houses, worked out by a contest in which
one side was determined that its especial views should find develop-
ment, and the other side determined that those special views should
not find a place in the enactment, comes to us now to be considered
upon its merits—comes to us in the most unfortunate of all ways for
the purposes of clear and lucid enactment—comes to us in the iron-
clad form of a report from a committee of conference, so that the meas–
ure can not be recommitted generally, or recommitted with instructions,
or amended in the House. And so we are to take all this; to take it
with the declaration from the mouth of every gentleman who has
spoken that there is something wrong about the bill. Even the dis-
tinguished and enthusiastic gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] says
that the section constituting this commission, if he had his way about
it, should not be in the bill. Yet it seems to me that upon that com-
naission hinges the whole of the just opposition to this bill. It is upon
the power granted to this commission and the uncertainty as to what
the bill means that my opposition is based. Is it not strange that this
473
Congress is compelled to take a bad measure or nothing? Why can we
net defeat this measure and have an unobjectionable one ready for our
action to-morrow 2 The defeat of this report leaves the way clear to
another committee of conference and another report.
Now, I want to describe this commission before I go to the question
of what it is the commission is to take hold of. The qualifieation of
these commissioners is described in the law. They are to take hold of
130,000 miles of railroad and indirectly affect all the industries of the
country. They are to have more power than has the President of the
United States—more power for evil or good than has the Congress of the
United States; for they may do what neither the President nor Congress
may do; they may suspend the operation of law; they may enforce the
operation of law upon one man and withhold its operation from another.
They may give whatever is good of this law to one section of the coun-
try and deprive another section of its benefits. So this commission is
to have a power that no other body of men on this continent or in any
free government ever undertook to exercise, and the qualification or
fitness of these commissioners is described in the law. Who are they
to be? They are to be five gentlemen who know nothing whatever of
their business. That is the first requisite; that is a qualification not
to be varied from under any circumstances. Men who know anything
about this business upon which the commission is to embark are to be
debarred from appointment. The commissioners are to hold no stocks
in railroads or any other carrier by land or water, are not to be officers
or attorneys of railroads, are not to be interested directly or indirectly in
the railroads of the country or any of the carriers of the country.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. That refers only to the time of
their appointment. They may have previous knowledge to any extent
Awhatever.
Mr. GROSVENOR. Ah
Mr. ROWELL. The gentleman will let me ask this question: Is a
member of Congress fit to act upon a law incorporating a national bank
unless, he owns national-bank stock?
Mr. GROSVENOR. Some members of Congress are, and some are
not. [Laughter.] These commissioners are to be “tramps?’ without
any visible means of support. And to this body of men is to be com-
mitted this omnipotent control over the greatest interests that this
country every had. Upon its passage the defeated candidates for Con-
gress and other political officers will rush upon the Executive and ask
to be compensated for their loss of position and lack of probable future
profitable occupation. ,
But I am omitting one of the qualifications of this board. Not more
than three of them are to belong to one of the great political parties of
this country. The bill assumes that if a man happens to be without
politics, he is not fit to sit on this board; and I agree to that. It is
the best provision in the bill. No more than three of them are to be-
long to one political party. I can understand from whence will come
these three. I can understand who they will be. Where the other
two will come from I know not. This measure will give to the Execu-
tive of this Government and to the Senate an opportunity to define
whether the genus known in politics as “the mugwump’’ belongs to a
distinctive family or whether he is a parasitical growth upon the sur-
face of some other political body; and to define the difference, if any
there be, between Tammany Hall and Plymouth church.
Mr. GUENTHER. Would not that be worth finding out?
Mr. GROSVENOR, That may be one of the considerations which
474
the gentleman from Michigan says overweigh the bad probabilities of
this bill. I do not know, but it may be possible to find somewhere upon
the face of this earth somebody who has defined his position upon the
politics of the day, and yet has no interest, remote or contingent, di-
rectly or indirectly, heretofore, now, or hereafter, in the development
and prosperity of a system of internal commerce which has made this
country what it is to-day.
These gentlemen, thus equipped, are to have the power to appoint
agents wherever they may see fit. There is no limit. They may ap-
point an agent in every doubtful county, in every doubtful State of the
Union, and set him to work upon the imaginary difficulties growing
out of the Solution of this great railroad problem. They may appoint
thousands in great political years and remove them when the occasion
has passed. Y
Mr. GOFF. What do you mean by “doubtful” counties?
Mr. GROSVENOR. Close counties, like some of those in the State
of my friend from West Virginia. I think it would have been a glori-
ous thing for some of us if we could have had an agent or two of this
character distributed along down the Ohio River Railroad during the
election last November. And I can suggest many other places. There
is, I say, no limit to this power of appointment. That is not all. The
commissioners may fix the salaries of these agents, and may locate
them at every station on every railroad in the United States, so far as
the terms of this bill are concerned. Gentlemen say it is not to be
supposed that this commission will exercise any undue authority. In
answer to that suggestion I would like to ask, when was there a com-
mission appointed in this country that fell short of exercising the full
power that was given to it, especially when expressly told that party
lines and party considerations had entered into their appointment?
Party obligation and gratitude and the hope of reward go a great way.
Three of these commissioners may exercise the full authority of the
board. Three of them belong to a political party; and if they fail in
efficiency (recollect they are appointed without any knowledge of the
business to which they are assigned, and but one qualification is re-
quired, that they belong to a political party)—if they are lacking in
efficiency, the Executive may remove them one by one, and the re-
mainder of them may act, or the President may appoint somebody
else. The granting of such power is inconsistent with a government
by the people. -
Now I want to put a question to gentlemen on the other side of this
Chamber who have so long protested against the growing tendency to-
ward “centralization of power,” who for the last quarter of a century
have been coming in regularly from the barren hills where they were
feasting upon the husks that grew outside of political office, and pro-
testing in their political platforms once a year that a great party in
power in this Government was developing a growing tendency to “cem-
tralization of power.” I want to ask these gentlemen, when before did
any party or any set of men ever undertake to grasp all the interests
and industries of this country in one great bundle and hand them over
to the tender mercies of a commission of five men, to be appointed by
the Federal Executive and confirmed by the Federal Senate?
Mr. CRISP. May I ask the gentleman from Ohio a question?
Mr. GROSVENOR. Certainly.
Mr. CRISP. Is not the gentleman aware when he addresses this
side of the House upon this question that the commission feature of
the bill originated in and came from a Republican Senate, and that we
475
were forced to agree to that to get anything to restrain these corpor-
ations?
Mr. GROSVENOR. The gentleman was fully advised of it, and this
side of the House has not been so sensitive on the subject of the “grow-
ing tendency toward the centralization of power.” Therefore it was
that I appealed to gentlemen on the other side. I appealed to them
because I thought now was a good opportunity for them to protest
against the grandest stride, the most significant stride, the most terrible
stride ever made or suggested, even in the dreams of centralists, in the
direction of putting the political, the commercial, and the industrial
interests of the country into the grasp of a single commission of men
"admittedly incompetent in the outset to administer their trust.
And they are to be the appointees of the Executive of the Govern-
ment and to be removed by him at his pleasure, whenever in his judg-
ment they are inefficient.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McMILLIN in the chair). The
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. GROSVENOR. I desire to continue my remarks in the time of
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS], a member of the Com-
mittee on Commerce, which was given to me.
The SPEAKER pro tempo e. That can only be done by unanimous
consent. Is there objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. GROSVENOR. I desire to pass to one or two peculiar features
of this bill. I will not be tedious. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, there are
others here who have just as good a claim as I have to the floor who
desire to be heard, and I do not intend to complete my speech or oc-
cupy more than a quarter of the time assigned to me.
Mr. BRUMM. You promised to give me some time.
Mr. GROSVENOR. And I will do so. I wish to speak of the pecu-
liar language used in one of these sections.
Mr. DUNHAM. Is the gentleman now occupying different time
from that he occupied at the beginning?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio stated that
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAVIS] gave him his time,
and it is that time he is now occupying, there being no objection.
Mr. GROSVENOR. I have an hour if I choose to occupy it, but I
do not propose to occupy that much time. The gentleman from Massa-
chusetts gave his time to me and I propose to occupy only fifteen min-
utes and then to give what remains to others.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has an hour, and will
proceed.
Mr. GROSVENOR. Mr. Speaker, how does it happen, notwith-
standing the distinguished talent brought to the consideration of the
various sections of this bill, we find at this late day a form of expression
which can not be found in any other statute of the United States—I
think in no other State of the Union where there is a common school
system. I refer to the language of the fourth section where are those
peculiar words about which we have had so much discussion and over
which we are to have so much contention in the courts of the country:
“That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation,” &c.,
“for the transportation of passengers and like kind of property under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions.” Is it supposed
now at this late day that this language has strayed into this bill by
476
accident? Nobody knows what it means. Nobody pretends to say
what it means.
I followed the discussion of the distinguished chairman of the com-
mittee of conference in the Senate, and he finally had to admit, after
a fire of cross-examination, that he did not know what it meant, that
it would have to be left to the courts to decide. Did that language
get there accidentally, or was it not put there for a purpose? If for a
purpose, what was the purpose? I have been trying to ascertain. I
heard the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BRAGG], who gave us a
pyrotechnical flood of questions, speak about the Standard Oil Com-
pany as having been among the tendencies crushing out the liberties
of this country. g
Had I been allowed to do so under the rules, I should have asked to
add to the bill these words: “Nor shall it be lawful for any carrier to
transport any commodity for any shipper in any car or cars belonging
to such shipper, or controlled or leased by such shipper;” but I could
not do so, and so the greatest discrimination possible is not affected by
the bill.
Now let me see if I can not make a suggestion that will probably re-
move the doubt from the Imind of somebody, at least as to how that
language came to be incorporated in the bill, inadvertently, no doubt,
so far as the members of the committee of conference are concerned,
for I do not use any criticism against them of which they could com-
plain, because they do not undertake themselves to define the meaning
of the language, or if they do no two give the same construction to it;
but let me see if I can not give by possibility a solution of this trouble.
Mr. CRISP. To what language do you refer?
Mr. GROSVENOR. To the language of this fourth section “under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions.”
Mr. CRISP. Would the gentleman be willing to say “under ex-
actly similar circumstances and conditions?”
Mr. GROSVENOR. No, sir.
Mr. CRISP. Then, how would you remedy it?
Mr. GROSVENOR. I would not say anything about it. I would
say to every carrier of freight that every man and every corporation who
employs that carrier should be granted the same terms and none other.
Many a good law has been destroyed by an attempt to be so specific
that the force of the statute has been destroyed, and this is no excep-
tion.
Mr. CRISP. You do not mean to say that you would require a trans-
portation company to carry a car-load at the same proportionate rates
that it would carry 100 pounds?
Mr. GROSVENOR. Why not?
Mr. CRISP. There are many reasons why.
Mr. GROSVENOR. I repeat, why not? If I would not, then the
second section of the bill has no force in it, because it says in so many
words that it shall be done without discrimination and without any
rule having application to one man that does not affect all other men.
Mr. CRISP. Of course; but the gentleman understands, I take it,
for it is reasonable and just, that the transportation of the article over
a short distance should be a little higher, should pay a little more,
than the transportation, you may say, over the whole country.
Mr. GROSVENOR. That is just the reason why I am opposed to
limiting it.
Mr. CRISP. And these words were intended, as I stated before, to
meet the proposition that when you cite the railroad companies before
477
the courts they will say that the circumstances in the cases of A and
of B are not exactly similar circumstances; and hence they have not
violated the law by making a discrimination in favor of either. That
the circumstances were not the same. Now we intend to say that it is
for the court and jury to determine whether they believe that the cir-
cumstances are substantially similar. That is what it means.
Mr. GROSVENOR. Yes, you are to have a jury to decide what we
have taken six weeks trying to decide, and no two of us have reached
the same conclusion.
In other words, Congress launches upon the country a statute which
no two members of Congress understand alike, and propose to remit
the solution of the problems to a jury trial.
, But, Mr. Speaker, I will show you where it comes in; I will show
you the reason why this language has crept in. I hold in my hand a
letter from a distinguished lawyer and shipper and railroad man in
Ohio, who points out to me wherein the latent trouble of this bill lies;
and I believe that it was out of the subject-matter of his suggestion
that this uncertain language has crept into this enactment. He tells
me, after criticising the measure in some respects and indorsing it in
most respects, that—
Neither the commission nor the railroads should be allowed to charge less for
a greater than for a less number of cars. There should be no discrimination
between the different classes of shippers. Shippers should not be allowed to use
their own cars for their own business. If cars belonging to any shipper are used
upon any line they should be required to furnish such cars to other shippers in
the same line of business upon the same terms that they are furnished to the
owners, the railway, of course, being liable to the owner for the mileage in such
C3 SeS.
Had this provision been in the bill the ambiguous language com-
plained of would not have appeared.
Now, I will show you how the language “under substantially simi-
lar circumstances and conditions” effectually blocks the operation of
this bill in the direction of the only evil under which the people of
Ohio, so far as I have knowledge, are laboring in connection with this
matter of local railroad transportation. The shipper at Cleveland, for
instance, applies to the railroad company to carry for him a thousand
barrels of oil to Louisville or Nashville. He is given a rate. If he ac-
cepts it he rolls his barrels of oil into the cars and they are transported.
But he asks the railroad agent, “Is that the best you do for anybody ?
Do you not carry for somebody else for less money?” The response
is, ‘‘No, sir; not under exactly similar circumstances and conditions.’”
“How does it happen then that my competitors can undersell me in the
market at Nashville P’’ ‘‘Oh, that is very simple; they do not ship
their oil under exactly ‘similar circumstances and conditions." They
furnish tank cars of their own. They own them. They are rich enough
to own all the tank cars—they and their branches in the United States—
and we haul their cars at a certain price, and we will haul yours at
the same price. Bring on your cars and you will be operating under
“substantially similar circumstances and conditions.’”
Now that language, born by accident, if you please, introduced into
the bill by accident, if you please, is a complete barrier to the applica-
tion of this law in connection with the only subject which the people
of my part of the State are complaining of While attempting to do so
much, I oppose this bill for doing so little.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under the rule of the House which enables me to
extend my remarks, I will close. I am in favor of the passage of a law
which is necessary to restrain discriminations between railroads and
4, 8
shippers; but I am opposed to this bill upon the ground that in the
first place, in my judgment, it is unconstitutional in that it attempts,
by indirection, to affect and control the price of railroad transportation
within a State; for, after listening to all that has been said—I can see
no possible escape from the proposition that if the railroad commission
is permitted to fix a rate from New York to Chicago, and it is rendered
unlawful to charge a higher rate for a shorter portion of the line—I can
See no escape but that it is obnoxious to the proposition, that it is an
attempt by indirection to do that which it cannot do directly; and it
will bring about conflict of jurisdiction between local rates fixed by the
States and interstate rates fixed under this bill. In such an event,
which side must succumb?
Mr. BRUMME. I would like to ask the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
GROSVENOR) one question before he takes his seat, and then, perhaps,
I will not ask for any time in this debate.
I happen to represent in part the anthracite coal interests of this
Country. But a few years ago anthracite coal was not burned in the
far Western States. In fact in many instances they burned their corn
as fuel. Lately we have begun to ship anthracite coal to the far Western
States. We do it because the through freights from the far West to the
East are always full; the cars are loaded with grain; going West the
through cars are generally empty. Lately, however, the railroads, for
the purpose of getting traffic both ways, are carrying our coal at as low
as 75 cents a ton, I am told.
Now, then, if this bill passes with the long and short haul in it, it
will prevent the railroads from carrying coal to the extreme West at a
cheaper rate than they are carrying it locally—for I have here figures
that show that the through freights beyond Pittsburgh are 1,684,000
tons East in round numbers, while West they are 572,000 tons; of local
freights the tonnage East is 13,884,000, while West it is 7,905,000; show-
ing that the local freights are largely in excess of the through freights.
If this bill is passed now—and the roads certainly will not give up
their larger freights for the shorter freights, or the greater bulk of per-
centage for the smaller bulk—will not the practical result be that the
farmer of the West will either have no anthracite coal at all, and the
anthracite region will not have that Western market for its coal, or you
men of the West will have to pay a much higher rate for your anthra-
Cite coal 2
Mr. GROSVENOR. I will remit the question of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to some far Western Representative. I do not think it
can be answered satisfactorily by the friends of this bill.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. We have coal in the West now.
Mr. BRUMM. I beg your pardon; not anthracite.
Mr. GROSVENOR. I represent an agricultural district that is not
interested in having the cheap lands of Dakota brought into the same
relation to New York and New England as the farming lands of Ohio
are. Therefore I am not in favor of abolishing the geography of this
country according to which Ohio is placed half way between the wheat-
growing section of the West and the wheat-eating section of the East.
And I am in favor of maintaining all the advantages of our location
and the superior advantage nature has given us for the sale of our ag-
ricultural and industrial products.
I oppose this measure because it will not render any relief to ship-
pers; and I oppose it because it puts an unwarranted and dangerous
power in the hands of a commission not qualified to administer it.
Mr. Speaker, I am aware that it is a common and cheap line of talk
479
to condemn the railroads and charge all our evils up to their extor-
tion. - -
Mr. Poor, perhaps the best authority upon railroad statistics in the
United States, gives a statement of the comparative rates upon all the
railroads in the country. The comparison is between the years 1865
and 1885, a period of twenty years. It will be seen that the prices of
carrying have fallen at a ratio out of proportion to all other reduction.
The cost of all the commodities which enter into the every-day living
of a family has fallen, it is true, but the prices of railroad transporta-
tion has fallen to less than one-fourth the cost in 1865.
Mr. Poor says:
In illustration of the correctness of these observations certain tabular state-
ments have been prepared and annexed hereto, compiled from the annual re-
ports of the railroad companies as printed in Poor's Manual of the Railroads of
the United States. From the statements 1, 2, and 3, which include the Pennsyl-
vania, the Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago, the New York Central, the Lake
Shore, the Michigan Central, the Boston and Albany, and the Erie Railroads, the
great carriers between Chicago and the seaboard, it will be seen that the num-
ber of tons transported over these lines in 1865 equaled 11,151,701 tons; in 1885,
66,521,153 tons, the increase within the period of twenty years equaling 55,369,452
tons,the rate per cent.increase equaling 500 per cent. Their earnings from freight
equaled $47,832,873 in 1865, and $72,138,792 in 1885: the increase of earnings in the
twenty years equaling $24,305,989, the rate of increase being about 50 per cent.
. It further appears that the number of tons moved 1 mile in 1865 by the roads
named equaled 1,654, 324,000 tons; in 1885, 11,331,306,000 tons, the service per-
formed being nearly seven times greater in 1885 than in 1865, the increase of earn-
ings in the same period equaling only about 50 per cent. The average charge
per ton per mile in 1865 on the roads named equaled 2.90 cents; in 1885, 0.636
cent per ton per mile, the reduction equaling 2.264 cents per ton per mile, the
rate in 1885 equaling only 22 per cent. of that of 1865. Had the rates charged in
1885 been the same as those charged in 1865, the earnings from freight would
have equaled $328,617,874, or $256,479,081 more than that received.
The number of tons of freight transported in 1865 by the great lines entering
Chicago from the South, West, and Northwest—the Illinois Central, the Chicago
and Alton, the Chicago and Rock Island, the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy,
the Chicago and Northwestern, and the Chicago, Milwaukee, and Saint Paul—in-
cluded in the statements 4, 5, and 6, equaled 4, 32, 166 tons; in 1885, 34,348,684
- tons, the increase in the twenty years equaling 30, 336,518 tons, the rate of in-
crease being over eightfold. Their earnings from their transportation of
freight in 1865 equaled $18,703,805; in 1885, $75,307,684, the increase in the period
named being $56,603,879. The number of tons moved in one mile in 1865, equaled
513,421,500 tons; in 1885, 6,287,346,000 tons. The average charge per ton per mile
in 1865 was 3.642 cents; in 1885, 1.200 cents, the decrease in the period of twenty
years equaling 2.442 cents per ton per mile, the percentage of decrease being
67 per cent. Had the charges been the same in 1885 as they were in 1865, then
their earnings would have equaled $229,084,432 against $75,307,684, or a sum of
$153,776,748 greater than that received.
A very large proportion of the freight received in Chicago is destined for East-
ern or for foreign markets. A very large amount of it is produced in districts
1,500 miles distant from the seaboard. At the average rate, 3.07 cents per ton per
mile, charged in 1865 by the lines included in the annexed statements, it would
cost fully $30 to transport a ton of freight from Chicago to the seaboard, and $45
per ton from points 500 miles further west, and from which large portions of the
breadstuffs and provisions now sent to the seaboard for domestic and foreign
consumption are received. At the rate of 3.07 per ton per mile, the charge of
the tonnage moved on the roads named in 1885 would have been $538,890,781 in
the place of $147,446,476, the amount actually received.
An increase in the tonnage of the railroads named from 15,183,867 in 1865 to
100,879,837 in 1885, accompanied by a reduction of net charges of transportation
from 3.07 cents to 0.831 cents per ton per mile, the saving, 2.176 cents per ton per
mile effected thereby to be divided between producer and consumer, equaling
$391,453,855, is complete vindication of the railroad companies from the charges
of oppression and misconduct brought against the same, of which an example
will be given. Such a development could have been possible only by the adop-
tion by the railroads of a policy suited to the problem to be solved, which was
nothing less than to give a commercial value to the products of every acre in-
cluded in our vast domain. While the average charge for 18S5 of the great lines
from Chicago to New York averaged 0.636 cents per ton per mile, and that on
the great lines centering at Chicago averaged 1,200 cents per mile, the average
for all being 0.831 cents per ton per mile, the charge for moving a ton of wheat
\
480
or flour from Minneapolis to the seaboard did not much exceed one-half the gen-
eral average, or $6 the ton.
At the average minimum rate, the charge would have been $12 perton. As the
greater part of the wheat grown in Minnesota is accumulated at that place pre-
paratory to its being sent to the Eastern markets, every farmer in the State of
Minnesota is benefited in the degree of the cheapness of the “long haul.” If ac-
cording to the doctrine of the bill now before Congress the charges for the “short
haul 'should not exceed those of the “long haul,” then it is equally true that
the charges of the “ long haul” should equal those of the “short haul.” No prop-
osition could be more obnoxious to the farmers in the far West, or in fact in every
portion of the country, than that the charge of the “long haul’” should equal that
of the “short haul;” in other words, that the same eharges should be made under
all circumstances and conditions. No proposition could have been more unwise
or unjust. The rigid application of such a rule would so increase the rates of the
“long haul” that no wheat could be probably grown in the far West, the cost of
its carriage exceeding its value after reaching its proper markets. A rigid appli-
cation of the doctrine laid down in the report of the committee of conference
would destroy the greater part of the domestic and foreign commerce of the coun-
try. It may here be remarked that while there bas been an enormous reduction
in the rates on the “long haul’” there has, on the average, been a still greater re-
duction in the rates charged on the “short haul.”
I respectfully put up these facts against the lurid denunciation of all
railroads to which the House and the country have been subjected during
the past month.
The great railroad men of the country do not oppose regulation, but
they do condemn some of the provisions of this bill. I quote from a let-
ter which was written by one of the most intelligent railroad men of the
West. He says:
The long and short haul at the same rate per ton per mile is the specially
vicious feature of the bill, in my judgment. Roads like the Pennsylvania, New
York Central and Hudson River, or the New York and New Haven, which run
through populous cities and towns, may not be severely injured by the passage
and enforcement of that bill, but longer and shorter limes, in comparatively
sparsely settled districts, and, in fact, most lines, will suffer very much.
The local traffic of most roads is a very large portion of the whole; the
through traffic generally a small portion. Naturally all tariffs of roads will,
when that bill takes effect, be based on the local traffic, with the intent, so far as
State laws will allow, to obtain from it the means of paying expenses and in-
terest, and a dividend if possible. A.
Local tariffs will, therefore, be necessarily such that the products of the Western
and Southern farms can not be sent to the seaboard by rail, because the charges,
under such local tariffs, added together will make virtually worthless at the
farm the products of the farm. While the railroads would suffer, some less,
some more, some to the extent of bankruptcy, I think the effect upon the people
as a whole would be far worse; hence I think that a very short time would pass,
subsequent to the taking effect of such bill, before a loud demand would come
from every part of the country for its repeal; hence I do not favor railroads com-
bining to oppose the bill, because I think such joint action would have an effect
the exact opposite to that desired.
One more very objectionable feature, in my opinion, is that authorizing a
commission to modify the application of the law in special cases—a power the
Supreme Court of the United States has not. Unless there be a human equiva-
lent for the angel Gabriel, who is also a citizen of the United States, and there-
fore a possible commissioner, I know no person with whom it would be wise to
intrust such power and control of rates for the transportation of the vast com-
merce of this country.
And again another distinguished railroad operator says:
In regard to the Reagan bill it has seemed to me a wretched mistake. It will
set the country back five years in its material prosperity; but I have taken the
ground that if it must come this is the best time for it. I am one of the railway
managers who have always been in favor of a bill that should establish a rail-
way commission with supervisory powers. I also believe that rates should be
made public; that the payments of rebates and special contracts should be
stopped. It is a mistake, however, to prohibit pooling, as that serves to steady
the rates, and it is absolutely death to our Western country to have the long and
short haul clause enacted. Why can not your colleagues be persuaded to pass a
bill leaving this clause out, but instructing the commission to report as to the
advisability of the same. It seems to me that if they were managing their own
business affairs that is a course they would pursue. You well understand that
in order to get corn from the Missouri Valley to the markets of Europe, via
481
Baltimore or other seaports, we have to make a very low rate. This helps the
farmer, the railroads, and the entire country. I can not see how it will be pos-
sible to do anything of this kind if the long and short haul clause is retained.
This, in brief, is my judgment. -
A gentleman residing at a point in my own Congressional district,
himself an ex-member of Congress, and whose interests are in buying
and shipping timber and lumber, writes me as follows:
I view with some apprehension the “short and long haul ‘’ clause in the in-
terstate-commerce bill, and think it worth while to write you. It often happens
that the business application of well-intended law is precisely opposite from
that desired or expected. This clause is intended to protect the local shipper.
In our case the heavy tonnage is timber and coal. The effect on coal rates you
know as well as I. On timber I will illustrate : I move about one hundred car-
loads this month. Sixty cars go to Buffalo and points in New York and Penn-
sylvania. This market for our hard wood is rapidly increasing. To reach it
low rates are essential, as much so as for coal. Now we get 10 cents per 190.
To Buffalo, for example, the proportion to Cleveland is 6 cents: Cleveland to
Buffalo, 4 cents per hundred. Under the proposed clause the Lake Shore Rail-
road must carry all lumber from Cleveland to Buffalo at 4 cents per hundred-
weight or refuse ours, or advance our rates, which is the same thing. When the
saw-mills that are buzzing all over the district stop, then, like the reduction on
wool, we will hearinquiry as to cause. The East is our great timber market, and
lations are being rapidly established. Sudden or violent disruption will give a
long set-back. I write hastily to suggest more careful inquiry on your own part.
What is good in the bill may be saved without imposing difficulties in an effort
to apply untried principles to railroad managements by sudden force.
One of the ablest lawyers of Ohio, largely interested in interstate com-
merce, writes to me as follows:
I have given the interstate-commerce bill very considerable attention. I do
not believe that Congress has the constitutional power to enact such a law as is
proposed. Barring that question, however, I am decidedly in favor of a law of
the general tenor and effect of the one reported by the joint committee. The
law, however, is very imperfect, and to be efficient should be amended. Of
course I understand that to be amended it must first be rejected and then sub-
mitted to a new conferenee. The new conference should, in my judgment,
amend the bill as follows: -
First. Strike out the whole of section 4. There is no need of any special leg-
islation upon the subject of long and short hauls so long as the railroads are re-
quired to carry at a reasonable rate, and the commission has full power to judge
of what is reasonable. The public would be amply protected and the hands of
the commission would not be tied upon this important question.
Second. Section 6 should be amended so as to require the same notice of a re-
duction in rates that is required for an advance. The reasons for this will sug-
gest themselves to you at once. The interest of the shipper and the railroads
fairly conducted would be alike promoted by this requirement.
Third. The penalties provided by the law should reach those who are really
guilty. Railway officials, from the president down, giving advantages to fa-
vored shippers should be punished instead of innocent stockholders.
Fourth. The guilty shipper gaining an undue advantage should be punished
to the same extent as the guilty railway official. Moreover, he should be held
liable to refund the money or other thing of value gained to the railway com-
pany, and in case the railway company omits to bring suit any informer should
be allowed to bring suit upon such terms as may be deemed reasonable.
Fifth. Neither the commission nor railways should be allowed to charge less
for a greater than for a less number of cars. There should be no discrimination
between the different classes of shippers. Both railroad men and the commis-
sion will fix the rates for transportation in view of all the business to be done,
and hence no deductions should be allowed because of the large quantity fur-
nished by any one man for transportation.
Sixth. Time contracts for carrying freight or passengers should be absolutely
prohibited.
Seventh. Shippers should not be allowed to use their own cars for their own
business. If cars belonging to any shipper are used upon any line, they should
be under the control of the railway, and the railway should be required to
furnish such cars to other shippers in the same line of business upon the same
terms that they are furnished to the owners, the railway, of course, being liable
to the owner for the usual mileage in such cases. *
I make these suggestions for the purpose of making the law what it was evi-
dently intended by the joint conferenee——a law that will open the railroads to
I S C 31
4S2
the public upon the same terms, so that every man desiring to make use of the
railways for the transportation of persons or property will have the same
freedom in regard to their use that every man to-day has in regard to the facili-
ties of the Post-Office Department.” - -
A shipper of long and varied experience has made to me the following
suggestions: .
The intention of the framers of the interstate-commerce bill in inserting the
long and short haul clause seems to be to do away with differences in rates
which generally exist between commercial centers and local stations,
The practical working of this clause will probably be as follows:
Most of the roads having a larger interest in their local than in their through
business will, rather than reduce their local, advance their through rates.
Wherever commercial centers have water ways this will naturally throw the
through business to the water lines, thus losing torinage to that extent to the
rail lines. As the net earnings of most of the roads are not any greater than
they are compelled to have to keep out of the hands of receivers, they would
be naturally forced to advance their local rates sufficiently to make up for the
loss of through business, directed to water lines, while the commercial centers
having water ways would have rates almost if not quite as low by the water
lines as they had previously by the rail lines. We thus find that the short and
long haul clause, instead of doing away with differences in rates between com-
mercial centers and local stations, will tend to make them greater than they
have heretofore been. - -
The press of the country has given some reviews of this bill which
are very valuable. I quote from the Louisville Courier-Journal.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE—TEIE SENATE DEBATE,
Mr. BECK has spoken in defense of the interstate-commerce bill, urging its
passage on general principles which no one denies. That the railroads should
do equal and exact justice to all men ; that their rates should be reasonable ; that
no favoritism shourld be shown to shippers or localities, are perfectly legitimate
demands. As we understand the general laws, they are sufficient for these
things; the trouble is to have them enforced. We believe they can be enforced.
We believe that by judicial rulings year by year the obligations of the roads are
more accurately defined, and the limits of their power are more definitely fixed.
This may seem a slow method of reform, but it is logical ; it is gradual; it ac-
cords perfectly with the genius of our institutions; it conforms to the habits
and the customs of our people. The measure under discussion in the Senate,
on the contrary, is an experiment; it is a wide departure from the customs of the
Government; it is tentative; it is empirical ; and for good or evil it is a change
so radical as to cause the utmost alarm and uneasiness.
Mr. BECK does riot discuss the objections urged against the bill; he does not
consider the suggestions and remonstrances urged by the shippers; he simply
says these remonstrances are another evidence of the autocratic power of the
transportation companies, showing that the whole commercial community has
surrendered its right of free speech and free thought. In this view of the mat-
ter no measure could be too radical, but it certainly is entitled to investigation.
Senator CULLOM, on the other hand, gives his entire attention to section 4, the
clause prohibiting a greater charge for a short than for a long haul. Mr. CUL-
LOM says in effect it contains no such prohibition; that there is nothing in it
which prevents low through rates, and that it will not do what the board of
trade urge it will do. ł
In that case it should be stricken out. If it is even open to the interpretation
placed on it by Senator CULLOM, it is of no effect whatever; it is a mere sham,
a fraud, a false pretense. If the roads can, in the way suggested by Senator
CULLOMI, nullify the law, it is the part of wisdom not to pass the law.
Senator HARRIs supports the bill because he thinks it will put an end to “the
ruinous rate war.” He wishes to protect the railroads against their own folly.
He is extremely solicitous for their welfare. A rate war is a temporary mis-
fortune, but an ultimate benefit. A material reduction of rates follows a rate
war. We mean after a rate war the rates existing before the war are seldom
permanently regained. The steady decline in the cost of transportation has
taken place under a free system of competition, of which rate wars are one feat-
ure. It is the testimony of practical railroad managers that the result of the
rate war is permanently lower rates. We fail to see, therefore, why railroads
should be protected against each other. We do not understand who has been
ruined by “ruinous competition.” When railroads fall out shippers get their
dues, and sometimes a little more. We do not insist that the wars in themselves
are blessings; in that they disturb rates and introduce into commercial affairs
additional elements of uncertainty, they are an evil, but not an unmixed evil.
We hold that it is an evil which will in time regulate itself; that the interest of
railroads and the shippers will devise some solution ; that the pool, instead of
483
being a settlement, is only a temporary expedient, but that it is in the right di-
rection.
It seems to us, therefore, extremely unwise for the Government now to step in
to protect the railroads and to reverse a policy which, notwithstanding its recog-
nized shortcomings, has, in the words of Senator BECK, done more than any-
thing else for the development of the country. .
Mr. CAMDEN, with certain other Eastern Senators, favor the bill because it is
to do just what Senator CULLOM says it is not to do. Senator CAMDEN thinks
the Western farmer is undermining the price of food in the East; that on cheap
lands and with cheap transportation he is selling wheat at prices which New
York and Eastern farmers can not meet. That is true; therein lies the chief
benefit of this vast system of transportation. It has subdued a continent to the
uses of civilization. It has made it possible for the food product to increase in
a ratio 50 per cent. greater than the increase of population. It has given value
to Western lands and Texas lands, which otherwise would have been a howling
wilderness.
It was with this object in view money subsidies and land grants were given to
Western roads; and now that the objeet is obtained, the Senate of the United
States seems to think that attainment is a disaster, and they are devising a
scheme forturning back the wheels of progress and for “protecting ” the Eastern
farmer against Western competition, and Eastern furnace-owners against South-
ern furnaces, just as the tariff protects the Eastern manufacturer against the
English manufacturer at the expense of the West and South.
The Courier-Journal has sought during the past ten years to make plain these
truths as they relate to transportation. The law, as it stands to-day, was de-
vised to secure justice and equilty. Suppose the policy of enforcing the laws
we have is tried before we make new laws. Over legislation, the expansion of
governmental authority, the restriction of individual liberty, are the crying
evils of to-day.
And again :
INTERSTATE COMMERCE–A. LEAP IN THE DARR.
[Courier-Journal, December 29, 1886.]
The evils of many of the practices prevailing among the railroads during the
past twenty years are confessed by all men, but the remedies are not so plain.
Any one at all familiar with our transportation interests knows that great
progress has been made within that time; that not only have the rates regu-
larly decreased, but the methods of the roads have greatly improved; that
many of the old and vicious practices have fallen into disrepute and disuse, and
that in this direction, as well as in others, advance in America, under the sys-
tem of competition, has been more clearly marked than in England, Germany,
or France, where paternal governments have, in one way and another, been
seeking to do for the citizen what, in America, the citizen is doing much more
efficiently for himself. - -
Our entire commerce, foreign and domestic, rests on cheaper rates for through
than for local business. This system of charges is not the work of one man, or
of a pool; it is not the clear conception of any commercial organization offered
to transportation. It has grown up gradually and unintentionally, and it must
be traced to some influence outside of the control of pools or of legislation. It has
been due to the all-pervading law of competition which, like the great force of
gravity, has defihed the limits or orbits of each connmercial center. It is not con-
ceivable that traffic managers would, for mere pleasure alone, carry freight for
less pay one humdred than fifty miles. When done it is done under compulsion;
it is a concession, a compromise, made mecessary by the river or the canal, or
the discovery of new facilities of production or construction greater in one
locality than in another.
This transportation system is an accepted fact. We do not say it is the ideal
system, dispensing equal and exact justice to all concerned, but we say, faulty
as it may be, all business plans and purposes rest on it; it is steadily improving,
and any radical change, any enactment that overthrows it and substitutes an-
other must, whatever its ultimate consequences, be disastrous to every interest
as to-day established. - -
Here is, according to our idea of political economy, the radical defect in the
bill now under discussion in the Senate. Even if it were possible, without a
jar, to make this change, we are quite certain that to producer and consumer
alike the change would work great mischief; that whatever opinion one may
hold as to the benefits which, years hence, are to follow, the results for a long
time will be an entire disruption of all existing commercial relations. -
Take, for instance, Louisville as a tobacco market, or Minneapolis as a grain
market, or Memphis as a cotton market, seetion 4 will strike directly at these
cities, and at all interior cities, and destroy the business connections, which are
the growth of a generation. Section 4 is as follows: -
“It shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this
act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the
*.
484
transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, under substantially
similar circumstances, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same
line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer; but
this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the
terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as
for a longer distance.” :
To this there is added a provision which virtually authorizes the commission
to suspend or annul this section, showing a doubt in the minds of the committee
of its value, admitting, in effect, that they are simply experimenting with a mat-
ter involving the welfare of all the people.
The railroads will, if the bill passes, either have to apply the through rates to
all local points or they will abandon all competitive or through business to the
river, the canal, and the Canadian roads.
If they apply through rates to all local points all business will be centered in
New York. That city will overshadow this country as Paris does France. All
interior points will sink into insignificance and impotence, and we will have
such a centralization of commercial and political power as we have not hereto-
fore dreamed of. - e
On the other hand, if the roads withdraw all through rates; if they abandon
all attempts to control competitive business, the value of Our farming lands in
the West and South, with the marketable value of all Western and Southern
products, will at once decline. It would put an embargo on all exports more
effective than would be the blockade of our ports. It would paralyze our whole
internal commerce.
The effect would be to annul the natural advantages of points where water
and rail compete, and put all on a dead level. The system which makes it pos-
sible to ship through cars from San Francisco to New York would slowly disin-
tegrate, and the various trunk-lines would be cut up into mere local roads. -
For all this there is no compensation. The wheat-grower in the State of New
York will be happier, because his Western competitor is shut out of Eastern
markets, and the cotton-planter along the Atlantic coast will not have so much
to fear from Texas and Arkansas, but it will be the many sacrificed for the few.
Certainly this is not the character of legislation the times demand. We want
to enlarge the markets for the producer; we want more customers for our corn,
wheat, and cotton; we want lower, not higher, rates of transportation. We do
not question the motives of the gentlemen in charge of the interstate-commerce
bill, but we are certain that if it is passed with section 4 as it stands the evil to
agriculture and to commerce will be incalculable.
And again:
THE CULLOM BILL.
[Editorial Louisville Courier-Journal, May 7, 1886.]
The Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce during the recess entered
upon a most thorough investigation of the railroad question, and, as a result,
introduced what is known as the Cullom bill.
This bill organizes a national railroad commission, the objections to which
the Courier-Journal has pointed out from time to time, and which we are very
certain will result in commercial and political evils at no distant day.
The Senate committee learned enough during its investigation to fully appre-
ciate the arguments against any absolute prohibition of a smaller charge for a
long than a short haul. In the bill such a charge was recognized under certain
circumstances as just and necessary. It is the very corner-stone of the whole
system of competition, which, in America, if it has not settled all disputed points
to the entire satisfaction of the pnblic, has at least given us the cheapest system
of freight transportation known to the civilized world.
Wednesday, by a vote of 29 to 25, the Senate adopted an amendment prohib-
iting any greater charge for a short than for a long haul. The passage by Con-
gress and the approval by the President of such an act would precipitate a com-
mercial disaster such as the country has never known. It would change in a
day the whole system of rates, through and local. - .
It interferes with free interchange of commercial commodities.
It puts an embargo on all foreign commerce.
It limits to a very narrow range the market for all farm produce.
It depreciates the value of every bushel of wheat, of every bale of cotton, in
the farmer’s hand or of the coming crop. -
Instead of lowering, it will advance freight rates, through and local.
It aims to annul the natural advantages of points where water and rail trans-
portation compete, and puts all on a dead level; it says that when a man lo-
cates on the top of a hill, his rates should be no more than his neighbor’s who
settles at the foot. - º .
This whole question has been gone over time and again in this country and
in Europe. The present rates are not constructed by the will or in accordance
with the wish of one man. They are the result of fifty years of increasing com-
petition. About them has grown up the most gigantic commercial system, in-
485
ternal and external, of which the world has any knowledge. This system the
Senate proposes to paralyze by the Camden amendment.
If such a law is passed, and the railroad managers should apply it to-morrow
it would precipitate an industrial revolution. -
It would impair the value of every mill and foundry, of every dwelling and
storehouse, in all the cities from New York to San Francisco.
It would depreciate the value of every acre of land given to agriculture. It
would turn back the wheels of progress twenty-five years.
Undoubtedly there are evils connected with our railroad system, but they can
be traced directly to ignorant or corrupt legislation. Stockholders are robbed
under special provisions in peculiar charters. Confiding citizens are misled
by offers of land grants and bounties Government subsidies have corrupted
Congress and commerce, but this Camden amendment rectifies no evil, but pre-
cipitates others.
It will compel hundreds of railroads to abandon all competitive traffic, all
through business, all long hauls. The system which makes it possible to ship
through cars from Omaha to New York will" slowly disintegrate. It will des-
troy all argument for a uniform gauge. It makes it necessary to break up the
various trunk-lines into local roads. . -
The Louisville and Nashville would be compelled to refuse business to Mem-
phis, to New Orleans, to Montgomery. It would have to confine itself strictly
to local business, to non-competitive business, and just in proportion as this de-
creased its net revenues would it be compelled to advance its local rates.
All the trunk-lines from Chicago, except the Grand Trunk, of Canada, would
withdraw all effort to get grain for Liverpool or meat for New York. The
Grand Trunk could advance through rates 50 per cent., and get practically all it
could handle.
Our export trade would dwindle to small proportions. Distress and low prices
would everywhere prevail. The evils of the tariff would be intensified by this
commercial revolution, and three men would be idle where one is idle now.
The effect on financial affairs would be lamentable. Numbers of railroads
could only pass from one system, the system of competition to the system of re-
striction and national regulation, through bankruptcy. -
The Courier-Journal is no alarmist, but it knows that we can not interfere
with the very foundation of business without shaking the whole structure.
The Nashville Union says:
INTERSTATE COMMERCE—THE RAILROAD BILL.
The bill is one of great length, but in substance contemplates putting the rail-
roads of the United States under the control of a commission of five persons, to
be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, not more than three
of whom are to belong to the same political party. They are to have a salary of
$7,500 each. They are to be furnished quarters by the Secretary of the Interior;
but they may travel where and when their business, in their judgment, calls
them, and transportation shall be furnished. They have a clerk at $3,500 a
year, and may employ agents without limit. They must own no stock or bonds
nor have any interest in railroads.
They look into the management and business of all the railroads in the United
States, and they must keep themselves informed as to the manner and method
of conducting the roads. They can send for books and papers and prescribe the
method of keeping accounts. They are to see all contracts and agreements.
Witnesses are to be punished for contempt in failing to bring books. They are
to investigate matters forwarded by State commissions. The finding of the conn-
mission is taken as proof in court. They decide what reparation shall be made;
the trial is to be a speedy trial and without pleadings. The courts are given
power to inflict severe penalties. The commission makes its own rules for the
conduct of business. All the expenses of the commission and employés, includ-
ing traveling expenses and the attendance of witnesses, are to be paid by the
United States. The commission may suspend the operation of the law in special
CâSeS, - -
The bill undertakes to regulate all railroads, or connecting roads, doing a
through business, where the freight or travel passes from one State to another,
but not where the traffic does not pass State lines. -
We have thus made a pretty fair synopsis of the Reagan-Cullom bill, agreed
*..." by the committee, with a view of giving it a fair show before our readers.
The public will bear us witness that when a question arises between the rail-
roads and the people—of protecting the people against monopolies by building
other and competing lines—we are always on the side of the people, and urge
the building of more railroads as the proper solution of the question of cheap
transportation, and when politicians, or even the mass of the people, misap-
prehend their rights and powers over this class of property, and undertake, in
our judgment, to exercise unauthorized powers, we are just as ready to stand
by the right, though it may seem to favor a “soulless corporation.” A news-
486
paper is nothing if it will not defend the right, even against the popular clamor.
We now put on record for future reference our opinion—worth but little, prob:
ably—that if this bill becomes a law it will prove most disastrous. We shall not
discuss the constitutional question further than to say that the “power to regu-
late commerce among the several States” is given in the Constitution to Con-
gress, and it can not be delegated to any other body. For Congress to make a
law that through freights shall regulate local freights on all the railroads in the
United States, and then confess the error and remedy it by creating a new
tribunal not named in the Constitution, with power to watch it and suspendits
operation in special cases, is a stretch of legislative power entirely beyond the
landmarks. - * >
But suppose such a law can be passed and the power delegated to suspend its
operation, can it be executed without friction and danger? Nothing but the
direst necessity can justify legislative interference to the extent of controlling.
or regulating business, and almost without exception such legislation has proved
disastrous.
Whoever studies this bill with any degree of care wili see that ingenuity
could not more effectually devise a scheme to cripple the railroads and hurt
shippers by breaking down all competition between the water ways and the
railroads, transferring all through business to the water ways, thereby forcing
the railroads to sustain life by local business alone; and sécondly, it will der
stroy the interior cities and towns and build up all the cities on the water ways.
that can thrive without railroads. • t -
If it were allowable to draw such an inference, one would be foreed to the
conclusion that this bill had its paternity in water craft and seaport towns. It
effectually destroys the interior towns and the farmers. -
Competing with the water ways the railroads carry freight long distances at
rates which only help to pay expenses; and by this bill, these scant rates, each'
road taking the loaded car at one end and delivering it at the other end to the
connecting road, getting its ratable part of the through haul, fixes its rates on
all local business. If, for illustration, through freight from New York to New
Orleans is 60 cents per hundred pounds, divided up between all the roads, the
amount each gets out of the 60 cents fixes the charge on the local freights.
This as a business proposition is an absurdity, and would force the railroads to
abandon the through business and make up the loss on local business. Then
they would charge on local business what they pleased. The farmers in the West
or South, away from water ways, could get no through rates, in fact no rates at
all, because they could not pay local rates on grain or meat to the seaboard. In
other words, the through freights under the bill fixing the rates for all freight,
through business or local business, one or the other must be abandoned and the
through business, being perhaps one-tenth on an average, would be abandoned
to get the right to charge paying local rates.
The manufacturers in the interior would have to break up and move to the
water ways. We repeat, this bill must have had its paternity in water ways and
seaport towns. It will force the railroads, if they keep alive, to charge rates
which the farmers and manufacturers in the interior can not stand; and in time
this destroys the capital invested in railroads.
But the power given to this commission is the astounding feature of the bill.
What may this commission not do? The President and all his Cabinet have
not been intrusted with power to suspend the operation of statutes. This power
is given in special cases. It may do it as to one road or one community, and
not to another. It makes every road in the United States a beggar at the feet
of this commission. It can make fish of one and flesh of another. It has power
to appoint an agent in every town in the United States. It can cripple or build
up the business of any road it pleases. It can make a kitchen exchange in
Washington or New York, and give information about the business of the roads
and their conditions that, in ways that are sharp and tricks that are dark, will
make Wall street a reputable religious institution. 4.
What may it not do in politics? Under the law the party in power has three,
and the party out of power two. What fixes a man's party relations? The
number of votes, or the last one 2 Suppose a man changes his politics after he
goes in ; shall he be removed ? Such statutory provisions as this argue weak-
ness in the legislature or distrust in our form of government.
With headquarters at Washington, big salaries, transportation free, one thou-
sand agents all over the United States, the railroads prepared to pray or pay for
peace, the courts of the country given power to punish for contempt in case of
disobedience of the counmissioner's orders, in short, a new tribunal, with 130,-
000 miles of railroads under its control, and all the employés subject to orders,
even as to the mode of keeping accounts, what may this power not do 2 It
can take either party on its back and carry it. It can control any political con-
vention... Its political power is simply omnipotent.
This bill carries along the implication of a remarkably innocent and confiding
Congress.
If all public men were as wise as Solomon and as pure as angels the bill
487
would be nothing more than a plain violation of the Constitution. But a wise
Congress will take the world as they find it, and not as they would have it.
What five men can be picked up all of whom can stand up against tempta-
tions the like of which have but one parallel, and that was up in a high moun-
tain 2
If this bill passes, who are to be the wearers of the crown? Who will be the
fortunate ones? There is only one inhibition. No man must be appointed that
knows anything about the business he is going to perform, for really there can
not be five men in the United States found of first-rate railroad sense that has not
some interest in roads, directly or indirectly.
Everybody that has watched the course of events at Washington must know
that the struggle for this crown will be between politicians—not business men.
What class of men will the President appoint? If not politicians, will the of.
fice-hunters in the Senate confirm 2
There are no doubt many retiring members of Congress who would like to
have these offices, and if there was in the Constitution of the United States such
an inhibition as some of the States have found it necessary to make, a great big
temptation would be removed. That is, that a member shall hold no office or
place of trust created by the body of which he was a member. To speak plainly
but truthfully inflicts no injury, and to guard the future against evils of the past
is only prudence.
Judging from the past, does anybody believe that five politicians will be picked
up, none of whom will wink away the secrets which this law bestows on this
commission, when every secret is a bag of gold and every wink an open door?
Does the history of the past justify setting a temptation before public men
that invites by shining gold and the allurements of power as never before in
free America. ? Is it not a dangerous experiment? Is it wise to risk it?
It is enough to say that for the last twenty-five years the public men who have
had great opportunities, but withstood the temptation, are conspicuous as excep-
tions.
The man who has held a place of trust for many years whose secrets were
worth money on Wall street and hasn’t got rich is the exception.
This bill can’t go into operation and be operated for any length of time with-
out greatly increasing public vice and seriously disturbing our finances, besides
bankrupting all the industries of the interior.
We do not hesitate to say that such power as this bill gives the commission
ought not to be conferred on any five men in the United States. We do not
now and never will believe in the sovereignty of the States. We believe in the
rights of the States rather than “States’ rights,” but this bill is an assumption of
Federal power that far eclipses the dreams of the “Blue-lights,”
One of the greatest manufacturing establishments in Ohio sends out
the following:
\
GENERAL OFFICES OF THE AULTMAN & TAYLOR COMPANY.,
Mansfield, Ohio, December 24, 1886.
DEAR SIR: Thinking you may not have noticed the Reagan bill, or that you
may have overlooked some of its features, and as an implement manufacturer
you have not only a direct but in some of its features a vital interest, I take the
liberty of calling your attention to it and of asking immediate action on your
part, as no time is to be lost. The question of its constitutionality I pass by, as
that will come before a much more competent authority should the bill pass
both Houses of Congress and by unfortunate accident escape the veto of the
President; but there is one feature in the bill so dangerous to the interests of
every farmer, and every implement manufacturer and dealer, that it should
have your instant examination. I refer to that portion which compels railroads
to charge the same price per mile on a long haul that they do upon a short one.
If the bill becomes a law it will work untold injury to you and to all of your
customers. A single example will suffice : Wheat is selling in Nebraska at
about 35 cents, say 40 cents, and I Select Exeter, Nebr., as an illustration, though
almost any other point in any State in the Union would serve as well. Under
the present system the freight charge to New York is probably in the meighbor-
hood of 60 cents per hundred-weight (possibly less), carried, let us say, over the
Burlington and Pennsylvania systems. The distance from Exeter to New York
is 1,523 miles. Now, under this interstate-commerce bill, the Burlington and
Pennsylvania roads would be obliged to charge the same rate per mile all the
way from Exeter to New York that they charge for a short haul (on local busi-
ness), and the result may be seen at a glance.
The Pennsylvania Company charges on grain between Mansfield and Lucas,
Ohio, 4 cents per hundred-weight, and the distance is but 7 miles. This rate
would be very excessive upon large shipments, but they do not have large ship-
ments, and, doubtless, cannot afford to do the business for less. If the Reagan
bill becomes a law this would oblige the two railroads named to charge the
488
Exeter shipper 868 cents per hundred-weight from Exeter, Nebr., to New York,
which would make the freight on a bushel of wheat from Exeter to New York
over $5.20 per bushel, and his grade of wheat when it reaches New York will
not bring over 90 cents per bushel.
What is true of wheat is true of corn, pork, beef, and of every artiele shipped
out of Nebraska. It follows, therefore, that the passage of the Reagan act would
reduce the value of Nebraska land to nothing. It would be a foolish inmate of
an almshouse even who would accept a deed for the entire State as a gift if the
Reagan bill is to control transportation. Not a farmer in Nebraska could ever
hope to pay his debts, and not another farm implement or tool could ever be sold in
the State. What is true of Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Dakota, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin would be equally so of Mr. REAGAN’s own State, as well as of
every other Southern State. The bill would render the land in such a garden
as Stark County, Ohio, worthless, while lands in the best localities in the East-
ern States (near the sea) would have but trifling value. The effect of the bill
becoming a law upon the business of agricultural implement manufacturers
would be disastrous beyond description. None of our customers (practically
none) would be, able to pay us anything upon their debts, and the sale of our
goods would stop instantly and almost absolutely. Such points as Canton,
Akron, Massillon, Mansfield, Springfield, Dayton, Richmond, &c., the seats of
this general line of manufacture, would go to wreck and ruin. While the effect
upon your business and ours would be disastrous it would hardly be less upon
any other. Not a flour mill out of every two hundred could run, and the gen-
eral business of the country would come to a stand-still. Examine this matter
yourself, go over it with care, and if your conclusions are the same as those herein
expressed, which they must be except that they may be more clearly worked out,
telegraph your Congressman, and follow it up by an urgent letter and by per-
sonal visit if necessary. Of course a special session of Congress (which the uni-
versal distress and general, if not universal, bankruptcy of the people would bring
about) would repeal the law, yet it would and could only be after damage inmpos-
sible to estimate and which hundreds of millions of dollars could not measure had
resulted. Should you see fit to show this letter to other business men who will
be effected disastrously by this bill, of course there will be no objection, but
whether other branches of industry act or not let us move at once. The bill re-
quires that the rate per mile on short hauls shall be the same as upon long, leav-
ing it to the railroad companies themselves whether they will reach the equality
of rate by raising the through or lowering the local rate ; but as 70 or 80 per
cent. of the business of our railroads is local, self-interest, in fact self-preser-
vation, will compel every railroad to advance its through rates as herein out-
lined.
In all its history the country and its business interests have never been so
menaced, and as the question is not a party issue, immediate individual action
upon the part of the business community, or even that portion to which we be-
long, will be a great blessing to the country.
If such legislation as the Reagan bill is constitutional, then there are some few
provisions in it which may be useful, as, for instance, the compelling of all rail-
roads to charge the same sunn for the same service; but this again is more than
offset by the prohibition directed against the system (it ought almost to be even
now called the science) of pooling, for out of this system, when brought to per-
fection, must develop the great preservative and conservative principle in Amer-
ican railroading, and it is certain that all classes of people have much to gain
and nothing to lose by a system of railroad pooling reduced to a science. The
largest measure of business ability which the country possesses is employed in
its transportation interests, and those having them in charge will, in point of
honesty and public spirit, compare favorably with any like number of business
men or professionals in the country. It would be well then if the level-headed
business men of the country were to frown upon the constant and persistent ef-
forts of legislators, State and national, to interfere with the working out of the
great question of public transportation. In the case laid before you in this some-
what disconnected letter not only regard for the public welfare, but every in-
stinct of self-preservation, calls for the most earnest, direct, and effective indi-
vii.;al action upon our part. A few letters and dispatches from each to whom
this is addressed reaching their respective members of Congress will avert a dis-
aster compared with which the financial crises of 1837, 1857, and 1873 were but
zephyr in the financial sky, and alongside of which Black Friday and the pe-
riodical disturbances on Wall street are mere bagatelles.
Respectfully,
M. D. HARTER, Treaswrer.
Note.—Since the letter on the other side was written I found that there was a
difference of opinion about the feature of the Reagan bill referred to in it. I
accordingly submitted it to nine of the most competent authorities in the entire
country, and find a wide difference in the views of these gentlemen. On receipt
of eight of these opinions I felt inclined to drop the matter, because of the utter
489
impossibility of presenting to you a view of the case in which all would join,
but upon receipt of the ninth letter I felt that while my own letter was inaccu-
rate in statement, yet the results of the passage of the bill would be so serious
that it ought to be stopped in its present shape at all hazards. I print below a
ſetter entire from one of the clearest and ablest men in the entire country; and
wherever his view does not agree with mine you will, of course, take his and
pay no attention to mine; but in any event, I think you will see your interest
is by telegraph, mail, and personal effort with your Congressman (even to the
neglect of your business) to stop the passage of the bill in its present shape, as
the joint verdict of the most capable men in the United States would unques-
tionably be against its passage on the grounds that it would produce universal
injury, as its first and worst consequences would fall on that largest body of our
people (the farmers) upon whose prosperity and patronage the whole manufact-
uring and commercial prosperity of the country hangs.
Respectfully,
M. D. H.
MY DEAR SIR : I am in receipt of your esteemed circular letter of December
24, asking my reply by telegraph whether you quote correctly the part itali-
cised in the first paragraph. As I can not do so well by telegraph, I write you
more fully. -
As I read the Reagan bill, while it does not read that they shall charge the
same rate per ton per mile, the effect upon the business interests of the country
will result very much as you illustrate the case subsequently. The conference
bill provides, under section 4; that it shall be unlawful to charge more in the
aggregate for a shorter than a longer distance over the same line in the same
direction. This does not mean the same rate per ton per mile, but, to illustrate:
If a railroad company in competition with water transportation, which is not
affected by the provisions of the bill, makes an exceedingly low rate, they can
not charge more for the same or less distance traveled than they do on this
competitive business; as, for instance, should the lines between Chicago and
New York, in competition with water transportation, make a rate of 10 cents a
hundred, which would allow the line between Chicago and Buffalo but 5 cents
a hundred, they could, in no event, charge more than 5 cents a hundred upon
any traffic of like class from any point between Chicago and Buffalo. You can
readily see, take the present rate, for instance, of 25 cents per hundred on grain,
that this allows less than one-half cent per ton per mile for its transportation;
as this is less than cost to any railway company, they could not continue the
present rate between Chicago and New York, since the reduction of the locals
to the same basis would make them carry all their traffic at less than cost.
For that reason their only alternative must be to put up the through rates, in
order that they might protect their locals, therefore the result to the producer in
the extreme western Territories would be precisely as indicated by you in your
circular letter. Now, while this may not so seriously affect Chicago, having the
benefit of water competition, it would be almost death to nearly all of the inland
towns, as other rates, under any circumstances, must be put up to the basis of
the sum of the locals, thereby giving the advantage over inland towns to those
having the benefit of water competition for a certain period of the year.
Another objectionable feature of the bill will be its effect in reducing competi-
tion, as it must naturally close up the longer routes, as it would throw through
traffic over the short lines between points.
These two points are readily appreciated by manufacturers and shippers, and
I think they themselves should have combined action and lay the matter prop-
erly before their representatives in Congress, whom, I am confident, do not ap-
preciate the situation.
I was in Washington on Tuesday last, and conferred with many of them, and
was quite surprised to find how little these points were understood, all acting
under the impulse that their constituency demanded an interstate-commerce
bill, and as this was the only one before them, they felt compelled to act, and
act promptly, thereon. -
I confess, for myself, and I believe I express the opinion of most railroad man-
agers, that there should be an interstate-commerce bill, but not the one as now
proposed. This one certainly means bankruptcy to many railroads, particu-
larly those working in competition with lake transportation and passing
through several States; but to me its more serious objection is one to the conn-
mercial interests of the country, and I am pleased to see the action taken by
your company in this line, and hope you may be able to impress all commercial
interests with the danger in passing the pending bill.
I think also that the provision of the bill preventing pooling is a very serious
mistake. , My own experience for several years in managing railroad property
has convinced me that this is more of a protection to the public than it is to rail-
roads; it certainly has not worked any detriment to them, as there are no ex-
•cessive rates made by pools.
+
490
I agree with you that the all-important question is, to prevent hasty action,
and that that must be done by the commercial interests, for the reason if rail-
road managers were to attempt to oppose it, with the spirit now prevailing at.
Washington, I believe it would lead to corruption, on the part of some Con-
gressmen, and hasten undue action on the part of others,
Very truly yours, -
* V. P. & G. M.
M. D. HARTER, Esq.,
Mansfield, Ohio.
The Chamber of Commerce of Cincinnati opposes the bill, and one.
of its members makes the following points:
Take a case like this, for instance: Two merchants, located equally distant
from a common point, desire to ship to that point an equal number of cars of the
same class of merchandise. A is located on a water way which reaches the
point he wishes to ship to, while a railroad also runs past his door and reaches
the point he wants his goods to go to. Bis located at an interior town, and has the
advantage of rail transportation only. Because A is located advantageously
geographically, the bill proposes to give B the advantage of the competition the .
railroad uneets in carrying freight from A's door, from which point, if they take:
any freight at all, it must be carried at a very low rate, and, as a fact, is actually,
carried by the railroad during the season of open water navigation at a rate
which very seldom pays more than the cost of transportation, and sometimes not
even that much.
Clause 2 prohibits pooling, and makes it an offense.
Why pooling should be prohibited is difficult to surmise. If the railroads went.
into the pools for the purpose of demanding exorbitant rates for transporting
freight or passengers, then pooling ought to be prohibited, but such is not the
case. The pools are for the purpose of maintaining existing rates as nearly as
possible, and when rates are maintained it is, to the advantage of the entire
business community. Exorbitant rates will never prevail among the railroads
of the United States, owing to the numerous rail-line competitors for business
from almost every point. During the time that the trunk-line pool was inoper-
ative, and before the Central Traffic Association was formed, the various roads:
took business at almost any rate that was offered, and this very competition re-
sulted so disastrously that about forty railroad companies were placed in re-
ceivers’ hands in less than a year. During this scramble for business grain was
transported from Chicago to New York for as low as $2 per ton, when the actual
cost to the railroads for transportation at the lowest calculation was $4.56 per
ton. This demoralization of rates hurt general business more than if the
through rate had been 40 cents per hundred, or $8 per ton, between Chicago and
New York, and that rate has been maintained, or nearly so, as it would have
been under a pooling contract. Past experience does not indicate that the rail-
road pools have inflicted any great injury upon any one, but, on the other hand,
sºmet they have been of advantage to the railroads and the business world
3.S. Weil.
Clause 3 should stand just as it is, and is a protection that should be afforded
the shipper.
Clause 4. This is Mr. Reagan’s pet, is unjust, and would, if enforced, work irre-
parable injury for various reasons. . First of all, through rates, as a generalthing,
are not remunerative, and under the long and short haul clause a railroad com-
pany would be compelled to advance their through rates to the basis of the local
rates, or else reduce the local rates to the through tariff. . This would work ad-
mirably where one rail line alone reached certain territory, or, in other words,
if there was no competition, but as the States east of the Missouri River are a
net—work of railroads, and in addition to this water competition exists from
many points, the plan would be a failure. Of course the roads where water com-
petition exists could not advance through rates to their local rate basis, for if
they did they would not carry a pound of freight in connpetition with the water
ways. During the season of water navigation the railroads in competition, to get
through business, would be obliged to make a through rate very nearly as low,
if not as low, as the water rate. As this through rate would scarcely pay for the
cost of moving the freight, of course a road could not afford to transport its through
and local business at a rate which would leave no margin of profit. What would
be the consequence? Why this road would be compelled to abandon through
business because of the fact if it carried it at the rate which it would be obliged
to make to get the business it would be making a rate for its local business, which .
would leave no margin of profit for the transportation of local traffic either, and
if no profit could be made off any of its business it might as well give up at once,
send engines and equipment to the scrap-heap, tear up the rails and sell them
for old iron, for bankruptcy would be the certain result of operating a railroad
under such a condition of affairs.
Take the Pennsyivania road for example. President Roberts in his examina-
tion a few days ago before Attorney-General Cassidy testified that the through
491,
business done by that company was but 8 per cent. of its total business. Now,
no one would suppose for a moment that the Pennsylvania Railroad, during the
time that the water ways are navigable, say for seven months of the year, would
take through business at the low rates that it would be necessary to make to se-
cure it and cut its own throat by this action, which would make the rate for its
large local business unprofitable. No ; the Pennsylvania, under the interstate-
commerce bill as a law, would of course let the 8 percent. of through business go,
and carry the 92 per cent. local business at rates that would yield a profit. So it,
would be with a large number of other roads. Under the interstate-commerce
bill they would withdraw altogether from through business. Under the pro-
visions of the proposed bill the railroads have the right to issue a new tariff-
sheet upon giving ten days' notice, and with this privilege they could, as soon
as water navigation closed, advance through rates to a basis that would be a
paying one, but in order to protect their local business it would necessarily be
so high as to shut out all shipments for export.
The fact is, the interstate-commerce bill, as proposed, is entirely in favor of the
water ways as against the railroads where they are competitors for the same
business. Interior towns like Indianapolis, Ind., Lexington, Ky., and Columbus,
Ohio, might as well be fenced in if the interstate-commerce bill becomes a law,
for they will have no earthly show for doing business unless their business men
go back to the primitive teaming for moving freight and merchandise. Under
the operations of this interstate-commerce bill the farmers of the great North-
west could burn their corn and grain, because they could get nothing for it at
home. While the railroads would undoubtedly suffer if the bill becomes a law,
they would take off cars, cut down forces, and do only what business they could
at paying rates. The manufacturing, mercantile, and especially the farming
community would moreover suffer under this law to as great if not a greater
extent than the railroads.
No city on the continent will suffer as much as Cincinnati by this
legislation.
From the great Northwest comes the following:
THE INTERSTATE-COMMERCE BILL.
To the Senators and Representatives in Congress from Minnesota:
GENTLEMEN : The Minneapolis Board of Trade, at its regular meeting of De-
eember 22, 1886, unanimously adopted the following resolutions:
Resolved, That while this board of trade fully approves the general principle
of national legislation for the control and regulation of our interstate-carrying
trade, and while in the main it concurs in the provisions of the compromise bill
now pending before Congress, it thoroughly disapproves and deprecates the
provisions of section 4, relating to what is known as the long and short haul,
and of section 5, relating to pooling arrangements between parallel or compet-
ing railway lines. In the judgment of this board, section 4, if enacted, would
give to the proposed national commission powers whose exercise would always
be dangerous and might easily become destructive to the interests of the dis-
tinctively agricultural sections of the country.
Resolved, That a committee be appointed with instructions to forward the fore-
going resolution to our Senators and Representatives in Comgress, accompanied
j. letter of transmission which shall more fully set forth the views of this
O8.I*C1.
In forwarding these resolutions to you permit the undersigned, as the com-
mittee appointed for the purpose, to call your attention to the following brief
summary of objections, which, in the judgment of our board of trade, lie
against Sections 4 and 5 of the pending interstate-commerce bill, and respect-
fully to express the opinion that you can in no way render a more important
or timely service to your constituents than by aggressively helping to secure
the omission of these sections from the measure before it becomes a law.
Allow us also, in passing, to remind you of the fact that of the entire member-
ship of the Minneapolis Board of Trade, representing all leading branches of
legitimate business and productive industry, not half a dozen have any pecu-
niary interest in railroads, direct or indirect, and we do not know of half that
number who are so interested. The board speaks for the producers and ship-
pers of the Northwest. Further, it is fully recognized that national supervision
of our railway system is necessary and best, in the interest both of the peo-
ple and of the railways themselves; that this supervision has already been too
long delayed; that there are wrongs to be righted and corporate abuses to be
corrected, and that the pending interstate-commerce bill, when duly amended,
will constitute a wise first step in the right direction. It is simply insisted that
a measure which is necessarily experimental, and which deals with the most
complicated and far-reaching commercial problems known to mankind, vitally
affecting the interests of every class and of every section, should not go so far,
492
or attempt so much, at the outset, as to cause infinite damage where it might
accomplish unmeasured good. ---
OBJECTIONS: THE “LONG AND SHORT HAUL.”
1. Section 4, relating to the “long and short haul,” is, intentionally or unin-
tentionally, vague and annbiguous in its language. If enacted into law its inter-
pretation by the courts, must, therefore, be wholly uncertain, its practical appli-
cation doubtful, and some of its effects impossible to predict. This is sufficiently
shown beforehand by the known fact that scarcely two persons understand the
section alike—even zealous advocates of the bill as it stands differing widely as
to the real meaning and intent of the words employed.
2. Assuming that the section means what its language naturally imports,
the consequence of enforcing such a law would, we believe, be gravely injurious
to many important interests in all parts of the country, but especially would
such enforcement prove destructive in its effect upon the great agricultural sec-
tion of which our own State forms so important a part.
It would very greatly increase the cost to our people of heavy commodities
of all kinds which are brought in from eastern sections, including coal, without
which our prairie farms could not be occupied. -
It would ruinously depreciate the value of every bushel of wheat and every
pound of beef produced in Minnesota, by compelling the railroads to adopt a
freight tariff on through shipments eastward, which, if not prohibitory, would
leave to our farmers no reward for their labor and invested means.
It would depress manufacturing industries and deprive many working men
of employment. º
It would reduce to a minimum the trade of the Northwest by largely destroy-
ing the purchasing ability of our producers.
It would drive a large share of the long-distance traffic from American to Ca-
nadian lines. -
It would cripple, if it did not bankrupt, many railroads by compelling them
to relinquish a large part of either their through or their local traflic—both of
which are essential to their solvency.
The very people who ought to derive most benefit from legislation of this gen-
eral character—the farmers and wage-earners of the country—would be the first
and greatest sufferers from its injurious effects.
3. It is not a sufficient answer to say that the bill gives to the proposed com-
mission discretionary power to avert these otherwise inevitable calamities.
The ambiguity of language, already mentioned, renders it doubtful whether
this power is fully given; and even if it is conferred, its exercise would be a
most unnecessary and dangerous prerogative to be vested in any untried conn-
mission, however able and disinterested, under an untried statute, in a diffi-
cult field, where national legislation is now making its first tentative venture.
At best, it gives to five men, about whose competency, experience, and integrity
nothing can be known in advance, almost autocratic power over the market
value of hundreds of millions of dollars of railway stocks and bonds, over the
market value of the agricultural products of half a continent, as well as of the
lands upon which these products are grown.
So great a power, and so tremendous a temptation to its abuse, ought not to
be presented unnecessarily to any committee of citizens or be made the foot-ball
of politics. Hesides, so enormous would be the task undertaken, and so exten-
sive its domain, that no commission, however capable, could successively con-
sider and adjust the inevitable frictions and controversies in time to prevent the
predicted evils, if those evils in fact impend.
THE PROHIBITION of RAILwAY Poor, ING.
4. Section 5, which arbitrarily prohibits the pooling of railway earnings, is not
less objectionable than section 4. It proceeds upon the assumption that an ann-
icable apportionment of traffic annong substantially parallel railway lines de-
stroys wholesome competition, creates a “monopoly,” results in exorbitant
transportation charges, and thus wrongs the general body of producers, shippers,
and consumers who constitute the people. With exceptions so rare as only to
prove the rule, this assumption is a fallacy, and legislation based upon it must
prove a hurtful blunder. The facts are that such apportionments of traffic are
a natural and necessary outgrowth of the development of our national trans-
portation system ; that they constitute the only plan of self-preservation for
railroads whicle time, and thought, and experience have been able to evolve
from a most difficult and perplexing situation; that they are the only known
and feasible alternative for that system of cut-throat competition which foments
chronic “rate-wars,” and which, unless held in check, would end in the bank-
ruptcy, first of the weak lines, and then of the strong ones—for a bankrupt rail-
way, having no responsibility to bondholders or shareholders, is the most reck-
less and destructive of competitors.
These adjustments and divisions of traffic, known as railway pools, do not
raise transportation charges above a reasonable level. Almost without excep-
ition they have resulted in holding rates steadily at the lowest point at which
493
the business can be done at a living profit. This is notably illustrated just now,
as you are aware, in our own section. Never was there a closer pooling arrange-
ment between trunk lines than that which now exists between the six roads
leading from Minneapolis to Chicago, yet never were freight tariffs so low as at
the present time, and never were the people better accommodated.
The well-known fact that concurrently with the development of the railway
pooling system railway rates have steadily, greatly, and everywhere decreased,
is a summary refutation of the whole theory on which section 5 is founded.
The pooling or apportionment system, besides preserving railways from in-
solvency and railway investments from destruction, directly benefits every
business community by giving some degree of uniformity and stability to trans-
portation charges, and thus enabling business men to shape their course with
greater certainty and safety. A railway rate war, although it temporarily re-
duces the market price of transportation below actual cost, is universally and
justly regarded as a misfortune to all legitimate lines of trade. Obviously it is
of no advantage to the public to enjoy any service at less than its reasonable
cost, including a fair return upon the capital invested in rendering that service-
The rule of unregulated and unreasoning competition, followed by the “sur.
vival of the fittest,” when applied to railroads, means their own ruin, with re-
sulting calamity to every other business interest which is worth preserving.
The railway pool, honestly administered, is the natural balance-wheel of in-
terstate commerce. Section 5 of the pending bill does not provide or suggest
any substitute for this regulative and conservative ageney. On the contrary, it
would seem to render commercial chaos legally obligatory.
5. It is not a sufficient answer to say that if found to be injurious in their
working these provisions may be repealed at the next session of Congress. The
mischief that can be accomplished by their operation during a single business
season is simply inn measurable, and there is not the slightest necessity for as-
suming the risk.
The interstate-commerce bill has a de quate scope for its initial purpose with-
out including the sections to which objection is here made. Omitting these, the
bill lays the broad foundation of a system of salutary legislation, which a little
time and experience will develop and perfect. It is evolution, and not revolu-
tion, that the situation calls for. Such a policy will avoid the risk of serious
and disastrous mistakes; at least it will not invite that demoralization of now
reviving business, that shock to commercial confidence, that stagnation of en-
terprise, that aggravation of the labor difficulties, that, wholesale depreciation
and destruction of values which many competent and disinterested students of
the problem foresee in case the bill becomes a law in its present form. The
panic of 1873 was precipitated and intensified, if it was not largely caused, by
injurious State legislation affecting railroads, hastily enacted in response to un-
reasoning clamor. It would seem to be hardly the part of wisdom or of states-
manship to incur even the liability of repeating that experience, and on a
larger scale, during the present century.
With great respect, your obedient servants,
A. B. NETTLETON,
H. A. TOWNE,
EDMUND J. PHELPS,
T. B. WALKER,
Committee.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., January 5, 1887.
Mr. Speaker, the mistake of this bill, in my judgment, consists largely
in the attempt of its projectors to build up a ready-made system or code
of laws upon this great subject of interstate commerce. Human in-
genuity has never yet constructed a finished code of law in a new field
theretofore unoccupied and uncultivated. Take the statutes of our
States, and I draw an illustration from the State in which I live, which
applies with equal force to the other States of the country. We have
upon our statute-books a complete system of legislation upon the sub-
ject of roads, the common schools, the municipal corporations, &c., but
going back to the origin of the legislation upon those subjects, you will
find a few simple sections, tentative in their character, providing for a
few simple principles as the beginning or foundation of all that has fol-
lowed; and it has taken time, study, and experience to construct the
systems now in use.
Experience has taught that a section should be added here, another
there; the enforcement of the law in one direction has suggested an-
other step, and so on; and finally, after years and years of experience,
494
we have a code of legislation not yet fully developed, and to which we
are adding year by year. But here is an attempt to invade the field of
interstate commerce, and to project a statute fully armed and panoplied
on the statute-books of the country, without any experience, without
testing any of the provisions of the law; and in that direction we are
sure to fail. -
The provisions of this bill will render relief under it unattainable by
the average shipper of the country. In the first place, its provisions
are such as to render interminable delay absolutely necessary. Let us
see. I quite agree with the distinguished gentleman from South Car-
olina [Mr. DIBBLE] that the jurisdiction for redress here prescribed is
exclusive of all other jurisdiction, and that the citizen complaining of
railroad extortion or discrimination is confined to the remedy here pro-
vided or he is without remedy. What is the proceeding 2 The first step
is in the nature of a written complaint to the commissioners. Upon
such complaint being made notice is sent to the railroad company, and
this provision covers all complaints “of anything done or omitted to
be done by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act in
contravention of the provisions thereof.”
A complaint having been made to the commission, which briefly
states the facts a statement of the charges is forwarded to the common
carrier, and he is called upon to answer the complaint within a reason-
able time, to be specified by the commission. If he fails, the com-
mission proceeds to investigate the complaint. Ultimately, when the
commission has made a report of its finding of fact, they shall furnish
a copy to the party who complained and to the common carrier. Now,
then, if these parties, having thus started on the road, fail at the end
of this long proceeding to reach an amicable adjustment of the diffi-
culty, then action may be brought in the United States court. I sub-
mit that this feature alone brands this bill as placing an insurmounta-
ble barrier in the way of any relief, to any sufférer, against a-railroad
corporation disregarding the law. It ousts the State courts of their
jurisdiction; it orders the citizen to abandon his common-law remedy;
it compels him to relinquish his claim under his State laws, and
forces him into the jurisdiction of the United States courts, with their
environment of security for costs, of extravagant cost bills, of long de-
lays, and ultimately the bill provides that the carrier may appeal;
but it is doubtful, very doubtful, if the shipper has any remedy by
appeal.
But again, the title of this bill and the provisions of the bill in the
early sections are in every respect misleading, in my judgment. The
purpose and intent of the bill is “to prevent discrimination,” but it is
careful in the second section to use the words “unjust discrimination,”
and then leaves it to this commission to say what “unjust discrimina-
tion ” it means. But that is not all. They started out to put every-
body upon an absolute equality and to inveigh against discrimination,
but turn around and authorize these five commissioners to discrimi-
nate just as much as they please. The language is as follows:
And the commission may, from time to time, make general rules covering
exceptions to any such common carrier in cases where there is competition by
river, sea, canal, or lake, exempting such designated common carrier from the
operation of this section of the act.
Here lies the power in this commission to discriminate. Under the
coudition of things which we have now the discrimination of one car-
rier can be met by the competition of another; but here is a body au-
495
thorized to discriminate, and it is a criminal act for another carrier to
meet that discrimination by discrimination, and so we fly from the mo–
nopolies of the great railroad systems of the country which are compet-
itors one with the other to a body of five men, without experience, and
necessarily without knowledge, and necessarily incompetent to carry
on so vast a business. We are forbidden to seek the remedy of compe-
tition against the discrimination ordered by this board. It puts every
location in the country into the hands of this commission. It gives an
opportunity for favoritism unsurpassed by any enactment ever devised
by the wit of man.
A railroad running from the seaboard inland may be exempted from
the operation of this law, because of the proximity of ocean competition.
Fortunes may be made and fortunes may be lost by a mere error of
judgment of this commission, and there is no remedy for the evil. I
protest, Mr. Speaker, in the name of my constituents, who frown upon
monopolies, that here is the most dangerous, the most powerful, the
most unjustifiable monopoly ever created by law or devised by the in-
genuity of mankind.
The systems of industry throughout the country are to be shaken and
remodeled by this bill. In the great city of Cincinnati, in the State
which I have the honor in part to represent, there are splendid indus-
tries which have been builded by the enterprise, the wisdom, and the
perseverance of her citizens. The city of Cincinnati manufactures more
carriages than any other city in the world. By close economy in the
purchase of timber, care in the employment of labor, and the competi-
tion afforded by the various lines of railroads extending from Cincinnati
to the Eastern markets that industry has grown and prospered. An
army of operatives are employed, whole armies of men, women, and
children are fed, clothed, and educated. Those industries stand to-day
upon the special rates of freight which they have been enabled to get
from railroad corporations by reason of the great competition between
that inland city and the great markets east of the mountains.
Under the provisions of this bill they must submit to a schedule of
rates which this commission in its wisdom will be willing to approve,
and they shall not have cheaper rates, though all the railroads on the
continent should offer them. The monopoly of Eastern manufacturers
is thereby built up, and the industries of Cincinnati will be paralyzed.
Again, in the absurd attempt to go into details, this bill forbids the car-
rier to advance his rates without a certain specified length of notice,
but it forgets to forbid the reduction of rates, whereby as injurious a
system of discrimination would be inaugurated as there would be in an
advance of rate. Shipper A, relying on the current rates of freight, ships
his commodity to the Eastern market, and two hours behind him comes
another train at a reduced rate, and his competitor finds himself in the
Eastern market able to drive him out of the market simply because
this non-discriminating system of interstate commerce has permitted
the railroad to take one price from shipper A in the morning and a re-
duced price from shipper B in the afternoon. This bill is full of incon-
gruities of this character. This legislation is dangerous in another di-
rection. It permits a mere commission to demand the production of
papers, and lays open to the public the private affairs of private citizens.
Mr. Speaker, if the House passes this bill I doubt not the President
will send it to his distinguished Attorney-General to report upon its
constitutionality; and it is proper perhaps that attention be called to a
recent opinion of that gentleman when he was a Senator from Arkan-
496
sas and was debating an interstate-commerce bill. On January 8, 1885,
in the Senate, Mr. Garland said:
While Congress, in the exercise of a legislative power delegated to it by the
Constitution, may do a thing, where do we find the power in Congress to delegate
this authority delegated to it to a mere conmission of seven or five or three, as
the case may be? § . * * The Congress of the United States in this bill # * *
is divesting itself of its legislative power as to regulating commerce annong the
States and putting it in the hands of a commission. * * * Senators may ex-
annine this section and see if I am correct that the commission provided in this
bill has the supervision of the regulation of commerce. We get this power, so
far as Congress is concerned, entirely from the Constitution, to regulate com-
merce among the States; that is, in other words, translated properly, to make
rules to govern commerce among the States. But here we say, we will not do
this, but will transfer it to a commission to make these laws, these regulations,
and supervise them. That is the starting-point of the bill. It takes a very large
space; that is, the legislative feature of the bill delegating the regulation of
commerce to the commission.
And upon another branch of the subject he said:
The bill gives this commission the compulsory power at once to compel the
production of books and papers and the attendance of parties, and subjects the
companies to this investigation and witnesses to this compulsory process.
* * * Never before in the case of mere outside commissions has the power
to compel the attendance of witnesses been given. Congress sometimes seek
to compel such attendance through its own committees, but the Supreme Court,
in the recent Kilbourne case, sheared this power down very materially. * * *
This is a power which I contend, under the Constitution, we can not put into the
hands of this commission. We can not do it, though we have unlimited con-
trol over interstate commerce, under the Constitution, when we understand
what interstate commerce is ; when we have prescribed what it is, yet we can
not do this. There are other provisions of the Constitution which stand as high
as that, and are of as much importance and as much sacredness and as much
dignity, that forbid the clothing of this commission with the power that is here
proposed to be given.
It will be seen probably whether Senator Garland was right; and the
opinion is to be given by Attorney-General Garland. He stood then
upon his feet upon the broad and sound basis of the Constitution. Will
he now stand upon his head amid the confusion and chaos of prejudice
and misinformation ? I therefore oppose this bill for the reasons:
It inveighs against monopolies, and yet creates the greatest monopoly
of modern times; it denounces discrimination, and makes discrimina-
tion not only possible, but destructive; it proposes to give all shippers
a fair and equal chance, and hedges about its remedial clauses with
conditions which destroy its effectiveness; it proposes to equalize the
opportunities of shippers, and then does more to discriminate against
railroads and in favor of water routes than all the railroads ever tried
to do; it puts a degree of political power into the hands of the Presi-
dent and a commission which will enable them to force all the indus-
tries of the country to contribute to the election of a political party to
office; it is full of vague expressions which will lead to delays in ad-
ministration.
It makes the cost of redress to a wronged shipper so great as to dis-
arm his remedy and leave him in the hands of the extortionate tenden-
cies of the railroads or ignorance or helplessness of the commission. It
will unsettle rates, disorganize the industries of the country, and thus
force a reconstruction of systems of production. In the mean time,
labor will suffer, the farmers’ products will lack a remunerative market,
and uncertainty will discourage industry. It is a dangerous stride
toward a centralization of power in the hands of the few to the hinder-
ance, vexation, and permanent injury of the many. The good in the
bill does not compensate for the evil; and, controlled by my conscien-
tious judgment, I will vote to abide by the evils we have rather than
to fly to greater which we know of, and even greater “that we know
not of.” *
497
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I do not flatter myself that I could
add in any degree to what has been said in opposition to this measure.
It is true I have my own views of the matter which will be sufficient
to govern my own action. But I consider that this matter is practically
settled. It has been well said at the other end of the Capitol that this
'is a bill that, practically, nobody wants and yet everybody will vote for;
that, practically, nobody is satisfied with and yet they are all ready to
accept it; a bill that no one knows what it means and yet all propose to
try the remedy provided therein.
It has been to me somewhat novel and I may say somewhat amusing
to see some gentlemen arise here and go on at length, greater or less,
to give the reasons why they thought this bill ought not to pass and
close their remarks by announcing that they were going to vote for it.
Even my friend from Chicago [Mr. DUNHAM], who has stood with the
lonely four as the minority on the Commerce Committee, rose here yes-
terday and stood as the target for all the sharpshooters on the other
side, denounced this bill, showed it could not be put in practice success-
fully in his judgment, in arguments that were quite convincing to me;
and then, at the close, he coolly if not gracefully got down on the other
side. My friend from Michigan [Mr. CUTCHEON] said to-day substan-
tially this, that this was a bill which would damage producers, which
would damage carriers possibly to the extent of bankruptcy, and which
would confuse commerce; and yet in the face of that indictment he
said he was going to vote for it. -
I am glad that in all this desert there is one bright spot in the per-
son of my plucky little friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. O’NEILL], who
proposes to nail his flag to the mast and go down with colors flying;
and, Mr. Speaker, I propose to go with him.
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. There is another one, you know.
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. Yes, sir.
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to inflict upon the House any addi-
tional remarks. I do not feel that I am competent to enlighten any one,
but I shall endeavor to do the best I can in the way of obliging friends
by parceling out the remainder of my time, part of it among those gen-
tlemen who do not believe that there is any merit in this bill, but who
are, nevertheless, going to vote for it [laughter], and I now yield one
minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. RoCKWELL].
Mr. ROCKWELL. Mr. Speaker, this is not a party but a people’s
bill. After fourteen years of difference this compromise measure is
agreed upon in conference.
While I oppose the fourth and fifth sections and fear their strict ex-
ecution may cause some injury, yet I find the bill embraces the com-
mission feature. It enunciates the principle that the nation shall con-
trol the corporations in the public interest. -
Trusting the defects if found to exist will be remedied by future leg-
islation, I shall vote for the measure. The corporations should be the
servants of the people, not their masters. [Applause.]
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I now yield five minutes to the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LONG|.
Mr. LONG. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that my friend from New York
[Mr. JoHNSON] does not continue his remarks, for from the slight speci-
men he has given us, I am sure he would add more to the entertain-
ment as well as to the instruction of the House than anybody to whom
he could give his time. I do not expect to debate this bill. I had
the honor to say something with regard to the question two years ago,
I S C 32
498
which of course is fresh in the minds of the House even at this interval.
[Laughter.] -
I do not agree in the wholesale denunciation of this bill. I believe
that there is a great deal of good in it. I believe that we are not all at
sea with regard to it. I believe we desire that most of its provisions shall
become law; that our main difficulty is with one—perhaps two—sections;
that if we could get rid of the difficulties attending the fourth section, and
if we could get rid of the fifth section, there would be, practically, unani-
mity with regard to the passage of the bill.
I rise, not, as I have said, to debate these questions, but to make a
practical suggestion, which is not my own, which has been mentioned
to me by others, and it is this: The pending question is not a question
upon the passage of the bill. To vote “no '' is not to vote against the
bill. The pending question is a question of the acceptance of the re-
port of the committee of conference. To vote “no'' is to say that we
do not concur with the Senate in adopting it. If we do not concur,
what is the result? The result is that the matter is still pending before
us, and that either this committee of conference will be reappointed,
or a new committee of conference will be appointed, and there will
then be also the parliamentary right not to instruct that committee,
but, at least, to pass a resolution expressing the sense of this House that
that committee should re-report the bill with certain amendments.
And I admit that the only amendment likely to pass Congress in its
present mood is that the fourth section be stricken out—the long and
short haul section. .
I should like to have the fifth section also stricken out, but I pre-
sume that will not be done, and whatever evils the enactment of the
fifth section may produce, are evils which we certainly can endure
until another meeting of the Legislature. But the evils that are appre-
hended from the enactment of the fourth section are evils which might
go into effect at once, and which could not well wait for the remedies
of another session. Now I believe I express the real honest sentiment
of more than a majority of this House when I say that if we could have
this bill without the fourth section, it would be generally acceptable.
It is with reference to the fourth section, its legal effect and meaning,
and its effect upon business, that everybody is in doubt and anxiety.
It was with reference to the fourth section that the Senator who has
been referred to here stated that nobody knew what it meant, and
that nobody wanted to vote for the bill but everybody would be, per-
haps, compelled to do so.
One word now as to why we should strike out this fourth section.
We should strike it out because it is believed to be directly injurious
and damaging. In the first place, it is almost impossible to tell what
is its legal meaning. No man undertakes to state with certainty what
its legal effect will be. - -
The gentleman who has charge of this bill has very frankly said in
substance that if he were a judge on the bench instructing a jury he would
be hardly able to tell what is the legal interpretation or effect of the
words of this section. This ambiguity may lead to an infinity of law-
suits. If it does nothing else it will lead to great uncertainty in the minds
of many as to the intent of the law. It will lead to an injury to those
parts of our country situated at the extreme ends of the long haul. My
friend at my left has given us an instance where the result must be
either the prevention of a great business of exporting anthracite coal
to other States, or else a rise in the price of coal, so that farmers who
have hitherto been buying it may be unable to do so.
499
In the second place, that section is objectionable because it puts into
the hands of this commission a power of favoritism far more potential
than the favoritism of railroads against which you are contending. For
these reasons (which I will not enlarge upon, for they have been already
enlarged upon) I believe we should all be glad to get rid of that sec-
tion if we could. -
[Here the hammer fell.] -
Mr. LONG. I ask the gentleman from New York to grant me two
minutes more. -
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I will do so.
Mr. LONG. Mr. Speaker, there is one reason why I think we may
all agree upon striking out the fourth section. It is that strike it out,
and no harm at all is done to your bill. The bill will be just as strong
without that section as with it. The first section of the bill provides
that all rates shall be reasonable; the second section forbids unjust dis-
crimination; the third section-provides that any undue or unreasonable
preference shall be unlawful; the fourth section provides that not more
shall be charged in the aggregate for a shorter than for a longer dis-
tance over the same line, &c. Now to charge more for a shorter
than a longer distance is either a reasonable or an unreasonable charge.
If it is reasonable, you have provided in this very section that it
shall not be prohibited, because you have put in the power of the com-
mission to permit it. If it is unreasonable, then it is prohibited by the
first, second, and third sections. So far as it is desirable to prevent
unreasonable charges of a larger sum for a shorter than a longer dis-
tance, you have prohibited it in these sections. You have thus by
these first three sections accomplished all that can be necessary.
Hence it is needless to embody in the fourth section an equivalent pro-
hibition, especially when you have there embodied it in language
which everybody admits can not be understood, language which, rig-
orously applied, may result in injury to some sections, and, as every-
body concedes, will lead to an indefinite amount of litigation in our
COurts. \
When you have everything that you want in these other sections, and
when all admit that this whole bill is tentative legislation; when all
admit that we ought to take a step at a time, why not leave out this
fourth section? Why not vote to non-concur in this report, with the
understanding that the committee shall agree to bring the bill back
again with this fourth section left out? In this way, as was well said
by the gentleman who made the suggestion to me, you will secure the
passage of the bill and no evil will result; the country will be satis-
fied; and you will have avoided the dangers which are threatened by
the measure in its present form. You will have taken the first step,
which is the desirable thing to do; you will have preserved the many
other provisions of this bill which it is desirable to preserve—the dec-
laration of Federal sanction against wrongful discriminations and unfair
rebates; the provision of a commission, which shall have not the power
of favoritism, but the power of investigation, the power of recommend-
ation, the power which has been exercised by a similar commission in
my own State and many other States with beneficial results.
Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman allow me a question?
Mr. LONG. Certainly.
Mr. CRISP. Is not the rule prescribed in this bill as to the long
and the short haul the law in Massachusetts to-day?
Mr. LONG. I think it is, practically. You have, however, changed
the words. -
500
Mr. CRISP. But, practically, the law of Massachusetts forbids this
discrimination in favor of the long as against the short haul?
Mr. LONG. Oh, yes; but we do not have in our charge there the
whole interests of the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That
is a matter, however, into which I do not care to go.
Mr. CRISP. I merely wanted to say that, as I understand, the pro-
vision referred to has been put in the bill to meet an 16ea which seems
to exist in the minds of a great many gentlemen—my friend on the
right [Mr. SCOTTI and others—that there are cases where, by reason
of water competition, the discrimination may be made in favor of the
long haul. I understand the provision to be a legislative expression
that it can not be reasonable to charge more for a short than for a long
haul.
Mr. LONG. I repeat that if the other sections of the bill mean any-
thing, the fourth section is unnecessary. You are as well off without
it; and all admit that there are great risks with it.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. JOHNSON, of New York. I yield the residue of my time to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. MARTIN).
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York has eight minutes
remaining.
Mr. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I am very much obliged to the gentle-
man from New York [Mr. JoHNSON] for yielding me the remainder of
his time; but I desire to say, that if he regards me as one of those
who favor this bill in its present form he is entirely mistaken. I could
not, consistently with the sentiments, as I understand them, of the
people of Alabama, vote for this bill with the fourth and fifth sections
remaining in it.
It is well known to members of this House that the State of Ala-
bama is one of the States bordering on the Gulf of Mexico—one of the
extreme Southern States. Before the war our people lived there quietly,
peaceably, contentedly, and happily, with their slaves working for
them. But when the war came with its results, slavery was swept
away. Then there went into the cotton patch thousands upon thou-
sands of men who before had never done a day’s work in the cotton-
field in their lives. What is the result 2 From year to year we
have seen the cotton product increasing, not by hundreds or thousands,
but actually by millions of bales, until now the quantity of cotton pro-
duced in the United States, in connection with that raised in India, is
so great that the crop is not remunerative—hardly meets the outlay in
making it. d -
Under these circumstances the people of Alabama turned their atten-
tion to the treasures which a bountiful Providence had placed in the
bowels of the earth. They began the great work of mining and manu-
facturing, and to-day the only interests I know of in my State which
are prosperous, in which men are growing rich, and which promise to
lift the State up and restore it to its former prosperity, are the mining
and manufacturing industries of Alabama.
Whether it be a just surmise or not, it is my opinion, sustained as I
am by the ablest business men in my State, that to pass this bill, with
this fourth section in it, is to dam up the resources of Alabama and
obstruct her further progress in mining and manufacturing.
If I had time, I would say something in reference to the provisions
about the long and the short hauls. Suppose I take Kansas City, and
ask, if a man can expect to carry his products from Kansas City to New
York, as cheaply as he could from Saint Louis to that city. Can a man
501.
expect to carry his iron or coal as cheaply from Birmingham, Ala., to
JNew York, as from Pittsburgh? Every one knows it is out of the
question. It happened, some time ago, that an eminent citizen, then
a member of this House, said to me, substantially, that while it is a
fact you can make coal and iron cheaper in Birmingham than upon any
other spot of American soil, yet all this talk about making Pennsyl-
vanians abandon their plants, or else remove them to Alabama, amounts
to nothing, so long as the people of Alabama have to pay such trans-
portation as is necessary to get their products to New York : Just so
long as that condition of affairs exists, just so long will Pennsylvania
continue her manufacture of iron and will defy your competition.
If that gentleman was right in what he said, I appeal to this House
to tell me, will we be in any better condition when we pass a law which
will compel the railroads to increase the charges of transportation?
Mr. CRISP. May I ask the gentleman a question ?
Mr. MARTIN. I have but little time, and cannot afford to yield.
I am reliably informed there is 92 per cent. of local business and
only 8 per cent. of long-haul business passing over the great Pennsyl-
vania system. Is it to be supposed that great system will reduce its
local rates in order to keep the other rates at what they are at the
present time. It can not be expected. And what is true of that rail-
road is true of all railroads throughout the length and breadth of the
country. The result will be, you will force the roads to increase the
charges for through transportation.
A gentleman of intelligence, on this floor, said to me the other day,
that but recently we paid 33 cents per hundred over through routes
per mile. Now he says it is only a fraction of one cent. Where and
how did they get the means to enable them to reduce their through
rates? Certainly from their local business, and from no other source.
Cut off their power to carry their through trade at reduced rates, and
what will be the result? You compel them to increase their through
rates and deny us, who live on the borders of the country, the right to
enter the great mart and emporium of the country to compete with you
with the products of our mines and manufactures.
There is one other thought I wish to advance in this connection,
which I believe is entitled to consideration. I have submitted it to
others, in whose judgment I have implicit confidence, and they tell me
there is something in it. It is this: That you will revolutionize the
commerce of this country should you pass this bill. Take the illus-
tration I gave a while ago. Suppose a man in Kansas City pays so
much for the transportation of his grain, and a man in Saint Louis
pays so much less for the shorter haul, does not this thereby fix the
price for Kansas City grain in New York city ? Can a man in Kansas
City get any higher price than a man in Saint Louis ? The grain is
the same. Can Dakota and other regions come in and compete? I say
manifestly not. You do not expect them to enter the market when
they know they will get much less for their products than those who
happen to live nearer the market.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, with the progress of the present day, we
were striving to do away not only with time, but with long distances
in this great country, by means of the railroad, the telegraph, and
other facilities; and that thereby we would be able to get the people
of this country of every section into market on something like equality.
Mr. CRISP. I hope the gentleman’s prediction as to a revolution
of commerce will come true. ?
Mr. MARTIN. I thought it was the end and aim of our Govern-
502
ment to make our people homogeneous; and to make them, so far as
practicable, equal competitors in all the various industries throughout
the country. One citizen of a county may live further from its county
seat than another; but if the public roads are well-worked, and no re-
strictions are put upon the trade, the difference in distance amounts,
comparatively, to nothing.
We have hoped to see our country one great net-work of railroads,
each and all of them making such great speed and carrying freight at
such reduced rates that every citizen might enter New York city with
his produce as the great county town of the Union.
The bill, I believe, will disappoint all such anticipations, and restore
all of the inequalities which have proved so onerous in the past. It
will greatly increase the cost of transportation upon all freights for
long distances, which must fall, where all such burdens fall, upon the
producer.
There is another objection to section 4, to which I invite attention.
The section is as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transpor-
tation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act.
Now, if the long and short hauls are under substantially similar cir-
cumstances and conditions, then there exists no need for the commis-
sion. The protection furnished under the provisions of section 9 giving
the party complaining a right to pursue his action “in any district or
circuit court of the United States of competent jurisdiction,” is ample.
If the conditions are not substantially similar, then there is nothing
left for the commission to do. The carrier is left free as before. The
provision that nothing contained shall “be construed as authorizing
any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge or receive
as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance” is with-
out significance as a positive enactment, since the carrier needs no such
authority; there is no law against it. I need pursue my objection to
section 4 no further.
Section 5 of this conference report is scarcely less objectionable to
me. It is as follows:
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and
competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds
of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an
agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance
shall be deemed a separate offense. *
If it were true that the pooling of freights only inured to the benefit
of railroad companies and other corporations engaged in transportation,
there would be some excuse, if not justification, for this section. It is
certainly our duty, in all proper cases, to protect the weak from the
strong, the producer from grasping corporations. But the benefits de-
rived from pooling, we should remember, are many and very great.
Pooling of freights keeps the railroads from hurrying one another into
f
503
bankruptcy; for we know that if the “cutting of rates’’ be kept up
for any length of time, bankruptcy would be the inevitable result.
But the greatest benefit—and I say it deliberately—is secured to the
producer by this pooling of freights. It prevents the unsettling of
values in every market affected by it, and secures all the advantages
flowing from a healthy competition.
There is another objection which I have to this conference report,
and one I can not forego. I am not willing to invest the commission
with such extraordinary and dangerous discretionary power. General
laws, we know, derive value from their uniform operation, not being
the subject of either discretion or caprice. All men may know them,
and the construction given them as well, by courts of last resort; and
any hardships imposed by them are readily corrected. Not so with this
measure, for the discretion given to the commission by section 4 is the
most dangerous feature of the bill.
Members of the commission need not accept bribes from the railroad
companies in order to grow rich. Having provided himself with a
broker on Wall street, a commissioner may speculate in railroad securi-
ties upon the result of the official rulings and actions of the commis-
sion; for since by a single ruling they may raise or depress the value
of the securities of any given line, so by a word to their brokers they
may reap the benefit of advance information, and realize not hundreds
or thousands, but sums reaching into millions. Such a temptation is
both terrible and cruel; and we can find no justification, as I conceive,
for creating such a dangerous office. For such reasons, and many
others not necessary to recite, I feel it my duty to oppose concurrence
in the conference report; and in doing so I believe that I represent the
interest and sentiment of the people of Alabama.
Mr. OATES. Mr. Speaker, I understood the distinguished gentleman
from Georgia, in opening the discussion upon this measure, to claim
that the power of Congress to pass this bill is based upon or derived
from the fact that the railroad companies of this country obtained their
charters, their vitality, from this Government.
I wish to call the attention of the House in my opening to the fact
that no railroads in this country have obtained their charters from the
Government of the United States except the Pacific lines. All the
others have obtained their charters from the States through which they
TūIl.
The third clause of Article I of the Constitution confers on Con-
gress the power to regulate commerce among the States of the Union.
The word “among” is the synonym of between or betwixt; and the
power which Congress may exercise is to regulate commerce among,
between, or betwixt the States. The thing which Congres may reg-
ulate is “commerce,” which means trade, traffic, exchange of goods,
merchandise, or other commodities. The sixth clause of section 9 of
the Constitution declares that “no preference shall be given by any
regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those
of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to
enter, clear, or pay duties in another.”
These fundamental provisions satisfy me that the power conferred
on Congress is to make such regulations of commerce between or among
the States as to prevent one State from discriminating against the trade
or commerce of another—to prevent a State from opposing obstacles
to the competition in commerce of the people of another State with its
own citizens.
The framers of the Constitution knew that there was danger that
504
State pride and greed of gain would cause, in the course of events, a
State to obstruct or burden with taxes the commerce of a sister State
for the benefit of its own citizens so as to totally exclude the commerge
or trade of such sister State from entering its borders. This would
lead to recrimination, and perhaps in some cases to open war. These
were the evils which the framers of the Constitution intended Congress
should prevent by appropriate legislation. The regulation of commerce
between or among the States, as such in their corporate and sovereign
capacity, I maintain is the power conferred and not to regulate the
terms of shipment between shippers and carriers, which would be a reg-
ulation of commerce among citizens rather than among States.
I know that the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that
a State has no power to regulate commerce within its own territory ir
it were shipped from another State. I regret that such a decision was
ever rendered, because it leads to absurd consequences, and while it is
persuasive it is not absolutely binding upon the legislative conscience.
I know that that court has given vast latitude to the clause of the Con-
stitution from which alone this Congress derives all the power it has to
act in this matter. I am fully persuaded that we should not under-
take to enlarge our power beyond the vast latitude which that court
has declared Congress to possess. In my opinion the bill now under
consideration goes further than any of the adjudications has gone.
It is not a bill to regulate interstate commerce, nor is it what it pur-
ports to be in its title, a bill to regulate commerce generally. It is in
fact a bill to regulate common carriers; and any gentleman who will
give it a fair and careful examination will arrive at this conclusion.
I think he will have to do violence to its language and force a con-
struction to arrive at a different conclusion.
What right has Congress to regulate common carriers, shippers, and
warehousemen beyond that which is necessary to prevent a State from
obstructing that commerce which comes from beyond its borders? If
Congress has the right to regulate the carriers and their vehicles, then
all the ferry-boats engaged in ferrying people and goods across a river
from one State to another, and all the stage-coaches, hacks, and wagons,
and their drivers, engaged in hauling freights and passengers, wherever
they cross a State line, are subject to be regulated and controlled by
Congress.
Every huckster or milk wagon which carries fruit or vegetables or
milk from Brownsville or Girard, Ala., in my district two hundred
yards across the Chattahoochee River to Columbus, in the State of
Georgia, from which my distinguished friend comes, is likewise sub-
ject to be regulated by Congress, according to the doctrine of this bill,
although the vehicle be but a wheelbarrow and the commerce be noth-
ing more than the kolb-jem or rattlesnake watermelons, that are grown
in great perfection in that country. If produced in Alabama and trans-
ported across the river by some enterprising colored brother, Congress
would have the right, according to the principles of this bill, to regu-
late him, and appoint a commission for that purpose, and make it a
penal offense if he charge as much for transporting melons across the
upper bridge as the lower one, the one being 50 feet shorter a haul than
the other.
Mr. CRISP. May I ask the gentleman from Alabama a question?
Mr. OATES. Yes, sir.
Mr. CRISP. Does the gentleman regard that man with his wheel- .
barrow and his rattlesnake watermelons as a common carrier?
Mr. OATES. If he is engaged in that as a business.
505 ,
, Mr. CRISP. It is just there the gentleman's argument fails. It is
not the fact that that man is a common carrier engaged in interstate
commerce. What a common carrier is the gentleman from Alabama
knows; all the elementary works define it.
Mr. OATES. I will meet the question of the gentleman from Geor-
gia there by saying that it does not make any difference whether the
carrier be a common carrier or not. It is the commerce which Congress
has the right to regulate, and if the method of carrying is involved, in
order to enable Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional power, to
regulate commerce among the States, it can, as an incident, regulate
the carrier, whether he be a common carrier or a private carrier.
Mr. CRISP. Will it interrupt my friend if I were to read, at this
point, Chitty’s definition of a common carrier?
Mr. OATES. There is no dispute about that. We know what a
common carrier is.
Mr. CRISP. I will read Chitty’s definition:
A common carrier is defined to be one who by the ancient law held as 15 were
a public office, and was bound to the public, and who to become liable as a com-
mon carrier must exercise the business of carrying as a public employment, and
must undertake to carry goods for all persons indiscriminately, and hold him-
self out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods—for hire as a business,
not as a casual occupation.
Carrying rattlesnake watermelons does not come within this defini-
tion.
Mr. OATES. That is very true; but the only power you have to
regulate common carriers is where it is necessary for the exercise of
the power plainly conferred on Congress of regulating commerce among
the States. I defy any gentleman to produce any authority in the Con-
stitution for the regulation of common carriers or any other kind of
carriers; and I am glad to find the doctrine laid down by the present Su-
preme Court very broadly, Justice Miller delivering the opinion that the
power of Congress must be sought alone in some express grant in the
Constitution or be found necessary to carry into effect such powers as
are there granted.
That is the rule of construction. Therefore the only power in Con-
gress to regulate carriers, whether they be common or private carriers,
is where it is necessary in order to regulate commerce among the States.
Your power to regulate a carrier does not depend upon the kind of
carrier he is. There is not a word in the Constitution about common
carriers, and Congress has no power to regulate them as such.
Now, as I do not wish to consume much time, I will proceed as
rapidly as possibly to state the views I wish to present. I concede
there are evils in some of the systems of railroad management in this
country which call aloud for remedy, and I am willing to stretch our
power as far as we can to remedy these evils -in behalf of the people.
I would open wide the doors of the courts to the injured and provide
for their amaple compensation for every wrong done them so far as
Congress has the power to do it. I know that corporation power has
become insolent, and in many instances has been defiant and regardless
of individual rights. I know, too, that, in many instances, has it been
a potent factor in the legislation and politics of this country. I would
stay its conscienceless hand and ward it away from the ballot-box and
drive it from the council chamber of the nation had I the power.
This bill forces it in here among us. I fear the consequences. We
had better “bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know
not of.”
I voted for the Reagan interstate-commerce bill in this Congress and
506
the last, stating at the time that while it contained some objectionable
features, yet it contained many good ones; and I would waive the ob-
jections because I could see when it was remitted to the courts for ad-
judication and administration that there would be a fair prospect, if
any parts of it operated badly and proved objectionable, to amend or
repeal them. But this bill is a very different affair. It remits most
of the powers, or a large class of the powers to be exercised over these
common carriers and their patrons, to a commission. I do not believe
if a commission is once established, however wrong the law may prove
in many respects, that it will ever be repealed. I do not believe in
commissions; I prefer to have the rights of the people adjudged by the
regular constitutional courts and juries of the country.
The history of legislation and the course of administration of this
Government prove that whenever an office is created it is never abol-
ished, but rather that those who are appointed to execute it are in-
creased in number if any change whatever be made. Who knows a
case to the contrary 2 Is it not true throughout our history that when-
ever a salary is affixed to an office, if it is ever interfered with by Con-
gress, the interference is always to increase it, never to diminish it?
I freely confess, sir, that I am jealous of this eternal tendency to the
enlargement and centralization of Federal power. To the extent of
the legitimate powers conferred upon the Government of the United
States by the Constitution, I believe that they should, by fair and im-
partial laws, have full effect, and be exercised in the interest of the
people of this country; but further than that I will never vote to go.
Whenever Congress, or any department of this Government, oversteps
the clear grants of power in the Constitution, or such implied ones as
are necessary to give force and efficacy to the granted ones, so far it
is playing the rôle of a usurper, and trampling upon the rights of the
people. What does the bill now before the House mean? Why, there
are provisions in it which my learned friend from Georgia [Mr. CRISP]
(for whose intellect and whose heart I have as high an opinion as I have
for those of any member of this House) is unable to explain. It is
conjectural, experimental; and let me say that where such vast interests
are involved, dealing as we are with a measure which may produce so
much trouble to the business interests of this country, I hesitate to
venture. I think we had better legislate to remedy those evils upon
which all intelligent and patriotic men are agreed call for a remedy.
I think this a safer course than to launch out in an experiment
which may be fraught with untold evils and injuries that no man can
now foresee.
This bill, to my mind, enters very largely into a new field of legisla-
tion; and it enters it, not like a prudent, sagacious commander who
marches into the enemy’s country with accurate maps of its topog-
raphy and knowledge of its resources and of the numbers opposed to him,
but like the rash commander who, in the consciousness of his strength,
despises the precautions of the wary, and does not even make the or-
dinary preparations for retreat in case of disaster. I know there be
grounds for complaint against certain railroad management, but no
such complaints can drive me to vote for a measure fraught, in my
judgment, with such uncertainties and probably evil consequences. I
am not afraid to vote according to my honest convictions.
The provision in this bill which prohibits pooling may be a wise one,
or it may not. I freely confess that I am not competent to pass upon
that question. I have no experience in railroad management. I only
know that many gentlemen who have had years of experience claim
507
that it is unwise, while others claim that it is wise and right. There-
fore, I do not pronounce any judgment whatever on it.
I pass on to another provision of the bill, that which prohibits the
railroads from charging more for a short haul than for a longer one over
the same or a continuous line of road. I am inclined to believe
that this provision will cause through rates to be advanced rather than
local rates to be reduced, or perhaps both results may follow, and in
either event my constituents and the people of my State will certainly
not be benefited, but I believe will be injured by it. If the rates on
local freights would be reduced and the rates on through freight re-
main as at present my people would be benefited. But suppose that
local rates remain as at present and that through or long-haul freight
rates be advanced to reach equality, the people of Alabama would be
injured thereby.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman permit me to
ask him a question ? A
Mr. OATES. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. The Reagan bill contained that
same provision without any possibility of exception, did it not? And
yet you say you voted for that bill.
Mr. OATES. It contained a similar provision to this. That was
one of the objections I had to it. I have stated that I voted for that
bill notwithstanding I had some objections. I will say to my friend,
however, that the objections to it were not half so numerous as are the
objections to this bill. In it was a manifest purpose to keep within con-
stitutional power, and to regulate commerce among the States rather
than merely to regulate the carriers.
The answer of the advocates of this bill to the criticism upon this
provision is to be found in the clause which vests in the commission
the power to suspend the law as to any road at any time, and to con-
tinue that suspension for any length of time, in the discretion of the
commission. In my judgment that provision makes this feature of the
bill a great deal worse than if no such proviso were incorporated in it.
I believe that it is absolutely unconstitutional and void, because to
my mind it is a blending of the legislative, the judicial, and perhaps,
the executive powers of the Government in the same law. That it is
legislative is shown by the fact that here is a power of dispensation to
be vested in this commission, power to dispense with the law, to sus-
pend it. That is clearly legislative power. Who is to exercise it? It
is to be exercised by the tribunal which is charged with the execution
of the law, by the same tribunal which is charged with construing the
law. In other words, the power of suspending the law is to be vested
in the commissioners who are charged with construing the scope of
the provisions of this bill, and the powers with which it invests them
as well as with the execution of it. All these powers are concentrated
in the same body of officers.
Now, if it is not taxing the time of the House too greatly, I desire
to read from the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Kilbourn
vs. Thompson, in 103 U. S. Report. Let me first read from the syllabus:
6. The Constitution divides the powers of the Government, which it estab-
lishes, into the three departments—the executive, the legislative, and the judi-
cial—and unlimited power is conferred on no department or officer of the Gov-
ernment. It is essential to the successful working of the system that the lines
which separate those departments shall be clearly defined and closely followed,
and that neither of them shall be permitted to encroach upon the powers ex-
clusively confided to the others.
7. That instrument has marked out, in its three primary articles, the allot-
ment of power to those departments, and no judicial power, except that above
5
0S
mentioned, is conferred on Congress or either branch of it. On the contrary,
it declares that the Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish.
The following is the language of the court as expressed by Mr. Justice
Miller:
It is believed to be one of the chief merits of the American system of written
constitutional law that all the powers intrusted to Government, whether State or
National, are divided into the three grand departments, the executive, the legis-
lative, and the judicial; that the functions appropriate to each of these branches
of Government shall be vested in a separate body of public servants, and that
the perfection of the system requires that the lines which separate and divide
these departments shall be broadly and clearly defined. It is also essential to
the successful working of this system that the persons intrusted with power in
any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers
confided to the others, but that each shall, by the law of its creation, be limited
to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other.
To these general propositions there are, in the Constitution of the United States,
some important exceptions. One of these is, that the President is so far made a
part of the legislative power, that his assent is required to the enactment of all
statutes and resolutions of Congress. This, however, is so only to a limited ex-
tent, for a bill may become a law, notwithstanding the refusal of the President
to approve it, by a vote of two-thirds of each House of Congress. So, also, the
Senate is made a partaker in the functions of appointing officers and making
treaties, which are supposed to be properly executive, by requiring its consent
to the appointment of such officers and the ratification of treaties. The Senate
also exercises the judicial power of trying impeachments, and the House of pre-
ferring articles of impeachment.
In the main, however, that instrument, the model on which are constructed
the fundamental laws of the States, has blocked out with singular precision
and in bold lines in its three primary articles, the allotment of power to the ex-
ecutive, the legislative, and the judicial departments of the Government. It
also remains true, as a general rule, that the powers confided by the Constitu-
tion to one of these departments, can not be exercised by another.
It may be said that these are truisms which need no repetition here to give
them force. But while the experience of almost a century has in general shown
a wise and commendable forbearance in each of these branches from encroach-
ments upon the other it is not to be denied that such attempts have been made,
and it is believed not always without success. The increase in the number
of States in their population and wealth, and in the amount of power, if not
in its nature, to be exercised by the Federal Government, presents powerful
and growing temptations to those to whom that exercise is intrusted to over-
step the just boundaries of their own department and enter upon the domain
of one of the others, or to assume powers not intrusted to either of them.
Now this fourth section is wanting in another essential to constitute
it a law. A law is a rule of civil conduct prescribed; it is a rule of ac-
tion. Here is something which you can not well denominate a rule,
because it embodies within it exceptions, not absolute, but only con-
ditional. I read from Sedgwick on Statutory and Constitutional Law,
page 169:
An act of a State Legislature authorizing a party to sell so much of the lands
of a deceased person as would be sufficient to raise a given sum, and directing
the proceeds to be applied to the extinguishment of certain claims against the
estate of the deceased is a judicial act, and as such unconstitutional and void.
In a case where a statute of limitations had run against a demand an act was
passed allowing the plaintiff to commence and prosecute his suit in the same
way and manner as he might or could have done if the same had been com-
menced within the time prescribed by law ; but the court gave judgment, not-
withstanding the law, on the ground that the power of dispensing with the
general law in particular cases was not vested in the Legislature.
That was the decision in the case of Holden vs. James Admor, 11
Massachusetts Reports, 396.
I might enlarge upon this point, but I would not be justified in tak-
ing time to do so. I will simply say that this clause is not constitu-
tional, is not properly a legislative enactment within the power of
Congress, because it proposes to blend legislative, judicial, and execu-
tive functions.
509
Mr. HOLMAN. Let me inquire of my friend whether Congress
can not confer upon these commissioners judicial power, and are not
the powers to be exercised under this bill judicial rather than admin-
istrative?
Mr. OATES. That is exactly what I maintain—that the power con-
ferred is judicial, and in this clause legislative also; and this being the
fact, that part of the bill, according to the decisions of the Supreme
Court, would be void.
Mr. HOLMAN. Can the power proposed here to be conferred be any-
thing beyond administrative and judicial power? Do not the provisions
of the bill embrace both?
Mr. OATES. That is the very reason it is obnoxious to the consti-
tutional objection—that it does embrace both legislative and judicial
power, which can not be blended, because the powers of the Government
are distributed, by the Constitution, among three distinct bodies of
magistracy, as the gentleman well knows.
Now, there is another objection which I have to this clause. I care not
how honest these commissioners may be. They may be as honest as my
distinguished friends from Georgia and Texas, who served as conferees;
and there are no gentlemen within the circle of my acquaintance whom
I believe to be more honest and capable. Yet if I knew that they and
such as they were always to be the commissioners without any excep-
tion, I would not be willing to intrust them with the powers here pro-
posed to be conferred, for the reason that I am not willing to intrust any
man with powers of undefined extent, power which may be perverted
and used for unlawful purposes. There is an old adage that “judges
should be discouraged from following the crooked cord of discretion
rather than the golden mete-wand of the law.” Now, look at the prob-
able operation and consequences of this bill. Here is a political com-
mission. because it is declared that not more than three of the commis-
sioners shall belong to the same political party. Therefore the decisions
which they render may be political; not that they will necessarily be,
but they may be; and it would be an unfortunate thing. It is a bad
principle to legislate politics into the judicial system of the Government.
The framers of the Constitution endeavored to place the judiciary be-
yond the baneful influence of partisan politics by giving the judges a
life tenure, and yet even this precaution has, I am sorry to say, not
always proved successful.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Was not that section incorporated
in the bill with the object of eliminating politics from the work of
the commission? Was not that the very purpose ?
Mr. OATES. That may have been the purpose, but I think it will
accomplish just the contrary.
Now let me proceed. Suppose that the temptation were great enough
to induce three of these commissioners to exercise this power of dis-
crimination in favor of one competing line of railway against another.
Under the provisions of this bill they may relieve one road totally or
in part from the operation of the long and short haul provisions—may
favor one line and not another. In this way the stocks of one may be
sent up in Wall street to a high point, and those of another utterly de-
pressed. Millions could be made in Wall street in a single day by
those who are favored with the necessary information.
This section will vest in the commissioners, or rather in three of
them, the power to destroy one of any two competing lines of railway
upon which this bill will operate.
It is no argument—I say it with due deference to my friend from
510
Georgia—to declare that honest men may be obtained as members of
this commission. There were once twelve persöns selected for distin-
guished service because of their supposed fidelity and trustworthiness;
yet one of them proved faithless, and we have not in this country’s
history passed beyond the danger of encountering Judases. I do not
propose to vote for a law which is calculated even to tempt honest men
into dishonesty. I prefer to follow the spirit of the Lord’s prayer—
“Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
Mr. CUTCHEON. Still, this responsibility must rest somewhere.
Mr. OATES. I understand that. I would put the responsibility
where it ought to rest—on the properly constituted courts of the coun-
try. I would have no commission at all; for I maintain that a com-
mission of even seventy-five members, however astute, could not dis-
charge the duties which this bill proposes to devolve upon five men.
Another suggestion I would make with reference to this clause is
this: The most powerful corporation in this country, as I understand,
is directly interested in cheap transportation to the seaboard. That
is the Standard Oil Company. This bill is so framed as to shut out all
competition in oils west of this and the fields of Southern New York
and Pennsylvania. It is nearest the seaboard and the great cities.
No article “ of like kind,” in the language of the bill, intervenes. A
low rate to a commodity of like kind coming from the west of the lo-
cality of the Standard Company would give that company a lower
one, because a shorter haul. They will get all of the benefits of the short
haul and none of the disadvantages of the long haul, and hence the
Standard Oil Company will doubtless be benefited by the passage of
this bill.
Pipe lines are not embraced in this bill although carriers of inter-
state commerce. With cheap rates of transportation—defiant of com-
petition—and the command of the petroleum markets of the world, it
seems to me a good measure for the Standard Oil Company. Its domi-
nation of the railroads was much complained of in the debates at the
other end of this Capitol, but, like Banquo's ghost, it has not downed
at their bidding.
Is it not significant that the word “corporation ” is omitted from
section 2 of this bill ?
I ask my friend from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] to explain why it is the
words “person or persons” are used here, while in all the other sec-
tions the word “corporation’’ is used ? I do not understand the reason
of it. *
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman does not mean to be understood that
“corporation” would not be included in the word “person?”
Mr. OATES. If so, why is corporation used in other sections?
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman would not be understood as saying a
corporation is not an artificial person.
Mr. OATES. The use of the word “corporation” should be uniform.
That word is omitted from section 2, but appears in section 3 and other
portions of the bill. Why this omission? It seems to me that a court
in construing this bill as a law would naturally inquire why the Leg-
islature left out the word “corporation’’ in the second section while it
used it in other sections ? I do not say there is anything wrong, but I
throw out the suggestion as a puzzle to me, and ask my friend to ex-
plain it when he makes his reply.
In this connection, however, I wish to call attention to another ſeat-
ure of this bill, the eighteenth section, which I have not time to read.
I refer to the section which provides for the compensation of these
511
commissioners, and in the latter part invests them with power to em-
ploy all such agents and assistants as they may find necessary to enable
them to carry out the objects and purposes of this measure and to fix
their compensation, which no doubt would always be liberal. Most men
are far more liberal with other people's money than they are in the
expenditure of their own.
Mr. GROSVENOR. And to fix the salaries of those agents and as-
sistants.
Mr. OATES. Certainly, to fix their compensation, subject only to
the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The salaries of the com-
missioners, $7,500 a year each, and the salary of their secretary, $3,500
a year, and their traveling expenses, are a mere bagatelle, amounting
to nothing compared with the other expenses which will be incurred
by the commission. They have the power to subpoena witnesses from
any part of the country, from the most remote portion of the Pacific
Coast, and bring them to Washington, and those witnesses are entitled
to the same compensation as witnesses subpoenaed to appear in United
States courts.
The Government stands the expense all the way through. What
number may be subpoenaed is left to the discretion of the commission.
The number of assistants they may employ is not fixed, nor are the
cases in which they may employ assistants defined. They may em-
ploy a thousand lawyers all over the country and fix their compensa-
tion at the very highest rates known to the profession.
They may give one hundred fat places to as many of the relatives of
each commissioner and not violate any provision of the law. The veto
power which the bill gives to the Secretary of the Interior is an inad-
equate safeguard to the Treasury. He, however honest and capable,
and no one questions these in the present most highly efficient Secre-
tary, would very naturally avoid so far as he could disapproving ac-
counts rendered by the commissioners for services which they would
certify to be worth the amount charged to the Government.
I now invite the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, to the twen-
tieth section of this bill, which reads as follows: *.
SEC. 20 That the commission is bereby authorized to require annual reports
from all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act, to fix the time
and prescribe the manner in which such reports shall be made, and to require
from such carriers specific answers to all questions upon which the commission
may need information. Such annual reports shall show in detail the amount
of capital stock issued, the amounts paid therefor, and the manner of payment
for the same; the dividends pald, the surplus fund. if any, and the number of
stockholders; the funded and floating debts and the interest paid thereon; the
cost and value of the carrier's property, franchises, and equipment; the number
of employés and the salaries paid each class; the amounts expended for 1m-
provements each year, how expended, and the character of such improvements;
the earmings and receipts from each branch of business and from all sources;
the operating and other expenses; the balances of profit and loss; and a conn-
plete exhibit of the financial operations of the carrier each year, including an
annual balance sheet. Such reports shall also contain such information in re-
lation to rates or regulations concerning fares or freights, or agreements, ar-
rangements, or contracts with other common carriers, as the commission may
require; and the said commission may, within its discretion, for the purpose of
enabling it the better to carry out the purposes of this act, prescribe (if in the
opinion of the commission it is practicable to prescribe such uniformity and
methods of keeping accounts) a period of time within which all common ear-
riers subject to the provisions of this act shall have, as near as may be, a uni-
form system of accounts, and the manner in which such accounts shall be
kept.
It requires all the railroads which come under the provisions of the
bill to make annual reports as to the amount of stock, the names of the
512
stockholders, the shares held by each, and everything pertaining to their
business. •
In one clause of this section the commissioners are instructed to
adopt, as early as practicable, one uniform system of book-keeping for
all the railroad companies.
Mr. CRISP. Perhaps that is hardly a fair quotation—the language
is “if practicable.”
Mr. OATES. As soon as practicable. That is, in addition to the
other powers to be vested in the commission. They are not only to be
legislators, judges, and executors, but this provision attempts to make
them school teachers also.
When you come to apply that twentieth section to the railroad cor-
porations who obtained their franchises from the States through which
they run, to compel them to render an account of their stockholders and
the profit of their business, suppose they refuse to do it? The com-
mission apply to the United States court to compel a compliance.
Would such court enforce obedience to requirements of that section?
What power is there? What sort of instrumentality for the regulation
of commerce among the States is this disclosure of the private affairs of
a State corporation? Is it an appropriate and necessary means? Is it
fitting and proper to enable Congress to carry out that provision of the
Constitution to regulate commerce among the States? I deny it; and
if I had time to read from the decisions of the Supreme Court I would
show clearly where they say that under no such assumed power can
Congress institute inquiries into the private affairs of the citizen.
That provision in this bill, it strikes me, is intended for the gather-
ing of statistics upon which future legislation may be based. It is
looking to a consolidation or centralization of power in the Federal
Government, which is, to me, startling in the extreme.
Dr. Franklin said upon the subject of governmental interference
with private rights : “It would be better if Government meddled no
further with the trade and traffic of the country than to protect, and
let it take its course. The statutes, acts, edicts, arrets, and placards of
legislatures, parliaments, princes and states for regulating and direct-
ing trade and commerce, have been political blunders or jobs by artful
men designed for private advantage under the specious pretense of pub-
lic good.”
It is far-reaching in the direction of the centralization of power.
Why, gentlemen, how inadequate, how utterly unable, if we were to sit
from one end of the year to the other, is the Congress of the United
States now to deal with and pass upon all of the questions that are
lugged in here by the thousands and tens of thousands of bills which
are introduced in every Congress, and yet by this bill you would open
the door wide into a new field of legislation which in itself would be
enough to occupy the entire time of Congress at each session. It is
a vast and unexplored field, and I must respectfully decline your invi-
tation to enter it, so far as I am individually concerned. I believe by
opposing this measure I am rendering the best service possible to my
constituents, my party, and my country. My conviction of duty re-
quires me to raise my voice against it, although I know I can not de-
feat it. * -
It will lead, I apprehend, to other legislation to lay a predicate for
which the information required by the twentieth section is needed,
and railroad corporations are at once forced to abandon freight and
passenger pooling and to engage in political pooling. The reports
would be used as a predicate for legislation to make the earnings of all
513
the railroads of this country uniform. When Congress does this capi-
tal will seek other investments than railroad building, which is just at
this time doing so much for the people of my State. gº
This bill is a long stride in the direction of paternal government, for
by that theory this Government must protect and direct the business of
all of the people of this country, and leave nothing to that independ-
ence and manhood which has distinguished Americans above the peo-
ple of every other country on the face of the earth.
When a man starts out in life, if his father remains his guardian and
he can not engage in any enterprise except such as his father suggests,
and in which he has his father to lean upon, when he reaches thirty or
forty years of age he will not be a man, but a boy still. But throw him
upon his own individual responsibility, let him fight for his own prin-
ciples without any intervention on the part of others, let him fight the
world alone and be the architect of his own fortune, and it brings to the
surface all of the manhood that is in him, and develops that distinctive
American characteristic of which we are all justly proud. And, Mr.
Speaker, from this individual instance of the development of manhood,
which extends to our whole people and characterizes them as a nation,
it leads me to protest against the interposition of the General Govern-
ment in an assumption to control all of the affairs of the people.
It should only interpose where necessary in order that great abuses
may be prevented and justice administered among the people. The
administration of justice between man and man, and the mainte-
nance of good order, is all the business of Government. Further than
that it should never, in my judgment, undertake to go. It should
leave every man as much of his native freedom as is consistent with
these two purposes of the Government.
This bill is not a measure limited to the correction of well-known
evils. It will force every railroad corporation in the country into
politics. It is a gigantic stride toward paternal government. It is
fraught with untold dangers. I will not look too closely least I should
see the appalling shadow behind a vast centralization of approaching
monarchy. In Holland it is a capital felony to kill a stork, because the
stork destroys the eels which bore through the dikes and inundate the
country. To my mind this bill is a knot of eels which may bore
through the dikes of safety and flood this country with trouble. I
view it with grave apprehension.
Mr. Speaker, how much time have I remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has thirteen minutes.
Mr. OATES. I yield that time to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
HOLMAN].
Mr. HOLMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. FIND-
LAY] half of the time given to me.
Mr. OATES. I also yield to the gentleman from Maryland five
minutes of the time of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. CALD-
WELL], which he placed at my disposal.
Mr. FINDLAY, I am half inclined to vote for this bill, because on
a fair comparison of its merits with its defects there would seem to be
a balance of merit in its favor, but in conceding this I am not to be
understood as underestimating the very grievous fault which I think
is embodied in what is known as the long and short haul clause of the
bill; a fault not merely accidental, but in its very nature essential,
radical, and incurable. This clause does not absolutely prohibit a dis-
crimination in rates in the transportation of either passengers or prop-
I S C–33 -
º
514 t
erty, but proposes to confine the prohibition to a case where the cir-
cumstances and conditions are substantially similar, and even narrows
down this prohibition by allowing exceptions to be determined in the
discretion of the commission. -
It is obvious, then, upon the face of the clause that in the opinion of
its authors there are some things beyond the scope of legislation, some
conditions not within the corrigible power of the law, and, however
humiliating or mortifying the confession, that there are limitations
even upon the omnipotence of an American Congress. If it had been
possible to prescribe absolute uniformity by providing that in no case
should there be a greater charge for a shorter than a longer distance,
then it is not necessary to say that the opportunity would have been
eagerly seized, and instead of discussing a conditional prohibition frit-
tered away to the point of harmless tenuity by disretionary excep-
tions, we would have been called upon to deal with an iron-clad and
inflexible rule of exclusion.
We start out, then, with an admission that it is only in cases where
there is an identity, or substantial identity, in conditions and circum-
stances that the long and the short haul shippers or travelers shall be
placed upon the same level of equality, and that even when such a par-
ity of condition exists the rule against discrimination may be relaxed
in the discretion of the five gentlemen who are to administer this law.
I do not know how it strikes others, but it seems to me that it is a giving
away of the whole case, not a willing or a voluntary surrender, but a
simple submission to the inevitable. It is an admission that the con-
ditions and circumstances surrounding a short and long haul may be
very different; and even when they are apparently alike, there may
be strong points of essential dissimilarity which would make the en-
forcement of a uniform rule as to rates oppressive and unjust. Reading
the clause in the light of this admission we start out with a strong pre-
sumption against the feasability of any legislation whatever upon the
subject; and when we come to examine the conditions under which the
rule is to be enforced we will find this presumption immensely strength-
ened.
Discrimination is legal in favor of a long as against a short haul in
every case—so reads the section—except where the circumstances and
conditions of the travel or the traffic are substantially similar, not ap-
parently similar, but substantially so, or as I read it, where the equities
of each particular case are the same. Now let us take an illustration.
The Boston, Hoosac Tunnel and Western Railway Company is an inter-
state road between Mechanicsville, N. Y., and North Adams, Mass.
It has Western connections reaching, I do not know how far; but for
purposes of illustration I will assume to Bismarck, Dakota. A car-load
of grain is shipped at this point for export at Boston, and in getting .
there must pass over the portion of the road between Mechanicsville
and North Adams. It does so without the loading ºr the unloading of
the grain at either of these points, and passes on to Boston without any
intermediate station service.
The same day the car passes over the road a local shipper at Mechan-
icsville sends to North Adams (an interstate point) a car of potatoes,
which of course has to be loaded at the point of departure and un-
loaded at the point of destination: in other words, requiring two station
services before the shipment is completed. Now, then, you have the case
of a long and a short interstate haul, and it is perfectly clear that the
conditions and circumstances are not the same or substantially similar,
and would not fall within the purview of this clause.
515
Take the case of a shipment of lumber from Grafton to Cumberland
and from Grafton to Baltimore inter-state points on the Baltimore and
Ohio Railroad; suppose the shippers send the same kind and the same
quantity of lumber in a given time, say a year, the one to Cumberland
and the other to Baltimore. Here the conditions would seem to be
substantially similar, and the rule could be made to apply. But sup-
pose the Baltimore shipper happens to be largely interested in the
transportation of cattle to Liverpool, and says to the Baltimore and Ohio
Company, “I will ship over your road to Baltimore, provided you make
me some concession as to lumber shipped from Grafton; and if you
do not, I will send all my cattle either to New York or Philadelphia.”
The company must either accept the offer or lose the business, both
for itself and Baltimore. It accepts, and makes a rate on lumber to
Baltimore which in itself will not pay even for the carriage of the
same article to Cumberland; and then the Cumberland shipper from
Grafton demands the same rate for his lumber.
Is he to get it? If he is charged a reasonable rate, or the same rate
every other shipper is charged from Grafton to Cumberland, upon what
equity can he plead and claim the benefit of a rate which a non-com-
petitor gets for a longer haul in consideration of bringing other and
more lucrative business to the road? A provision that all shippers from
the same point of departure to the same point of destination should be
charged the same rate for a similar service would be just; but a re-
quirement that all shippers over the same route to different points of
destination, some for a shorter and some for a longer distance, shall
have the benefit of equal rates is the worst form of discrimination in
favor of one class as against another.
But, referring to my last illustration, could it be held that the cir-
cumstances and conditions of these two Grafton shippers of lumber, one
to Cumberland and the other to Baltimore, the one controlling a differ-
ent class of freights from other points and the other none, would the
case fall within the scope of this clause ? I think not. All the ship-
per to Cumberland would have a right to demand would be that the
rate charged him should be reasonable; but if it were it makes no dif-
ference as far as he is concerned what is charged to another man ship-
ping to a different point and where business does not come into compe-
tition with his own. The whole scope and design of this act is to make
the charge reasonable; and when I read in the fourth section “that it
shall be unlawful to charge,” &c., “subject to the provisions of this act,”
I interpret this language as meaning that the discrimination prohibited
is an unreasonable discrimination. I submit in the case put that the
discrimination would not be unreasonable, and that the courts would so
hold. . -
Now, I ask whether in the nature of things there is not an inherent
difference between the conditions of a short and long haul, and if there
is it follows that the clause which requires these conditions to be sub-
stantially similar can never take effect. I am almost prepared to af-
firm that there will not be a case under this section where the long-
haul will not be able to establish a superior equity of some kind against
the short-haulshipper, and where he will not get the benefit of it either
through the courts or the commission. -
Another grave objection to the clause is the power of the commission;
and still another arises out of the advantage an infrastate railroad
will have over an interstate. The distance from Philadelphia to the
Ohio River by the Pennsylvania Railroad is about the same as the dis-
tance of Baltimore by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad to the same
516
river; but the Pennsylvania Railroad in traversing this distance crosses
but one State, and the Baltimore and Ohio passes through three.
If one is to be placed as to charges under the provisions of this bill
and the other is to be regulated by the State, it is not difficult to see
what an enormous advantage the Pennsylvania Railroad would enjoy.
I have no time to amplify this or the objection to the power of the
commission, but having spoken very fully on the subject of freight dis-
criminations at the second session of the Forty-eighth Congress, I
bid farewell to the subject, leaving to time, the only true prophet, to
determine what is good and what is bad in the measure.
Mr. HOLMAN. I yield what remains of my time to the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. WARNER]. *
Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, authority is given to Con-
gress by the Constitution to regulate commerce among the States.
Such regulation, presumably, is always to be in the interest of com-
merce. The end of any regulation, therefore, is to secure conformity
to certain equitable principles which long experience has shown to be
essential to prosperous commerce everywhere. -
These fundamental principles, recognized everywhere as equitable,
just and necessary, are: 1. Reasonable rates or charges; 2. No unjust
discriminations; 3. Proper and equal facilities to all.
In-so-far as this bill is calculated to secure the enforcement of these
principles it will receive, doubtless, general approval. Experiments be-
yond the enforcement of these principles may well be looked upon with
apprehension.
Possibly, in some respects, the bill before us goes too far; possibly, in
others, not far enough. There are some features of the bill that I do not
like; others that I am in doubt about. It may take experience to dem-
onstrate the wisdom or unwisdom of many features of the bill.
A perfect law on such a matter as this is hardly to be expected at
the outset, and changes may become necessary—very likely will. Nev-
ertheless, as the bill can not be amended, and must be taken as a
whole or not at all, I shall vote for it as the best which, under the cir-
cumstances, can be obtained, believing that the time has come for the
Federal Government to assume that regulation of commerce among
the States contemplated in the Constitution and for which States are
inadequate.
In answer to criticisms on the long and short haul clause, I desire to
say I would like myself to strike out the “substantially similar” phrase,
but the long and short haul principle, as a rule, is thoroughly sound.
The controlling element that enters into the determination of the ques-
tion of the reasonableness of a charge is the value of the service, and it
never can cost more or be worth more to move a train over a part of a
road in the same direction and at the same time than to move it over
the whole road, and upon this fact the rule is founded.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. HOLMAN withholds his remarks for revision.
% + * * •k k *
Mr. MORROW. I take the floor, and will resume it after the recess.
The gentleman to whom I was about to surrender the floor has left the
Hall.
Mr. STEELE. I move that the House take a recess until half past
7 o’clock.
Mr. DUNN. Before the question is taken upon that motion I wish
to say that I understand distinctly that under the order of the House
*,
517
no business is in order at the evening session, even by unanimous Con-
sent, except to continue this debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That was the order of the House this
morning. .
The motion of Mr. STEELE was agreed to; and accordingly (at 5
o'clock and 25 minutes p. m.) the House took a recess until 7.30 p.m.
EVENING SESSION. -
The recess having expired, the House re-assembled at 7.30 p.m.,
Mr. McMILLIN in the chair as Speaker pro tempore.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House is in session this evening
under the special order made to-day for debate only on the interstate-
commerce bill. The gentleman from California [Mr. MORROW] is en-
titled to the floor.
Mr. MORROW. Having sought the floor under the impression that
I would be able to take part in a more extended discussion of this
question than I will be at liberty to do under the limitation now placed
on the debate, I will not detain the House with any discussion of
the merits of this bill. I can not allow the opportunity to pass, how-
ever, without entering a protest against the provisions of section 4,
concerning long and short hauls. Representing as I do, in part, the
city of San Francisco, the initial or terminal point of nearly all the
transcontinental traffic, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not
say that from the debate we have had in this House and the debate
that has been had in the Senate it appears definitely determined that
this provision of the bill, if effective at all, is inimical to the commer-
cial interests of the people of the Pacific Coast, located as they are at
the end of an ultimate long haul.
I am decidedly in favor of most of the provisions of this bill, and I
should be glad to support them under such circumstances as would se-
cure the benefit of their controlling provisions without ingrafting upon
the law section 4. I agree with several gentlemen who have addressed
the House that it will be possible for Congress before adjournment
to enact the other provisions of the bill into law in such shape as to
afford to the country that protection which is necessary in the matter
of the control of railroad corporations, at the same time onlitting this
provision which, it seems to me, is detrimental to those sections of the
country which are located at distant points and across the continent.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman permit me to
ask him a question before he takes his seat? -
Mr. MORROW. Yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Is it not the fact that living on the
shores of the Pacific, the gentleman from California represents a constit-
uency which would come under the exceptions provided for in the
bill—the dissimilarity suggested in the bill?
Mr. MORROW. I have listened to this debate very attentively,
and all I am able to make out of it is that if this provision is of any
force as a measure of control it is against the interest of the people I
represent, and I do not think it wise to remit California and the Pacific
Coast to the doubtful provisions of an exception to the general law.
Let the statute be specific and definite, and we will abide by its direc-
tions. I yield the rest of my time to my colleague from California
[Mr. McKENNA].
518
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr.
McKENNA] is entitled to six minutes. -
Mr. McKENNA. I thank my colleague for his kindness. It would
seem an idle thing at this time and stage of the debate to say anything
about the pending measure. But, sir, my purpose in rising is not en-
tirely idle. I received this morning a telegram from a portion of my
constituents, which I now send to the Clerk’s desk to be read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SACRAMENTO, CA.L., Janwary 19, 1887.
Hon. JOSEPH McKENNA, -
Howse of Representatives, Washington : -
Board of Trade mails you to-night resolutions adverse to long and short haul
clause of interstate-commerce bill. -
JOSEPH STEFFENS.
Mr. McKENNA. Now, sir, in reply to the request of my constitu-
ents and rising as my colleague did to protest against some of the pro-
visions of this bill, I wish to say in advance I have no doubt of the
competency of Congress to regulate interstate commerce and no doubt
of the policy of doing so if it be done by a carefully prepared, intelli-
gent, well adapted, and well measured law, and I therefore sympathize
with the primary purpose of the bill reported by the committee and
concur in many of the means by which it is sought to be accomplished.
But the provisions of the fourth section, I think, are so detrimental to
the interests of the State which I have the honor in part to represent
that I can not consent to the passage of a bill at least without some
protest against that clause in the hope that those who succeed us will
have industry and intelligence and wisdom enough to correct its man-
ifest mischiefs.
I know, sir, that legislation must be practical, and that no law can
be expected to express universal opinion. -.
But, Mr. Speaker, the peculiar and significant and warning diversity
of interpretation of the fourth section should give us pause before we
enact it into rigid and imperative law. Why, what is our situation ?
The members of the committee on the part of the House were intended
to represent its views, and were expected to understand what they as-
sented to, and to report that understanding to the House. We had a
right to expect that all members of a free conference between the two
great Houses of legislation should agree to the same thing in the same
sense, and report that agreement to the House, to have a clear under-
standing of their purpose and discernment of its effect. Their counsel
would be valueless else—their report of no service. We know what the
opinion of the Senate committee is, although by a kind of legislative
humbuggery I dare not refer to it. We do not know the opinions of
the House committee. The report contains no comment, and the gen-
tleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] was very careful to say that he ex-
pressed no one’s views but his own. v.
The House is entitled to more than this. Before it can be called upon
to assent or dissent from the report of a committee it should understand
what the report means. Law-makers, Mr. Speaker, should know what
they are about; they should have unity of purpose, and that purpose
should be declared in unambiguous language, not in words and phrases
so equivocal that they are ambushed by all sorts of meanings and mis-
chiefs. Why, sir, if the language of a distinguished gentleman, spoken
elsewhere and which has already been quoted by others, that this bill
is one no one wants or is satisfied with or knows its meaning, but all
are going to vote for, be not rhetorical exaggeration if it correctly de-
519
scribe our relations and feelings to this bill, even if there be demand for
legislation, as no doubt there is, this bill will not satisfy the demand.
It is subserviency, not obedience, to the people; and obedience, intel-
ligent, deliberate, and useful is what is desired. Another has said that
a Representative's constituents are “entitled not only to his industry
but to his judgment.” If either is denied, his obligations are not ful-
filled; compliance otherwise is servility, not service, and a servility as
abject as it is useless. Of course it may be said that in these various
diversities of interpretation each may adopt his own dogma, and hope
that his view may prove correct. But, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman
from Georgia is an intelligent and fair man, and a friend of the pur-
poses of this bill; and it would not be safe to say that his interpreta-
tion is not correct. If it is correct, then, in my judgment, as I have
already said, this bill is injurious to the State which I represent.
Now, what is our situation? We have, extending to the State of Cal-
ifornia, four or five lines of railroad. We have the Southern Pacific and
its connections; we have the Atlantic Pacific and its connections; we
have the Central and the Union Pacific, with their connections; we
have the Northern Pacific and its connections; and we have water
competition by way of the Pacific Ocean, the Isthmus, and the Atlantic.
We have the competition of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, a railroad
largely subsidized by the English Government, which has guaranteed
$60,000,000 of its stock at 3 per cent. The purpose of that road is to
convey to English cities, to English territory, and to English capital
the trade of Japan, China, Australia, and the islands of the Pacific
Ocean, as against California and American cities.
I believe, sir, the bill will take from California some of the benefits
it now enjoys from the overland routes. Its advantages are naturally
derived, and it is unjust to take them away and confer them elsewhere
by artificial regulation,
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I object to the fourth section of the
bill. The section has been demonstrated by the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts [Mr. LONG) as absolutely unnecessary. Other provisions of
the bill confer upon the commissioners ample power; and if they be
fit to have those powers conferred upon them, if they have any ade-
quate notion of the proper discharge of the functions which they are
intended to exercise, they could surely correct all the evils sought to
be corrected by the fourth section if to charge more for a short haul
than a longer be unjust to persons or places.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without consuming further time, I will only
say that on the grounds I have stated I feel constrained to protest
against the fourth section. -
Mr. BUTTERWORTH withholds his remarks for revision.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes
which, after vigorous effort I have been able to obtain, but little can be
said. It is alleged that there are between seven and eight thousand
millions of dollars invested in the capital stock and indebtedness of the
great railway system of the United States. That system is under the
control of a very limited number of individuals, and has the power,
and last year exercised the power, of collecting from the people of the
United States $756,000,000, some two or three times as much money
as that collected by the Government of the United States. For many
years these men have been beyond all control, except the general “cuss-
edness” of themselves. [Laughter.] There has been no law govern-
ing them; there has been no law, either written or unwritten, which
52()
they respect. The simple question with them has been at all times
how much money they could extort from the people by passenger and
freight rates. After a struggle of more than a decade Congress is now
on the point of enacting a law, saying to these men as common carriers
having exclusive use of public property, in the form of public high-
ways, “you shall charge hereafter only reasonable rates,” and the other
provisions incorporated in this bill to control them. -
Why, Mr. Speaker, we have the greatest single interest of the land
here involved. Generally these roads are owned east of the Alleghany
Mountains, and I think the record will show the fact that every Sen-
ator from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania, except one, voted
for the recommittal of the bill, which was the test vote in the Senate.
Eastern parties owning the railway property have, of course, the inter-
est of collecting just as much money from it as they can collect. Who
pays this? The people of the United States. This afternoon the gen-
tleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR) in the course of the discussion
said that the question before us was whether you would put the 130,000
miles of railroads in this country under the control of five commission-
ers; and yet he seems to have hardly stated the question fairly. The
real question is whether the United States Government shall put itself,
by law and through its courts and commission, between the people of
the United States and the rapacity of these, in many instances, irre-
sponsible pirates. .
Of course where there is such a vast interest at stake there will be
coequal opposition. Here is a power which controls State Legislatures,
for it is a mere matter of history that that most unmitigated scoundrel
Jay Gould did control the Legislature of New York in the Erie case;
and everybody knows that in every State of the Union the railroad
companies have attempted to control State legislation, and to control
the election of members to this floor; and, I may say it under the rule,
nobody doubts the fact that in the next Senate there will be many Sen-
ators who will have been elected by the railroad power of the land.
And so I repeat that when Congress comes to legislate against this power
we must meet the most vigorous opposition possible for the ablest minds
to present.
Well, we are attempting to do that to-night. Here we have an agreed
bill, and I congratulate the conferees on the part of the House on gaining
the many important features they have gained—far more than any one
expected. I did not believe the Senate would yield half as much as it
has yielded. This bill prohibits discrimination in rates. It makes illegal
the building up of individuals or of places at the expense of other indi-
viduals or places. It prohibits pooling; it prohibits rebates; it requires
publicity of rates; and it says that more shall not be charged for a long
than for a short haul in the same direction over the same line and
under substantially similar circumstances. Now we all know that for
years the railroad lobbyists about this Hall have proclaimed at all times
that the latter provision would be detrimental to the West. I deny
it in toto. There is not a solitary syllable in this bill which says or
requires that the roads shall raise their long-haul rates. Everything
that has been said to this effect in the discussion of this clause has been
a matter of mere inference. . .
It is stated that these roads must make a given sum of money. How
will they do it? Why, in 1885, according to Mr. Poor, who is the best
statistician upon this subject, they were making about 9 per cent., I
think, on their property, and, as some gentlemen will of course deny
521
that, I ask the liberty to incorporate his language at this point in my
remarks, as cited by another. It is as follows:
Mr. Peor, the highest authority on railroad statisties, said that the actual eost
in money of all the railroads in the United States in 1883 did not exceed their
funded and floating debts, an aggregate of $3,787,000,000, and that the fictitious
capitalization was $3,708,000,000. This is his language:
“If it be assumed that the cost in money of all the roads in operation in the
United States in 1883 did not exceed, as it certainly did not, the amount of their
funded and floating debts, $3,787,410,728, the actual investment was a most profit-
able one. The net earnings for the year were $336,911.884, a sum equaling
about 9 per cent. on their cost. If the fictitious capital could be eliminated from
their accounts, their success, as investments, would have no parallel.
“It is in this immense increase of fictitious capital that is to be found the cause
of the general distress which prevails, and the enormous decline in the price of
railroad securities. From 1879 to near the close of 1883 a most singular delusion
rested upon the public as to their value, and this delusion was taken advantage
of on a vast scale by able and unscrupulous adventurers. Whatever was manu-
factured and put afloat was seized with avidity by an eager and uninformed
public. The delusion was increased and prolonged by payments on a very large
scale of interest and dividends from capital. In this delusion the most loud-
mouthed and unscrupulous promoters usually had the greatest success.”
Mr. Adams—and no one will question the veracity of his state-
ments—before the Committee on the Pacific Railroads, said that the
investments the Union Pacific road had made in its branches had yielded
between 10 and 11 per cent. annually. The allegation of the railroads
now is that to make the amount of money they are to-day making they
can not reduce the local rates, but must increase the longer rates. It
is an inference throughout. There is, no telling what in their greed
they will do, whether controlled by some such legislation as this bill
provides or not. But is not the true question, whether they are not now
making a greater interest than is fair to the people, and whether both
through and local rates ought not to be reduced ?
They have the power to increase the long-haul rates now. They
exercise it whenever they please, and the only thing which keeps them
from exercising it is competition. That is all. And in seeking to pre-
vent pooling you seek to secure competition. I doubt very much
whether they will raiserates, because this bill will not take effect until
about the 1st day of April, and navigation will open about that time;
and it is lake navigation which regulates your through freights, so far
as the West and South are concerned. It is not the grace or benevo-
lence of railroad managers. There is an association of general freight
agents, an Ananias club, who profess to give vastly lesser rates than
they can really afford, but no one believes them. They take just all
they can get; and when lake navigation is open you will find precisely
the competitive forces operating which operated before. And it is this
competition which, in my judgment, will prevent the disastrous re-
suits of higher through rates which so many gentlemen see before them
if this bill shall become a law.
This bill is not perfect. There are many things in it which I wish
were out, and many things out which I wish were in. But I rejoice in
the consciousness that the Fiftieth Congress will come after this one,
and the Fifty-first after that one; and that these objectious to the bill
can be removed. Can not the next Congress amend the law 2 If these
commissioners should be partisans, as urged by the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH], can not the commission be knocked out of
the law. I would like to see that whole provision eliminated. As a
usual proposition, a railroad commission is controlled by the railroads
sooner or later. And if there be any other feature in the bill that is
imperfect may not the next Congress amend it? Certainly.
It seems to me—it may not so seem to the gentlemen who make the
objections—but it seems to my mind that the objections urged are purely
of a temporary character and exceedingly trivial, and that any imper-
fections of the kind which have been suggested can be remedied by
the next Congress. I therefore congratulate the people that at last
the American Congress proposes to enter upon the work of protecting
the people against the rapacity and ruthlessness of railroad companies,
and for that reason I shall support the bill, claiming the right in the
future to endeavor to secure amendment wherever that amendment
shall be needed. . .
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. CANNON withholds his remarks for revision. -
Mr. ROWELL Mr. Speaker, since the adoption of the Federal Con-
stitution the power to regulate interstate commerce has existed in .
Congress. -
For fifteen years at both ends of this Capitol attempts to pass into
law some act of this kind have been continually made, and every at-
tempt has met with such criticism of the provisions of the particular
bill, as we have heard during the discussion of this measure, submitted
to us by the conference. It is a source of wonder to me why some of
these wise critics, who know so well how to tear down, have not, before
now, learned how to build up so as to present a bill not subject to the
criticisms which they make. Such skill in exposing the ignorance of
others, in giving expression to their ideas, ought not to be lost to the
country in this emergency, but ought to be turned into good account
in draughting something that could be understood.
If these gentlemen will examine their own minds and the motive
which prompts their criticisms, they may possibly discover that in their
judgment all legislation in the interest of controlling or regulating this
business of interstate commerce is unwise legislation; that their criti-
cisms of the various provisions of this bill are criticisms which they
would aim at any attempt at legislation on this subject, the purpose
being to show, not the inconsistencies of the several sections of the pend-
ing measure, but the impropriety and inexpediency of legislating at all
upon the subject. I recollect a day or two ago my friend from Ohio
[Mr. BUTTERWORTH] asked for an example of what would be ‘‘sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions” as that expression is
used in section 4, and when the gentleman in charge of the bill declined
to have plain language confused by a discussion of what particular fact
would come within it, it was held up as a conclusive showing of the
uncertainty of the meaning.
I suppose when my friend was Commissioner of Patents he had no
difficulty in understanding the meaning of the patent law as to when
a patent might legally issue, but at the same time it was no doubt
true that in hundreds of instances he found a good deal of difficulty in
determining whether the things sought to be patented came within the
law. And that illustrates one-half the criticisms aimed at section 4,
and other sections of the bill.
The difficulty is not so much in the meaning of the language. The
difficulty suggested is: Whether or not this or that fact, or combina-
tion of facts, will bring a case within the operation of the provision.
If, in order to understand the law, we are to wait until we can tell
whether the court will hold that evidence is sufficient to establish a
right under it, then there are few legal definitions which have a defi-
mite meaning. -- - g
This whole discussion has been filled up with examples of language
criticism, intended ostensibly to show that the bill has been carelessly
523
drawn and is full of uncertainties, but which are really efforts to make
it appear that all legislation in this direction is unwise, while seeming
not to oppose proper measures for the correction of admitted evils.
As an example of some of the criticisms, let me call attention to the
remarks of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. DIBBLE], who to-
day undertook to criticise the bill for uncertainty, because, as he said,
the individual, while apparently allowed a choice of remedies either to
prosecute his claim through the commissioners or by suit in the courts,
was in reality barred from his individual remedy, that the commis-
sioners might take up his case without complaint, without notice to him,
and thereby bind him to accept such nominal damages as they might
award without his having made any application and without an op-
portunity to be heard. And this in face of the fact that section 9 in
express terms gives choice of remedies, and of the universal law that
an individual can not be bound by a proceeding affecting his personal
rights unless he has had an opportunity to be heard. His criticism
amounts to a claim that Congress has power to take away an individual
right without the privilege of an individual hearing.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVERI, who would not tolerate the
suspicion that he is not an extreme advocate of legislative control over
the “grasping monopolies,” finds such objection to the commission feat-
ure of this bill that he will vote against it, and so extend the time for
them to remain “grasping monopolies;” and one of his objections rests
on the claim that the commissioners are, by the bill, obliged to be parti-
san. And the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENORJ, at the other ex-
treme, reiterates the Sentiment, and finally the other gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH] brings up the reserves and clinches the ob-
jection—and what is this objection based upon ? Simply this, that the
bill provides that not more than three of the commissioners shall belong
to one political party, instead of permitting all five of them to be of one
political faith. Why, gentlemen, every man worthy of responsible trust
in this country is a partisan. He can not escape it if he is capable of
having a conviction or is competent to form an opinion.
If to provide that all of the commissioners shall not be of one political
party makes that a partisan board which otherwise would not be,
then the objection might amount to something; but if the provision
takes away exclusive partisanship in one political direction and divides
responsibility, then it accomplishes the very object that these gentle-
men are seeking, and ought to receive their support instead of opposi-
tion. -
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENOR) told us, in his inimi-
table way, that the commissioners provided for by the bill were, by its
very provisions, to be “tramps.” And why “tramps?” Because they
are prohibited from having such financial interest in the subject com-
mitted to their care as might influence their judgment in favor of per-
sonal instead of public and general interest. He told us that they
were to be incompetent, to be utterly ignorant of the business in which
they were to engage—“paupers” as well as “tramps.” And why?
Because, when appointed, they must not have their money invested in
railroad securities or themselves be in the employment of railroad or
transportation companies. His rule would bar out each member of
Congress from voting upon questions except those in which he has
a direct personal and financial interest, and would brand every man
with ignorance of all kinds of business, except that in which he is for
the time being engaged.
In pamphlets without number before the House and Senate Commit-
524
tees on Commerce during this discussion and the discussion of the
question in previous Congresses, we have been furnished with numer-
ous examples of when not to charge more for a shorter than for a longer
haul would work injustice, and now because the framers of this bill have
heard your arguments and admitted their force, you are not satisfied,
but hurl your heaviest arguments against that portion of section 4 which
provides for these very difficulties, where the commissioners are given
power to suspend the operation of the general rule when not to do so
would work injustice. This only shows how hard you are to satisfy,
and gives rise to the suspicion that you are not overly eager to be con-
vinced. -
You tell us, as we have been told time out of mind, that the busi-
ness of operating a railroad is of such an intricate character that it
can not be controlled by general and fixed rules; and while we have not
forgotten that the traffic managers of the companies somehow succeed
in formulating such general rules for the control of subordinates and for
the management of pools, this bill has acknowledged the difficulty and
provides for it in a provision to give elasticity to the measure, with
agencies to make effective that elasticity. And now you object because
of this very elasticity. You say it intrusts men with dangerous power,
while insisting that the power must reside in somebody. This objec-
tion can have but one meaning, and that is that the power must re-
main in the hands of men not responsible to the people nor acting for .
the general good, but under the influence of that selfishness which has
made the necessity for such a law as the one now under discussion.
The gentleman from Alabama.[Mr. OATES] has raised objections which
are the more surprising because coming from so able a lawyer as we
know him to be.
The ink is scarcely dry which recorded the last decision of the Su-
preme Court of the United States upholding and defining the consti-
tutional power of Congress over the subject-matter of this bill, and yet
the learned gentleman treats us to a legal argument against the power.
He absolutely insists that the power to regulate commerce among the
States has nothing to do with railway traffic carried on between the
people of the several States; that the interstate commerce carried on
by the people is not commerce among the States at all.
Those gentlemen who assert as an objection that this is a bill “which
nobody understands, nobody wants, and which everybody is going to
vote for,” may find consolation in the fact that the Constitution, which
is the chart of our power, under which the nation has prospered and
our liberties remained secure, is an instrument which the Supreme
Court does not understand, or which, if it means what some of the con-
stitutional lawyers of this House seem to think it does, is a Constitu-
tion which “nobody understands, nobody wants, and which everybody”
insists is the grandest document ever written by human hands. I com-
mend this consolation to those members of the House who feel con-
strained to vote for this bill in obedience to popular demand, and yet
who fear that they show a lack of moral courage in doing so because
of the supposed uneertainties in the language of this measure.
In answer to the argument that railway corporations were in a man-
ner public corporations and the money invested to a certain extent dedi-
cated to public use, because the States and Congress had chartered
them, and the power of eminent domain been invoked for their benefit,
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. OATES] says that nearly all of these
corporations received their charters from the States and exercised the
right of eminent domain under State laws as an argument against the
525
power of the National Congress over this subject. This was a strange
misunderstanding of the point and force of the argument, to which it
was intended to be a reply, for a lawyer to make.
The argument was that the power of eminent domain had been law-
fully exercised on behalf of all railway corporations, a power which
can only be invoked to take private property for public use, and not on
behalf of an individual or a private corporation for private benefit and
use; and that, therefore, these railway corporations were by deeided law
public corporations, without reference to whether their charters were
obtained from the States or the National Government. -
So much for the objections to the language of the bill. .
At the last session of Congress I supported and advocated the pas-
sage of the Senate bill, and regretted exceedingly that the majority in
this House could not see in it the beginning of the solution of this
interstate-commerce problem, not that it was all that I desired or that
the best public sentiment demanded, but because I believed its main
provisions took the right direction and were expressive of the results
of the best experience in dealing with this question. I was opposed
to the Reagan or House bill because it was experimental and ignored
all the practical knowledge we had upon this question; because I did
not believe its tendency was in the right direction as a whole, and be-
cause I did not believe its passage would be the beginning of a solution
of this question, but would the rather retard that solution.
Unexpectedly to me, and as I suppose to most of the members of the
House who knew with what tenacity the chairman of the Committee
on Commerce adheres to convictions once formed, the conference com-
mittee whose appointment was made possible by the disagreement of
the two Houses have submitted for our consideration a much better
bill than we had any reason to hope for and one that I trust and be-
lieve will speedily become law.
Of course it is the result of compromise—as all conference bills are
expected to be—a compromise not of principles but of methods, and I
count it fortunate that it comes to us in such a shape that it can not be
made a foot-ball of between the two Houses on a question of form of
expression and so remain without final action during this Congress.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVER} has truly said this is the
Cullom or Senate bill. It has also the one redeeming feature of the
Reagan bill, the anti-pooling section greatly improved. The other
part taken from the Reagan bill is simply a reaffirmation of the com-
mon-law right in the individual to bring suit changed so as to confer
jurisdiction on Federal courts only. It neither adds to nor takes from
the common law, and therefore does not hurt the bill nor does it help
it so far as I am concerned. .
But I am glad that it is in the bill, because the right “to sue and be
sued ” is held in such reverence by some gentlemen in this House.
I am willing to add “line upon line and precept upon precept '' in
the way of assurance that they and their constituents are not to be
deprived either of the right or the luxury of having a suit in court
and of footing the bills.
What, then, is this bill? It clearly defines interstate commerce. It
prohibits extortion and unjust discrimination. It prohibits a greater
charge for a longer than for a shorter haul under “substantially sim-
ilar circumstances and conditions,” thus declaring the general rule
that like and contemporaneous service, other things being equal, ought
to have like compensation in the interest of fair dealing. -
It provides for stability of rates so long as stability is at the same
526
, time fair and reasonable, and it provides for publicity of rates, because
all the public have an interest in them, and to prevent undue advantage
of one shipper over another. It provides for the establishment of a
commission through which the public may become possessed of a
knowledge of all the facts necessary to an intelligent judgment upon
questions between them and the carriers and through which the pro-
visions of the law may be enforced at public expense.
If a contest is to come it need no longer be the unequal combat be-
tween the individual and the vast power centered in the great railway
corporations, for the Government of the United States is to be one party
to the contention—not to oppress by its strength, but to mete out equal
and exact justice. -
With our present experience, in my judgment, any interstate-com-
merce bill with the commission feature left out would not be worth the
paper it is written on. And here I am reminded that the gentleman
from Alabama [Mr. OATES] has raised a constitutional objection to this
feature of the bill—he claiming that it is beyond our power to create
such a tribunal. He tells us that this is to be a judicial as well as an
administrative body; that under the power to establish a supreme and
inferior courts we have no right to combine administrative with judi-
cial functions. Does the gentleman know of any Federal court of in-
ferior jurisdiction, or State court for that matter, which does not exer-
cise administrative power as an incident to its judicial functions?
Is it not true that very many of the railroads of the country are now
being operated by the courts through receivers acting under their direc-
tion ? .
And, finally, we have a comprehensive provision against pooling, a pro-
vision designed to make competition a factor in fixing traffic rates, the
true objective point of all this kind of legislation.
Aside from verbal criticism and opposition to all legislation the short
and long haul clause, the anti-pooling section, and the provision for a
commission have been the most vigorously assailed. This is not to be
wondered at. If you rout the main army, the stragglers are sure to fol-
low the line of retreat. Cut the vitals out of the bill, and the whole
measure is dead. -
In opposition to any legislation it is insisted that no evils exist which
will not cure themselves if left to the operation of universal laws of
trade—no evils not incident to all extensive businesses; that laws
should be made to facilitate and not to hamper business; that Con-
gress, not being made up of expert railroad managers, will only play
the bull in the china-shop whenever it interferes in this business.
Good morals and high equity are invoked in protest against this leg-
islation. Have not the railroads been a blessing? Have not they en-
riched the country and opened up all its vast area to possible settle-
ment? Have not private individuals invested their money in them, and
so secured to the people all these blessings? And shall we now with
ignorant and ruthless hands interpose between these investors and their
free and full enjoyment of their own 2 Are they not entitled to all the
advantage secured by risk and foresight? .
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] struck the key-note when
he called attention to the public nature of this kind of property and
showed that an investment in it was an investment in which the public
had a direct interest; and was, therefore, a voluntary surrender of the
investment to such public control as might be necessary and expedient
for the protection of public interest. As no man has a right to seize
upon the “gateways” of commerce for his exclusive private advan-
527
tage, so has he no right to seize upon the highways of commerce and
then use his possession to oppress the public. The people can not be
barred from the advantages of the civilization of the age in which they
live, nor can the world’s knowledge be locked up for the use of the few.
To say that I have no right to complain if my produce is transported
just a little cheaper than it was in the days of wagon-hauling is to say
that I have no right to move along with the world in its progress; that
if my house is just a little better than the wigwam of the Savage I
ought to be content.
The trouble with these objections is that they start from false prem-
ises, from a misconception of the nature of the relation which rail-
roads sustain to the public.
There is another class of men who see only a set of robbers in trans-
portation companies, and who would deal with them accordingly, for-
getting that a bankrupt railroad company is like any other kind of
bankruptcy, a bad thing for the community. These men minister to
their own vanity and magnify their own importance by imagining that
they are the special objects of the attention of railway magnates whose
power is being constantly used to bring trouble upon their devoted
heads. It is a harmless delusion, manifesting itself in the calling of
hard names, which neither injure the railroads nor benefit the people,
for this is a serious business, to be dealt with soberly and sensibly.
My colleague [Mr. DUN HAM] and others have made the claim that
there are now few evils to be corrected; that whatever just ground for
complaint has existed in the past has now been removed by the action
of the companies themselves, as the result of their broader experience
and the consequent adoption of better methods. And yet it should be
remembered that these better methods, this correction of evils, have
come to us since the people took hold of this question and commenced
legislating in the States and pressing for Congressional action. Have we
not a right to say that the abandonment of evil ways has, to some ex-
tent, resulted from the action of the people and the laws which have
been enacted 2 \ •
Competition, new mechanical appliances, increased business from in-
creased production, have each had their influence, as we are compelled
to admit; but law upheld by the courts has played its part in bringing
the corporations to a better understanding of their relations to the pub-
Hic.
But it is not true that the people are now enjoying all that they
have a right to demand in this regard. Aside from unjust discrimina-
tions between individuals and communities, the aggregate of charges
for the transportation of passengers and freight on all the roads is much
in excess of reasonable compensation for the services rendered and the
money invested.
The capital stock and bonded debt of the one hundred and twenty-
eight thousand miles of railway in the United States, according to the
best railroad authority, exceeds $60,000 per mile in the aggregate.
The actual cost of roadbed, track, and equipment does not exceed one-
half that amount, including in the cost, municipal donations, land grants,
and whatever else the constructors have received in the way of induce-
ment to engage in these great enterprises. Allowing for the enormous
profits of sub-contractors and construction syndicates, and for improvi-
dent and extravagant expenditures for purchases with depreciated cur-
rency, and all other expenses, legal and illegal, and still the cost to in-
vestors has not exceeded $40,000 per mile.
And yet this enormous property, so completely a part of our every
528
business, so completely interwoven with all our industries, so powerful
to make or mar our prosperity, during the last year paid to investors
in interest and dividends over 4} per cent. on a capitalization of $60,-
000 per mile, after paying operating expenses, taxes, repairs, renewals,
and all other expenses incident to the business—a greater net return
than is realized from any other class of income-earning property, taken
as a whole, in the United States. This is 6% per cent. net on the most
liberal estimate of the amount of money invested, and 9 per cent. On
actual cost.
Remembering that this property is not like that of the individual,
who has a right to make as much as he can with his own by fair and
honest dealing ; that it includes all investments, good and bad, in rail-
roads; that very much of it has come from public instead of private
sources; that its very existence has come from the exercise of the peo-
ple's power of “eminent domain,” and we are driven to the conviction
that there is injustice somewhere, and that after all reductions the
people are still being overtaxed for transportation, and have a right
through this bill to find out where the injustice comes in and to have
it remedied. . -
Considering the special sections of the bill, we find the point of most
vigorous and general attack is section 4, the long and short haul section.
While it will be conceded that, as a general rule, no more should be
charged for a less than a greater service, it is insisted with a good deal
of reason that this principle is not applicable to railway service, and
can not be carried into successful practice without doing injustice, both
to the companies and to individuals and communities.
While the section does not provide for mileage and tonnage rates, and
can not by any torture of meaning be made to so provide, yet it must
be admitted the general principle which authorizes a prohibition of a
greater charge for a shorter than for a longer haul applies with equal
force to mileage and tonnage rates. -
I confess to some doubt about the wisdom of incorporating this see-
tion in the bill even with the qualifying words “substantially similar
circumstances and conditions,” and with the further provision for
waiver in “special cases.” There are so many elements which enter
into the cost of transportation—the number of cars in a train, the
number of men required to manage it, the distance moved without
change or stop, whether the rolling stock is kept in constant use or is
idle for more or less of the time, considerations of return freight, and
a thousand and one other circumstances, which must confuse the judg-
ment when an attempt is made to determine the fact of whether the
“circumstances” and “conditions” are “substantially similar.”
And then, too, I admit the right of a company, and even its duty,
to charge less than a reasonable compensation, provided it is not below
cost, to be made up somewhere else, under circumstances which often
arise in the business. The state of the market may be such that freight
will not move at all unless concessions are made, and thereby rolling-
stock will remain in enforced idleness, to be taxed beyond its capacity
at some future time. In such case it is better for all concerned that
the trains shall be kept moving, and something be earned for investors
and service be performed for the people. Half wages is better than no
work and no pay, provided we do not fall into the habit of accepting
half pay. And then again competition with other methods of trans-
portation may deprive a road of all chance to earn freight, unless it
takes less than a reasonable profit. - - l
In such case it is the part of wisdom to take less than a reasonable
529.
*
sum, provided somebody else is not charged an unreasonable tax to
make up an equality of earnings. I have no right to complain if
some other community is so much more favorably situated than mine
that the companies are compelled to give it rates less than reasonable,
if my community is not charged more than reasonable rates. But sec-
tion 4 has been forced into this bill by the most glaring and indefensible
evils and inequalities connected with this whole business, and the
managers of railroad companies have only themselves to blame if, in
correcting these inequalities, injustice may sometimes be done to
them. -
I do not refer so much to the inequalities between through and local
traffic as to inequalities in local traffic itself and inequalities between
strictly through traffic from different points not affected by any other
considerations than selfishness. Local rates build and ruin towns side
by side; enrich and impoverish communities in close proximity to
each other—local rates established by the arbitrary will of railway
managers without reason, founded in cost, competition, or anything
else proper to be considered in fixing rates. Section 4, well enforced,
will put an end to this kind of work, even if it does not always secure
equal and exact justice.
Again, a town situated nearer to its market than another town hav-
ing the same kind of product, with just as much freight to be sent and
just as much to be brought back, with equal facilities to obtain com-
peting rates, with all other things equal, is by one device or another
continually made to pay greater through rates than neighboring towns.
I have known freight from New York intended for a town in my dis-
trict to go through the town to a point beyond and then pay local rates
back to escape the higher charges when billed direct.
I have known freight destined for the Atlantic coast to be sent
westward, paying local rates, and then sent back over the same road
through the place of starting and money saved over the rate which
would have been paid if the freight had been sent direct, and I have
known local rates to be raised to protect established rates on eastern
shipments from being broken by this kind of out and back shipment.
To correct such well-known abuses, which have kept a place in railroad
polity, while other abuses have ceased, section 4 seemed necessary,
and with some misgivings as to its probable effect upon transconti-
mental traffic and traffic from the Mississippi Valley to the seaboards,
I still think its provisions are demanded to correct abuses not reached
by other provisions of the bill. The power of waiver given to the
commissioners alone makes it possible to prevent injustice and justifies
the provision.
It is claimed that this is an extraordinary and dangerous power to
put into the hands of five men. Granted; but the five men are to be dis-
interested judges, presumably competent for the position; and can it
be said that the power is as dangerous in such hands as it is in the
hands where it now is—interested and irresponsible, save to the com-
panies which practice the abuses complained of?
It is charged that the corporations will find means to control the
commission. Well, if that improbable thing should happen, such con-
trol can not be more complete than the control they now have of their
own agents.
The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVER} is very fearful that the
existence of this commission would force the railroads into politics, and
to take an unwonted part in the struggle between the great political
I S C 34
530
\parties of the country. He enumerates the changes which will take
"place in the next six years, the number of Federal judges to be ap-
pointed during the term of the next administration, and sees dangers
lurking in every corner, because of a probable change in the control of
national affairs. “Coming events cast their shadows before,” and so
the gentleman intends to take refuge in a vote against this bill.
It seems to me that I have somewhere heard it charged that the
railroads are already taking an undue interest in politics, that they
have been doing that for a long time, that they have corrupted the
people, bought courts, juries, and legislatures; used their enormous re-
sources to defeat honorable ambition to hold public position, and have
done a great many other things, unfit to be done, to influence the poli-
tics of the country; and if I mistake not the political party to which
the gentleman was once attached and with the remnants of which he
still holds some sort of relation, came into existence partly because of
this kind of charges. From his standpoint the danger has been and
still is with us, and he ought not to be deterred from voting for this
bill because of the possibility that the same danger will remain.
Does he think, does anybody think, that the inducement for railroad
companies to engage in politics would be diminished by the passage of
the more radical and far reaching measure which the gentleman says
he desires and will have, or nothing? Now, I do not imagine that the
opposition to this bill because of the power conferred upon the com-
nnission in section 4, and other sections defining their powers and
duties outside of Congress, arises so much from a fear about the doubt-
ful meaning or the improper influence which may be exerted upon the
•commission as it does from an apprehension that an honest and intel-
ligent board will be appointed, held back from undue participation in
politics, because of the composition of the commission.
I speak, of course, of the objections sent here from the outside and
not of the honest difference of opinion which exists among members as
to the propriety or impropriety of this kind of legislation, but who are
-sometimes misled in their reasons by the skill of supposed experts in
finding excuse and reason for their practices. Railroad officials, who
have meat little inside arrangements by which they rob the stockholders
and enrich themselves, are fearful that an honest commission will not
decide that their schemes come under the head of “special cases.”
Favored Shippers, who thrive at the expense of their neighbors, are
troubled with the same fear.
Boards of trade, who, through their connection with transportation
companies, have established a monopoly in the business of fixing mar-
ket values, and have reduced to a science the business of speculating
in the hopes and fears of others, see their business endangered in the
sevent of this commission becoming to the people what the courts of the
scountry have long been, an upright and wise tribunal for the settlement
of the vexed questions growing out of this business of bringing pro-
ducer and consumer together.
Commission merchants and favored buyers, it is hoped, will no
longer be able to tax the individual shipper for the privilege of putting
in his car-load of freight on their cheaper contract, made under the
pretense that their larger shipments are akin to wholesale, while his
smaller shipments are in the nature of retail business.
Straightforward people, who want justice for themselves and for
others as well, including the railroads, and who have not lost their
faith in humanity, whether it be humanity in private life or in public
531
position, are not seriously troubled about any undue influence over the
commissioners which we provide for.
The anti pooling section has come in for its share of opposition, and I
propose to give it a little attention. In doing so I am forcibly re-
minded that it is useless to look for consistency as against self-interest.
When railway corporations wanted to condemn private property for
their use or when they wanted to sustain municipal subscriptions to
their capital stock it was necessary to declare that they were public
corporations engaged in a public business, and so they successfully
argued to the courts; but when their necessities ceased, and the people
began to demand rights under the law, sides changed immediately. They
were no longer public but private bodies, doing business for private
gain; but the courts were just as firm in maintaining the law in the
interest of the people as they were in the interest of the corporations.
When the companies were seeking aid to build their roads, or asking
Congress for subsidies and land grants, they were not slow to point out
the need of competition to prevent first-comers from extortion. Now,
and for some years past, the very best ability procurable is and has
been engaged in trying to show that competition in this kind of business
is the very worst enemy of the people. The pool is the new and im-
proved device by which the people are to be protected from unjust
discriminations and extortionate charges, and the railroad companies
saved from ruining each other.
If Congress would only legalize this illegal device, according to these
new philosophers, there would be no further need of law to regulate
this commerce. In all ordinary business it has been supposed that com-
petition might safely be trusted to keep prices within reasonable bounds;
that unjust monopoly and competition could not well exist together.
In the law books combinations to keep prices up or to raise them and
revent the operation of the natural laws of trade have been named
‘conspiracy;” hence the demand that this illegal thing called a pool—
this “conspiracy”—shall be made legal. Why? In the interest of sta-
bility of rates and to prevent railroad wars, through which these cor-
porations metaphorically cut each other's throats.
Such is the argument, elaborated with all sorts of ingenious illustra-
tions and striking examples. But somehow it does not convince. You
will ruin the longer road if you do not allow it through the pool to get a
share of the through freight; and when you have effected the ruin and
destroyed a competing line what is to become of competition to keep
down freights to reasonable limits?
But stop. Competition will not do; the pool was invented to pre-
vent it, and the argument does not hold together. Now, I ask, what is
the purpose of waging rate wars between lines of roads if it is not to
force the re-establishment of a broken pool or to compel readjustment
of relations in the pool? If the pool is prohibited and the prohibition
enforced, have we not removed the cause of rate wars, which are said
to be so ruinous?
If nothing is to be gained in the long run, if no pool treaty is a pos-
sible outcome, if the end is to be the same as the beginning so far as
the relations of the competing roads to each other and the public are
concerned, does any one believe that these corporations will engage in
the delectable but unprofitable business of bankrupting each other?
If a pool is a good thing for one town with a few competing roads, it
is good for another, and so on until it includes all r ads and all points.
The only logical conclusion of the argument in favor of pools is that
all the roads and transportation companies of the United States ought
532
to be under one management, selected by the stockholders, and selected
with the sole view of earning the largest dividends, for it is neither
natural nor human that a stockholder in a railroad or any other cor-
poration should look with complacency upon measures designed to
lessen his dividends. • .
Charter prohibitions against consolidation of parallel or competing
lines ought to be repealed and we ought to concede that here is a busi-
mess which can only safely be carried on as the one great and overpower-
ing monopoly. For one, I am not ready to do this thing.
I conclude, therefore, that the anti-pooling provision, section 5 of the
bill, is wise and necessary, and will bring to the people much needed
relief while it will take from the roads none of their legitimate rights.
Taken all together, the bill seems to me to be the best expression of
our experience which has ever been offered for Congressional approval,
It is not framed in the spirit of animosity or of reckless disregard of
property rights, nor with a view to thoughtless experiments with great
interests. It is not hasty legislation without a full and fair examina-
tion of the facts upon which it is based and the needs of such enact-
ments. Because I believe it to be moderate in its requirements and
generally wise in its provisions. I shall cheerfully vote for its passage.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, in the Forty-eighth Con-
gress I expressed my doubts and fears touching the fourth section of
the Reagan bill, the section regulating the long and short haul. In
the remarks which I then submitted I gave my reasons for the fears
entertained, stating that I believed that the fourth section would ope-
rate against Iowa and the points remote from the sea-board. At the
same time I said that even if the fourth section were not stricken out
I would still vote for the Reagan bill, as it was, rather than not have
any legislation upon this great question; and I then, as in this Con-
gress, voted for the Reagan bill, rather than have legislation of this.
character fail, rather than let the vast railroad system go uncontrolled
by the General Government. That has been my position on this ques-
tion. That is my position now. I am opposed to having the great
commercial interests of 60,000,000 of people controlled and regulated
solely by a dividend interest. The year 1886 gave us of oats 624,-
000,000 bushels; hay, 45,000,000 tons; corn, 1,665,000,000 bushels;
wheat, 457,000,000 bushels; and adding merchandise, live-stock and
passengers transported, the relations of railroads to our people become
vitally important and apparent. I protest against a few men, guided
wholly by their own selfish interests, controlling the tracks over which
these vast products and interests must pass, when the Constitution of
the country invites the control by the General Government. But I
am not one of those who
CRITICISE AND FIGHT
every proposition in a bill until it just suits my particular opinions
and the particular interests and locality that I may represent. There:
must be some compromises in all great legislative conflicts. Since
the formation of this Government the line of legislation is everywhere
marked with compromises and concessions before great enactments
are secured.
He who will say that he has no misgivings as to how some features.
of this bill may operate upon his locality and upon the country at
large, speaks, it seems to me, without sufficient consideration. I am.
confident, however, that any losses that may be sustained at the be-
ginning will be more than compensated as experience and time may
perfect our present great undertaking.
533
But conceding that some injury may come to our localities, it should
be remembered that it is sixty days after the passage of the bill before it
goes into operation in its working featules. The next Congress meets
in December. We will have had some trial of its workings by that
time, and we will be swift to correct any of its provisions that are found
to be unsatisfactory. We will have our constituencies back of us in
our efforts to improve the law. If
THE COMMISSIONERS
are found to be a bad feature we can dispense with them or increase
their powers at the next session. At this hour the masses of the peo-
ple of this country
DEMAND SOME LEGISLATION
on this question. I went home during the vacation for the purpose of
feeling the pulse of my people on this question, more than for any other
reason, and I did not talk with a single person but who said to me, “By
all means give us this bill and let us make a start in controlling trans-
portation.” Since my return I have, by telegram and letter, been ad-
vised of the eager anxiety of my people for the passage of this bill.
They are reading, thinking, and talking. and I tell you that the people
demand that the bill agreed upon by the conferees of the House and
Senate be crystalized into law.
This is the sentiment of my people, although we are almost in the
center of the nation and a thousand miles remote from the seaboard.
They demand that we enter upon the control of the only real avenues
of transportation open for them in the land—the railroad track. They
demand a commencement. They understand that there are grave diffi-
culties in our way; that it is a new and weighty problem; but they
demand work instead of waiting. They want action in place of prom-
ises. They want us to do our best in starting this great reform instead
of carping, criticising, and fault-finding with every effort to bring the
iron horse under the guidance of the sovereign hand of the people.
It is easy to criticise. It is easy to find fault with any bill, any law,
any man, or any religion. It was easier for Tom Paine to denounce
Christianity than it was for him to offer a substitute better suited to
the wants of his age.
On yesterday my colleague [Mr. WEAVERI sneered at this bill be-
cause some differ as to the meaning of some of its provisions. His
language was plain enough, and yet men in his hearing differed as to
his meaning and his motives. Shall the Bible be closed because hun-
dreds of different creeds have sprung from it? There are but few laws
that must not sooner or later undergo interpretation from the courts.
Shall we therefore make no laws? Must we keep the people waiting,
waiting, waiting until we can all agree ? No, no; we must do the best
that we can; but do it now. Years have been spent in discussing this
great question of interstate commerce. Volumes have been published
on it. At last we have before us a bill containing much, very much,
that is good. Let us pass it into law, and improve it as our experience
may point the way.
Every man here knows that to vote down this bill now is to put off
railroad control for years. Let him beware who takes that grave re-
sponsibility
Let us examine this bill as presented by the conferees—the bill now
brought before us after days, weeks, and months of careful, conscien-
tious toil by the committees of conference of the Senate and House—and
let us see what it means. I will add this bill to my remarks as a part
534
ºthereof for fuller information to those who desire to give this matter
the fullest investigation. *
This bill aims at three great reforms: First, to do away with pool-
ing. Who will say that the people of this country do not demand this?
Secondly, to do away with the rebate system. The people want this,
and the railroads want this, in my judgment, for the rebate system is
a great trouble and expense to them, as well as a cloak whereby the
weak shipper is plundered for the benefit of the strong. On that one
point and on that only are the railroad interests and the people in full
accord touching this bill. The third is the long and short haul ele-
ment of the bill. It gives fixed rates; it absolutely does away with
all pooling, the rebate system, and forces the railroads to proclaim to
all the people just what they are charging to each.
Now the fourth section is that which troubles us all most, I admit.
But this bill which the conferees have brought before us has a safety-valve
in the section; and I want to say right here that I believe each mem-
ber of the conference acted conscientiously and laboriously and intelli-
gently in bringing this bill before the House. Let any one of you ask
any railroad man or any shipper, large or small, in this country what.
kind of a bill he would get up to meet the necessities of the people.
touching transportation. I have done so. There is a uniform an-
swer—“We can not do it; the questions are too complicated.” With.
that admission from experts, how easy it is to get up here and assail
and ridicule the bill ? But this is no time for ridicule, if gentlemen
are as sincere, as they ought to be. Take my colleague [Mr. WEAVER}
the other day spending over an hour in burlesquing a bill which every
farmer and shipper of Iowa demands to be passed as a great entering
step in this mighty question. One must be blessed with self-confi-
dence, or cursed with recklessness, who can thus jeopardize great suf-
fering interests of a State and nation, because his individual notions
are not all expressed in the bill. - * .."
- *, THE RAILROADS,
I am told, are not fighting this bill. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that
any man is ignorant of the fact that they are. His experience and
observation are different from mine if he thinks otherwise. I have
not come in contact with a single gentleman representing railroad
interests who wants this bill to pass. All want to defeat it. There is
not a railway in this country but will rejoice if this bill is beaten by
this Congress, not one. And the people say “Gentlemen, do the best
you can, but do give us something for a starter on this question.”
Here we are growing and multiplying in numbers, commerce, and
wealth, and the iron track is the only road over which it can travel;
and yet the American Congress is paralyzed in the presence of that
necessity, and says we can do nothing because we cannot agree.
I believe that this Congress will adjourn with the commendations of
the people because we have met this great question like fearless men.
I shall vote for this bill without a moment's hesitation, without ſal-
tering, and without fear. I shall vote for it conscientiously even if I
had to admit that it has imperfections. And I want to say here and
now in response to what was said by the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. LONG] that “we should recommit the bill and
get rid of the fourth section”—I say no more recommitment of .
this bill. We have it now where a single vote by this House will put
it before the President, and I believe before the people as a law. But
recommit it and you enter anew into a dangerous field; and while I be-
lieve the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who made that
5:35
suggestion, made it as he always does, conscientiously and honestly,
I warn my fellow-members against any such course, and ask that this.
bill as it has now been given to us, after months of discussion and
earnest consideration, shall be given to the people as law.
Mr. LONG. You know, of course, this bill is now in the form of a.
conference report, and is therefore entitled to privilege.
Mr. HENDERSON, of Iowa. I know that very well; and I know it is.
the “privilege’’ of the House to vote for it and put it through, and I
hope that “privilege '’ they will exercise. But we all know that if we
non-concur in the action of the conferees the bill is lost, and I protest.
against recommitment. - º
In urging the passage of this bill I have no disposition to be unjust.
to the railroad interests of this country. Not at all. I am simply de-
manding that control over them which the Constitution entitles us to.
We are all glad to see the railroad coming into our towns and neighbor-
hoods. We want them, and they need us and our products. But we
are tired of their being -
SUPREME MASTERS.
Their coming builds up towns and enriches communities; so, too,
their unjust management has often destroyed cities and towns and torn
down hard-earned fortunes. Railroad owners must learn the new les-
son that is coming to us all in this country, and that is to be content
with a reasonable profit on investments, and that labor, small capital,
and small shippers have their rights just as well as stock-owners and
powerful shippers. -
This city is to-day swarming with keen, zealous, able
AGENTS OF THE RAILROAD Power
trying to defeat the passage of this bill. Every vote cast at their dic–
tation and every vote cast against this bill is a vote for railroad su-
premacy and against the people. I have faith in the great future of
this country, and that it will more and more be the best land for the
happiness of all classes of the people. The passage of this bill will be
one of the greatest steps that can be taken to speed the coming of still
happier days for our people. Those now opposing this bill can depend
upon it that, when once a law, the control of railroads by the General
Government will never be abandoned. We may add to and take from,
but the people will be masters, demanding and according every right
guaranteed by the Constitution. 4.
Mr. Speaker, with these remarks I will yield the floor, but I will
incorporate in my remarks the statement of the House conferees which
points out the difference between this bill and the House bill, usually
known as the Reagan bill. In this connection I am glad to have it
from Mr. REAGAN’s own lips that the bill now before us to be voted on
is a great achievement for the people.
THE INSTERSTATE-COMMERCE BILL,
That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers
engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or
partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common-
control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment,
from one State or Territory of the United States, or of the District of Columbia,
to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia,
or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from
any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in
the United States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property
shipped from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried
from such place to a port of trans-shipment, or shipped from a foreign country
to any place in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry
elther in the United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however,
536
That the provisions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of pas-
sengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of prop-
erty, wholly within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country
from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid.
The term ‘’ railroad '' as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries
used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a
contract, agreement, or lease ; and the term “transportation ” shall include all
instrumentalities of shipment or carriage,
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the trans-
portation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or
for the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be
reasonable and just ; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service
is prohibited and deglared to be unlawful. ,
SEC. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device,
charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less
compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation
of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges,
demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like
kind of traflic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such
common carriershall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby
prohibited and declared to be unlawful: .
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provis-
ions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advan-
tage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any
particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any par-
ticular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular descrip-
tion of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any
respect whatsoever.
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according to
their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the
interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, for-
warding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several
lines and those connecting there with, and shall not discriminate in their rates
and charges between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as
requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facili-
ties to another carrier engaged in like business.
'SF.C. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of thais act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transpor-
tation of passengers' or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act. -
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different
and competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or met pro-
ceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case
of an agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its con-
tinuance shall be deemed a separate offense. -
SEC. 6. That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall
print and keep for public inspection schedules showing the rates and fares and
charges for the transportation of passengers and property which any such com-
mon carrier has established and which are in force at the time upon its railroad,
as defined by the first section of this act. The schedules printed as aforesaid
by any such common carrier shall plainly state the places upon its railroad be-
tween which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the
classification of freight in force upon such railroad, and shall also state separ-
ately the terminal charges and any rules or regulations which in any wise
change, affect, or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates
and fares and charges. Such schedules shall be plainly printed in large type,
of at least the size of ordinary pica, and copies for the use of the public shall
be kept in every depot or station upon any such railroad, in such places and in
such form that they can be conveniently inspected. -
Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act receiving freight in
**
537
the United States to be carried through a foreign country to any place in the
United States shall also in like manner print and keep for public inspection, at
every depot where such freight is received for shipment, schedules showing the
through rates established and charged by such common carrier to all points in
the United States beyond the foreign country to which it accepts freight for ship-
ment; and any freight shipped from the United States through a foreign coun-
try into the United States, the through rate on which shall not have been made
public as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United States
from s tid foreign country, be subject to customs duties as if said freight were of
foreign production; and any law in conflict with this section is hereby repealed.
No advance shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges which have been es-
tablished and published as aforesaid by any common carrier in eompliance with
the requirements of this section, except after ten days’ public notice, which
shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in
force, and the time when the increased rates, fares, or charges will go into ef-
fect; and the proposed changes shall be shown by printing new schedules, or
shall be plainly indicated upon the schedules in force at the time and kept for
public inspection. Reductions in such published rates, fares, or charges may be
made without previous public notice; but whenever any such reduction is
made, notice of the same shall immediately be publicly po ted, and the changes
made shall immediately be made public by printing new schedules, or shall im-
mediately be plainly indicated upon the schedules at the time in force and kept
for public inspection.
And when any such common carrier shall have established and published its
Tates, fares, and charges. in compliance with the provisions of this section, it
shall be unlawful for such common carrier to charge, demand, collect, or re-
ceive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for the trans-
portation of passengers or property, or for any services in connection there-
with, than is specified in such published schedule of rates, ſares, and charges as
may at the time be in force.
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the
commission hereinafter provided for copies of its schedules of rates, fares, and
charges which have been established and published in compliance with the re-
quirements of this section, and shall promptly notify said commission of all
changes made in the same.
Every such common carrier shall also file with said commission copies of all
contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other common carriers in relation
to any traffic affected by the provisions of this act to which it may be a party.
And in cases where passengers and freight pass over continuous lines or routes
operated by more than one common carrier, and the several common carriers
operating such lines or routes establish joint tariffs of rates or fares or charges
for such continuous lines or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also, in like
manner, be filed with said commission. Such joint rates, fares, and charges on
such continuous lines so filed as aforesaid shall be made public by such common
carriers when directed by said commission, in-so-far as may, in the judgment of
the commission, be deemed practicable; and said commission shall from time
to time prescribe the measure of publicity which shall be given to such rates,
fares, and charges or to such part of them as it may deem it practicable for such
common carriers to publish, and the places in which they shall be published;
but no common carrier party to any such joint tariff shall be liable for the fail-
ure of any other common carrier party thereto to observe and adhere to the
rates, fares, or charges thus made and published.
If any such common carrier shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its sched-
ules or tariffs of rates, fares, and charges as provided in this section, or any part
of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to other penalties herein
prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit court
of the United States in the judicial district where in the principal office of said
common carrier is situated or wherein such offense may be committed, and if
such common carrier be a foreign corporation, in the judicial circuit wherein
such common carrier accepts traffic and has an agent to perform such service,
to compel compliance with the aforesaid provisions of this section; and such
writ shall issue in the name of the people of the United States, at the relation of
the commissioners appointed under the provisions of this act; and failure to
comply with its requirements shall be punishable as and for a contempt; and the
Said commissioners, as complaimants, may also apply, in any such circuit court
of the United States, for a writ of injunction against such common carrier, to
restrain such common carrier from receiving or transporting property among
the several States and Territories of the United States, or between the United
States and adjacent foreign countries, or between ports of trans-shipment and of
entry and the several States and Territories of the United States, as mentioned
in the first section of this act, until such common carrier shall have counplied
with the aforesaid provisions of this section of this act.
SEC.Y7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or agreement, ex-
pressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time schedule, carriage in different
538
cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage of freights from being contin-
uous from the place of shipment to the place of destination ; and no break of
bulk, stoppage, or interruption made by such common carrier shall prevent the
carriage of freights from being and being treated as one continuous carriage
from the place of shipment to the place of destination, unless such break, stop-
page, or interruption was made in good faith for some necessary purpose, and
without any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous carriage
or to evade any of the provisions of this act.
SEC. 8. That in case any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act
shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any act, matter, or thing in this
act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall onlit to do any act, matter, or
thing in this act required to be done, such common carrier shall be liable to the
person or persons injured thereby for the full aunoumt of damages sustained in
consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this act, together with a
reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of re-
covery, which attorney’s fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the costs in
the case.
SEC. 9. That any person or persons elainning to be damaged by any common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act may either make complaint to the
commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit in his or their own
behalf for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may be
liable under the provisions of this act, in any district or circuit court of the
|United States of competent jurisdiction ; but such person or persons shall not
have the right to pursue both of said remedies, and must in each case elect.
which one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will
adopt. In any such action brought for the recovery of damages the court be-
fore which the same shall be pending may compel any director, officer, receiver,
trustee, or agent of the corporation or connpany defendant in such suit to at-
tend, appear, and testify in such case, and may compel the production of the
books and papers of such corporation or company party to any such suit; the
claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person
giving such evidence shall not exeuse such witness from testifying, but such evi-
dence or testinhony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding.
SEC. 10. That any common carrier subject, to the provisions of this act, or,
whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any director or officer thereof,
or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person acting for or employed by such
corporation, who, alone or with any other corporation, coin pany, person, or
party, shall willfully do or cause to be done, or shall willingly suffer or permit
to be done, any act, matter, or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be un-
lawful, or who shall aid or abet therein, or shall willfully onlit or fall to do any
act, matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or shall cause or willingly
suffer or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act to
be done not to be so done, or shall aid or abet any such onission or failure, or
shall be guilty of any infraction of this act, or shall aid or abet therein, shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any dis-
trict court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such offense
was committed, be subject to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 for teach offense.
SEC. 11. That a commission is hereby created and established, to be known as
the interstate commerce commission, which shall be composed of five com-
missioners, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. The commissioners first appointed under this act
shall continue in office for the term of two, three, four, five, and six years, re-
spectively, from the 1st day of January, A. D. 1887, the term of each to be desig-
nated by the President ; but their successors shall be appointed for terms of six
years, except that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only
for the unexpired time of the commissioner whom he shall succeed. Any com-
missioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty,
or malfeasance in office. Not more than three of the commissioners shall be
appointed from the same political party. No person in the employ of or hold-
ing any official relation to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this
act, or owning stock or bonds thereof, or who is in any manner pecuniarily in-
terested therein, shall enter upon the duties of or hold such office. Said conn-
missioners shall not engage in any other business, vocation, or employment.
No vacancy in the commission shall impair the right of the remaining commis-
sioners to exercise all the powers of the commission
SEC. 12. That the commission hereby created shall have authority to inquire
into the management of the business of all common carriers subject to the pro-
visions of this act, and shall keep itself informed as to the manner and method
in which the same is conducted, and shall have the right to obtain from such
common carriers full and complete information necessary to enable the com-
mission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created ;
and for the purposes of this act the commission shall have power to require the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers,
tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under in-
*
a
539
vestigation, and to that end may invoke the aid of any court of the United
States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the produc-
tion of books, papers, and documents under the provisions of this section.
And any of the circuit courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of
which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey
a subpoena issued to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act,
or other person, issue an order requiring such common carrier or other person
to appear before said commission (and produce books and papers if so ordered)
and give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey
such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
The claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the per-
son giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but
Such evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of
any criminal proceeding.
SEC 13. That any person, firm, corporation, or association, or any mercantile,
agricultural, or manufacturing Society, or any body-politic or municipal organ-
ization complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common
‘carrier subject to the provisions of this act in contravention of the provisions
thereof, may apply to said commission by petition, which shall briefly state the
facts; whereupon a statement of the charges thus made shall be forwarded by
the commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the
complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time, to be spec-
ified by the commission. If such common carrier, within the time specified,
shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, said carrier
shall be relieved of liability to the complainnat only for the particular violation of
law thus complained of. If such carrier shall not satisfy the complaint within
the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investi-
gating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the commission to investigate the
matters complained pf in such manner and by such means as it shall deem
proper.
Said commission shall in like manner investigate any complaint forwarded
by the railroad counrmissioner or railroad commission of any State or Territory,
at the request of such commissioner or commission, and may institute any in-
quiry on its own motion in the same manner and to the same effect as though
complaint had been made.
No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct
damage to the complaimant.
SEC. 14. That whenever an investigation shall be made by said commission,
it shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall
include the findings of fact upon which the conclusions of the commission are
based, together with its recommendation as to what reparation, if any, should
be made by the common carrier to any party or parties who may be found to
have been injured; and such findings so made shall thereafter, in all judicial
proceedings, be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found.
All reports of investigations made by the commission shall be entered of
record, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the party who may have com-
plained, and to any common carrier that may have been complained of.
SEC. 15. That if in any case in which an investigation shall be made by said
commission it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the commission,
either by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence, that anything has been
done or onnitted to be done in violation of the provisions of this act, or of any
law cognizable by said commission, by any couinon carrier, or that any injury
or damage has been sustained by the party or parties complaining, or by other
parties aggrieved in consequence of any such violation, it shall be the duty of
the commission to forth with cause a copy of its report in respect thereto to be
delivered to such common carrier, together with a notice to said common car-
rier to cease and desist from such violation, or to make reparation for the injury
so found to have been done, or both, within a reasonable time, to be specified by
the commission; and if, within the time speeified, it shall be made to appear to
the commission that such common carrier has ceased from such violation of
law, and has made reparation for the injury found to have been done, in com-
pliance with the report and notice of the commission, or to the satisfaction of
the party complaining, a statement to that effect shall be entered of record by
the connmission, and the said common carrier shall thereupon be relieved from
further liability or penalty for such particular violation of law.
SEC, 16. That whenever any common carrier, as defined in and subject to the
provisions of this act, shall violate or refuse or neglect to obey any lawful order
or requirement of the commission in this act named, it shall be the duty of the
commission, and lawful for any company or person interested in such order or
requirement, to apply, in a summary way, by petition, to the circuit court of the
United States sitting in equity in the judicial district in which the common car-
rier complained of has its principal office, or in which the violation or disobedi-
ence of such order or requirement shall happen, alleging such violation or diso-
bedience, as the case may be ; and the said court shall have power to hear and
determine the matter, on Sueb short notice to the common carrier complained
54()
of as the court shall deem reasonable; and such notice may be served on such
common carrier, his or its officers, agents, or servants, in such manner as the
court shall direct; and said court shall proceed to hear and determine the mat-
ter speedily as a court of equity, and without the formal pleadings and proceed-
ings applicable to ordinary suits in equity, but in such manner as to do justice
in the premises; and to this end such court shall have power, if it think fit, to
direct and prosecute, in such mode and by such persons as it may appoint, all
such inquiries as the court may think needful to enable it to form a just judg-
ment in the matter of such petition: and on such hearing the report of said com-
mission shall be prima face evidence of the matters therein stated ; and if it be
made to appear to such court on such hearing or on report of any such person
or persons that the lawful order or requirement of said commission drawn in
question has been violated or disobeyed, it shall be lawful for such court to is-
sue a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to re-
strain such common carrier from further continuing such violation or disobedi-
ence of such order or requirement of said commission, and enjoining obedience
to the same ; and in case of any disobedience of any such writ of injunction or
other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, it shall be lawful for such court
to issue writs of attachment, or any other process of said court incident or
applicable to writs of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or other-
wise, against such common carrier, and if a corporation, against one or more
of the directors, officers, or agents of the same, or against any owner, lessee,
trustee, receiver, or other person failing to obey such writ of injunction or other
proper process, mandatory or otherwise ; and said court may, if it shall think
fit, make an order directing such common carrier or other person so disobeying
such writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to pay
such sunn of money, not exceeding for each carrier or person in default the sum
of $500, for every day after a day to be named in the order that such carrier or
other person shall fail to obey such injunction or other proper process, manda-
tory or otherwise; and such moneys shall be payable, as the court shall direct,
either to the party complaining, or into court to abide the ultimate decision of
the court, or into the Treasury; and payment thereof may, without prejudice
to any other mode of recovering the same, be enforced by attachment or order
in the nature of a writ of execution, in like manner as if the same had been re-
covered by a final decree in personam in such court. When the subject in dis-
pute shall be of the value of $2,000 or more, either party to such proceeding be-
fore said court may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, under the
same regulations now provided by law in respect of security for such appeal;
but such appeal shall not operate to stay or supersede the order of the court or
the execution of any writ or process thereon; and such court may, in every
such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as shall be deemed
reasonable. Whenever any such petition shall be filed or presented by the
commission it shall be the duty of the district attorney, under the direction of
the Attorney-General of the United States, to prosecute the same; and the costs
and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the ex-
penses of the courts of the United States. For the purposes of this act, except-
ing its penal provisions, the circuit courts of the United States shall be deemed
to be always in Session. &
SEC. 17. That the commission may conduct, its proceedings in such manner
as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice.
A majority of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of
business, but no commissioner shall participate in any hearing or proceeding
in which he has any pecuniary interest. Said commission may, from time to
time, make or amend such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the
order and regulation of proceedings before it, including forms of notices and the
service thereof, which shall conform, as nearly as may be, to those in use in the
courts of the United States. Any party may appear before said commission and
be heard, in person or by attorney. Every vote and official act of the commis-
sion shall be entered of record, and its proceedings shall be public upon the re-
quest of either party interested. Said commission shaſ] have an official seal,
which shall be judicially noticed. Either of the members of the commission
may administer oaths and affirmations.
SEG. 18. That each commissioner shall receive an annual salary of $7,500, pay-
able in the same manner as the salaries of judges of the courts of the United
States. The commission shall appoint a secretary, who shall receive an annual
salary of $3,500, payable in like manner. The commission shall have authority
to employ and fix the compensation of such other employés as it may find neces-
sary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
The commission shall be furnished by the Secretary of the Interior with suit-
able offices and all necessary office supplies. Witnesses summoned before the
commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in
the courts of the United States.
All of the expenses of the commission, including all necessary expenses for
transportation incurred by the commissioners, or by their employés under their
541
orders, in making any investigation in any other places than the city of Wash-
ington, shall be allowed and paid, on the presentation of itemized vouchers.
#. approved by the chairman of the commission and the Secretary of the
nterior.
SEC."19. That the principal office of the commission shall be in the city of Wash-
ington, where its general sessions shall be held; but whenever the convenience
of the public or of the parties may be promoted, or delay or expense prevented
thereby, the commission may hold special sessions in any part of the United,
States. It iſnay, by one or more of the commissioners, prosecute any inquiry
necessary to its duties, in any part of the United States, into any matter or ques-
tion of fact pertaining to the business of any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act.
SEC. 20. That the commission is hereby authorized to require annual reports
from all connnnon carriers subject to the provisions of this act, to fix the time and
prescribe the manner in which such reports shall be made. and to require from
such carriers specific answers to all questions upon which the commission may
need information. Such annual reports shall show in detail the amount of cap-
ital stock issued, the amounts paid therefor, and the manner of payment for
the same; the dividends paid, the surplus fund, if any, and the nuanber of stock-
holders; the funded and floating debts and the interests paid thereon ; the cost
and value of the carrier’s property, franchises, and equipment; the number of
employés and the salaries paid each class; the amounts expended for improve-
ments each year, how expended, and the character of such 1mprovements; the
earnings and receipts from each branch of business and from all sources : the
operating and other expenses; the balances of profit and loss; and a complete
exhibit of the financial operations of the carrier each year, including an annual
balance-sheet. Such reports shall also contain such information in relation to
rates or regulations concerning fares or freights, or agreements, arrangements,
or contracts with other common carriers as the commission may require; and
the said commission may, within its discretion. for the purpose of enabling it
the better to Čarry out the purposes of this act, prescribe (1f in the opinion of
the commission it is practicable to preseribe “uch uniformity and methods of
keeping accounts) a period of time within which all common carriers subject to.
the provisions of this act shall llave, as near as may be, a uniform system of ac-
counts, and the manner in which such accounts shall be kept.
SEC. 21. That the commission shall, on or before the 1st day of December in
each year, make a report to the Secretary of the Interior, which shall be by him.
transmitted to Congress, and copies of whicly shall be distributed as are the
other reports issued from the Interior Department. This report shall contain
such information and data collected by the commission as may be considered
of value in the determination of questions connected with the regulation of
commerce, together with such recommendations as to additional legislation
relating thereto as the commission naay deem necessary.
SEC, 22. That nothing in this act shall apply to the carriage, storage, or hand-
ling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States, State, or munici-
pal governments, or for charitable purposes, or to or from fairs and expositions
for exhibition thereat, or the issuance of mileage, excursion, or commutation
passengel tickets; nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any com-
mon carrier from giving reduced rates to ministers of religion : nothing in this
act shall be construed to prevent railroads from giving free carriage to their own
officers and enhployés, or to prevent the principal officers of any railroad conn-
pany or companies from exchanging passes or tickets with other railroad com-
panies or their officers and employés ; and nothing in this act contained shall
in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by
statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies: Provided,
That no pending litigation shall in any way be affected by this act.
SEC. 23. That the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropriated for the use and pur-
poses of this act for the fiscal year ending June 30, A. D. 1888, and the interven-
ing time anterior thereto.
SEC. 24. That the provisions of sections 11 and 18 of this act, relating to the ap—
pointment and organization of the commission herein provided for, shall take
effect immediately, and the remaining provisions of this act shall take effect
sixty days after its passage.
STATEMENT OF CONFEREES ON THE PART OF TILE HOUSE.
[Required by Rule XXIX.]
The House conferees on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses on the
bill of the Senate “to regulate commerce,” and the bill of the House “to regu-
late commerce among the States, and prevent unjust discrimination by common
carriers,” make the following detailed statement of the changes between the
House bill and the substitute here with appended.
The action of the House being to adopt a single amendment your committee,
without attempting to call attention to the precise changes made in each section.
542
of the bill, report to the House the substance and effect of the changes made,
as follows: ~
The bill of the House applied only to the transportation of freight, and the
bill as adopted embraces the transportation of passengers as well as freight.
The bill of the House was limited to the regulation of such transportation on
railroads. 'The bill as reported provides for the regulation of the transporta-
tion of property partly by railroad and partly by water, when both are used
under a common control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous car-
riage or shipment from one State or Territory of the United States, or the Dis-
trict of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the
District of Columbia.
The bill which we report defines the term “railroad,” as used in it, to include
all bridges, ferries used or operated with any railroad, which is in addition to
the provisions of the House bill.
The second section of the substitute bill adopts substantially the provisions,
of the House bill against discrimination by special rates, rebates, drawbacks,
and other devices, and declares that any one making such discrimination shall
* *y of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared un-
awful. g-
The third section of the substitute embraces substantially the provisions of
the bill of the House, in requiring equal facilities and advantages for all ship-
pers, without exception, and has a provision requiring equal facilities for the
interchange of traffic with all other railroads for the carriage of property and
passengers, and forbids any discrimination by one railroad in the facilities fur-
nished against any other railroad. It contains a clause declaring that this act
shall not be construed as requiring such common carrier to give the use of its
tracks or terminal facilities to any common carrier engaged in like business.
The fourth section adopts substantially the provisions of the House bill on
the long and short haul, with the following proviso: That upon application to
the commission appointed under the provisions of this act such common car-
rier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized
to charge less for a longer than for a shorter distance for the transportation of
passengers and property, and that the commission may, from time to time, pre-
scribe the extent to which such common carrier may be relieved from the opera-
tion of this section.
The fifth section of the substitute bill is a copy of the clause in the House bill
prohibiting pooling, with an amendment striking out the words of the House
bill “by dividing,” and inserting in lieu thereof the words “ or to div de,” and
with the addition of the words in line 3, after the word “combination,’’ ‘‘ with
any other common carrier or carriers.”
The sixth section is a substitute for the provisions of the House and Senate
bills in relation to the publication of schedules showing the rates, fares, and
charges for the transportation of passengers and property. Instead of requiring
the rates to be posted up, as was provided in the House bill, it requires that,
after ninety days from the passage of the act, every common carrier subject to
its provisions shall have printed, and keep for public inspection, schedules
showing such rates, fares, and charges, and, in addition to requiring the rail-
roads to give publicity at all of the depots on their several lines, it gives au-
thority to the commission, where it is proper and necessary, to require them to
give publicity to their rates to other places beyond the lines of their several
railroads. -
It also provides that the rates, fares, and charges shall not be raised except
after ten days of public notice, but that they may be reduced without previous
public notice; the notice, however, shall be simultaneous with the reduction
itself, and it requires that all common carriers subject to the provisions of this
act shall file with the commission provided for in the bill copies of the schedules
which have been established, and shall promptly notify said commission of all
changes made in the same; and that they shall file with the commission copies
of all contracts, arrangements, or agreements with other common carriers in re-
lation to traffic affected by the provisions of this bill ; and in cases where pas-
sengers and freights pass over continuous lines or routes operated by more than
one common carrier, and the several conn mon carriers operating such lines or
routes establish joint tariffs of rates or fares or charges for such continuous lines
or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also be filed with the commission,
and made public, if so directed by the commission.
The section also provides that where common carriers subject to its provisions
shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its schedules of tariffs or rates and fares,
-or any part of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to the penalties
herein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit
court of the United States, in any judicial district wherein the principal office of
the common carrier is situated, or wherein such offense may be committed,
requiring a compliance with the provisions of the act.
The seventh section of the substitute bill contains substantially the provisions
of the first part of the second section of the House bill in relation to the con-
543
tinuous carriage of property and persons from the place of shipment to the place
•of destination.
The eighth section of the substitute bill contains the substance of the seventh
section of the House bill in regard to damages and counsel’s fees, but expressed
in somewhat different language. ---
The ninth section of the substitute bill is a new section, which provides that
persons claiming to have been damaged by the action of common carriers may
proceed for recovery of their damages either in the courts of the United States
or before the com trission herein provided for, as they may elect, but not before
both tribunals. This section, which gives jurisdiction to courts of the United
States, does not give jurisdiction in civil suits to the State courts, as was pro-
vided for in the House bill.
This see ion of the substitute bill also provides that the courts shall have
power to compel any director, officer, receiver, trustee, or agent of the corpora-
tion or coln pany defendant in such suit to attend, appear, and testify in such
case, and may compel the production of the books and papers of such corpora-
tion or company party to any such suit; and it provides further that the claim
that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving
such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but that such evi-
dence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any crim-
inal proceeding. ſº
The tenth section of the substitute bill makes it a penal offense to violate any
of the provisions of this act, and is substantially the eighth section of the House
bill, except that it puts the maximum of the fine which may be imposed at the
sum of $5,000 instead of $2,000, as was provided for by the House bill.
The eleventh and subsequent sections to the twenty-first, inclusive, of the sub-
stitute bill contain the substance of the Senate’s bill providing for a commis-
ision, except as modified by the provisions of the substitute bill herein recited.
It provides for a commission to consist of five persons whose term of office
shall be for six years, except for the first appointments, which are to be for two,
three, four, five, and six years. . The members of this commission are to be ap-
pointed by the President by and with the advice of the Senate. Their principal
office shall be in Washington, but they may hold sessions at other places than
, Washington, and a single member of the commission may take testimony any-
where, as may be directed by the commission.
These commissioners have salaries of $7,500 each. The counrnission has the
power to appoint a secretary, with an annual salary of $3,500, and has authority
to employ and fix the compensation of such other employés as it may find neo-
essary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior. *-
The nineteenth section of the Senate's bill, providing for a reference of the
question of pooling to the commission, is not embraced in this substitute.
Section 22 of the substitute bill, among other thing 3, provides that nothing in
this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing
at common law or by statute, but that the provisions of this act are in addition
to such remedies, with a proviso that no pending litigation shall in any way be
affected by this act. .
Section 24 of the substitute bill provides that the act shall go into effect sixty
days after its passage, as in the opinion of your committee it was deemed best
to give the railroads sufficient time to prepare their schedules and to modify
their management in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The appoint-
ment of the commission, however, is to be made at once, as it has to be organ-
ized, and as said schedules of rates and charges have to be filed with said com-
mission. & -
* J. H. REAGAN,
CHARLES F. CRISP,
f A. J. WEAVER,
Managers on the part of the House.
Mr. PETERS. I do not expect to argue this question, because to
undertake that would be futile in the short space of the ten minutes
allotted to me. Like the speaker who has preceded me, I am ready
and willing to vote for this bill. In the Forty-eighth Congress I op-
posed what was known as the long and short haul provision. I am op-
posed to it yet. That is, I am opposed to any provision of that kind
that would have any binding force and validity. I am not opposed to
the provision in this bill because I do not believe it has any binding
force or validity; and I desire to call attention to one or two things in
connection with it. -
The great cry for legislation upon this subject has been brought about
because of complaints, and these complaints may be classed under a
544
few heads that are embraced within the provisions of this bill. One
of the great complaints was of discrimination. Another was of pooling.
And I believe that almost every complaint that has ever been made
against the transportation companies of this country can be embraced
within one or the other of those two heads, namely, discrimination and
pooling. As this bill attempts to remedy, and as I think to some ex-
tent does remedy, the defects that have grown out of our system in con-
nection with discrimination and pooling, I am satisfied with the bill
as regards those matters. When it comes to this long and short haul'
provision, as I have said, I do not think the provision which appears
in this bill amounts to anything. It seems to me a moment's consider-
ation will convince any one that is the case. | º
In the first place the language of the clause is so indefinite that it
can not amount to anything; and if a court is ever called upon to give
a construction to it, and follows the usual and well-known law in
relation to the construction of the statutes, then it would construe
that fourth section as not applying to freights at all. The court would
hold that it can only and does only apply to passengers, and any cur-
tailment of power that may be enacted over the passenger traffic in
railroad transportation, in my judgment, will not affect, or injure, or
prejudice the great passenger traffic of the United States.
Listen to the language of this section of the bill:
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the
transportation of passengers or of like kind of property.
What kind of property ? Property like passengers.
A MEMBER. Live-stock.
Mr. PETERS. I submit that any legal construction would be to
that effect.
Mr. BURROWS. They must be all of a kind, either all white or
all black. . .. -
Mr. PETERS. The section as punctuated in this bill, and as writ-
ten, only affects the passenger traffic; and so I do not care.
Mr. CUTCHEON. I wish to ask the gentleman, would not that ap-
ply to live-stock as being a like kind of property ?
Mr. PETERS. I simply make that suggestion; but aside from that
the very conditions expressed in the fourth section are such that it can
not affect the great freights of the West. In addition to all that is the
elastic provision in the bill— --
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances
for the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from
time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may
be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
So that I say that the fourth section has no terrors for me. I do not
believe it can affect my people in Kansas one way or the other, and,
therefore, I am perfectly willing, for the remaining provisions of this
bill, to take all there is in this fourth section.
But the grand part of this bill, to my mind, is the commissioner part
of it. The people of the United States have never had an opportunity
to employ some one with their own money and confide to them the
duty of looking up the statistics in relation to this railroad question
from the people's side of the case. Railroads have employed statisti-
cians and managers and lawyers to look up the statistics of this great
transportation question from the railroad side of the case. But the
people have never had any parties under their own control or in their
545
employ exclusively for the purpose of looking up the facts of the trans-
portation question from their side of the gase. That is just what this
commissioner system will give to them. I know it is the case that no
one has argued upon this question, either in the House or out of it—and
I exempt no one, I will not exempt myself—no one has argued upon
this question either in the House or out of it but has been prejudiced
or biased for or against railroad transportation companies.
We have never had a fair and impartial investigation of the ques-
tions growing out of this question of railroad transportation. Appoint
this commission, them, political as they will be, and as I would have
them, because I want to hold the party which has the majority of the
commission responsible for the action of that body. I would not give
a snap for five commissioners there that were not responsible to any
party; I would liot expect them to amount to anything. It is the
very fact that they will be held responsible to whichever of the great
parties may be in power in this country that will make them energetic
and faithful in seeking and giving out such information upon this sub-
ject as they think will be in the interest of the people.
The mere fact that they may be called a political body has no terrors
for me. I want the party that has the controling majority of the
commission to be held responsible for the conduct of that majority. I
want this commission created because I want these questions of rail-
road transportation investigated and reported upon from a standpoint
from which they have never before been investigated. I believe, as I
have already said. that the greatest benefit that can result from legis-
lation of this kind will be from the working of that commission. Talk
about this commission having unlimited power, why it has only the
power that is necessary in order to carry out the purposes for which it
is created. Its first power is to make inquiry into the question of inter-
state-railroad transportation.
Do we not need that ? Do we not desire that? Is not that what the
people want, and what they have clamored for ? The next power of
the commission is to investigate complaints that may be made against
the transportation companies. They can investigate them and ascer-
tain facts, and then their finding of fact in any case shall be prima facie
evidence in regard to the case when it comes into court. Is there any
injustice in that? Is it any unusual grant of power to such a body to
allow them to ascertain facts and then to declare that their ascertain-
ment, or the conclusion at which they arrive, shall be prima facie evi-
dence of the existence of the fact? That is all there is in this grant of
power to these commissioners. Then in all cases where more than two
thousand dollars’ worth of property is involved an appeal is allowed
to the Supreme Court of the United States.
This board of commissioners can do nothing except to ascertain,
prima facie, the existence of the facts, and then the courts of the coun-
try are appealed to, and if any party can show that the ascertainment
of the commission is not correct, that party will have the right to
make that proof, and the ascertainment by the commission will amount
to nothing. -
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. PETTIBONE. Mr. Speaker, by the eighth section of the Con-
stitution, Congress shall have power to regulate commerce between the
States. Under that section of the Constitution this bill was born. The
country is demanding something of the kind. In 1865, when the great
war closed, we had only 33,000 miles of railway in the United States.
I S C 35
546
Now we have 127,000 miles of main track, and this wonderful fact strikes
our minds that in twenty-one years the railway mileage of the United
States has increased threefold, and that its efficiency and carrying
capacity have increased more than sixfold over what they were twenty-
one years ago. Now, it is admitted by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
CANNON] and by almost every other gentleman who has addressed the
House, that the country demands some action upon this subject. Here
is a vast mass of aggregated capital which, under the laws of human
nature, is certain to be aggressive.
Men will continue to make all they can unless they are restrained,
and we know that these railway magnates will put all into their
pockets that they possibly can. The country now demands that this
eighth section of the Constitution shall be put in force. I concede, as
every speaker has conceded, that this bill is not a thing that I would
look for or hope for, but I ask the House to remember that this is the
first act passed by the Federal Government to putin force the power that
is granted to Congress to regulate commerce, and I ask the lawyers of
this House to remember that there is not a single provision of the com-
mon law which has not been tried and legislated upon again and yet
again, and improved and amended until finally a law of equity has
been reached which has been embedded, as it were, in the common law
of the land. - -
I have heard criticism again and again upon this fourth section. I
can not do better than occupy the little time. I have in reading and
commenting upon it. I deny that it is ambiguous and that it can not
be understood. It consists of just three sentences—no more and no less.
What are they? Let us read them seriatim. The first is what?
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act— -
That is the railways— -
to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the trans-
portation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially similar
circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the
same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer
distance.
Now, shade of Lindley Murray ! is there anybody who can not un-
derstand that sentence? I am literally astounded that so level-headed
a man as my friend from Kansas really undertakes to tell us that in
the fourth line of this sentence “like kind of property '' relates to pas-
sengers. I did suppose there was eternally this distinction of persons
and property; that if passengers are persons, property is not persons and
can not be passengers. That is all there is in that sentence. I would
whip my boy of twelve years if he did not understand all that sentence
DOlea,InS.
I now take the next sentence; and I agree that this next sentence
need not be here. But let us see what there is in it. What is this
Second sentence 2
But this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the
terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for
a longer distance.
This does not authorize them to do it. Suppose they charge 1 cent
a ton less on freight, and 1 cent less on a passenger fare; there is no
trouble or difficulty. - -
They are not authorized by the bill to charge as much. Does any-
body question what that sentence means, or would anybody raise such
a question if it stood alone? º
547
Then I take the third sentence; and what is that?
Provided, however, That upon application to the eommission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after in-
vestigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the com-
mission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated
common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
Mr. CUTCHEON. Do you understand that this investigation, the
fixing of a lower rate, &c., will be before or after the transportation ?
Mr. PETTIBONE. Why, after the investigation, of course, for trans-
portation thereafter, because it reads here that ‘‘ after investigation by
the commission'' the carriers may be permitted to do this.
Mr. CUTCHEON. That is, investigation of the circumstances.
Mr. PETTIBONE. Investigation of the circumstances and condi-
tions. I believe I would whip a twelve-year-old boy that went to
school to me, or who used to go to school to my friend from Michigan,
if he did not understand that sentence standing alone. Now, if all
these three sentences are easily understood, each by itself, put them
together, and can they not be understood?
Mr. Speaker, the country is demanding something at our hands.
We can not restrict the powers of the Fiſtieth Congress, which may be
called together after the 4th of March next. But all good laws have
always been brought about by amendment after amendment. If we
never take the first step we shall never get anywhere; and I take upon
myself all the responsibility which may be thrown upon me for my
voice and my vote in favor of this measure.
The great defender of the people's rights in this country is publicity;
and under the provisions of this bill, schedules, rates of freight, and
passenger traffic—all these things are to be spread abroad in the light
of day, so that the people may know what they have to pay. Public
opinion in this country is the king, thank God; and for a proper result
from the agitation of this subject we are willing to wait. Louis
Kossuth said, years ago, there is no difficulty to him who wills; and if
this Congress wills to exercise the power which a hundred years ago
was conferred upon it by the Constitution, I believe there is sense
enough and wisdom enough in America—if we have it not, our succes-
sors will have it—to properly enforce this provision and give the relief
to which sixty millions of American citizens are entitled. Sir, I am
done. [Applause. I
Mr. HEPBURN. Mr. Speaker, a great deal of complaint has been
made with reference to this bill, because sufficient deliberation has not
been given to it, and its sentences have not been pruned of all ambiguity.
I want to call the attention of the House to some facts connected with
this legislation. -
On the 8th day of last March, the Committee on Commerce reported
to this House a measure on the subject of interstate transportation, popu-
larly known as the Reagan bill. On the 14th of last May the Senate
passed a measure on that subject (the Cullom bill) and sent it to the
House. It was referred to the Committee on Commerce, and on the 22d
of May it was reported back to the House—all of the Senate bill, after
the enacting clause, stricken out and the Reagan bill inserted. It was
then permitted by the majority of this House to sleep without an effort
toward its consideration until the 26th of July, after the House had
adopted a resolution to adjourn, I think, on the 3d of August. They—
the Democratic majority—refused to consider that measure, they re-
fused to call it up or allow it to be called up.
548
The chairman of the committee slept upon his rights, and gave this.
side of the House no opportunity to consider the measure; and when
on the 26th of July it was called up, they permitted something like
eight hours of discussion, and then moved the previous question, cut-
ting off further debate and all possibility of amendment before the bill
had ever gone to the Committee of the Whole, where it first could be
amended, and before it was possible for any member on this side of the
House to offer asingle amendment, or attempt in any way to perfect the
legislation. Then, under the operation of the previous question, we were
compelled to vote upon it. Under those circumstances, the Reagan
bill was forced upon this House and the country. Remember, that
there was no discussion of this question—interstate commerce—to any
considerable extent—not more than half a dozen hours in the Forty-
eighth Congress, and only eight or ten hours in this House in the first
session of the Forty-ninth Congress.
Now the bill comes back to us as a conference report, where there is.
no possibility for any member on this side of the House under the rules.
that forbid the amendment of a conference report to have a word to say
in the direction of its improvement. We have to vote on it just as it
is. We have to submit to this legislation or we will have to say there.
shall be no legislation on this vexed question which has agitated the
people of the country to a greater extent than any other question during
the last fifteen years. ſ
There is no question so much discussed by the people at their homes.
There is no question in which so many people are vitally interested.
There is none which goes so closely to so many homes and their interests.
as this one of interstate commerce. The party in power in this House
has so managed it, there has not been a day or a moment the proposi-
tions of this bill could in any way be amended or improved. It does,
not, therefore, behoove gentlemen on that side of the House at least to.
talk about this measure as crude and imperfect, uncertain, ambiguous.
Mr. Speaker, there are gentlemen here who are refusing to support
this bill because it does not, in their judgment, give them all they
desire. What is the situation now? We have absolutely nothing—
there is no statute that in any way controls or limits the greed of the
great railroad corporations. This bill does give us something. Now
we have nothing. It does give us something, and it is a step toward
that more which we ask. Is it wise to say because we can not have
the fullness of the repast we crave, we shall choose therefore to starve?
What would you say of the wisdom of that man who is out in the
surf with the rising tide, unable to extricate himself from his peril, who,
would refuse aid that would require himself to exercise some of his own
power, and who should insist that he would have no relief unless some
supernatural power could give him ability to fly above the waves? That
is just what gentlemen insist upon. Because they cannot have all they
will have none; because they cannot reach the goal instantly they will
not move towards it; because there must be successive steps of progres-
sion, therefore they will not move at all. . It is my humble judgment
that is not wisdom.
I wanted to speak with reference to some of the positions taken by
my colleague [Mr. WEAVERI on yesterday. I am sorry he is not in his
seat. I wanted to remind him that nearly every alleged defect he has
urged against this bill, on another occasion has been approved by him,
or at least on another occasion was not such an objection as to prevent
him casting an affirmative vote for substantially this measure. The
very words and provisions, in the main, that with hypercriticism he con-
549
demned on yesterday, he approved in another bill he voted for in July
last. He is, of all men in the State from which he comes, cited by his
many admirers as par eacellence the friend of the people in their de-
mand for interstate-commerce legislation. I would have thought (if
it had not been uncharitable) that the action of the gentleman at the
last session in voting for the Reagan bill was not in the best of faith—
that he did not expect or want at that time the enactment of legisla-
tion on this subject. No one believed at the time that the defeat of
the Senate hill and the substitution of the House bill, that he aided by
his votes in bringing about, would result in legislation at the last ses-
sion. The Senate had, by a vote almost unanimous, there being only
four negative votes on the question of the passage of it, passed Senator
CULLOM’s bill, and the action of the House in adopting another meas-
Aure, containing provisions that the Senate after deliberate consideration
had disapproved, forbade the hope that in the four or five remaining days
of the session there could be such conference or concession as would re-
sult in legislation.
Therefore, possibly, some gentleman who did not want any legislation,
who wanted to keep the question open and vexed, who wanted to use it
as a foot-ball in the then approaching campaign, voted for the Reagan
bill, so that the House should pass a different bill from the Senate, pro-
ducing irreconcilable disagreements resulting in no legis ation, and thus
keeping alive and unsettled a question of prime importance to the peo-
ple, and one that might be used by thrifty politicians in the enhance-
ment of their own worth and in support of their pretentions, as the especial
champions of the interests of the people. These pretentions could, with
seeming plausibility, be urged after voting to substitute the House bill
for that of the Senate. *
The former was by many believed to be a very radical measure, one
that shook all possibility for future harm or wrong-doing out of the
“soulless corporations'-one that brought “the robber barons of the
rail” to their knees. The man voting for that measure, it was be-
lieved by these thrifty ones, would show to the people his ardent zeal
in their behalf—his sleepless vigilance in the pursuit of their welfare;
while at the same time he would by this deft use of his vote success-
fully block legislation through the well-assured disagreements of the
two Houses, and preserve the question as an open one to be used in the
campaign. They could urge upon the hustings that this warfare of
interests was still going on, and strive to show how much they were
needed on the side of the people in the battle still raging.
This suspicion of the questionable good faith of gentlemen might be
strengthened by the knowledge that they were growing somewhat scant
of issues. The greenback craze is no longer effective or useful. The
people no longer rally at the sound of the old war-cry. “Fiat money”
is no longer in demand. The $1,800,000,000 of circulation—green-
back, national-bank notes, silver certificates, gold certificates, gold, and
silver—every dollar of which is interchangeable with gold—has re-
moved that question, so potential a half score of years ago, to the status
of “an unhappy reminiscence,” and closed the mouths of all “the
crazy cacklers for the craze,” save those whose volubility is their chief
excellence.
The fears of the people preceding the date fixed for resumption of coin
payments by the Government have been dispelled by the experiences of
the past. I remember there were dolorous lamentations in those days.
Resumption, weeping prophets told us, would result in dire calam-
ity. The quack political doctors told us the homest way to pay our
55()
} | - -
debts was to continue to promise to pay them. Some of them secured
seats in this floor through pledges to excited and alarmed constitu-
encies that they would secure the repeal of the much-vilified resump-
tion act; but wisdom and honesty prevailed instead of the cant and
hypocrisy of the hour, and the legislation of ’75 was undisturbed, and
the blessings of an honest, safe, and abundant circulation were secured
to us, and the issue of the repeal of the resumption act joined that of
“fiat money” in an unhonored grave.
In the State of Iowa the policy of “prohibition” is securely fixed
in the legislation of the State. It can not be disturbed. My colleague
in his personal utterances or in his partisan affiliations has been on
every one of the many sides this question has been made to present in
the politics of Iowa by the opponents of the Republican party. Him-
self a prohibitionist, as an ally of the Democracy he has been compelled
to aid in the efforts to secure low license, high license, and local option.
Having thus been on the four sides of the question, it can not again be
used for the purposes of a campaign. The party of which he is a most
useful and devoted ally will not again dare to assert any or all of its
old opinions or formulate new opinions on this once agitating question.
Its next platform will be silent on the whisky question.
The distance from free whisky to prohibition is great, but all the
ground has been traveled by my honored friend; either in his own
principles or by his alliances. But each of these policies at their time
of presentation have been definitely settled. ."
In this way the “principles” of my friend have been narrowed;
and if this Congress should “mercilessly,” by the passage of this bill,
settle the transportation question, as an agitator he would have in
bitterness of soul to exclaim :
Othello's occupation 's gone.
The Republican Legislature of Iowa and the Republican party
through its last State convention declared in favor of the passage of the
Senate bill regulating interstate commerce. In order to have an issue
my friend must oppose its passage. The Republican party in order to
secure some legislation, in order to take a first step in a right direction—
the direction of national control over carriers engaged in carrying com-
merce between the States—is willing to take that bill. The gentleman
says the Cullom bill and the one reported by the conference committee
are identical, and as he wants to preserve his opposition to the Repub-
lican party he is forced to antagonize the bill pending. He opposed
the Republican party in the last campaign in its action on this question.
He must oppose this bill or confess himself to be in error in that oppo-
sition.
The intensity of his passion for opposition to that party will, I think,
be developed as I proceed, and I will try to show that that passion,
and I say this with great respect, is the controlling motor in his oppo-
sition to this measure. - -
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the present situation. We have in the
United States 130,000 miles of railway, costing about $4,000,000,000,
controlled by common carriers who transport for our 60,000,000 inhab-
itants about $8,000,000,000 in value of their property each year, earn-
ing thereby about $700,000,000. So far as national legislation is con-
cerned, these carriers are uncontrolled and this great interest is un-
protected. The Supreme Court has affirmed the right of Congress to
legislate upon the question, and the people demand legislation. The
people affirm that the charges of the carriers are often unjust, unstable,
551
and unequal. They demand rates that shall be just, uniform, and
stable. They can secure these only through the action of this body.
The Senate has acted. Will we act 2 Will we do the best we can 2
If we can not do all we would like to do, will we do the best possible un-
der the circumstances? If we vote down this bill, then the matter is
ended for this Congress. We have but thirty days of session left, and
every member of the House knows that it is this pending bill or noth-
ing. We may not like all of its provisions. It may not be what we
would write if we were empowered to write it, but here it is face to
face with us; we have no power under the rules to change or amend
it; we must take it all, or none of it.' -
My colleague criticises certain words and phrases of the bill. He
does not like them, and he will not have the bill because they are in
it and he can not get them out. . He complains of the word “cotempo-
raneous” in the second section, which prohibits special rates, rebates,
drawbacks, &c., and yet, Mr. Speaker, in the bill which he voted for
in July last in the first section prohibiting preferences that same objec-
tionable word is found, and in the same connection. It had precisely
the same relation to the subject in the bill that he voted for that it has
in the bill he refuses to vote for. It was of most euphonious sound in
the Reagan bill, but it assaults his delicate ear as discord in the bill he
must now vote for if he would secure legislation.
The phrase “under substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions” when found in the second section is unsatisfactory to my friend.
Let it be remembered that the primary object—the central thought—
of this bill is to secure reasonable rates. All the rest of its provisions
are but the machinery or means by which this object is to be attained.
Section 2 asserts in brief that the benefits or facilities that are given to
A shall, “if the conditions and circumstances are substantially ” (not
precisely) “similar,” be given to B. This is right. The law ought
not to require, in order that B should have the same facilities and ben-
efits that A gets, that the conditions and circumstances should be pre-
cisely, identically, exactly the same. There should be some reasona-
ble room for difference.
It scarcely ever would happen that two shipments would be under
precisely the same “conditions and circumstances,” and hence the
word “substantially ” is inserted. It is enough if they are substan-
tially the same, and greater exactness of similarity ought not to be re-
quired. If you were to strike out the word “substantially ” the sec-
tion would be of comparatively but little value.
On the other hand, if the circumstances and conditions of A's ship-
ment were greatly dissimilar and unlike those of B's, then A ought not
to have the same benefits and facilities. A’s right to demand the same
treatment is based upon the ground of substantial similarity of circum-
stances and condition. It is upon this ground that his claim ought to
be heard and acceded to; when the reason fails the right fails.
My colleague is again an objector because, he says, he does not under-
stand the meaning of the words “undue or unreasonable” as they occur
in the third section, which prohibits the giving of “undue or unreason-
able” advantage to one person or locality that is not given to another
person or locality. The words are of very common use and not difficult
of definition. If there is difficulty presented to the gentleman by them
he may be assured that our courts are usually presided over by men of
Intelligence, whose duty it is to give construction to the language used
in statutes, and the courts will have no difficulty in giving proper Inean-
552
ing to these simple words. The assumption of my colleague that “the
railroad companies are to be the judges of whether the preference or ad-
vantage is undue or unreasonable” is untenable. He has forgotten the
methods of our courts and the policy of our laws. He used to be a pub-
lic prosecutor some years ago.
At that time, doubtless, he knew that it was not a popular method of
our courts to permit the criminal to construe the law or to tell its mean-
ing. “Murder” often had to be defined in judicial proceedings, but
the individual charged in the indictment with its perpetration was never
called upon to determine whether his deed, as explained by all of his
cotemporaneous conduct and motive, constituted the crime of murder.
The meaning of words as used in a statute is determined by the court,
and not by either of the litigants, and I want to assure my colleague
that this rule is universally recognized by all the courts of the country
above that of justice’s courts.
My colleague does not like the fourth section, which prohibits the
carrier from charging a greater sum for a shorter than a longer distance.
He thinks there are entirely too many conditions connected with the
prohibition. Yet the corresponding section in the bill he voted for
contained a prohibition that was based upon four conditions, and all of
the four conditions must concur in order to make the prohibition oper-
ative. In the Reagan bill conditions did not alarm him. It is only
when they appear in the “Cullom bill '’ that his fears are violently ex-
cited.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, some of the conditions in this section are
necessary to make it acceptable to me. The section reads as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the connmission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission,
be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the trans-
portation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to
time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be re-
lieved from the operation of this section of this act. t
I very much doubt the wisdom of this section, and, representing a
people who are 1,200 miles from the seaboard, I would hesitate to give
it my assent were it not for the flexibility given to it by the proviso.
The corresponding section in the bill voted for by the gentleman from
Iowa [Mr. WEAVERJ is as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the
transportation of property, as provided in the first section of this act, to charge
or receive any greater compensation for a sinnilar amount and kind of property,
for carrying, receiving, storing, forwarding, or handling the same for a shorter
than for a longer distance, which includes the shorter distance, on any one rail-
road; and the road of a corporation shall include all the road in use by such cor-
poration, whether owned or operated by it under a contract, agreement, or lease
by such corporation.
This is an inflexible, unyielding declaration that in certain shipments
the carrier shall not charge a greater sum for a shorter than for a
longer distance. It is designed to make initial charges greater than
those that are intermediate. Chicago is the point where nearly all of
the farm products raised in Iowa and sold are gathered for shipment
to their final market.
553
The price the Iowa producer receives in Chicago is increased or di-
minished to correspond with the rate charged by the carrier for moving
the product eastward to the seaboard. If this rate is low, the Iowa
farmer gets more; if the rate is high he gets less. Usually—always
during the season the lakes and canals are free from Ice—the rate is
very low, lower than for any other similar service in the world. At
Chicago the roads leading eastward meet with water competition. Each
week they unload thousands of cars in Chicago that must be hauled
back, eastward, empty or filled with western produce. The roads, if
they fill these cars, must reduce their rates to the low rates of the ves-
sels. It is better for them to do this than to get nothing and haul the
empty car. It has to go. It is better to have it filled, yielding a sum
that will pay for hauling the car rather than yield no sum at all.
The rates accepted are often far lower than those charged from inter-
mediate points several hundred miles east of Chicago. This low rate
by rail is a check upon the carrier by vessel, and keeps down the rate
by water. The car is in active competition with the ship and the canal-
boat, and the Iowa ſarmer gets the benefit of the competition. The
road can not reduce all of its charges at intermediate points to corre-
spond with this low rate forced upon it by competition at Chicago. The
result would be, iſ the section last quoted were the law, that the Chicago
rate would be raised. Even if the intermediate rate should be some-
what lowered, which would not in all probability be the case, the
Chicago rate would have to be made greater, for the law would not per-
mit it to be less than that from the points farther to the east.
By raising this rate the business would not be affected by competi-
tion, and the vessel-owner would increase his charge. The only limit-
ation would be his rapacity. The Iowa farmer would be the sufferer,
for the price he would receive for his produce would be diminished as
the cost of transportation would be increased. We would be harmed,
and no one but the vessel-owner would be benefited. But by the pro-
viso found in the bill of the conference committee the commission have
the power in special cases, “after investigation,” to authorize the rail-
carrier to charge a less sum for its service for the longer distance.
In other words, if the commission invested the roads leading east-
ward from Chicago to charge a less sum for the longer than the shorter dis-
tance, we in Iowa would be the gainers. It simply means that in this
case the Pennsylvania road and the Baltimore and Ohio road and others
are permitted to charge the Iowa farmer a less sum for hauling his prod-
ucts to market than it charges the Indiana farmer or the Ohio farmer.
I desire the roads should have this permission; my colleague does not.
He would refuse to let the carrier give his people an advantage he is will-
ing to give them. He seems anxious to serve another constituency than
his own—another State than the one that has so often honored him.
He is disturbed also by the fifth section, prohibiting pooling. There
is much contention about the merits and demerits of the methods known
as pooling.
The difficulty would be lessened if in the discussion the purpose of
the particular pool was first stated. All pools are not alike in their pur-
poses. Some of these purposes are good; others are pad. The combi-
nation called a pool usually is for a threefold object: to affect the amount
of charges, to preserve their stability, and to secure their uniformity.
Much of the prosperity of a shipping community is dependent upon the
stability of the rates and their uniformity to all patrons alike. The
great mass of men desire these results. The combination secures these
554
But it too often happens that the rate by the combination is fixed too
high; often it is extortionate. It is this that the community rebel
against.
If the rate is reasonable, none object to the agreement, because all intel-
ligent men recognize the fact that through it they secure the presence
of stability and the absence of preferences. So that it is not so much
the pool as the extortionate rate made possible by the pool that receives
condemnation. &
The provision in the Reagan bill respecting the pool is as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons carrying property as aforesaid
to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination for pooling of freights or
pooling freights of different or competing railroads by dividing between them
the aggregate or net proceeds of such railroads or any portion of them, and in
any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights or earnings as aforesaid
each day of its continuance shall be deemed a separate offense.
Here we find a prohibition against the “money pool;” no other. “It
shall be unlawful for any person * * * to enter into any contract,
agreement, or combination for the pooling of freights, or to pool the
freights of different or competing roads by dividing between them the
aggregate or the net proceeds of the earnings of such railroads or any
portion of them.” The agreement or pooling that is forbidden is that
where the division of the earnings is stipulated. “Only that and noth-
ing more.” All other pools are permitted. They may divide and di-
vert the freights as much as they choose; and yet this form of pooling
is much the most common. This my colleague did not object to. Nor
did he object to it because the section, like all the rest of the bill, was
silent on the subject of passengers. The bill he approved does not affect
in any way passengers, although 25 per cent. of the gross earnings of
the roads is from this class of business. This section of the commit-
tee’s bill is as follows: i.
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with
any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and
competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds
of the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an
agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance
shall be deemed a separate offense
Here is a broad and sweeping prohibition of all kinds of pooling.
All pools are forbidden, including those for passengers. It is infinitely
more far-reaching in its terms and operation than the other section. But
my friend condemns it. He will not vote for the control of railroads
because of it. And why? When Reagan’s gnat was enough, why will
not the committee’s lion suffice? Because the gentleman thinks that
the clause, “and in any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights
as aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be deemed a separate
offense,” does not apply to passenger pools.
This offense is not a continuing one in his belief. True, a fine of
$5,000 might be imposed for the formation of such a pool, but because
the penalty is not made $5,000 a day he will have none of it. True,
the section does contain all that the Reagan section contained and
much more, yet because it does not contain all that his fancy now sug-
gests he will not have even the confessedly good provisions of the section.
By the section the offense of pooling freights in any form is a continu-
ing offense. A fine of $5,000 for each day of its existence may be im-
posed. That provision is broader than the one he voted for and approved.
But now it is not enough. It prohibits the roads from ‘’ dividing be-
tween them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such rail-
555
roads or any portion thereof.” If any portion of the earnings is received
from carrying passengers then it must not be divided. That provision
was not in the Reagan bill. But because the offense committed by
making a division of that part of the earnings that is derived from pas-
sengers is not made a continuing offense, the gentleman will not have
any of the many good things the bill does contain. He asked for a pro-
hibition of the “money-pool.” It is given him. More, he is given a
prohibition of all freight pools. More, the continuance of this pool is
made a continuing offense. More, he is given a prohibition of all pas-
senger pools.
Now he will not have any prohibition because he is given even more
than he asked for. My friend must reform his prayer, for if he should
petition, “Give us this day our daily bread,” and secure a week’s
supply at once, he would have to refuse it and starve in order to be
consistent with his action on this bill. Objection is made to the bill
because it does not confer jurisdiction upon the State courts to deter-
mine contentions that may arise under it. It is doubted by many law-
yers whether Congress has the power to confer judicial power upon
State courts. By the Constitution “the judicial power of the United
States shall be vested in a Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts
as the Congress shall from time to time ordain and establish.”
The Supreme Court has decided “that State courts were not courts es-
tablished and ordained by Congress.” But even if it has the power and
exercises it, all admit that Congress has now power to compel State
Courts to assume jurisdiction. It would at best be optional with them
to exercise it or not, as they might choose. But the bill passed by this
House in July last did not even attempt to confer such power on the
State courts. The language used is as follows:
SEC. 7. That each and every act, matter, or thing in this act declared to be un-
lawful is hereby prohibited ; and in case any person or persons as defined in this
act, engaged as aforesaid, shall do, suffer, or permit to be done any act, naatter,
or thing in this act prohibited or forbidden, or shall omit to do any act, matter,
or thing in this act required to be done, or shall be guilty of any violation of the
provisions of this act, such person or persons shall be held to pay to the person
or persons injured the full amount of damages so sustained, together with a
reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every ease of
recovery, which attorney's fee shall be taxed and collected as costs in the case,
to be recovered by the person or persons so damaged by suit in any State or
United States court of competent jurisdiction where the person or persons
causing such damage can be found or may have an agent, office, or place of
business.
. This is the only provision in the Reagan bill bearing on this subject.
The language of the section here important is ‘‘in any State or United
States court of competent jurisdiction.” Those State courts that now
have jurisdiction is the meaning of that language, and there is no pre-
tense, from first to last, of conferring new jurisdiction. No new power
is conferred by the bill, and none of the State courts had it before.
How, them, could the State courts exercise it? They did not have it,
and it was not granted, and it could not be exercised without a specific
grant. In fact, no State court could have exercised any power under
the Reagan bill. All the power it could assert would be through its
common law jurisdiction, which it can still do.
The law under the Reagan bill would have been just the same in this
matter of jurisdiction as under the bill before this committee. But that
was all right, we are told, while this is all wrong. Mr. Speaker, let
me invite your attention to the fact that none of the remedies now pos-
Sessed by the people are impaired by this bill. All are preserved. What-
ever changes are made are those of addition, of increased facilities and
additional tribunals. Every suit that may be brought to-day may be
brought, and in the same courts, after this measure becomes law. Let
me read this provision of the bill:
And nothing in this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the rem-
edies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this act
are in additiou to such remedies: Provided, That no pending litigation shall in
any way be affected by this act.
All of the remedies provided by the bill are additional remedies.
Nothing is taken away. Much is added. A personal injury, an over-
charge, a breach of contract, all matters of similar character that are
to-day the subjects of litigation may be en tērtained by the same State
courts, after we pass this bill that entertain them to-day. All this
talk about the people being sent before a Federal court at the State
capital, or before the commission at the National capital, is without
foundation in fact. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts and of the
commission conferred by the bill is in addition to that we now have ;
and all we now have is carefully preserved to us. $
But ‘‘the commission!” “the commission!” disturbs the repose of
many gentlemen, and notably my distinguished colleague. On this mat-
ter of a railroad commission he has been perturbed for several years.
We have one in Iowa. It does not give universal satisfaction. It is
the object of much criticism. And I have sometimes thought, Mr.
Speaker, that much of it was owing to the fact that its limited juris-
diction, and the necessary reason for its limited jurisdiction, was not
fully understood. Many persons fail to recollect that under our double
system of government, State and Federal, there is divided power and
authority—the State exercising control over that part of our railroad
transportation that is wholly within our State boundaries, and the
Federal Government controlling that portion that crosses the boundaries
of the State, either in going out or coming in. In that State much
the larger portion is interstate, and over this our State commission has
no authority whatever. v. -
It is true there was quite recently a ripple of assininity that devel-
oped itself in a pretension that the State authorities might control
interstate commerce, but it quietly subsided under the flattening forces
of a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it
is now conceded that the power does not exist. But this limited au-
thority of the State commission is not at all times borne in mind, and
many thoughtless people complain that evils are not remedied that are
entirely without the control of the commission. Within the limits of
its jurisdiction its influence and effect are most beneficial. Until quite
recently it has had no power to enforce its conclusions; but it has de-
termined a multitude of disputes, and this prevented hundreds of suits
each year that would, without its aid, have been settled by the court,
at great cost and inconvenience to the parties. And although for four
years of its existence it had none but “advisory” powers, in all in-
stances save one its conclusions were adopted by the carriers.
The real trouble with us has been, not that we had too much com-
mission, but that we did not have enough. We have needed the ex-
tension of the authority of our State commission, and then a Federal
commission to exercise authority over interstate commerce, as the Iowa
commission does over State commerce. This bill in the provisions
creating the commission provides in great degree for that want. If
the Federal commission can perform the same office in relation to the
interstate commerce that the State commission does in relation to State
traffic, very many of the evils that our people now complain of will
no longer be matter of complaint. *
557
But we are told that there are many persons determined in advance
to distrust this commission. To such I say, do not go to it. You need
not. If you seek the aid of the commission your so doing will be en-
tirely voluntary. It will be your own choice if you go to it for aid.
This bill furnishes you a remedy entirely independent of it. Such dis-
trustful persons can go to the courts. If the wrong you complain of is
such an one as you can now have redress for, then go to your local State
courts. If the redress you seek is given by this bill, then go to the Fed-
eral court and let the commission “severely alone.” But if you want
redress without expense té yourself, if you want the aid of the commis-
sion in your contest with the carrier, then go to the commission, re-
membering always that the court remedies and the remedies provided
by the Commission are entirely independent of each other, if you choose
to have them independent.
But, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is opposed to the commission be-
cause it is too powerful. (In Iowa the commission is condemned be-
cause of itsinsufficient power.) Here this one is invested with too great
power. It is feared that its power over the railroad corporations is so
great that they will be induced to enter politics, and by the use of cor-
rupt means sully and disturb its pure fountains. It is said that “dur-
ing the next Presidential term a majority of the members of the com-
mission will be appointed,” and these appointments will furnish such
a “tempting prize '’ as the “virtue’’ of the corporations can not with-
stand, and they will thus be seduced into politics. This was to my
mind a strange position for the gentleman from Iowa to take.
Why, Mr. Speaker, for ten years the gentleman has been declaring
on every “stump '’ he has adorned (and he adorns all he declaims from)
that the corporations are now and have been for years in politics; and
not only in politics, but controlling politics—State and national. His
speeches have been overrunning with such declarations for full ten
years. His warnings to the people of the perils, dire and imminent,
certainly to follow this corporate control of the politics of the country
have vexed the ears and disturbed the repose of timid people all over
the State of Iowa. Now by implication he confesses that the burden
of half a thousand of his speeches has been an egregious error; that he
has been mistaken all these years about the corporations actually being
in, and in control of political affairs.
But he is nevertheless unhappy, for by his prophetic ken he sees the
railroad companies, now for the first time, are about to enter the politi-
cal arena, with a full determination to “swoop down” and ‘‘jump
in '' and elect our President and wrest our liberties and cherished rights
from us if we dare to pass this bill creating a railroad commission.
But, Mr. Speaker, how much better would our condition be if we
struck out of the bill the sections creating the commission or if we
should enact the Reagan bill ? The questions arising under that bill
would ultimately have to be determined by the Supreme Court. Every
good provision in that bill might be frittered away by a corrupt court,
if we had one. Their power is infinitely greater than the power of the
commission, because they may pass upon every important question
determined by it and may reverse the decisions of the commission.
Whatever of objection may be urged against the commission may be
urged against the court.
Five of the judges of the Supreme Court, a controlling majority, have
already arrived at the age when they may retire, creating vacancies. It
is more than probable—almost certain—that the President inaugurated
March 4, 1889, will appoint at least five members of the Supreme Court,
558
In the language of my colleague, “What a tempting prize” they would
be to the railroad corporations. These “soulless corporations” may
conclude they will go into politics and elect a President who will ap-
point a majority of the Supreme Court at their dictation. That will
destroy the effect of all beneficial legislation that we may secure in the
way of protection against them, whether it may be in this bill or the
Reagan bill. The logic of the gentleman’s position is that we must
enact no legislation not satisfactory to the corporations; that when a
man is engaged in usurpation and wrong you must not interrupt him,
for fear he will counteract your efforts by the perpetration of a still
greater wrong.
It is a sad fact that all laws have to be interpreted and enforced by
men, and that all men are not pure and honest. If all men were pure
and honest in their lives society would need no laws; every man
“would be a law unto himself.” We enact laws because many men
are bad, and we do not omit their enactment because of the possibility
that baneful influences may bring a scoundrel into the seat of power
or judgment. We have to take that chance and run that risk; and the
risk is the same whether the bill my colleague voted for or this one
should be the law. We have to trust to men, and I have faith to be-
lieve that any American citizen who could be elected to the high office
of President would strive, in obedience to duty, conscience, and his
oath of office, to faithfully administer this law by the selection of such
men to fill the honorable positions of judges and commissioners as
would strive to do the very right in deciding all contentions that might
arise under the law we enact.
Another objection to the commission is that it would have too much
to do. “It could not possibly do all that would be required of it.”
Mr. Speaker, this may be true. It might not be able to do all of
its work. But we know that it would be able to do some part of it.
And whatever part it might do would be in addition to that that is
done now. It would be that much more than can be done with the
court facilities of to-day. It would be an additional tribunal to those
we now have. It would be one more. If it determined but one hun-
dred cases in a year, that would be one hundred cases more than can be
decided by our present courts, and would be that much of a gain. The
commission would, however, in my belief, prevent or dispose of thou-
sands of cases; not, perhaps, by decisions, but by prevention—by set-
tling questions out of which litigation would otherwise grow.
The bill favored by the gentleman from Iowa offers the wronged ship-
per but one remedy. It says to him, “If you are aggrieved or wronged
by a railroad corporation you may go into court and sue it.” It in-
vites him to the remedy of unlimited litigation—litigation with a power-
ful, skilled, rich adversary. That is all. It gives him no other aid or
remedy. He may be, and is, graciously permitted to help himself in
court, if he wants to. True, he may recover an attorney’s fee if he wins,
but he only secures that little boon by victory. He has no one to aid
him.
Not so under the committee’s bill. He has all of the court remedies
under it that are given him by the Reagan bill, and in addition he has
the aid of the commission, without trouble or expense, to himself. He
calls for its aid, and it is bound to respond and bring with it the whole
judicial power of the United States to aid him if he is in the right, to
punish his oppressor, and to right him if he has been wronged. And
yet my colleague says his constituents do not want this commission be-
cause it has too much power; because it will be overworked; because
559
it may be made political; because the railroads may be seduced into
politics; because the commission will have to be composed of men, with
the frailties and passions of men, coupled with the possibility of being
corrupt, and thus become the oppressors of the people rather than their
Servants.
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that each of these reasons may have some
force. But our Government must be administered by men. There is
a possibility that no man is so strong in his virtue that overmastering
temptation may not be his assailant. He may yield. The trusted friend
of the people may become their oppressor. The faithful servant may
betray his trust. But because of this remote possibility we do not
abandon civil government. To attain the ideal government is the hope
of the best civilization. This civilization will not be abandoned because
the ideal is postponed, for the reason that the agencies to be used are
imperfect. We will still strive after the best, notwithstanding disap-
pointments and deferred hopes. We may not have attained perfect rem-
edies through this bill, but we have added to those we now have, and
they are, at least, of equal value.
No one believes this law to be perſect. No one believes it will ac-
complish relief from all the evils complained of. Doubtless each gen-
tleman present sees in it provisions that he thinks should not be in it,
and regrets the omission of some that he regards as most important.
But it can not now be changed. It is the best we can get. It is this
or no law at all. -
I do not believe that it will meet all of the expectations of the peo-
ple. There are unreasonable classes that hope for results from legisla-
tion that it is beyond the capacity of any legislative body in the world
to give; but it will satisfy many of the reasonable rational people of
the country that the Congress is striving to grapple with and to meet
this great question and to accomplish something in the direction of
what is good. We have an infinite variety of interests involved in this
subject. We have interests that are as diversified or as widely sepa-
rated as the limits of the country. We have billions of dollars to deal
with. We have climatic differences and differences that are created by
density or sparsity of population; differences that are created by the
different grades, mileage, length, and location of railways. No one can
expect by a single legislative act to harmonize all of these and secure
to each and to the people their full measure and degree of justice. To
do this it will take time and many experiments. I am told that hun-
dreds of English statutes have been enacted and repealed since the
railways of England became the subjects of law.
Doubtless we will have similar experience. Our success in the pre-
vention of wrong, in securing justice, will be the result of much of
patient effort and experience. The proper remedies are known to
but few. They are the experts who have gained their valuable knowl-
edge in practical railroad operation. They are not the men who oc-
cupy seats on this floor; and our experiences here will be the same as
have been the experiences of our predecessors in all legislative effort.
Time, experience, observation, persistent and repeated trial will be the
factors of success.
Every man of intelligence knows that legislation of value is a thing
of growth. Statutes that bear blessing to the people do not spring into
full value at the first essay from the brain of the legislator. One class
of men inaugurate the reform, another class of men improve upon it,
and still another and another class, until at last we have the approxi-
mately perfect statute ladened with good results to mankind.
560
But what one is there of all those laws we value most that even to-
day we are not constantly changing? And every change is made in
the hope of making it better. Look even at those which affect the do-
mestic relations, those affecting us in our dearest interests, those affect-
ing the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of the dis-
tribution of property, and of inheritance. Almost every assemblage
vested with legislative power makes some change in regard to those,
satisfied that ultimate perfection has not yet been reached. So it is
with this statute. It will be improved by successive legislators until
at last it conserves in a great measure the demands of the people.
Some gentlemen are opposed to this bill because certain sentences
are alleged to be ambiguous. I do not know of a sentence containing
fifteen lines in the English language that an astute critic cannot plaus-
ibly declare to bear more than a single meaning. The ingenuity of
man is far beyond the perfection of his language, and because of the
imperfection of language it is absolutely impossible for any man, no
matter what his genius may be, to write a statute that another man
may not be able to give to it with seeming plausibility a construction
different from that of the writer.
Thousands of volumes of the reports of the courts of appeals of this
country and England attest the insufficiency of our language, and the
want of power on the part of men to use it without ambiguity. Un-
doubtedly there are sections here which will bear more than a single
construction, but if that is true the fathers have created a tribunal that
will determine the true meaning. We have a Supreme Court.
But we are more unfortunate in respect to our religion than our law.
Based on inspired Holy Writ are, in our country, more than six hun-
dred religions, each supported by devotees insisting that their cherished
dogmas are right; each insisting that ambiguous inspiration justifies
them in blazing a heavenly way, from which there is no necessity for
wandering, and unfortunately we have no supreme court to determine
the measure of merit in the pretensions of the rival religious sects.
Yet we do not lose our faith in either statute or moral law because the
language in which they are expressed is ambiguous and sometimes
difficult to interpret.
The framers of the Constitution knew as well as we do the difficul-
ties of accurate expression, and hence they established courts of appeal
to construe the statutes and tell us in an authoritative way what they
mean. Will gentlemen refuse to vote for measures because, perchance,
there may be a necessity for the exercise of the functions of a co-ordi-
nate branch of the Government? Do these gentlemen demand that the
Supreme Court of the United States and of the States go out of use?
Do they propose that they shall abdicate because of the want of a vo-
cation ? Their arguments would seem to indicate that this is their
purpose.
I urge upon gentlemen the necessity of concession and compromise.
To emulate the spirit of the fathers of the Constitution. It has been
said that no member of the constitutional convention was satisfied with
its labors. There were provisions in the Constitution that many thought
most unwise. There were others on:itted many gentlemen thought to
be imperatively necessary. Each found some defect. Yet in a spirit
of concession a majority were brought into accord, and most beneficent
results followed. They took it for the acknowledged good they found,
hoping to cure defects by subsequent efforts. This way is open to us.
Let us start with the good we have. Ten months will give us a new
56]
Congress that will have had eight months of observation of the opera-
tions of this law.
If the words “cotemporaneous,” “under substantially similar cir-
cumstances and conditions,” “undue or unreasonable,” “special cases”
are ſound to have too much of qualifying force, or iſ they present ambi-
guities or doubtful meanings too great for the capacities of the courts,
or if there are too many conditions coupled with the prohibitions of the
fourth section, or if “the commission has too much power,” or if “it
has too little power,” or if “the corporations are tempted into poli-
tics,” or if “they should seize the executive and judicial departments
of the Government and the commission as “tempting prizes,’’’ the doubt-
ful words and sentences and sections can be amended or repealed by the
Fiftieth Congress, leaving to us that that is good in the law to be added
to and built upon, as enlarged experience and wisdom shall dictate in
the interest of justice to all that is involved.
We have in this bill this broad legislative declaration:
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reason-
able and just ; and every unjust and unreasonable charge for such service is
prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
And if there was no other provision in the bill I would vote for it.
For in this declaration is the germ of all needed legislation. It sim-
ply declares that in all business relations between the common carrier
and the shipper the rule of justice shall be in force. That the one shall
pay what is just, and the other shall demand no more. It is that rule
that the people demand; with that rule the servants of the people
ought to be content. Every other provision in the bill is but mere
machinery and method by which to secure this measure of justice.
Prior to twelve years ago the carriers denied the right or power in
Congress to establish that rule. The courts determined the question
in favor of Congress, but up to this day Congress has never asserted its
right or power. The people demand that it shall declare it now. By
this bill that declaration is made. It is the first declaration. Let us
make it, and make it now, hoping that whatever is defective in ma-
chinery or method may, by the wiser men who will succeed us, be so
effectually remedied as to bring no harm to the just rights of the cor-
porations, and yet bring to the people of this land that day so longed
for, when from the carrying service will be swept away the extortion
of unreasonable charge and the injustice of discriminating and unsta-
ble rates. *
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. McADOO. Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate it
has been often said by members who have engaged in the discussion
that, while they did not like this bill or many of its provisions, they
were going to vote for it, and that they would do so in response to
the demands of a public opinion which they could not understand—
that from their point of view the bill was so vicious and so impracti.
cable that they could not understand the public opinion which de-
manded it and compelled them to vote for it while their reason and
their judgment failed to approve.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, the wonder is that this public opinion has
not found definite expression in this House before this time. The peo-
ple on this question are right. When the steam railway and the loco-
I S C 36
*
562
motive became established facts, the people of the infant republic with
a great and comparatively undeveloped continent before them, began
to encourage railroad building. Not only was there no State or Fed-
eral restraint by law upon railroads, but special immunities, exemp-
tions, bounties, subsidies and land grants were given to those corpora-
tions which citizens in other enterprises generally did not enjoy. In
the State which I have the honor in part to represent on this floor, rail-
road building was encouraged to the extent of granting to the railroads
among other favors exemption from local taxation, thus implanting a
train of evils which has injured out people and damaged our State,
and done gross injustice to its cities.
While to them was given all the protection which the other properties
in the State enjoyed and all the benefit of government, they had also
special immunities and exemptions which other citizens did not possess,
and did not share in the equal burdens of government. And so it was
throughout the whole country; local bounties, State bounties, national
bounties, land grants, subsidies, exemptions, and favors were given to
the railroad corporations. Under this encouragement and fosterage by
local, State, and national Legislatures, without any attempt at re-
straint or regulation, the great railroad system of the United States
grew up and waxed strong, until the people find themselves confronted
by a confederacy of great corporations which wrests from them an-
nually nearly eight hundred millions of dollars by way of tariff for the
transportation of persons and property. The receipt of this vast sum
into different treasuries it is true, but all of which can unite for self
and mutual interest, creates a power almost as great as the Govern-
ment itself. Unrestrained by legislative enactment how feeble the
ordinary citizen to contend for his rights against this tremendous
power, how impotent the State to check its influence in the selection of
its officers and its voice in her councils!
These immense sums being poured annually into the treasuries of
these powerful companies, presented a temptation greater than human
nature can bear. The railway companies proved no exception to the
general rule, and in many of the States of this Union they soon became
more powerful than the people themselves, so far as the selection of
the Federal and State governments and the making of their laws were
concerned, and against this the people rebelled; and hence there was in-
troduced into Congress what has been popularly known for twelve years
past as the Reagan bill.
Mr. Speaker, that bill was the voice of public sentiment—the earn-
est and solemn protest of the people against railroad domination and
injustice. That bill was backed by the almost universal sentiment of
the great majority of the conservative people of the United States, out-
side of railroad and allied circles, who demanded that the Federal
Government should exercise its constitutional power to restrain and
regulate these tremendous corporations in their interstate commerce,
which affects so powerfully the happiness, the liberties, the welfare,
the prosperity, and the property of sixty millions of people, and the de-
velopment and advancement of this great land. It was a wise thing,
probably, on the part of Congress that no hasty legislation took place
under the powerful impetus of this indignant public opinion. The
subject has been discussed both in and out of Congress, in the press,
in the forum, and, I presume, in the pulpit. Every Representative on
this floor for the past ten or twelve years has been inundated with lit-
gº
* 563
erature on the railroad question—petitions, resolutions, memorials,
protests, and essays—and this bill which we are considering to-day,
with all the imperfections which it may contain, is the result of the
mature deliberation of the country, both in and out of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, there are some features of this bill with which I do
not agree—as for instance the vicious commission—but forbid it gods
and men that I, speaking for myself, should take the responsibility of
voting against a bill which inhibits the nefarious system of “pooling”
and “rebates” and discriminations in favor of long hauls against Short
ones, and which compels the railroads of the United States to ſurnish
to their patrons stable bills of rates, advertised so that he who runs
may read ' Why, Mr. Speaker, if there is to-day in the United States
any leaven of imported or domestic anarchy, I believe firmly and con-
scientiously that it has been encouraged and developed by these com-
binations of capital in these powerful confederacies known as railroad
and steamship pools, and coal pools, and grain pools, and cattle pools,
and land pools, and all the varied pools that constitute the great dis-
mal swamp of injustice and monopoly. These conubinations squeeze
and grind labor and suppress with iron hand competition. How indig-
nant they become at labor strikes | And yet they themselves have
heen on strike against honest government and just dealing for these
many painful years; and now that some slight legal restraint is to be
placed on them, they lend the heavens with Woe [u] lamentations and
prophesies of national ruin.
What does a “pool” mean to us who live in the East 2 It means
that five or six men who control these great trunk lines which traverse
the continent can, by meeting and confederating together, fix the price
of the necessaries of life, which you in the West raise to be consumed
by our people in the East. Whatmakes up the price of a barrel of flour
in New Jersey? The cost of its production on the fertile fields of Iowa
or Illinois, and added to that the cost of transportation, not fixed by
natural competition, but fixed by the almost imperial fiat of the rail-
road pools. So that these men not alone control the cost of transpor-
tation, but by their confederacy and agreement fix and determine the
price of the very necessaries of life to those who consume them.
I well remember that when this measure was up in the Forty-eighth
Congress the gentleman from Iowa, who has just sat down, replying
to some observations which I had made in advocacy of it, and speaking
as against the long and short haul provisions, said that I had given him
the key to his position, which was in opposition to that feature of the
bill; that I, representing an Eastern community, was in favor of the
long haul as against the short haul, so that the measure might benefit
the farmers of the East, while it would work injury to . those of the
West. The gentleman has lived, I think, to regret his mistake; and
while his colleague may or may not be consistent, as he contends, the
gentleman has lived to learn that he did not then possess all the wisdom
on this question. The people of Iowa evidently favor this law.
Now, I say to the gentleman to-night that we of the East are as much
concerned in this question as he of the West, because the cost of food
which is consumed in the East is increased by the cost of transportation;
so that if the result of this bill should be to make more costly the long
haul, it would make more expensive to my people the food which his
people produce on the boundless prairies of Iowa.
There has been another argument adduced here in opposition to the
564
bill. Gentlemen say, “Why do you treat railroad property as you do not
treat other property? If you can interfere in this arbitrary and bold
method with railroads, why do you not interfere with the grocery busi-
ness or the coal business?” Mr. Speaker, the railroads do not stand in
the same position to legislation as do other branches of business. The
railroads of the United States are public highways; they are the peo-
ple's highways; and the Legislature of the people has absolute and sov-
ereign control over the highways which they themselves have created.
[Here the hammer ſell.]
Mr. CUTCHEON. Mr. Speaker, I had the honor this afternoon to
submit a few observations indicating the reasons why I felt constrained
to vote for this bill, notwithstanding some of its provisions. I was
followed by some gentlemen who took occasion to criticise that posi-
tion, and to treat it as inconsistent that I should at the same time
criticise some of the provisions of the measure and also announce my
intention to vote for the report of the conference committee. My op-
position to this bill, Mr. Speaker, is very analogous to what the late
lamented Hosea Bigelow described as the position of his Presidential
candidate in regard to the Mexican war. His position was defined in
the following words:
As for the war, I go agin it;
That is to say, I sort o’ do ;
By which I mean that being in it,
The best way is to fight her through.
That illustrates my position with regard to this bill. I am against
certain of its provisions; but I think that, altogether, “being in it,”
having the situation now in our control, the best way is to “fight it
through.”
My distinguished friend from Massachusetts [Mr. LONGI whom I
do not now see in his seat, though he was here a few moments since,
endeavored to-day with his usual eloquence and persuasiveness to con-
vince the House that we might safely vote against this conference re-
port, and thereby send the bill back to the conference committee with
some vague, indefinite expectation that they would strike out the ob-
noxious fourth section and bring us back a bill for which we could all
vote.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts, or any other
gentleman can undertake to guarantee to me that this bill shall come
back to us from the conference committee with the obnoxious fourth
section stricken out, I for one shall most gladly vote to non-concur.
But apprehending as I do that if we reject this report and send the
bill again into conference, we shall never see it again in this Congress,
or any other, I feel constrained to adhere to the position I announced
this afternoon, that having it now in our power, I prefer that we should
now and here make this the law rather than risk any uncertainties of
the future. Mr. Speaker, in the language of Holy Writ, “Now is the
accepted time, and now is the day of salvation’’ for us upon this ques-
tion.
Another gentleman who has addressed the House this evening, my
friend from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH], seems to be apprehensive that
this great commission is to be a political machine. Now, it is my ex-
perience that you can not find five men in the United States of the
standing, of the caliber, the intelligence that these five men must be,
who do not belong to some political party. These commissioners will
565
belong to some political party; and the only question for us is, whether
they shall all belong to one party, or whether we shall require that
the members of this commission shall be of mixed politics, so that one
may be offset against another. {}
One gentleman here to-night declares in favor of a political commis-
sion, because it will carry with it political responsibility.
I prefer, however, to have a commission which shall be mixed so the
responsibility shall not all rest on one.
But, Mr. Speaker, I should like, if time permitted, to recur to some
of the objections of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVERI in his
speech, yesterday. He fears the commission is going to bring with it
the great bugb an of centraliz (tion and corrtä ption. that these five men
cannot be ti usted, thuu they will be subject to corruption.
Why now, in God’s name, how does this come about? We elect one
man President of the United States, and put him at the head of the
Government. We trust him with all the executive power of these sixty
millions of free people. We do not apprehend he is going to be cor-
rupted, that he is going to be carried off his feet by the railroad power.
In the Supreme Court we conſer upon the judges the power to pass upon
the rights of citizens, and we are not afraid the Supreme Court is going
to be corrupted. We are not afraid of the centralization of power.
Here is a commission to be appointed, and we have no more reason to
apprehead they will be subject to corruption.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. ALLEN, of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the oppression, dis-
crimination, and small, mean practices carried on by railroads all over
this country have been so varied and so great as to reach nearly every
kind of business, so that there is hardly a town so small upon the line
of a railroad which does not contain in its history the same story of
rapacity and brutal force. How many are the towns to-day carrying
bonds which were authorized for the building or extension of some
great railroad line, whose coming was to mark a new prosperity for all
the country round about. How many citizens in those towns to-day
look in vain for some appropriate terms in which to characterize their
indignation as they see other towns near them—which did not contrib-
ute one cent to the building of the line of railroad, and which were,
in fact, built up themselves because of the railroads—as they see these
towns discriminated in favor of by the railroads both in the way of
freight and passengers.
Yet as I speak these words I doubt not it stirs up the hot blood of
honest indignation in the heart of many a man, as he takes this general
statement and makes the particular application.
It is the old fable of the viper brought back to life in the bosom of the
farmer, turning with its new given vitality to sting its benefactor. The
people have about given up hopes of favorable legislation in this mat-
ter, and well they might despair.
How often have they appealed to State Legislatures for relieſ, only to
be met there by the powerful influences the railroads know so well how
to use, until they naturally have hailed the appearance of this bill—be-
fore they had read it—as a step in a direction leading to emancipation
from the bonds of oppression. But alas, it is the same old story. The
lawyers have again outwitted the people.
There is the sound of trumpets, the red fire burns with great brill-
iancy, the players strut about in heroic costumes; but when the audience
566
disappear and the actors, stripped of disguises, come out of the side
door, nudging each other at their success in once more fooling the peo-
ple, we recognize the same old farce. The bill pretends to befriend the
people—I believe it helps the railroads, or, at all events, it hurts the
people. As one wise railroad man expresses it, “It may diminish our
gross receipts, but our net income will not suffer.” Railroad lawyers
have been at work here, and the result appears in a bill which does not
do what it says it will, but which, under specious terms, the meaning of
which no men have yet agreed upon, in the place of offering bread to a
starving people, it mocks at their hunger and offers a stone; and more
than that, it seeks to cram it down the people's throats and to convince
them it is bread.
I am amazed that this bill should seem to have even the promise of
success, and the only explanation is the fact of the unanimity with
which all recognize the necessity of doing something to bring the rail-
roads under control leads them to accept anything which strings words
together under a title which sounds large and sonorous. One can not
check the swolien stream which has overflowed its banks and is carry-
ing devastation and ruin in its path by reading an essay on the proper
construction of dikes and dams. Practical work is needed, work the
nature of which every one understands, and which is directed immedi-
ately, and at once, to the work in hand. Something of this sort we
needed here; but after years of preparation and an immense amount
of intellectual effort, something has been produced which boards of
trade and other organizations, equipped by training and education to
pass almost infallibly upon practical questions of business, say they
have thought over and studied out, and, if they understand, it means
either one of two things—and some think one thing and some another.
Now, I wanted to vote for some measure such as this, because, as I
said at the beginning, I do think there have been reasonable grounds
given for this general uprising of the people against the arbitrary and
overbearing treatment they have received from the railroads.
Invariably clinging to the strict technicality of the law, these arrogant
corporations, some of them, in the pride of their ill-gotten gains, in
the superior position which their vast funds afford to prevent the poor
people from successfully engaging with them in litigation, imave stood
in jeering and taunting attitudes and coolly asked the people “what.
they were going to do about it.” It did seem as if the day had come
when some legislation defining the relative positions of servant and
master could be attempted.
But in some way as soon as the effort seems likely to succeed an ex-
traordinary activity is manifested, and its practical result presents this
law which an all-gifted Providence may translate, but which poor hu-
manity, as manifested in this Congress, has as yet been unable to agree
upon. I shall therefore, in the interest of my own people, vote against
this bill, which will bring no relief to them or to others, in my judg-
ment. -
We have all laughed over the ridiculous position of the nervous man
who was sorely distressed by a barking dog belonging to one of his
neighbors, and whose vocal villainies were worse on cold nights. One
specially cold winter night, when the mercury hovered about zero and
a regular northwester was blowing, this dog commenced his barking.
Filled with a holy rage the nervous man rushed out of doors in his night-
gown, and was discovered by his wife holding the dog around the corner,
567
in the freezing wind. “What in the world are you doing?” said his
wife. “Trying to freeze the confounded dog,” replied the husband.
Now, I don’t feel that we are called upon to punish ourselves by
standing out in zero weather, with insufficient clothing to try to freeze
out the dog. What I mean is this: In my judgment, we are asked
to pass this bill because we shall bring the railroads, these great inter-
state roads, under some restraint, even if we do it at the risk of ruin-
ing the farmer, great and small, in the far West. To be a little more
explicit, by far the greater part of our increased export business during
the last ten or twenty years has been brought about by large product
of breadstuffs. The beneficent operations of the homestead act, the
rapid settling up of those great plains and tracts of public lands in the
extreme West, have been accomplished by the fact that it was possible
for the farmer to market his grain or cattle and secure an immediate
return—not always, I am sure, all he should have, but he has been
able to market his crop, and the “long haul’’ business has helped him
Out.
Whether it has been an injury to the intermediate man or not we
can only answer in the fact that he has prospered, in the mean while;
at all events, his farming lands have appreciated in value steadily, and
he is to-day in far better circumstances than he was ten years ago. I
refer now to the man living at the intermediate point. It can not be
that the “long haul ?’ can pay the price of the “short haul,” as this
bill means, in practice without destroying the business and bringing
disaster to the farmer, preventing the further development of the land;
and bringing in its train a long series of misfortunes to the nation. I
have seen no petitions of labor organizations upon this question, and
yet I doubt not if they gave this question that far-reaching and far-
seeing thought given to other matters—if they got to the very bottom,
and saw the actual application—they would deluge this body with peti-
tions in opposition to a measure so directly aimed at the poor farmer,
who is the least able to help himself. Hear what one of the leading
newspapers says upon this very point:
Another thing to be considered is the general derangement of Western busi-
ness that would necessarily result from the contemplated readjustment of rates.
If the readjustment could be made once for all, business might soon be accom-
rmodated to the change, and no great harm might be done. But that would be
impossible. The effects of so great a change as would necessarily have to be
made can not be clearly foreseen. No one can tell how deeply the measure
would affect farming interests, the settlement of the country, and in conse-
quence, not only the railroads but all business interests in the West. Changes
in rates would therefore have to be tentative, and frequent alterations would,
no doubt, have to be made, every one of which would increase the business de-
rangement and confusion. * * * It is apparent from what has been said that
the consequences of the adoption of the haul clause have been but very imper-
fectly foreseen, while they have hardly been considered at all by the people most
deeply interested—the farmers of the West. If Congress is going to pass the
pending bill—and there seems to be little room for doubt about that—it will do
wisely to submit the haul question to the commission for investigation and re-
port, and for the present stop just there. -
I have spoken thus far simply of the bearing upon the extreme West-
ern farmer; but there is another section of the country which would
most surely suffer from the passage of the bill, and that is the great
South and Southwest. Every year, nearly, since the war has shown
great activity throughout portions of the South, and a most commend-
able intention and purpose to develop the great resources of that coun-
568
try. Take the item of cotton alone, that great staple, and note the in-
crease in acreage:
A creage in cottom.
- - -
Season, t Texas. Arkansas.
--- ~ * - - -
|
A cres. Acres.
1871-72. ............................... .................................... ...... 774,806 597, 857
1872–?73 .. is * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s & & º e < * * * * * * * * * s = < * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 914, 296 | 693,512
1873-'74 ..................................... .................... ................ 1,097, 122 811, 409
1874-75 ............................................................................ 1,119, (164 722,154
1875-'76 ............................................................................. 1,483,500 1, 133,000
1876-'77................. ........................................................... 1,483,500 1, 133,000
1877-78...................................................................... ...... 1,706,025 1,189, 650
1878-'79............................................................................. 1,808, 386 1, 165,857
1879-'80 .......................... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1,934,973 1, 177,516
1880-81 ................. ........................................................... 2,478,054 1, 147,274
1881-82 .......................................... ............ .................... 2,676,298 1, 181, 692
1882-'83.............................................................................! 2,810, 113 1, 110,790
1883-'84 .................... ............................... ............ * * * * * * * * * * * * 3,034,922 1, 188,545

Here is the percentage of gain in thirteen years: In Texas, 29.14% per
cent., or 22.4% per cent. per annum; in Arkansas, 215%; per cent., or
164% per cent. per annum. --
And this cotton, too, is of high grade, especially adapted to making
fine yarns, such as are usually spun in New England.
This is certainly a wonderful exhibit in development, but it is actual,
and the growth entirely healthy, and, considering the vast extent of
territory still in those two States, still waiting this active develop-
ment, there is every reason to think the rates of increase will not di-
minish unless a change in the tariff should ruin the markets now so
near at hand, and thus check the growth so advantageous and bringing
so many direct and indirect blessings. w
This cotton must, for a long time at least, seek a market at long
distances, for the Southern cotton mills use local cotton of shorter
staple, well adapted for coarse yarns, while the New England mills are
abandoning these coarser goods for finer yarns, requiring more labor to
the pound of cotton; and five mills which I could name in my own dis-
trict consumed 63,000 bales of this Texas and Arkansas cotton last
year, and unless prevented will yearly increase on that amount. It is
well for our Southern statesmen to remember that this market for cot-
tons at the North is a monopoly, while in England they meet the com-
petition of India and Egypt.
Bombay and Alexandria shipped to Europe in 1884 1,731,057 bales.
The New England cotton manufacturers are the sure customers of
the Southern planter, the Texas cattle raiser, and the Western wheat-
grower. Can a more ideal copartnership be found?
Why I have said so much in detail with reference to this cotton in-
dustry is on account of the fact that we at the North receive the cot-
ton from all interior parts by rail, and in this copartnership interest
we must oppose legislation which is prejudicial to either.
The cotton grower adjacent to the Mississippi and other large rivers
naturally and cheaply seek New Orleans as the shipping port, but at
varying distances back from the river the railroads compete success-
fully for the business, their cars unloading directly, without trans-ship-
ment, in the yards of the cotton mills in New England, and without
breaking bulk.
569
Cotton, going to New Orleans and other seaports, destined for the
North, is reshipped both at the Southern and Northern seaport, which
is both objectionable, for obvious reasons, and is costly. If an addi-
tional cost is to be placed upon cotton from its inland ports, so called,
who is to suffer the cost? Because cotton from Northern Texas, Ala-
bama, Mississippi, and Georgia has to be freighted to New Orleans, it
does not follow that it will command the extra freight cost. Jt must
be sold in competition with all other cotton escaping this charge. The
planter in the end must lose this extra sum. whatever it amounts to.
I have these figures and facts from a most reliable source, and I com-
mend them to the intelligent study. in the obvious lessons they teach,
of those members most interested in this cotton industry, that they
may consider whether they care to commit themselves to the support
of a measure the additional burdens of which must of necessity be
borne by their own people.
In New England, from our geographical situation, the harrenuess of
soil, the stern seasons and rigorous climate, we are restricted in our
sources of livelihood. Neither the agriculturist nor the miner need
fear competition from us; but as a vast, busy manufacturing commu-
nity, furnishing a great army of intelligent working men and women,
absorbing a large portion of the products of the South and West, and
returning such as we do not need, again in manufactured form—as such
a community we feel keenly, in our peculiar conditions, any material
changes in values. -
Our people work hard, are thrifty, intelligent, and happy, but it
has only been by certain little discriminations (in name only) in aid
of our chief shipping port that we have the export business which we
mow enjoy.
To pass this bill would be to put us at very great disadvantage, and
while I am not prepared to go so far as some and see in imagination the
yawning walls marking in desolate ruin the spot where once stood
thriving and populous factories, yet I must say, as a bit of practical
experience, that the result of any shrinking of values is quite likely
to show itself first upon the poor people; and in their interest, and be-
cause I believe their welfare is unmistakably identified with the growth
and development of our industries, I must protest against the passage
of this measure, destined as it is to work an injury against New Eng-
land and New England interests. There is not a burden under which
our people suffer which will be removed by this bill.
The railroads in the States may go on in the same arbitrary manner,
while there will be added burdens in the increased cost of living, which
will make life harder to every man, woman, and child. This seems to
be a sufficient reason for opposing this bill. Should it be proposed
to recommit the bill with instructions to strike out the fourth section,
I should certainly vote for such a measure. In the shape in which it
now appears I vote against it without the slightest hesitation.
Mr. BAYNE. Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have been able to
secure, it is impossible to analyze the various provisions of this bill.
The obligation, however, to do this is mitigated by the railroad corpo-
rations affected by these provisions, for these corporations, by their
attorneys and representatives, seem to object seriously but to two sec-
tions—the fourth and the fifth.
The fourth section makes it unlawful for any interstate railroad conn-
pany to charge greater compensation for the transportation of passengers
or of like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances
§70
and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same
line, in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer
distance.
The statement of this proposition would seem to convey its own ar-
gument. It is obvious that the carrier can charge as much under that
clause for 10 miles as for 100, or indeed 1,000, but it shall not charge
more. In view, however, of the fact that cases may arise where this
prohibition may work a hardship, it is provided that the commission
may, after investigation, confer authority to charge less for a longer
than for a shorter haul. *
By this proviso, it seems to me, the danger of hardship and injus-
tice to the corporations is as fully guarded against as human foresight
can provide. -
It is true that the bill requires that all charges shall be reasonable
and just, but that is now the common law of the land in relation to com-
mon carriers.
The fifth section prohibits pooling arrangements between competing
railroads. The companies object to that provision, because, they say,
if they are not permitted to make such arrangements they will cut
rates and ruin each other. Well, the preservation of the railroad com-
panies from the consequences of foolish competition with each other is
not the object of this bill. The object of this bill is to protect the
public, from whom the corporations derive their franchises, from the
absolute elimination of competition, and to preserve so far as practic-
able a proper and healthful competition. There is competition in
everything else. In every industry, in every branch of business, in
the struggle of bank corporations, coal companies, and even in petro-
leum—for the Standard Oil Company has not yet entirely absorbed its
rivals—there is competition.
But the railroad companies say, “Oh, don’t subject us to the ne-
cessity of competing with each other. If you do, we will cut each
other's throats.”
It is a strange position to take. Having conferred upon them the
right of eminent domain by the State, in order that they may serve
the public and promote the public welfare, it is indeed singular that
they should claim immunity from the necessity of competition, when
that necessity rests on all other interests and works in many cases dis-
asters quite as severe as those which occasionally fall on the railroads.
The many provisions of this bill which prohibit drawbacks, rebates,
and kindred discrimination, preferences and partiality to shippers,
secret arrangements and understandings—all forbidden now by the
common law, but so expensive and difficult of ascertainment by com-
mon-law methods as to be practically beyond redress—are so thor-
oughly right and just that nobody has had the temerity to object to
them.
It is, however, but a tentative measure. It is largely experimental.
Nobody wishes to do anything that will cripple or injure the railroad
corporations of the country. They are the great arteries of our com-
merce. Day by day and year after year other modes of transportation
are surrendering to them. Their rights should be scrupulously re-
garded and protected. But there is no conflict between the rights of the
public and the rights of these companies. Each can be maintained, and
neither the public nor the transportation companies meed suffer if exact
and equal justice be done in the transactions between them.
&
571
I believe this bill will develop strong tendencies toward the desired
fair play, and I therefore cheerfully vote for it.
Mr. BURROWS. In the discussion of any proposition it is well to
eliminate from the debate all questions about which there is no serious
controversy. This is a bill to regulate commerce among the States.
The power of Congress in the matter is unquestioned. It is conferred
in express terms by the Constitution of the United States, and is con-
firmed by a long and unbroken line of judicial determination. Com-
merce annong the States must be regulated by the National Government
or not at all.
The question, therefore, is not one of power, but one of expediency.
First, is there a necessity of invoking national authority; and if such
necessity exists, in what manner shall it be exercised ? The necessity
for exercising national control is conceded by everybody.
1 hold in my hand an indictment, formulated by the Cullom com-
mittee against the railways of the United States, which is said to em-
body the charges preferred by the people. It is as follows:
THE CAUSES OF COMPLAINT AGAINST THE RAILROAD SYSTEMI.
The complaints against the railroad system of the United States expressed to
the committee are based upon the following charges:
1. That local rates are unreasonably high, compared with through rates.
2. That both local and through rates are unreasonably high at non-competing
points, either from the absence of competition or in consequence of pooling
agreements that restrict its operation.
3. That rates are established without apparent regard to the actual cost of the
service performed, and are based largely on “what the traffic will bear.”
4. That unjustifiable discriminations are constantly made between individuals
in the rates charged for like service under similar circumstances.
5. That improper discriminations are made between articles of freight and
branches of business of a like character, and between different quantities of the
sanne class of freight.
6. That unreasonable discriminations are made loetween localities similarly
situated.
7. That the effect of the prevailing policy of railroad management is, by an
elaborate system of secret special rates, rebates, drawbacks, and concessions,
to foster monoply, to enrich favored shippers, and to prevent free competition in
many lines of trade in which the item of transportation is an important factor.
8. That such favoritism and secrecy introduce an element of uncertainty into
legitimate business that greatly retards the development of our industries and
COmannerCe. -
9. That the secret cutting of rates and the sudden fluctuations that constantly
take place are demoralizing to all business except that of a purely speculative
character, and frequently occasion great injustice and heavy losses. "
10. That, in the absence of national and uniforn) legislation, the railroads are
able by various devices to avoid their responsibility as carriers, especially on
shipments over more than one road, or from one State to another, and that
shippers find great difficulty in recovering damages for the loss of property or
for injury thereto.
11. That railroads refuse to be bound by their own contracts, and arbitrarily
collect large sums in the shape of overcharges in addition to the rates agreed
upon at the time of shipment.
12. That railroads often refuse to recognize or be responsible for the acts of
dishonest agents acting under their authority.
13. That the common law fails to afford a rennedy for such grievances, and
that in cases of dispute the shipper is compelled to submit to the decision of
the railroad manager or pool commissioner, or run the risk of incurring further
losses by greater discriminations. º
14. That the differences in the classifications in use in various parts of the
country, and sometimes for shipments over the same roads in different direc-
tions, aré a fruitful source of misunderstandings. and are often made a means
of extortion. -
15. That a privileged class is created by the granting of passes, and that the
cost of the passenger service is largely increased by the extent of this abuse.
16. That the capitalization and bonded indebtedness of the roads largely ex-
ceed the actual cost of their construction or their present value, and that un-
reasonable rates are charged in the effort to pay dividends on watered stock
and interest on bonds in properly issued.
572
17. That railroad corporations have improperly engaged in limes of business
entirely distinct from that of transportation, and that undue advantages have
º afforded to business enterprises in which railroad officials were inter-
es: That the management of the railroad business is extravagant and waste-
ful, and that a needless tax is imposed upon the shipping and traveling public
by the unnecessary expenditure of large sunns in the maintenance of a costly
foree of agents engaged in a reckless strife for competitive business.
That indictment, as will be seen, consists of eighteen counts, and I
wenture the assertion that if the managers of the railroads of the country
were called upon to plead to this indictment, there is scarcely a single
count to which they would not be compelled to enter the plea of guilty.
The evidence in support of these charges is too voluminous for cita-
tion and so couvincing that it can not leave a reasonable doubt as to
their truth. The wrong, then, is confessed; the power to remedy con-
ceded. The bill seeks to apply the remedy. The method suggested
is criticised in only two or three particulars. There is no serious ob
jection to any other provisions of the bill. -
Let us examune these points of controversy. By some the commis-
sion is objected to. I do not care to follow the many objections urged
against the commission. I am content to know that the method of ex-
ercising control of railroads through the instrumentality of a com-
mission has been tested, tried, and approved in this and foreign coun-
tries. - .
It is not only a method adopted in Europe in the supervision of rail-
roads, but of the forty-six States and Territories of the United States
thirty have undertaken the regulation of State commerce carried on
upon railways, and in the exercise of that power twenty-five of these
States have elivployed the instrumentality of a commission, and only
five States which have made any effort to regulate their domestic com-
merce have dispensed with a commission. This method has, therefore,
the advantage of trial and, in the main, approval.
I think, therefore, that the creation of a commission is a very com-
mendable feature of this bill, and it gives play to some of its features
or provisions, particularly of the fourth section, which if rigidly en-
forced might produce commercial shock—possibly commercial disas-
ter. *
The long and short haul provided for in the fourth section is ob-
jected to as working a hardship upon through shippers. Let us exam-
ine this a moment. The bill does not undertake to fix through or
local rates for any road. It is not a cast-iron arrangement. It leaves
the railway managers perſectly free to fix their own through charges,
governed only by the common law that they shall be reasonable. Fix
your own through rates, it says to the railroads, but with this simple
understanding that these through rates shall be a guide for and govern
your shorter haul.
If there was but a single railroad line running from Chicago to New
York there would be no objection to this provision of the bill. In
such case, there being no competition, the shipper at Chicago would be
charged a reasonable rate, say $25, for carrying a horse, we will say,
from Chicago to New York, a reasonable and fair rate for that distance,
and a shipper at South Bend under this bill in such case would be
charged not to exceed $25 for a like service. Why, Mr. Fink himself
testified before the Cullom committee that this provision is substan-
tially adopted by the railroads in practice. Here is what he says:
The local charges can always be properly regulated when proper through
tariffs are maintained ; hence the first object should be to secure the main-
573
tenance of properly-adjusted through tariffs that are reasonable to the public
and to the railroads. This done, there will be no difficulty in adjusting local
tariffs and preventing unjust discrimination.
It is a rule generally adopted by all railroads to properly adjust local tariffs
to the through tariffs when the latter are reasonable and fairly remunerative.
For example, the tariffs of the Pennsylvania Railroad are so arranged that
no higher charge is made from any station east of Pittsburgh to Philadelphia
than from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, nor from any station this side of Chicago.
than from Chicago. That is a rule generally adopted by all roads.
But now another question arises in this problem; competition comes
in at Chicago and there are two or more roads instead of one, and here
is just where the difficulty comes in. By reason of this competition
at Chicago the rate fixed for the carriage of a horse in the case supposed,
from that city to New York, is cut down to $15, while the rate at South
Bend for the same service is maintained at $25, and for the reason that
there is no competition at South Bend,
Now the shipper at South Bend says that “if $15 for the carriage of
a horse from Chicago to New York is a reasonable and fair rate—and it
must be because you have adopted it—then the charge of $25 from
South Bend to New York for like service is an extravagant and extor-
tionate charge.” If $15 is a reasonable paying rate from Chicago to
New York, then certainly $15 is a paving rate from South Bend to
New York. This bill steps in an enforces the reasonable rate from
South Bend to New York, and gives the shipper the benefit of the rate
from Chicago established by wholesome competition.
Now another step. Competition becomes very sila; p at Cilicago, and
the shipper pays hut $10 for carrying his horse from Chicago to New
York; and it is conceded on all hands that that pays simply the cost
of shipment and not a dollar of profit. What does the railroad man-
agement then do? They turn round and charge the loss of $5 to the
shipper at South Pend, and make him pay, instead of $15, $20 for the
carriage of his horse. -
Here is a double wrong. The charge from Chicago to New York is
unreasonably low, and the charge from South Bend to New York is un-
reasonably high. But the railroad manage:Yient jºust not suffer, and
so they charge the loss upon the shipper at South Bend. Upon what
principle of law, morals, or ethics must the shipper at Soutli Dend pay
the freight of the shipper's horse from Chicago? Again, it is said water
competition comes in, and the Canadian system of roads, and other cir-
cumstances, which force low rates for through freight, which ought
not to be made the basis for the shorter hauls. Ail these niatters are
regulated by the proviso in this section. That proviso is inserted for
the very purpose of giving the commission discretion in all such cases.
Let me read section 4 and the proviso thereto:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common earrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditionis, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transpor-
tation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act.
It is clear to my mind that under this proviso the commission will
574
be fully empowered to relieve from any hardship imposed by the long
and short haul provision of this section.
The rule adopted in this section is not new. It is embodied in the
constitutions of four States of this Union, and in the statutes of Massa-
chusetts.
When the railroad companies come to understand that their short-
haul rates are governed by the rate fixed for the through traffic, they
will carry competition at competing points only to the limit of reason-
ably fair compensation.
There is another objection urged against this bill, and that is the pro-
vision prohibiting pooling. What is pooling? An eminent authority
has defined it in these words: dº
It is a combination between railways engaged in competitive traffic to main-
tain rates by suspending competition.
And that is the correct definition. It suspends competition. Well,
now, under the operation of this bill, in section 4, the companies
meed no such provision as pooling to maintain rates. They must
maintain reasonable through rates as a matter of self-protection. As
soon as the railroads understand that their charge for a short haul
is governed by the through rates they will not put their through
charges at a losing rate, but they will make the through rates reason-
able and fair; and when they have done that they will maintain those
rates, when they understand they can not saddle the loss of an un-
reasonable cut on the shippers along the line.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. In taking that position, does the
gentleman admit that the through rates will be necessarily raised?
Mr. BURROWS. I think possibly so—not necessarily—the bill will
prevent the through freight being carried at a loss, and loading the bur-
den of the loss on the shippers along the line, and the shippers along the
line ought not to be compelled to carry this burden. The abolition of
pooling, in other words, will stop the cutting of through rates, and the
railroad companies will be compelled to maintain a fair, reasonable
through rate the moment they understand that their local rates must
be regulated by the through charge. Now, if pooling was not prohib-
ited the companies would combine and put up the through rates to an
exorbitant extent for the very purpose of maintaining charges along the
line. Therefore, by abolishing pooling and leaving the fourth section
intact you maintain competition for through freight, and insure fair
rates all along the line.
Now a word more. These two provisions, the abolition of pooling
and the fourth section together will operate as a regulation of this whole
matter. With pooling prohibited you have free competition, which
will operate to bring the through charges to the lowest point of fair
compensation; to prohibit a greater charge for a short than a longer
haul operates to prevent cutting through rates below the point of a rea-
sonable charge.
This whole matter will be adjusted with substantial justice to car-
rier and shipper alike.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has €X-
pired.
Mr. BURROWS. May I be permitted to say just one word more?
The chief merit of this bill after all, let me say in conclusion, is to
my mind its moderation. It is not a rash measure; it is not an ex-
treme measure; and it is fortunate that this is so. It is well in tak-
ing possession of this mew field of national occupancy that we move
* 575
with extreme caution. We are on the border of an unexplored terri-
tory and every step is fraught with momentous consequences. Vast
interests are involved. In redressing wrongs we must invade no right,
but advance with such prudence and consideration that in the end our
national domination over this great question will be to all a national
blessing. [Applause.]
Mr. ELY. Mr. Speaker, hitherto I have been content to vote on
bills not coming from committees of which I am a member before the
House without any explanation of my action. It is because I regret
- exceedingly to vote against the bill now under consideration, but am
impelled to do so in the discharge of my duty to the people, that I de-
sire to briefly state my reasons therefor. It has always been my be-
lief that Congress should provide for a wise but firm control of those
great instrumentalities of interstate commerce, the railroads. Not that
I believe that railroads are public highways in the same sense that or-
dinary carriage-roads are public highways, but that they embrace the
foundation elements of public highways combined with the qualities
of a business corporation. -->
This idea of a railroad corporation makes it necessary, to my mind,
that any wise measure of legislative control of railroad operations unust
not lose sight of those principles of business which, in the nature of
things, influence and goveru business transactions and inevitably lead
to success or failure. Much, therefore, as we may desire to curb the
imperiousness and tyranny of railroad officials—and I yield to no man
In my earnestness to accomplish that result—great as may be our sense
of the wrong done to the people by railroad corporations by their arro-
gant pretensions to and exercise of arbitrary power, by their greed and
avarice, by their unjust discriminations, by their wicked and corrupt
combinations with other corporations as wicked and corrupt as them-
selves, we can not wisely adopt any measure of relief which will con-
flict with well-recognized business laws.
Business is governed by laws as universal and invisible as is the
physical world by its laws. Whenever those laws are violated the peo-
ple suffer. Railroads constitute a momentous factor in the business
of the country, and if they are compelled by an act of Congress to
transact their business on incorrect business principles, then all busi-
mess will suffer, and the injury will fall, not on the railroads, but on the
people. The railroads will take care of themselves; never fear about
that.
I oppose this bill, first, because it violates sound business principles
as I understand them. I should very gladly vote for most of the pro-
visions of this bill. But I cannot give my assent to a method of fixing
the compensation for transportation of passengers or property which
takes into consideration only one element bearing on that question, and
that one an element of lesser importance. Can business operations be
measured, as the carpenter measures a board, by a two-foot rule 2
Shall the question of competition, which enters with gigantic force
into all business calculations, be entirely ignored 2
Shall the great business interests in the widely separated sections of .
this country and the plants established at a cost of millions of dollars
to promote those interests, by which the interests of the East and of
the West are materially promoted—shall these be forgotten? Shall the
great export trade so essential to the prosperity of the country not have
a voice in this measure? I believe it to be in the interest of all the
people of the country that all these elements and many others should
576
be considered in fixing the rates of transportation. Time is not afforded
me to discuss this matter, but the discussion of the fourth section of
this bill, not only by those who oppose the bill but by those who favor
it, clearly shows to my mind that the standard set up in it is inade-
quate. *.
The central proposition is so infirm, its foundation is so insecure, that
it has been found necessary to surround it with props and stays on every
side, and the props and stays are of such a character as to hasten to its
fall the structure they were intended to support. As I have witnessed
the attacks which have been made on this provision of the bill, anti the
replies to those attacks, it has seemed, to me to be like some building
shaken by an earthquake whose tottering walls are supported by pieces
of worthless timber. Nobody can tell whether it is safe to pass along
the street in front of it or not. sº
This brings me to my second objection. Nobody knows what the
language used in this section means. Attempts have been made by
the members of the conference committee and others to define the
principal proposition of this section and its collateral supports, but in
vain. Only yesterday the gentleman from Iowa inquired of the gentle-
man from Georgia, a member of the conference committee, whether the
word “cases” in the fourteenth line of this section referred to ship-
ments or to roads. The gentleman from Georgia replied that it referred
to shipments. The gentleman from Iowa evidently believes that it refers
to roads. The gentleman from Georgia is asked to explain and illus-
trate the provisions of this section so that we can understand it, and
he admits his inability to do so. The meaning of every important
phrase in this fourth section is incomprehensible even to the members
of the committee who reported the bill. -
I do not overstate or exaggerate the difficulties which surround every
man who undertakes to ascertain the meaning of this section. If the
men who used this ianguage do not know what it means how can any
third person interpret it? This is the most important section of this
bill. It is, in my judgment, utterly unwise to send it, incapable as
it is of being understood, to the country, to the courts, to the commis-
sion created by this bill. It would lead to endless confusion and liti-
gation, the costs and expense of which would bear heavily on the peo-
ple. Far better would it be to wait until a bill can be prepared which
can at least be understood by its framers.
But it is said pass this bill and take our chances. If it is bad we can
hereafter amend or repeal it. Such an idea is a delusion and a snare.
Too great interests are at stake. Such a method of legislation is always
unwise. Let us at least know, or believe that we know, the meaning
of a bill and have faith in its merits before we pass it.
Mr. STONE, of Massachusetts. I can not resist the impulse to say
a word on this subject, notwithstanding I can not hope to add anything
to what has been said already in this debate. J hail with joy the im-
mediate prospect of the passage of this bill. I accept it as the asser-
tion of the authority of the Congress of the United States over the
great subject of transportation and the railroads that administer it.
I believe that if any peril is before the Government it is the danger
which may come in the future from those great corporations which deal
with immense capital and which control immense interests.
I believe also that we are, as a nation, on the path of empire, and it
is the duty of the General Government to take jurisdiction of all these
great questions which are so extensive that the States are incompetent
577
f
to deal with them. And because of the sharp antagonism that must
come between capital and labor, between organized capital and the peo- .
ple, Irejoice now to find that after a contest of years this Congress is ready
to agree to vote for the passage of a bill which so distinctly and unequiv-
ocally asserts the power of the Government over these great railroad
corporations; and the bill itself, I submit, is in substance only the bill
which has been heretofore proposed embodying the power of the com-
mon law in respect to the entire subject and conferring upon a commis-
sion to be appointed by the General Government the authority to say
what if a given case shall be the rate or what in a given case shall be
the duty of the railroad when dealing with its customers.
The fourth section, which has been so severely criticised, is, when you
come to examine it, simply a declaration on the part of Congress that
a railroad corporation when transporting property shall not charge
more for the short haul than for the long haul, and, as an abstract
proposition, can the validity of that be doubted? That is, in substance,
the declaration of the fourth section, with this further provision, sug-
gested by experience, that while this, as an abstract proposition, ap-
pears to be perfectly satisfactory, nevertheless, because of the compli-
cations and the infinite variety of elements when you come to deal with
a subject of this moment and this extent, the commissioners shall have
the discretion in any given case to relax the rigor of the rule if they
think the exigency of the case demands such action. That is the whole
of it. It is easy to criticise it; it is easy to show that this section
lacks the explicitness of an arbitrary rule. But it is not the design
of Congress to impose an arbitrary rule.
It is rather the design of Congress to enter upon this subject by mak-
ing a declaration of what they think is the proper rule to apply, and
at the same time, wisely and with the circumspection which the subject
demands, conferring upon the commissioners, to whom the whole sub-
ject is to be committed, a discretion which shall enable them to do
justice in any given case. I go, therefore, for this bill, not believing
that it is perfect, but believing that we take a very great step in ad-
vance when, by the passage of it, we assert emphatically the duty as
well as the authority of the Congress of the United States to deal with
the whole subject. &
Mr. COX, of North Carolina, was recognized, and yielded to Mr.
HERMANN.
Mr. HERMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina for his courtesy in sharing with me this valued privilege, and
I now beg the indulgence of the House while I devote this time in
advocacy of the pending bill.
Mr. Speaker, the interests of various portions of this great nation have
been ably presented in this discussion, and every virtue, as well as
every defect of the measure before us, critically reviewed. Its applica-
tion to different States has been weri illustrated, with its promised
benefits or apprehended injuries to the commerce of each.
Representing singly, as I do, a State larger in area than New York
and Pennsylvania which have a representation on this floor of sixty-
one members; with a greater diversity of interests, and with resources
more inexhaustible than both of these great States combined, I con-
ceive it my duty impartially and conscientiously to represent these
great interests; to understand the relation and effect of the pending
bill to the Pacific Northwest; and thus as far as I can to give voice to
the sentiments of the people of the great State of Oregon.
I S C–37
5' S
or EGON's FUTURE COMMERCIAL GREATNESS.
Sir, no State in this Union can more cordially welcome this class of
legislation than my own State. Her commercial advancement and in-
ternal development, in spite of excessive transportation charges and
distance from market, has been indeed marvelous. But a few years
since and her position was one of comparative isolation, with little ex-
ternal and less internal commerce. With but 52,465 of population in
1860 it has grown to over 300,000 up to the present moment. With
but 5 miles of railway in 1862 there are now 1,180 miles. With only
a long wagon road, and a rough ocean route to the Atlantic States as
late as 1875, we have now a direct and indirect transcontinental com-
munication by the Northern Pacific, the Union Pacific ethe Canadian
Pacific, and the Southern Pacific Railroads, with the rapidly approach-
ing completion of the Oregon Pacific road soon to pass through Eastern
and Central Oregon, and already receiving and discharging its rich
shipments on the Yaquina Bay. -
In 1859 the total imports and exports of Oregon in her foreign com-
merce only amounted in value to $49,512, while in 1882 they had
reached the maximum value of over $11,000,000. This great increase
is attributable largely to our wonderful agricultural resources, and the
energy with which they have been developed. We shall soon rank
among the largest grain-producing States of the Union. The far-famed
timber of Oregon, similar to that of Puget Sound, challenges the nation,
in rivalry. The fishery exports, especially the world-renowned Colum-
bia River salmon, rank among the first in quality and extent. The
abundance of coal and iron, gold and silver, copper and cinnabar, and
great varieties of valuable stone, already constitute leading industries
in the State.
With a soil of enduring fertility, a timely distribution of rainfall, a
climate mild and equable, the heat of summer and the cold of winter
tempered by the genial warmth of the Japan current, and with a fail-
ure of crops and fruits unknown, these abundant natural riches of the
State with her magnificent future possibilities must invite to her shores .
a population and a capital which will at no remote period place her
without an equal in the Union. With such great interests in view it
is right and proper, sir, that her people should, as they do, take an
anxious, continuous, and intelligent account of the present legislation
so far as it may affect them. The greater the development of their
manifold resources, the greater the necessity for transportation, State
as well as interstate; and hence their well-expressed desire for some radi-
cal intervention on the part of the National Government restricting the
common carrier in interstate commerce within reasonable rates.
A REGULATOR REQUIRED.
The commercial, industrial, and transportation interests of a country
are paramount to all others, if, indeed, they do not include all. When
happily blended and balanced we should expect to behold a nation
great in proportion to the magnitude of its resources. In the political
economy of all prosperous society there are three elements so intimately
interwoven in their relations that to eliminate one from the other is to
impair and often to destroy all. These are production, transportation,
and consumption. Depreciate the capacity of either one and all must
suffer. Demand regulates supply, and transportation affects both.
Each is jealous of the other. There is a constant antagonism between
them.
The common carrier with his capital establishes his own compeñsa-
579
tion, while production, with its labor, demands a reasonable surplus
over transportation as its compensation. As the industries of a coun-
try increase and multiply these relations become more and more dis-
tinct; the transactions become greater and more intricate, and the rights
and responsibilities of each more undefined. The more powerful one
in the contest at length dominates. When the carrier reaches this su-
periority he is tempted to dictate, to discriminate, and to command;
prices arefixed; wages established; production regulated; and thus both
the producer and consumer are injured. The law of the transporter is
the law for all, and in fixing his limits he simply asks, What will the
traffic bear? The conflict of these antagonisms tends to disarrange-
ments of business and to unsettle prices, while it offers a premium to
the unscrupulous speculator and stock-gambler.
One of the results most complained of is the exaction of a greater
charge for a short haul than a long haul under substantially similar cir-
cumstances. Another is the practice of pooling, and still another is that
of rebates. To correct these inequalities as far as possible is the object
of the pending legislation. Without this the advantage in these con-
flicts is always to organized capital as against unorganized labor and
production. To harmonize these conflicts, to remedy these inequali-
ties, and to repress these monopolistic discriminations appears to be the
general desire of the American people.
A variety of interpretations have been given the measure before us.
Some provisions may be too vague, and should have been omitted, and
others more clear and definite substituted.
WHAT ARE “SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONs?”
We can only conjecture how the courts and the commission will con-
strue the phrase “under substantially similar circumstances and con-
ditions.” ‘. -
This is the one least understood and more debated than all the rest.
We may illustrate some of the much complained of discriminations
between shippers, as well as places of shipment, to which the proposed
law must apply.
At New Orleans sharp competition exists by river and from the sea
and gulf, and in order to secure this valuable terminal traffic the rail-
way lines from New York via Atlanta to New Orleans, distant about
, 1,000 miles, charge a rate of 76 cents per hundred pounds, while from
New York to Atlanta, on the same line, in the same direction, and
about 500 miles shorter, the rate is $1 per hundred pounds. Does the
fact of competition in this instance enter into the conditions, so as
to make them substantially dissimilar, and hence not subject to the
proposed legislation? From Memphis to New York it costs only 90
cents to transport a bale of cotton, while from Covington to Memphis,
only 37 miles, on the same line of road, it costs $1.15 per bale. What
circumstances and conditions exist here to justify this apparently un-
just and unreasonable discrimination? Can the proposed law be so
construed as under any circumstances to sustain the existing difference 2
From the same point one man ships a car-load of valuable quartz
rock, and another ships a car-load of building rock. Are these “sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions?” Can a rebate be
allowed the man who ships the cheaper rock? Will it be an unjust
discrimination? From Spokane Falls to Ellensburg the route of the
Northern Pacific Railroad is comparatively of light grade and economic
construction; but between Ellensburg and Tacoma the Cascade range
is crossed at an immense cost per mile. Can a greater compensation be
580
charged between these latter named points, this being the short haul,
than on the long haul between Tacoma and Spokane Falls? Can a
greater rate be charged per mile west of Ellensburg than east to Spokane
Falls? Are these under “substantially similar circumstances and con-
ditions?” Can the common carrier in these cases expect from the com-
mission authority to charge less for the longer than the shorter dis-
tances? One man is a regular cattle-exporter, and ships thousands of
head per year over a railway line, and receives a liberal rebate, or
special rate, while another man ships but one load of cattle in the same
time over the same road, and to and from the same points.
Is this a “like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of
a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and con-
ditions?” Is the carrier guilty of unjust discrimination? Are the cir--
cumstances and conditions alike? Is it not cheaper to the carrier to
transport and care for ten loads of cattle per day than an occasional one
load in a month, and does this not substantially change the similarity
of the circumstances and conditions? At Spokane Falls, Arlington,
and The Dalles there is no competition with the railway lines, but at
Portland, Oreg., there is competition both by rail and ship. From
Chicago to Portland the rate is 65 cents per hundred, but from Chicago
to The Dalles in Oregon, 88 miles shorter, and on the same line in the
same direction the rate is $1.10 per hundred pounds. It costs more to
ship from Portland to Arlington, 141 miles, than from Portland to Chi-
cago over 2,200 miles. Baker City, Pendleton, and La Grande, are
still on a shorter distance with a correspondingly greater compensa-
tion for the short over the long haul. . Having water competition at the
terminal long hauls, and none at all at the intermediate or shorter hauls,
the question of construction arises: Is this transportation of a “like
kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and con-
ditions?” It is in the “same line, in the same direction, and the shorter
being included within the longer distance.”
Will competition at the terminal points vary the circumstances? Is
this one of the “special cases '' in which a less charge may be allowed
for the longer haul ? The through rate may be at a mere nominal profit,
and it may be at a loss; though this has not been discovered. But here
is where the mischief comes in. Some one must pay for this loss. The
intermediate shipper instead of being even charged the through long .
haul terminal rate or some less, which at The Dalles City on the direct .
line would be about 65 cents, is often charged the local back rate in ad-
dition, which to The Dalles is 45 cents, making in this case the through
short haul $1.10. The intermediate shippers are taxed to pay the re-
duced rate to the terminal shipper, and the farther they are from com-
petition the more they pay. The shorter the haul the greater the rate.
TEIE PEOPLE DEMAND A REMEDY.
Is it any wonder these rate-burdened people should cry out in anguish?
The committee of The Dalles City Board of Trade, in my State, Messrs.
McFarland, Macallister, and Huntington, complainingly say in their
address to the Oregon Senators and myself, “Concerning this through
rate no complaint is made, and merchants at the way points are en-
tirely willing to pay the same rates as are charged for the haul to Port-
land. But the arbitrary local back rate charged is deemed a most un-
just and burdensome exaction, falling little short of systematic robbery.”
This language, severe as it is, is justified by the statement of grievances
borne. Is there no remedy? Shall we quietly fold our arms and look
on, while the driving, thriving energy of the great Pacific Northwest
581
!
-*
is thus systematically taxed for all the traffic will bear?. The most hope-
ful heart and the most enthusiastic and energetic spirit will in time
retire from such an unequal contest. Finding all other efforts in vain,
they cast their eyes to this Capitol for a remedy. Their last hope is in
the representatives of the people. “Give us relief from this unjust and
burdensome discrimination” is their appeal. For one, I think the hour
has arrived for action.
The question then for us to consider is: Will this measure accomplish
the desired result 2 Will it in the first place prevent unjust discrimi-
nation?
THE LONG AND SHORT HATUL.
Much reliance is professed for the fourth section, which provides:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provis-
ions of this act, to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate
for the transportation of passengers, or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transpor-
tation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act.
As a declaration of the purposes of Congress, of the object to be sub-
served, this section may not be entirely useless; and as a law is con-
strued by a reference to its entirety, this section may shed a light upon
all the rest; but still its uncertainty may lead to misconstruction,
confusion, and litigation. The intent, the object, however, is clear
enough. Transportation must be reasonable. What meaning the word
“aggregate” will bear when applied to “compensation for a shorter
than a longer distance” is difficult to imagine; as likewise the quali-
fication “under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.”
Then after prohibiting greater compensation for a shorter than for a
longer distance, it provides that this may be done in “special cases.”
What these special cases are to be is not defined. It may bear the con-
struction that the rate for 1 mile shall not exceed that for another, or
the opposite construction, that the transportation company may charge
as much for 10 miles of short haul as for 100 miles of long haul, and
that it may even charge more in “special cases.” It may charge 5
cents a mile on the short haul where the through rate is only 3 cents
a mile. Standing alone such a sweeping discretion might be subject
to the most glaring abuses, and the real object of the legislation, to
“regulate interstate commerce,” defeated.
CHARGES MUST BE REAsoNAELE. *
But happily another section, definite and clear, is relied on, in which
this discretionary latitude is limited. Section 1 provides that:
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transporta-
tion of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivery, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reason-
able and just, and every unjust, unreasonable charge for such service is prohib-
ited and declared to be unlawful. .
This is not a new principle. It is adopted in the legislation of twenty-
six States and Territories and found efficient. It is incorporated in the
constitutions of four States of this Union. It is older still. It is the
reiteration of the old and well-known common-law declaration. This
applies to the long as well as the short haul. It is now a part of this
582
measure, amplified and surrounded with powers for its impartial en-
forcement. It is a check upon the section last referred to. Is it rea-
sonable and just, under all the circumstances, that $1should be the rate
from New York to Atlanta, 500 miles, while 76 cents is the charge to
New Orleans, 1,000 miles, on the same line? This section involves the
question which may arise in section 4; it supersedes that section and
construes it.
THE COMMISSION A POOR MAN's COURT,
A further most commendable feature, as well as a safeguard, in this
entire bill is that found in the provision for a commission which is to
hear and examine all complaints and to supervise and adjust every un-
just and unreasonable charge complained of. It stands as the arbi-
trator in the first instance between the shipper and the common car-
rier. It is impartial between the two. In one sense it may be said to
be the poor man’s court. When he enters that forum and files his
sworn petition with a statement of the facts the offending party—
even the lordly Jay Gould—is called to answer the complainant, and
if entitled to reparation and none be made he may himself, or it is the
duty of the commission to apply to the United States circuit court in
a summary way by petition to determine the matter, and counsel fees
are provided, and the district attorney prosecutes on behalf of the com-
mission. This produces an equality between the parties litigant, and
no one need be deterred from seeking his remedy. It is a notice to the
humblest citizen of the land that if his rights are invaded he shall
have redress, and without price. &
Some object to this bill because of the power conferred upon the com-
mission. It is true this is almost autocratić. The power is great, the
temptation greater, and the results, be they good or evil, far-reaching.
Unknown and unforeseen coutroversies will arise, intricate problems in
every phase of commercial economy must be met and solved. Different
rules must be applied to different and widely variant sections, accord-
ingly as the circumstances and conditions of one place or of one industry
differ from another. While regulations may differ, but one principle
will pervade all—all charges must be reasonable and just. I express
my confidence in advance as to the integrity and ability and fidelity of
the commission. They are appointed by the President of the United
States presumably from its best known, oft tried, and capable citizens.
They pass through the critical ordeal of a Senatorial confirmation. The
life-record of each one is passed in review. They are appointed from
different political parties, and thus partisan bias is largely disarmed.
They receive generous salaries, even larger than any of the judges of
the United States courts, excepting of the Supreme Court, and they are
thus rendered greatly independent of temptation. Their tenure of
office continues for six years. And still more. Should either of them
prove corrupt, inefficient, negligent, or false to duty, his immediate
removal from office by the President is authorized. Five eminent
men are thus appointed and thus guarded and thus rewarded. And
further still. Even their proceedings are subject to review and enforce-
ment by the higher courts. Can human affairs be more honestly,
more efficiently, and in the ultimate more perfectly conserved by
human effort than this? Our boasted trial by jury is not more perfect,
while frequently it falls far short.
POOLING A COMMON-LAW VIOLATION.
Perfect as are these various safeguards, a great defect might still re-
main were it not for that wise and precautionary prohibition against
583
what is commonly known in railroad operations as “pooling,” which
is a combination, contract, or agreement between two or more companies
or carriers to pool the freight proceeds of competing lines and to divide
the net receipts or earnings of such roads or companies among them-
selves. It is in one sense a railroad partnership to divide the com-
munity profits. It may be defined as a contrivance to suspend com-
petition. In the meanwhile but one rate prevails on all the roads in
the pool. The object is also to increase the rate, and then to maintain
it. The power to regulate is in the combination, and herein is the
greatest danger. Market prices are determined by the carrier—the
producer and consumer have no voice. Those great factors in political
economy—supply and demand, production and consumption—are sub-
ordinate to that artificial and arbitrary limitation; and whenever this
condition exists then indeed you have a complete monopoly. -
“Pooling is a violation of the common law, because it is a restraint
upon the freedom of trade and a conspiracy against the public wel-
fare.” This is the language of the courts.
A LIMITATION ON JOINT RATEs.
This bill provides that where two or more independent lines or roads
agree to make joint rates over their several roads, they are to be taken
as one entire road and become subject to the short haul principle as it
is generally construed by the advocates of the bill; the through long
haul being the basis, and the short haul not to exceed the aggregate
or maximum of the through rate, except in special cases. Where, how-
ever, independent and yet connecting roads transfer their passing ship-
ments to each other, each road is held to the maximum on its own line,
and the short haul rate shall not in the aggregate exceed its own through
rate. In either event the fundamental principle of a “just and reason-
able charge” is applied. *
In my own State the Oregon Railroad and Navigation Company’s
line connects near the State boundary with the Union Pacific Railroad
system and terminates in Portland—its long haul. This bill prohibits
a greater charge in the aggregate to an intermediate point than its
maximum through rate. Should it unite with its connecting but in-
dependent lines in a joint through rate for all, then this becomes the
maximum or basis, on which the aggregate rate for the short haul is
estimated. But, as illustrated, if a company is compelled by sharp
competition at its terminal points to make a very low and unprofita-
ble through rate, as is claimed in the case of the through line from
New York to New Orleans, or on the Southern Pacific system from San
Francisco to the Atlantic waters, there is still reserved that latent and
elastic discretion in the commission in these special cases to allow even
a greater aggregate for the intermediate short haul than for this maxi-
mum through rate; but this discretion is itself measured by that ever
present and ever prompting principle, “a reasonable and just charge.”
If it should be developed to the commission that the through rate
from San Francisco to New Orleans is controlled by the low-water trans-
portation by Cape Horn and by competition across the Isthmus of Pan-
ama, and is so low a rate as that, with the gross earnings and gross ex-
pense, there remains so small a net profit that it is neither just nor
reasonable for the service, then it is thought this should not be a basis
on which to aggregate the intermediate short haul Tate. The question,
then, in each instance must be left for the commission to determine on
the more equitable basis of a “reasonable and just '’ charge. In a word,
it makes the commission the judge as to what is reasonable and just;
584
while heretofore the railroad corporation has been its own judge. This
is briefly the philosophy of the situation.
UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.—ITS PREVENTION.
Its effect will be, as it is intended, to destroy the power of unjust
traffic discrimination. This power has been potent both to persons
and places. Some men have been discriminated for and some against;
some towns have been destroyed, and others built up at unseasonable
places; a price at one place has been lowered and at another place
increased. As the country and its commerce increased and extended—
becoming the marvel of the world—the power and influence of great
corporations became correspondingly profitable, strong, and omnipo-
tent. Arbitrary restrictions—which always follow power—and intol-
erable exactions on the industry and-producing capacity of the country,
at last awakened attention, complaints followed from all classes, and
the dormant resistance of the combined shipper, producer, and con-
sumer was aroused. The fiat went forth from the legislative halls and
from the judiciary that charges must be reasonable, and that this power
of limitation was reserved to the people. There was music in these
words. They had the sound, clear ring of justice. The long and un-
equal contest at length terminated in the highest court of the land
with these memorable sentences:
The highways of a country are not of private but of public institution and
regulation. * * * This is not only its indefeasible right, but it is necessary
for the protection of the people against extortion and abuse. * * * Railroads
and railroad corporations are in this category.
Thus spoke the Supreme Court of the United States in a well-known
case. This was a revolution against corporate power, peaceful in its
character, but greater in its results to this nation than was to England
at the time, the victory won from King John by the bold Barons at
Runnymead. Legislation rapidly followed in different States; but
when the farmers of the West first effected these legislative reforms,
they were ridiculed, and able jurists predicted a judicial reversal of
the system. Railroad experts pointed out the calamities to ensue to the
commerce of the country. The jurists, however, were soon answered
in the celebrated granger acts and decisions of Iowa sustaining the
farmers; and the easy and rapid adjustment of the railway system to
the change, with the continued and increased prosperity of the coun-
try set at rest any remaining fears. Now that it is deemed necessary
to protect the interstate commerce of the country like predictions are
uttered as to the probable effects of the pending bill on the industries
of the nation.
But present irregularities in transportation between the States will
soon change and conform to the proposed limitations, as they have un-
der State laws for commerce entirely within the State; and as to the
constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate transportation,
no doubt any longer exists.
DO NOT REJECT ALL BECAUSE A PART IS DEFECTIVE,
But we are told that the bill is imperfect and should be defeated.
That it is in some parts imperfect is possible, but it is the best upon
which a majority can at present unite. Shall it be rejected because all
can not agree? Our National Constitution would have failed if this had
been a prerequisite. That instrument was but a compromise. Mutual
sacrifices were made that a common object should result. Let us at
least make a commencement to regulate existing evils; let us experi-
ment; and as the defects of the law are developed let us remedy them.
585
CAPITAL AND RAILwAYS A NATIONAL BILESSING,
In the discussion of this measure some have indulged in a severe and
excessive arraignment of capital and railway corporations, even disput-
ing their right to judicial remedy and their property to protection.
Every person associated in railway enterprises seems to share in the same
general anathemas. Such ill-tempered sentiment is but the germ of
communism, of agrarianism, and of that socialistic dream, “the world
owes me a living.” -
The legitimate interests of stockholders should be protected as vigi-
lantly as any other property; their capital is invested in this kind of
property and they should be entitled to a fair return on their invest-
ment. . s
The valuation of railroad property in our nation to-day is estimated .
at the fabulous sum of eight thousand millions of dollars. Over one
hundred and twenty-five thousand miles of roads traverse our land
from ocean to ocean, from the lakes to the gulf, and then cross and
recross each other from the center of the Union to its remotest confines.
On the plain, in the valley, over the hills, and under and through
the great mountain ranges, the locomotive thunders along, night and
day, winter and summer, in Sunshine and storm, like a thing of magic.
Towns and cities rise up, population comes, the forest disappears, the
desert is reclaimed, homes, schoels, churches, manufactories, society,
all cluster around. The new empire is there to amaze the beholder
and confound the idealist. The virgin prairies and loamy valleys of
the wonderful West yield their abundant riches to the energy of man.
Production is encouraged and transportation increases. From 70,000,-
000 tons in 1865, it increased to 437,000,000 tons in 1885. About
thirty-three years ago there was produced in this whole country but
10,000,000 bushels of wheat, less than is now produced in the Columbia
River valley, or in Oregon alone, and since then we have produced
500,000,000 bushels. -
We are to-day the greatest food-producing and the greatest grain-ex-
porting country in the world. Russiaissecond, Germany third, and Brit-
ish India is now fourth. We are the greatest manufacturing nation of
the world. All these results are largely attributable to the increased
transportation facilities of our railways. In fact, there is hardly an
industry in this country which is not more or less affected by these sys-
tems. Yes, even time is regulated by their calendars. The American
people—especially the farmers of the country, who number nearly one-
half of our nation’s population—realize and appreciate these facts.
They realize that capital is the child of labor, and that it in its turn
seeks and points out the way to increased effort. Then as labor is cap-
ital, we are all capitalists in one sense, only differing in degree. They
also realize the reciprocity of interest. One is dependent on the other.
One must produce, another must transport, and all must consume.
The millions of Vanderbilt and Astor are but crystallized labor. The
people of our country—those most largely interested in this legislation—
are just as well as generous; they are reflective, public spirited, and
American in all their aspirations. The industrious, self-denying la-
borer—he who rises with the sun and toils to its setting, whether in
the quarry, field, forest, or shop—realizes the honored relation he bears
to the contributing factors in the great march of progress.
It is not such a people who raise the hand of destruction and wan-
tonly strike down the works of advancement and the sources of labor.
As a class they are forbearing, law-abiding, yet jealous of their just
demands. It is not such who desire to injure and cripple the railways
586
of our country, those great arteries in the internal commerce of this
nation. It is not to their interest to do so. But, sir, there is one thing
they do want. There is one thing they are entitled to. They want fair
play. They demand equal and exact justice to all. In theory all are
equal before the law. They demand that this shall be in practice as
well as theory. The reward for the services of a corporation should be
judged by the same principle, and be as just and reasonable, all things
considered, as that for the sweat of toiling man. Believing, sir, that
the great measure before us will accomplish this practical equality, that
it will harmonize the discordant elements of industry, and prove a
safeguard and remedy against unjust, unequal, and discriminating
rates—with this hope, and with a view to simple justice to all classes
involved, I most heartily support it.
COMMERCE SHOULD BIG STIMULATED,
In conclusion I may be pardoned for referring, for the last time, more
immediately to my own State. We are becoming a great producing
State, and being blessed with a number of navigable streams all run-
ning to the seaboard, our shipments seek these channels and go largely
on the short haul. It is here the farmer and shipper bear the heaviest
burden. Railway imports from the East likewise bear an added rate.
Thus labor as well as consumption suffer the discrimination. The peo-
ple complain and express themselves in a language which can neither
be misconstrued nor ignored. Through boards of trade, chambers of
commerce, in petitions and memorials, and through the newspapers,
and still more recently in the legislative halls of my State they have
spoken. It is the imperative duty of a Representative to obey this
voice. He should have no inclination, no interest, and no voice in
conflict with this duty. The people of Oregon keenly appreciate the
future advantages to arise from every improvement and encouragement
of their commercial facilities.
ENCOURAGE THE WATER WAYS.
To this end they receive with gratitude and enthusiasm the generous
aid of this Congress and the river and harbor acts for the Oregon water
ways. With a seacoast of over 300 miles and numerous bold and deep
tide-water rivers and bays, ebbing and flowing, connecting the rich in-
land valleys with the ocean, the policy as well as necessity of remov-
ing all obstructions in these natural highways, are at once apparent.
There is not a river or bay now being improved in my State which will
not, as soon as the works are finished, return each year to the people
a saving in freights alone equal to the present annual appropriations.
Some have already done this, and others will far exceed it.
The direct and immediate annual increase in the collection of duties
on foreignshipments on the Columbia River and Yaquina Bay will alone
exceed the annual expenditures now made for improvements in navi-
gation. These estimates cannot be gainsaid. Should such conditions
not encourage an increased liberality on the part of the National Gov-
ernment? It is to the improvement of the water ways of the nation we
can look for the most substantial and most permanent regulation in
State as well as interstate commerce. Herein lies the safety and future
prosperity of Oregon. Give us deep channels and free and open rivers
to the oceanic highways. Give us a boat railway at the Dalles of the
Columbia River, which will virtually unlock this second greatest river
of the Republic to continuous navigation for the commerce of the world
from Montana to the sea Give us the cheap, short, and direct route
587
through the Panama Canal | No pools, no rebates, no long and short
hauls need be feared then. The free and flowing waters need no inter-
pretation of courts, and fear no betrayal of man Well may we be
proud of our grand rivers. Already the commerce of the Orient and
the Occident meet on the lordly Columbia to discharge their rich and
passing cargoes.
The survivors of the brave pioneers of Oregon have not forgotten the
prophetic words of old Tom Benton, addressed to them from his seat
in the United States Senate over forty long years ago:
This spirit still animates me, and will continue to do so while I live, which
I hope will be long enough to See an emporium of Asiatic commerce at the
mouth of your river, and a stream of Asiatic trade pouring into the valley of
the Mississippi through the channel of Oregon.
Gazing into their camp fires they doubtless smiled upon this hopeful
yet dreamy future of the old statesman, little thinking that cre their
own suns should set they should behold the reality. May their de-
scendants prize the heritage won by so much self-sacrifice, disinterested
patriotism, and untiring devotion of their pioneer ancestry. May the
people ever guard with zealous care every encroachment of their popu-
lar rights, and thus preserve for themselves and those who shall come
after them, a legacy which shall in all the centuries of time bid defi-
ance alike to the blandishments of wealth, the corruption of power,
and the betrayal of patriotic duty.
Mr. COX, of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, while at this stage of
the discussion I can hope to throw but little additional light on a sub-
ject which has been so ably and so exhaustively presented, I am un-
willing to permit the occasion to pass without giving some expression
of the reasons that will control my vote. That legislation by the Gen-
eral Government is needed to regulate and systematize the railroad
traffic of this country so as to remove some of the burdens and com-
plaints of the producing classes is generally conceded; that the discrimi-
nations as to freights in the long and short-hauls have been found bur-
densome and oppressive will not be denied; and that what is known as
pooling of rates is an unjust and unwarranted exercise of corporate
power is asserted to be true.
That the States are powerless to secure full relief is not denied, and
if the General Government, in the exercise of its legitimate powers, can
do so, why then it should not fail to respond to that very general de-
mand, which, for the last fifteen years, has requested it at the hands of
Congress. The public mind, when well informed, is always right.
The people desire to be just. And experience has shown they are more
disposed to submit to long-continued abuses than to take the necessary
steps for their redress. Not so with vast corporate powers, which,
having a common interest, immense resources, bring to their command
the ablest and most skilled powers of the human mind to do their bid-
ding.
So that individuals, even with the right and the law on their side,
find it in, many instances, nearly a hopeless task to secure relief from
grievances which they may have suffered. I am far from being un-
mindful of the great blessings secured by the introduction of railroads
in any country. Indeed, I am the advocate of any character of roads
which may introduce travel and business into any section. The intro-
duction of railway traffic has revolutionized the commerce of the world;
it has thrown open the immense wilderness and prairies of the great
West, and has been more potent in civilizing and harmonizing our re-
588
lations with the Indian tribes than all the armies we might have em-
ployed to subdue them or missionaries to Christianize them.
It has done as much to bring together the conflicting interests of this
great country and cement the bonds of union as any one known cause.
And in addition to rapidly transmitting the necessaries of life from one
portion of this country to another, it lays at our doors the refreshing fruits
of the tropics side by side with the inviting products of the north. The
very agitation of the construction of a railroad in any section enhances
the value of its lands, and its completion is the occasion of general re-
joicing. I would, therefore, be the last to lay ruthless hands upon or
unnecessarily embarrass so important an interest. And this feeling, I
am confident, is the common sentiment of the American people. States
have been impatient to grant them the right of way and even improvi-
dent in offering every facility to aid in their construction, while the
United States have granted them billions of acres from her public do-
main and millions upon millions of dollars for their encouragement.
The result is there are 130,000 miles of railway in the United States
to-day, and they collect from passengers and freight over $700,000,000
per annum, or twice as much as it takes to run the General Govern-
ment. These figures I do not claim to be accurate, but are the esti-
mates of gentlemen who have discussed this question, and who, I have
every reason to believe, derived them from reliable sources. It will not
be denied that vast sums of money have been used by these corpora-
tions for the purpose of affecting the legislation of the country, while
colossal fortunes have been amassed by individuals at the expense of
the toiling million, which surpasses anything in the history of other
countries; and their princely estates and lavish displays have done more
to produce discontent among the laboring classes of this country than
any other cause, except the disregard of personal feelings and individual
rights often manifested by the managers of these corporations. All this
has occurred while there is no legislation on the part of the General
Government to regulate and control them. Whether this law may be
perfect or imperfect, it is time that the people, through their representa-
tives, should assert the light to legislate in regard to a matter of such
vast moment, and which it is authorized by our organic law to do.
Let us leave it to the future to make such changes as the exigencies of
the case may require if we can not secure a more perfect law at this
time. - -
Do not misunderstand me. The bill we are now seeking to pass is
not a measure originating from public clamor. For years the question
has been discussed in both ends of the Capitol; and while bills have
passed both Houses upon this subject this conference bill is the only
legislation of the character they have been brought into harmonious
accord about. Unless positive action is taken at this time the labors
of the past will go for naught and the whole subject will be relegated
to the uncertain future. The questions now before the House are:
Shall the report of the committee be adopted? Is the hill in accord-
ance with the Constitution ? Is such a law necessary? Are its pro-
visions just to the people and to the corporate interests they may affect?
If these questions can be answered in the affirmative then our duty
as legislators is clear. It can not be seriously insisted that there is
any constitutional difficulty in the way. The decisions of the Su-
preme Court from the days of the celebrated case of Ogden vs. Gib-
bon up to the present time have been uniform in recognizing the
right of Congress to legislate on such subjects, secured by the consti-
589 /
tutional provision to regulate commerce between the States. It mat-
ters not how commerce may be transported, the doctrine is equally ap-
plicable. I am aware that in the earlier discussions upon this subject
this power was denied, but in later years, especially in the famous
granger cases in Iowa, the Supreme Court of the United States recog-
nized and affirmed that Congress had full power over this subject.
So, I may say, this argument is no longer seriously insisted upon. The
chief objections now relied upon relate principally to the inexpedi-
ency of such legislation, and the injustice that may arise to railroad cor-
porations.
It is urged that in a matter of such vast importance we should move
slowly; that every provision of the bill will require to be tested by the
Supreme Court; that dire disasters may occur to the country; that rail-
road stocks will depreciate, and a Pandora's box will be opened upon
the country. Rhetoricians recognize that there is no argument so dif-
ficult to answer as that of the prophet. What is here stated as an ar-
gument against this bill can be urged against all important legislation.
The fears of the opponents of this measure have not been sustained so
far as their assertions have been tested by the alembic of experience.
American railroad stocks have not depreciated either in Liverpool or
New York since it was anticipated that this legislation would take
place. On the contrary, greater confidence has been given to railroad
securities from the belief that the business will be hereafter conducted
on a more stable and legitimate basis, while wild and extravagant
schemes will be less favored. It simply provides that all charges shall
be reasonable and just. There shall be no discrimination between
those having occasion to employ the roads by resorts to special rates,
rebate, or other device, but all share alike for the same and contem-
poraneous service; that no greater compensation, in proportion, be
charged for a short than a long haul on the same line and in the same
direction, the circumstances and conditions being similar.
In other words, when a car is started at Wilmington in the direction
of Richmond, no greater charges shall be allowed, the conditious being
similar, on cars taken at intermediate points than on the car which
may be started at the terminus. There is a provision of the law that,
in special cases, the commissioners provided for under this bill may,
upon investigation, relax the rule, provided they do not permit as
great a charge for a short as for a long haul. This is believed to be a
wise provision, as it permits an exercise of discretion without which,
in some peculiar cases, great hardships might result. The bill also pro-
vides that schedules of rates shall be printed and posted at all depots
and stations for the public inspection, so that every one may be in-
formed as to the rates he is expected to pay. In the same way the fee-
bills in the courts of my State aré required to be posted on the walls of
the court-room for the information of the public. -
These are the salient points in which the public is most interested;
others are mainly administrative and relate to the manner in which
the law shall be carried into effect. A large majority of the States have
already legislated for the regulation of commerce within their own
boundaries. But, as may be readily seen, such legislation must be con-
fined purely within State limits, for the regulation of interstate com-
merce is one that is exclusively conferred upon the General Government.
Hence, if we refuse to act, the people are left without a remedy. In
regard to the effect of the pooling of rates, in the few remarks I have
to make I will content myself by calling the attention of the House to
only one example, taken from the testimony of Mr. Chittenden, of New
590
York, who was examined before the House Committee on Commerce.
He says: ^.
One word further and I have done. This pool commenced in 1877; it was then
a pool contract between the four trunk lines centering in New York. It has
grown and stretched out its arms and increased, just as an English judge said
such contracts would grow and increase, until now it embraces certainly more
than forty—that was the last enumeration I had—of the principal railroads of
this country. There is in New York city an equipped and organized pool gov-
ernment. It has its executive committee of the trunk lines; its executive conn-
mittee of the pool, and another executive committee composed of one member
from each pooling railroad; it has its board of arbitration, which is intended to
take the place of the judiciary; it has its corps of, I do not know how many
hundred clerks, an enormous concern, and over it all is the emperor, the commis-
sioner, Mr. Fink, who to-day exercises a power for good or evil over the conn-
merce and products of this country greater not only than that of any of his con-
temporaries, but greater than any man ever before exerted in the United States
of America. He and his imperial organization are as independent of the law
as it is possible for man or State to be, and the whole character or contract which
binds these forty roads into this one copartnership and confederation, judged
by the principles of the common law, is as unlawful and as much against public
policy, if we are to accept the declarations of the judges of the common law, as
the Louisiana State lottery or any other similar institution which is confessedly
without the pale of the common law.
Then why are not the courts open for redress 2
They are, but what is the position of a man who undertakes to get redress in
these courts? No merchant dares to do it. He can be crushed in his business
if he does. The question to-day before this great dry goods trade is, whether or
not it is wise, whether they can afford to go into the legal fight and attempt to
get these pooling contracts set aside by the courts. No. There is hardly a week
passes in the office of any prominent lawyer in New York that this matter is
not presented. A merchant comes into the office of his counsel with a claim
against a railroad for an overcharge or a denial of some legal right; the lawyer
examines it and decides that there is no doubt about the merchant’s right to re-
dress. But when it comes to bringing a suit the merchant hesitates—he can
not afford to do it. He can not take the risk of doing it, because the railroads
have it in their power, at any time, to destroy the business of any man or firm
that seeks redress in the courts.
Such combinations of strong men by vast moneyed corporations ren-
der utterly nugatory the efforts of individuals to resist them. The
annual commerce of this country is estimated at three thousand mill-
ions of dollars’ worth, three-fourths of which is carried by "rāil, and
the greater part of this is interstate commerce. Now, it is insisted
that the public weal imperatively demands that there should be in
this, as there is in other governments, all proper legislation to regu-
late and control this vast and increasing power. It will not only grant
greater security to the people but remove much of the clashing and
conflict that arise between different rival railroad companies.
It is not unnatural that where such an extraordinary exercise of power
has been long enjoyed without interruption that it should view with
jealousy any movement looking to its limitation, and therefore be un-
willing to submit without complaint to what it may regard as an in-
vasion of its prerogatives. It arises from an anticipation of imaginary
evils which may result from public clamor more than actual dangers
now in view. We do not fear such results. The common sense of the
country may be relied on; the justice of the people is not to be despised.
If, at any time, undue prejudices should be excited against this great
and beneficial interest the courts are open to appeal, and the able attor-
neys ever employed by these corporations can always interpose the
needful checks against hasty and ill-advised legislation until the sober
second thought returns. Hence it is the pocket nerve of the great finan-
cial centers has not been and will not be easily alarmed. ~~~
I grant a great deal will depend upon the character of the commis-
sion. If composed, as I believe it will be, with great care and wisdom,
591
of able, fearless, and incorruptible men, who can not be swayed by .
any one interest, the happiest results will follow. At all events, not
a year will pass before Congress will again be in session, when such
modifications of the law can be made as are found necessary, if expe-
rience shall have shown that additional legislation is required. All
consider that some legislation is necessary. For over fifteen years this
question has been thoroughly, ably, and exhaustively considered and
discussed by many of the ablest minds of the country, without practi-
cal results, while hope has been deferred to a suffering people. Then
why longer delay?
- Letting I dare not wait upon I would,
- . Like the poor cat i' the adage. .
I have heard no sufficient reason given for such a course, and there-
fore cheerfully give my support in favor of this pending measure, con-
fident that unless this conference report is concurred in we will ac-
complish nothing during the remainder of this short session of Con-
greSS.
Mr. GOFF. Mr. Speaker, I am for this bill, because I believe it to
be right. I believe it to be the result of long investigation and of the
best thought of the country upon the questions involved. I have no
intention to detain the House by reviewing the objections to the bill,
but I desire, nevertheless, to indicate my reasons for supporting it.
I believe, sir, that the time has come when the interests of all the
people of this country, and not of particular localities, are to be con-
sulted. I believe that we should consider this question, not in the in-
terest of any one locality, but in the interest of all the people of this
nation. I see no reason why the people of Chicago, Saint Paul, or Cin-
cinnati should enjoy through rates which operate destructively upon
the people who live along the line of the railroads east of those points.
I see no reason why through rates should be maintained upon the
theory, and only upon the theory, to which the gentleman from Michi-
gan has alluded—a system that enables a railroad company to make up
for 'losses on its through rates by charging up those losses upon the
men who live along the line, known as the men who are to have the
benefit of the short haul. . -
This fourth section has no terrors for me. I would like to say to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LONGI, who desires to recommit
this bill for the purpose of eliminating this section, that I regard it as
containing much of the virtue of this bill. This section is not as ob-
jectionable as some gentlemen seem to think it; and even if it be ob-
jectionable in the light in which they seem to place it, I want mem-
bers of the House to understand that ninety-nine out of every one
hundred of the people who live under this flag and are ruled by the
laws we make have an interest with those who are not connected with
this long haul; and our votes should be cast so as to protect the in-
terests of the mass and not of the few.
I beg to differ also with other gentlemen who have spoken relative
to this fourth section. I say that under this section we shall have
competition. The railroads which center at Chicago and the other
great cities of the West will still center there after this measure be-
comes a law. Pooling being prohibited, competition will exist in the
future as it has existed in the past. .
Nor am I one of those who believe that the railroad companies have
been carrying this through freight at a loss. I believe they have made
a fair compensation on their through rates, and that their exorbitant
592
dividends have been declared by reason of the extortions to which they
have subjected every way shipper.
With reference to this fourth section, a question has been asked as
to what is meant by “substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions.” I will give an illustration of the meaning of that language.
A man at Chicago ships grain or live stock from that place to Jersey
City, which passes by stations in my State. This freight from Chicago
is shipped at a rate 50 per cent. less than freight of like circumstances
and conditions carried from stations in my State. Yet that freight of
the Western shipper, koaded at Chicago, is carried 600 miles farther
than the freight carried for my constituents. Now, there are like cir-
cumstances and conditions. There is the same character of freight;
there is the same character of cars, going over the same line of rail-
road.
Mr. CUTCHEON. Suppose the Chicago shipper should offer in a
single shipment sufficient freight for a thousand cars while your con-
stituent should only offer freight for a single car or a half car. In those
Cases would there be like conditions? s’
Mr. GOFF. There might be fifty, a hundred, or a thousand cars
leaving Chicago and a much smaller number leaving the station in my
State; yet the shipment would be of the same character. The charac-
ter of the shipment is not determined by the quantity.
Mr. CUTCHEON. Isimply wanted to know whether in your opinion
that case would present such conditions and circumstances as the com-
mission might take into consideration. re
Mr. GOFF. I do not think that the shipment of a thousand cars in
the case supposed would afford any reason for a discrimination against
my people; and I mean to class in the same category the people of Ohio,
and also a portion of the people of Indiana. If such a circumstance
could constitute a reason for discrimination, then various shippers in the
West would only have to combine, one man taking charge of the ship-
ments of a hundred producers, and sending them in his own name.
And then the railroad company can come down upon the people who
live, as I have just illustrated, 500 miles nearer to Jersey City or the
Eastern markets and compel them from the sweat of their faces to give
all they earn in order to keep up with this unjust discrimination in the
distant West.
Now, I make no warfare against the West; I only ask that they shall
not send their shipments for less than we send ours. -
Mr. LA FOLLETTE withholds his remarks for revision.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the
great confidence the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PETTIBONE] has
exhibited as to his ability to construe the fourth section of this bill,
without the fear of misleading any one, I will say if I had my way
about it I would strike out the words, in the fourth section, “under
substantially similar circumstances and conditions.”
That is the only thing, I am compelled to say, that affords me much
concern in this whole bill. I think that is misleading, and I am afraid
that there is the cunning hand of the Standard Oil Company in it.
This had not occurred to me until I heard the remarks of the gentle-
man from Ohio [Mr GROSVENORJ to-day. I believe that he accounted
in a very reasonable way for the presence of those words. He charges
it upon some friend of the Standard Oil Company, and offers that as a
reason why he should vote against the bill. I confess that the gentle-
man’s remarks made a decided impression upon my mind, but I can
not abandon my purpose to support the bill even if it be true that this
593
notorious corporation is congratulating itself, even at this moment, on
its escape from the requirements of the law.
Mr. GOFF. Will the gentleman permit me a question ?
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Yes, sir.
Mr. GOFF. Would the circumstances be like circumstances in the
case the gentleman from Ohio cited? In other words, would not the
commission compel the railroad company, or the shipper, to take into
consideration the fact that this company presents its own cars at the
time the rate is agreed upon?
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. I think a properly constituted com-
mission, a commission disposed to fairly construe the bill and enforce
equality to all concerned, would get out of the difficulty under some
of the other provisions of this bill, for it is evident the whole purport
and intent of the bill is to secure and maintain equality. But I would
not vote against this bill even if I believed the Standard Oil Company
had injected these words into it and they were going to inure to its
benefit. For I believe by the time the Fiftieth Congress meets to per-
form its duties that Congress would get the cue and would immedi-
ately strike out the clause, and make the Standard Oil Company pay
its part of the freightage for the carrying of its goods. It is assumed
by the gentleman from Ohio that because that company owns its cars
its “circumstances and conditions” are so unlike any other shippers as
to leave it beyond the range of the commission’s power. Such a nar-
row construction would divest the commissioners of any authority
whatever to act under other sections of the bill to enforce “reasonable
rates.” g -
Therefore, while I deprecate the presence of this ugly puzzle in the
bill, it does not furnish to my mind an excuse for voting against the
report of the conference committee, since we must take it as a whole
or get nothing. -
I am not to be driven from my support of the bill because of these
things. If I could offer an amendment it would be to strike out this
clause. Still I believe that notwithstanding all that has been said
against it, and motwithstanding all the hypercriticism that we have, for
two days, listened to, this is the best bill on the subject that ever appeared
before the United States Congress. No man has yet arisen here to con-
tend, for a moment that there should not be legislation upon this sub-
ject. There are two classes who oppose the bill. These are the men who
‘have such a hatred against the railroads that they will not be satisfied
with voting for this bill because they think it will not ruin the rail-
roads. And then there is the other class who believe we should not in-
terfere in any way to regulate the transportation of the country, be-
cause they believe, and with good reason, it will certainly break up a
system of “brain strikes,” to which they think mankind should yield
unquestioning submission and pay unceasing homage.
There are those who are so much in favor of railroads that they would
let them do just whatever they like with the people; and there are
others who hate the railroads so that they will not vote for this bill be-
cause they think the time is coming when they can vote for a bill that
will destroy the railroads and enable them thus to gratify their revenge.
I shall not join either class. I believe in railroads. I have had enough
to do with them to know that they may be, yea, that they inevitably
must be, an immense power for the weal or woe of mankind. Possess-
ing rights that spring from the sovereignty of the States or the nation,
they must be obedient to the purposes of their creation. Wherein they
I S C 38 *
f
594
fail, by tricks, by strategems, or by combinations, they should be re-
strained. To do so it is not necessary to destroy or even to cripple.
Let the power remain. It is not dangerous if properly regulated by
law. Wise legislation will utilize it all to the good and glory of the
country.
It is quite the thing in this debate for gentlemen to say “the bill is
not what it should be; it is different from one I could formulate; it is
very, defective, and I only accept it because I am obliged to or get
nothing.” Now, I am not so certain that these gentlemen are any of
them sure of their ground. To write a bill covering this vexed sub-
ject is quite a different task from telling the authors how they might
have done it. If pooling and discrimination and rebates and exces-
sive charges for short hauls in the interest of long hauls—are all to
be prohibited, who shall say better provisions for all save the latter
can be employed than are found in this bill ? And if there is to be any
yielding whatever to the apprehensions of many commercial men and
organizations upon the long and short haul provision, how could a bet-
ter compromise be constructed or a more rational one than that em-
bodied in the proviso of the fourth section? Barring always the rea-
sonable objection the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GROSVENORJ has
made, and which I join him in, I do not believe there is a gentleman
on this floor who could better it. *
At so late an hour I will not presume to discuss these several prohi-
bitions at length. It seems to me that every candid mind must, ere
this, have concluded that pooling, rebates, and discriminations are, of
necessity, in the long run at least, unjust. What is pooling but a com-
bination to prevent freight charges seeking the natural level to which
competition brings them? It is manifestly a “brain strike” for the
maintenance of high freights. Which is the more reprehensible, a
“brain strike,” to bull the price of freights, or a “muscle strike,” to
bull the price of labor? In my opinion it is the former. The former
is generally the prompting of avarice; the latter the demand of stern
necessity. It is a rule that admits of scarcely an exception that the
former is preceded by the latter, with just about the intervening time
necessary for a conspiracy to bear its legitimate harvest of evil! Brain
strikes are not, it is true, confined to the managers of railroads, nor is
this the only direction the laws should look to find, to prohibit, and
to punish them; but here their growth and their insolence are so man-
ifest that to longer permit them to escape is the reproach and shame
of our time.
Rebates and discriminations are odious anywhere, but in a free repub-
lic that boasts, with much reason, of its equal rights and its equal
protection to al], they can exist only as skulking criminals, to be con
demned and hated by the generous and the just wherever our com-
merce finds its way. That these twin evils should have been permit-
ted to work their way into our commerce at all is shocking enough;
that they should have been allowed so long to poison and debauch our
honesty, by the managers of corporations, clothed with law and fos-
tered by the State, is the marvel of marvels | Sir, are we to permit
these felons longer to escape, because we are not suited with the “long
and short haul” section contained in a bill which to-morrow we are
either to pass or indefinitely postpone? For my part I am ready to act.
I shall vote for this bill because it is the best expression of the will
of the people we have ever had in this country, and because if there is
one subject above all others upon which the people demand legislation
this is the subject. I am not here to apologize for the people as some
ſ
595
gentlemen think they are called upon to do. They say their own judg-
ment tells them they should vote against the bill, but the people tell
them they should vote for it.
Ah, gentlemen, I have more confidence in the American people than
to believe that, after such earnest consideration as they have given this
great subject, nothing has been evolved worthy of being crystalized
into law. The people are right in demanding legislation.
There is no occasion for panic, nor will the danger of one be so much
enhanced by this legislation as by the racket that has preceded it.
The powers of the commission are ample both to grant equity and en-
force law. They are to be so nearly balanced in politics as to be a con-
stant guard against wielding their power to partisan ends. By the very
nature of their position they will become cautious and conservative,
and yet the immense responsibility of their trust must, as it seems to
me, induce a high purpose and an honest determination to work out
beneficent results to the people and the railroads as well. Taking all
these things into consideration and believing as I do not only that we
can not do better this session, but that if we pass this bill we are doing
well I shall give it my vote.
Now, sir, realizing as I do that it is not proper for me to detain the
House at this time at any great length, and having, I hope, some mercy
on the reporters, I yield the floor.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I desire to ask the gentleman a ques-
tion.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. That might not take so long for you
to ask as me to answer. It is now nearly eleven o'clock, and after so
long a day's labor I must not impose upon the reporters by speaking be-
yond my time. ~
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. PLUMB. Mr. Speaker, I shall give my vote for the conference
report on the bill under consideration, and the reasons I have to offer
for so doing are:
1. The legislation proposed, and which promises to be enacted into
law, is a step, the first step in fact, that Congress has been able to take
in the direction of the control of the very important question of inter-
state commerce—a question that has been growing in importance every
year since railways as a means of transportation for freights began to
ask for public patronage. For more than twenty-five years of this
period railways claimed the right, by virtue of their corporate powers,
to charge such rates as they might think best. They denied the right
of the Government to interfere in behalf of the public; they claimed
that to competition, and to it alone, should be left the determining of
rates.
If no competing lines of railway existed, then competition with water
ways and other existing methods should of right constitute the regu-
lator, and the only regulator, of freights. In this position they in-
trenched themselves and resorted to the courts for defense. The pub-
lic, on the other hand, while acknowledging that railways had come
just in time to rapidly open for settlement regions that otherwise must
have waited for the old-time slow occupancy of the pioneer. Right
royally have railways performed that work. Having lived in the midst
of this wonderful change, we do not realize what railways have done.
They have made this country what it is to-day—greater inspopulation
than any in Europe save one, Russia, and the acknowledged rival of
England in everything that constitutes national greatness.
Sir, I hazard nothing in saying that the railways of the country made
59 (;
it possible for the Grand Army of the Republic to put down the rebel-
lion. The people of this country recognize to the full the benefits that
have come to us all by the construction of railways, and yet they wisely
determined to deny to these corporations the power they at first as-
sumed to possess. The people claimed that these corporate persons were:
created for the public good, and while conceding to the capital em-
ployed its right to a fair return, they insisted that in the exercise of
their powers they should be governed by law.
In most of the States laws were enacted for railway control, and the
courts were appealed to by the contestants to decide whether the cor-
porations or the people were right, and it is enough to say that the
claim of the people to legislative control has been fully sustained. The
right of legislative control has been exercised in the States not only
for the benefit of the people but to the acknowledged benefit of rail-
way property, both parties having learned by experience that they have:
a common interest that is best subserved by such regulations as a just
law prescribes.
But, Mr. Speaker, in a Government like ours, which exercises con-
trol over all the States, covering as they do a wide extent of country,
it is found that State control is not sufficient. Our vast internal com--
merce requires an interstate regulation, and that is attempted by the
bill before us, which if passed will mark the first step, as I have said,
in the national control of railways, and it is because this bill aserts
the right of national control of railways that it has my support.
My second reason for the support of this measure is, that its provi-
sions are framed in the spirit of justice and fairness to all parties. It
would not be proper to legislate on this question merely to establish a
right to do so by the General Government. There should be grievances.
to be redressed, and wrongs to be righted; there should be interests to
be defended, and the general welfare promoted, or the national Legisla-
ture should not interfere.
Sir, I will not go over the well-trodden path to show that national
legislation is demanded—the fact is conceded by the owners as well
as the users of railways—that a just and proper regulation of interstate.
commerce would be a real benefit to all concerned. So far as I know,
every member of this House favors the object of this bill—unless it be
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. WEAVER}, who seems to fear that it is,
wholly in the interest of the railways, and utterly devoid of merit.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not share the fears of that gentleman, nor do
I agree with those who expect that the long and short haul provision,
will increase the cost of transportation on cereals and other heavy freight.
Those who have had experience in business know how difficult it is to
raise prices. Demand and supply regulate prices. If the quantity of
freight seeking shipment exceeds the facilities for moving it, then is
there afforded an opportunity to advance rates; but so long as the ca-
pacity of the railway is not fully taxed, so long as freight stands ready
to be hauled at a price that will fairly remunerate the producer for
his labor, the management will seek to increase the traffic of their
railway and reduce the price charged for the haul. Nothing will pre-
vent this but such combination as pooling provides; and such com-
binations are forbidden by the bill. It is claimed, however, that either.
the long-haul rates must be raised, or the short-haul must be reduced;
and inasmuch as the railways must earn enough to pay the fixed charges
and dividends on their shares, nothing else can be done but to advance:
the long-haul rates, and thus bring ruin to the producers of the West
and the consumers of the East, and vice versa. -
597
Sir, I have no fears that such will be the case. It must be remem-
, bered that a very large proportion of railway freights are local to the
States and not affected by this bill. It should also be borne in mind
that the railways of the United States have been so managed as to
transport freight at less cost than any other railroads in existence else-
where, and I venture to assert that in this respect they will achieve
still greater triumphs. Our railway managers and engineers are ever
on the alert to lessen the cost of the work. The twenty-five ton freight
car has taken "the place of the ten-ton car; the fifty-six pound steel
rail is being displaced by the eighty-pound, ninety-pound and even
one-hundred-pound rail; the light locomotive is supplanted by the
“great moguls;” the quality of the track is being bettered constantly,
..and all for the purpose of being equipped to meet competition and to
make money at low rates. -
Another fact should be remembered; the worth of capital loaned on
‘good securities may be fairly stated at 3 or 4 per cent. per annum. The
vast increase of capital in this country points to the conclusion that a
lower rate of earnings for capital invested must be accepted. Railway
shares now dividing 8 per cent. must be reduced one-half in many in-
stances, and railway bonds must bear the same proportionate reduc-
rtion. In fact, sir, it would be neither strange nor unjust if this squeez-
ing process should go on until it shall wring out some of the water which
Some of these railway stocks contain.
There is good authority for saying that all of the railways in the
United States could be reproduced to-day at one-half the sum for
which they are bonded and capitalized—a shrinkage of four billions
•of dollars of capital on which to earn interest and dividends. By what
right are we required to withhold legislation, such as the people justly
demand, lest the process may squeeze out the water some of these
stocks may contain? A capitalization that is not based upon a real in-
vestment is unjust and can not be allowed to call for such dividends
as a real cash investment is entitled to without laying a burden on the
producer that is hard to be borne.
Mr. Speaker, I have no fear of permanent injustice being done to any
-class, even should railway rates be reduced on the short haul, as it is
•claimed by some will be the result of this legislation.
My third reason for supporting this bill is, that it is a practical meas-
ure, and one capable of being enforced. Sir, I do not look upon rail-
road men with feelings of distrust. They are, as a rule, fair-minded and
just men; they have shown as much probity in their business as any
other class; they know well that in the long run the interests of the
Troperty committed to their hands will best be subserved by a law that
will do justice to shipper and transporter alike.
Let this bill become a law ; let the President appoint such a com-
mission as the law contemplates, and in my opinion the work of ad-
justing existing wrongs will be entered upon in good faith—the patrons
of the railway and its managers will have their claims fairly considered ;
the complaints of one party and the demands of the other will each
have their proper weight, and out of this first grand step will grow
‘such rules as will restore to the people the confidence they ought to
possess in the great system of railways, which has done so much in
the past and will do more in the future to promote the general good.
As time progresses new legislation may, and probably will be de-
manded, but this, sir, begins the needed legislation, and shall have
my support. A
59S
Mr. WORTH INGTON. Mr. Chairman, the question whether the
good predominates over the bad sufficiently to warrantvoting for the
present bill is a question that is perplexing many members of this House.
All agree that some legislation is needed; that there are many abuses
that should be corrected; that prompt and efficient remedies should
be provided. All agree, too, that there are many excellent provisions
in the present bill. But there is one provision, one section, about which
the gravest doubts exist.
The meaning of all laws ought to stand out in bold relief from the
words in which they are written. Statutes are sometimes hastily and
carelessly enacted and for these reasons are vague and obscure. But
even such reasons afford no adequate excuse for the obscurity or un-
certainty of the statutes so made. What, then, shall be said of delib-
erately and with full knowledge of the facts making a law that we
do not understand ourselves and about whose construction in most im-
portant particulars the widest diversity of opinion exists? A law that
deals with the vast, wide-spread, and complicated interests that are
affected by this bill ought most certainly to be clear, precise, and
definite. That the long-and-short-haul section is not clear, is not pre-
cise, is not definite, is proven by the questions that come from all parts
of this House as to its meaning, and by the more striking fact that the
members of the conference committee themselves who recommend
this bill to us do not agree upon its meaning.
We are asked to vote for a measure affecting every producer, every
consumer, every shipper, and every interstate railroad without know-
ing and without the possibility of knowing what meaning the courts
will give to the measure for which we have voted. In other words,
instead of the legislative department of the Government enacting a
law to regulate interstate commerce, it is making a riddle and leaving
its solution to the courts, and knows that it is so doing when doing
it. If this bill becomes a law the Supreme Court of the United States,
in tedious process of litigation, some time within the next five or six
years, will declare what this long-and-short-haul section means. Until
that time no shipper, no railroad company, no lawyer, no judge, no
legislator can with certainty tell what the law is. In other words, the
court will make the law upon this subject. It will do by construction
what Congress ought to have done by enactment. We, as members of
the legislative department, by passing a bill so obscure that we do not
know what it means ourselves, confess our incompetency to legislate,
and abdicate in favor of the judicial department of the Government.
What answer will gentlemen give to their constituents when they go
home after the 4th of March and are asked, as they will be, “What is
the meaning of the fourth section of this bill ?” “What are ‘similar
circumstances and conditions?’” “When does this ‘long-and-short-
haul clause” apply, and when does it not ?” If gentlemen are honest
in their replies the answer to each and all will be, “I don’t know.”
There will be such an exhibition of legislative agnosticism upon a point
about which there should be no doubt as has never before been con-
fessed to inquiring constituents.
If I understand the construction given to this section by the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] it is, that shipments made from two
points on the same line, one having the advantages of competition by
water or by rail, or both, and the other not having them, are never-
theless, under this clause, made under “similar circumstances and
599
conditions,” and are therefore subject to the prohibitory enactment for-
bidding less rates for the longer than for the shorter haul. If I under-
stand the construction given to this section by another distinguished
member of the conference committee, the Senator from my own State,
in a speech at the other end of the Capitol, such shipments would not
be made under similar circumstances and conditions, and would not be
subject to the prohibitory enactment forbidding less rates for a longer
than for a shorter haul. When doctors disagree who shall decide?
Millions of dollars have been expended by towns and cities all over
the country.to secure the advantages of competition in transportation.
If the construction of the gentleman from Georgia is the correct one,
these towns and cities must lose the advantages of the competition which
they have secured; or every village and cross-road shipping point
must secure the same advantages that the great commercial centers en-
joy. How will this result of equalization be secured? Will it be by
leveling down rates or by leveling them up 2 Can you by legislation
give to Atlanta the benefit of the water competition to New York that
New Orleans possesses 2 Can you by law secure to the town upon a
single line of railway the advantages that a city enjoys that has half a
dozen competing lines?
To do this is to violate all natural laws of trade, all principles and
methods that control business. It is to contradict and set at naught
all human experience and practice in every age and in every land. . It
is an attempt by law to extend the advantages of competition to points
where there is no competition, or to destroy its advantages at points
where there is competition. That the rates of a railroad company
should be reasonable from all points every one will admit. That the
States within their territory, and the General Government upon lines
extending beyond State limits, should, by appropriate legislation, com-
pel railroads to limit there charges to reasonable rates no one denies.
The gentleman from Georgia says that what are reasonable rates is to
be determined by the actual cost of transportation, with a fair per
cent. for the capital consumed in construction.
Six per cent. upon such capital would not be considered, I presume,
an unreasonable profit. If, taking the illustration that was used on yes-
terday, Atlanta pays rates to New York that yield 6 per cent. upon the
railroad investment that transfers her freight, what right has she to com-
plain if the directors of that railroad, compelled by the competition of
steamships, fix a rate from New Orleans to New York that pays them
only 2 per cent, upon their investment? It would be a complaint, not
that her charges were too high, but that the charges from New Orleans
were too low. It would be a complaint that New Orleans was situated
at the mouth of the Mississippi River, and that Atlanta was not. It
would be the complaint of the dog in the manger that could not eat hay,
and therefore would not let the ox eat it.
It is the long hauls and not the short hauls that carry the wheat and
corn and hogs and cattle and cotton from the receiving centers of the
West and South to the distributing centers of the East; that bring pro-
ducers and consumers together; that make farming for profit possible
on the prairies of Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, and Texas; that carry the
surplus to the seaboard for shipment to foreign markets. Whatever in-
creases rates of transportation on these long hauls, injures not only the
cities that are collecting centers by reasons of the roads that radiate
from them and the roads that compete for eastern freight, but injures
every farmer and planter that sells to a buyer at a point where there is
600 \
no competition in transportation. The dispatches from London and
Liverpool to the great collecting centers both East and West, daily re-
ceived, daily regulate the markets at these centers. The dispatches
from these centers to every railway station where there is an elevator
or a warehouse daily fix the rates for farmers' products at these minor
points. • -
If the Chicago wheat buyer can ship wheat at a profit to London, the
wires flash the news to a thousand local stations and grain moves towards
this center, and prices stiffen. The low rates that railway and water com-
petition give to Chicago are felt at every point at which her dealersbuy.
What is true of Chicago is true in a degree of every collecting center in
the South and West—of every center that has the advantages of com-
petition in transportation. Illustrating by my own city of Peoria, in
Central Illinois, which has the advantage of several competing lines of
railway East, together with the Illinois River, and Illinois and Mich-
igan Canal, and which is a large grain-collecting center and shipping
point to Eastern distributing points, it is not the city of Peoria alone
that is benefited by competition in the long hauls eastward. Every
farmer whose grain finds a market there from Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota,
or Illinois shares in the advantages of the competition in transportation
that Peoria enjoys.
If the operation of this bill should be to make it more profitable for
one or more of the competing lines from Peoria to the East to abandon
its competition for through business for the sake of maintaining local
rates, every farmer whose produce finds a market in Peoria suffers for
this decreased competition, and no one along the line of railway that
has ceased to compete gains a penny by it. Railroads are built to make
money. They are run to make money, and they will seek their busi-
ness from such points as pay best. If it becomes unprofitable, through
the operation of this long and short haul clause, to carry freight from
towns and cities where they meet competition and are thereby com-
pelled to fix low rates, they will most certainly adhere to local rates
although these rates may lose them the long hauls. . -
It is the West and the South that will suffer most, in my judgment,
by this legislation against competition, for that is what it amounts to.
When the attention of the gentleman from Georgia was called to the
striking average decrease in rates of transportation within the last
twenty years, he replied in substance that it was in the long hauls and
not the short hauls that this decrease had been most marked. This is
true, and it is also true that it is on the long hauls that the decrease
most benefits the entire country, because they are the thoroughfares
of the nation’s trade and commerce. - -
On the great inland carriers between Chicago and the seaboard—the
Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh, Fort. Wayne and Chicago, the New
York Central, the Lake Shore, the Michigan Central, the Boston,
Albany and Erie Railroads—the amount of freight has increased from
11,151,701 tons, in 1865, to 66,521,153 tons, in 1885, while the average
rate of transporting a ton of freight per mile on these roads has within
the same time decreased from 2.90 cents to 0.636—decreased from over
2 cents per ton to less than 1 cent. This decrease has been to the
A.
benefit of every producer in the great Northwest, to the benefit of
every consumer in the great cities and populous centers of the East.
Is it not well to pause and weigh well every possible effect before
striking a blow at the competition that has brought to the people the
benefits of this reduction? . . -
f
601
Another very peculiar, very ambiguous, and very questionable pro-
vision of this section 4 is found in the following words:
Provided, however, That, upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after in-
vestigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the com-
mission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated
common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
What is meant by “special cases '' has already been asked in the
course of this debate. Does it mean special towns or cities, special
shippers, special instances of shipment, or special roads? No one can
answer with certainty. It is a far-reaching exception of some kind.
It is a fearful temptation to the exercise of power to put in the hands
offive men called a commission. Just exactly what it is we do not know.
We never will know until the Supreme Court tells us. It is another
instance in this bill where the courts and not Congress will make the
law.
If one common carrier may be designated who shall be relieved from
the operation of this clause, another competing carrier might also in
the wisdom of the commission be relieved, and so on until all that com-
pete from a given point were relieved. Indeed, in fairness, it is diffi-
cult to see why if one competitor was relieved, all should not be. The
effect of this would be to take one town or city out of the operation of
the fourth section, Chicago for instance. How would Saint Louis, or
Kansas City, or Minneapolis, or Peoria enjoy this discrimination ? Or
if one designated road was excepted, how would its competitors enjoy
the exception ? Or if the extent was prescribed to the designated com-
mon carrier, to a certain shipper, or class of shippers, or kind of ship-
ments, what equality or fairness could there be in the operation of the
law 2
Under this exception it is in the power of five men to build up and
to tear down, to enrich a corporation and to destroy its rival, to stim-
ulate the growth of one city and to force another up—and this, too, in
dealing not with hundreds of thousands, but with thousands of millions
of dollars—dealing with the arteries of trade and commerce of sixty
millions of people. Ought such a provision to become law 2 Should
there be such a section in a bill as to require such a dangerous, uncer-
tain exception? There are so many excellent features in this bill,
Mr. Chairman, that it is exceedingly irksome to see them marred by so
pernicious a provision as the entire fourth section seems to me to be. I
hope to see the bill recommitted and amended by omitting the section
entirely.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri, withholds his remarks for revision.
Mr. CRISP. If no one else desires to address the House, I move an
adjournment. *
The motion was agreed to ; and accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 35
minutes p. m.) the House adjourned.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 1887.
The SPEAKER. The vote upon agreeing to the report of the con-
ference committee on the interstate-commerce bill is to be taken this
morning in accordance with the agreement entered into yesterday.
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I understand that it is not in order to move
to recommit the bill. I desire to ask this question of the Speaker,
602
whether it would be in order by unanimous consent to take a separate
vote upon the fourth section which relates to the long and short haul ?
The SPEAKER. Of course the vote can be in any way by unani-
mous Consent.
Mr. CRISP. I object. *
Mr. WEAVER, of Iowa. I ask unanimous consent to take a separate
vote upon the commission feature, and the Federal court clause.
Mr. CRISP. I object.
Mr. WARNER, of Ohio. You had better swallow it whole.
Mr. CRISP. I call for the regular order.
Mr. STEELE. l rise to a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. STEELE I would ask whether a vote in the negative, which
would send this bi]] back to the committee of conference, would be con-
sidered as a vote against the bill ?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will State that if the House refuses to
agree to the report of the conference committee the regular order of pro-
ceeding would be to ask a further conference with the Senate, which,
as a matter of course, is always granted.
Mr. STEELE. Then in that event this objectionable section could
be stricken fiom the bill—the section which everybody objects to?
The SPEAKER. The committee of conference would be privileged
to report back anything upon which they may agree.
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. I would like to ask a parliamentary
question—whether or not a vote on concurring, or if it is not carried
rather, whether there will be a vote on the final passage of the bill?
The SPEAKER. If the House agrees to the report of the conference
committee it closes the matter and the bill is passed. If the House re-
fuses to accept the report a further conference would follow, as hereto-
fore stated by the Chair.
Mr. LONG. I wish to make a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LONG. In case we vote not to adopt the report of the confer-
ence committee a new committee of conference is to be appointed, I
understand. In that case, would not the committee report be privi-
leged and have a right to be presented at any time?
The SPEAKER. It would. It would have precisely the same status
as the present report.
Mr. CRISP. I demand the yeas and nays on the adoption of the
conference report.
Mr. DUN HAM. Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the ruling made by
my friend from Ohio [Mr. BUTTERWORTH], I propose to move that this
bill be recommitted to the committee, and on that point I desire to be
heard. tº
Mr. BUTTERWORTH. I did not make any ruling, but the Chair
did. I only asked as to the possibility of a separate vote, by unani-
mous consent, on the long and short haul feature.
Mr. DUNHAM. Well, the gentleman raised the point.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUNHAM]
moves to recommit the report.
Mr. HAMMOND. On that I make the point of order.
Mr. DUNHAM. On the point of order I desire to be heard.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. TOWNSHEND. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. There is a point of order pending before the
House. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUNHAM] is on the floor.
603
Mr. TOWNSHEND. My parliamentary inquiry is directed to that,
and it is this: That the House on yesterday, by unanimous consent,
agreed that a vote should be taken this morning. -
The SPEAKER. Still the point is made, and the gentleman de
sires to be heard. - -
Mr. TOWNSHEND. But that is in violation of the order of the
House. ; : t -
The SPEAKER. That may be, but it is a matter of argument.
Mr. SPRINGER. I make the point of order that debate is not in
order now even on a point of order after the previous question has been
ordered.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman on the point of
order. -
Mr. SPRINGER. The previous question has been ordered on the
adoption of this report. All questions incidental to that are covered
by it, and no debate can be allowed upon it relating to the question
upon which the previous question has been ordered. Otherwise it is
manifest there could never be any limit to discussion.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is not aware of any rule or practice of
the House which prevents the Chair from hearing the views of gentle-
men upon questions of order simply because the measure pending before
the House is under the operation of the previous question. The point
of order is an independent question; but the Chair would be glad to
hear the gentleman from Illinois, or to be referred to any ruling refer-
ring to the point,
Mr. SPRINGER. I will furnish it to the Chair in a few moments.
Mr. DUN HAM., I have made this motion to recommit for two rea-
sons: First, because I know it to be the desire of a large number of the
members of this House that they should have an opportunity of voting
directly on this fourth section. Second, the point of order is made
that it can not be recommitted to the committee of conference. The
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HAMMONDJ gives no reason for his point
of order, and leaves me to construe his reason to be as I have stated.
Mr. McCREARY (interrupting). I make the point of order upon
the gentleman now addressing the Chair that he is discussing the merits
of the pending bill. * -
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. McCREARy]
makes the point of order that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUN-
HAM] is not discussing the point of order. .
Mr. DUNHAM. I do mean to discuss the point of order. *
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois has the floor to discuss
the point of order.
Mr. DUNHAM. I propose to speak exclusively on the point of order.
Mr. SPRINGER. I now send to the desk the authority I referred
to awhile ago I ask the Clerk to read clause 3 of Rule XVII,
The Clerk read as follows:
All incidental questions of order arising after a motion is made for the pre-
vious question, and pending such motion, shall be decided, whether on appeal
or otherwise, without debate.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is inclined to think the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER) is correct. The Chair had overlooked
this provision of the rule; but it is somewhat doubtful whether that
clause of the rule does not relate exclusively to incidental questions of
order arising directly out of the proposition upon which the previous
question has been ordered, -
Mr. CRISP. I call for the yeas and nays on agreeing to the report.
604
Mr. DUNHAM. I failed to hear the point of order made by my col-
league [Mr. SPRINGER).
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. SPRINGER)
made the point of order that after the previous question had been or-
dered on the pending proposition all incidental points of order made
must be decided without debate.
Mr. REED. What is the point of order?
The SPEAKER. The point of order of the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. SPRINGER) is that his colleague [Mr. DUNHAM] can not discuss
the question of order at this stage.
Mr. REED. What is the point of order that the gentleman from Il-
linois [Mr. DUNHAM] desires to discuss?
The SPEAKER. The point of order was, that the motion to recom-
mit is not in order. Does the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUN-
HAM] insist on his motion ?
Mr. DUNHAM. I insist on my motion to recommit, because I
desire to get a direct vote on this question of the long and the short
haul.
The SPEAKER. At the last session of Congress a committee of con-
ference was appointed on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill known as the interstate-commerce bill. That committee, as the
House has been officially notified, has reported to the Senate, and its
report has been agreed to by that body. After that action of the Sen-
ate, the report of the committee of conference was made to this body,
and is now before the House for consideration, and the previous ques-
tion has been ordered upon it.
In the first place, a motion to recommit is a motion to recommit to
the entire committee of conference, as a matter of course, and not merely
to the managers on the part of the House. But there is in fact no
committee of conference on this bill now in existence—the whole com-
mittee having reported to the Senate, and the Senate having disposed of
the report, the committee was dissolved, so far as the Senate is con-
cerned, the general rule being that a select committee is dissolved by its
report. Otherwise, a select committee once created would become of
necessity a standing committee, and matters could be constantly re-
ferred to it, notwithstanding it had fully reported upon the particular
matter which it was originally formed to consider.
In addition to that the Chair is not aware of any parliamentary law
or practice which authorizes the recommitment of a conference report.
The consideration of conference reports is governed by different rules,
in many respects, from all other legislative proceedings in the House.
Such reports can not be laid on the table, as has been frequently de-
cided, nor can they be amended, as has also been frequently decided; and
the only question which can be taken upon them is to agree to them
as an entirety or to postpone their consideration, for the obvious reason
that a refusal to agree is of itself substantially equivalent to a commit-
ment to another conference committee, the old one being dissolved by
its report to the two Houses. The motion to recommit, therefore,
the Chair thinks is out of order.
Mr. DUNHAM. I desire to ask a parliamentary question.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. DUNHAM. Imake this motion to recommit because it has been
held twice at least in another place that it was in order in a legislative
body. I ask the Chair if it is not proper to recommit this bill, and, if
the conference committee has expired, how it happens under the rules
of the House that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP], as a mem-
605
ber of the conference committee, has had entire charge and control of
this report?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois
that under the uniform practice of the House the gentlemen composing
the committee which had a measure under consideration and reported
it are first recognized for the purpose of speaking upon and managing
the measure on the floor.
Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Idesire to make a suggestion. The
Speaker evidently sees the embarrassment of many members who pro-
pose to vote for this bill but who do not approve of its provisions. Is
there not some practical way by which those gentlemen can free them-
selves from that embarrassment?
The SPEAKER. The Chair has stated what the effect of a refusal
to agree to the report would be.
Mr. STEELE. I desire to make a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. STEELE. Would it be in order for gentlemen to vote “no ''
and non-concur in this report, and then if it is carried jump over and
vote “aye” to please their constituents?
The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks that would be in order.
Mr. CRISP. I call for the yeas and nays on the question of agree-
ing to the report.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were—yeas 219, nays 41, not vot-
ing 58; as follows:
YEAS–219.
Adams, G. E. Cowles, Hatch, McAdoo,
Adams, J. J. Cox, W. R. Haynes, McComas,
Allen, J. M. Crain, FIeard, McCreary,
Anderson, J. A. Crisp, Hemphill, McKinley,
Baker, Croxton, Henderson, D. B. McMillin,
Ballentine, Culberson, Henderson, J. S. McRae,
Barbour, Curtin, Henderson, T. J. Millard,
Barksdale, Cutcheon, Henley, Milliken,
Barnes, Daniel, Hepburn, Mills,
Barry, Davidson, R. H. M. Herbert, Moffat,
Bayne, Dawson, Hermann, Morrill,
Belmont, Dingley, Hiestand, Morrison,
Bennett, Dockery, Hires, Muller,
Blanchard, Dorsey, Hitt, Murphy,
Blount, Dougherty, Holman, Neal,
Bound, Dunham, Holmes, Neece,
Brady, Dunn, Hopkins, Nelson,
Breckinridge, C. R. Eden, Howard, Norwood,
Breckinridge, WCPEldredge, Hudd, O'Donnell,
Brown, C. E. Ellsberry, Irion, O'Ferrall,
Brown, W. W. Everhart, Johnston, J. T. Osborne,
Buck, Farquhar, Johnston, T. D. Outhwaite,
Bunnell, Fisher, Jones, J. H. Owen,
Burnes Fleeger, Jones, J. T. Parker,
Burrows, Foran, Laffoon, Payson,
Butterworth, Fuller, La Follette, Peel,
Bynum. Funston, Landes, Perkins,
Cabell, Gallinger, Lanham, Perry,
Caldwell, Geddes, Lawler, Peters,
Campbell, Felix Gibson, C. H. Le Fevre, Pettibone,
Campbell, J. M. Glover, Lehlbach, Phelps,
Cannon, off, Lindsley, Pirce,
Carleton, Green, Little, Plumab,
Catchings, Grout, Lore, Randall,
Clements, Hale, Louttit, Richardson,
Collins, Hall, Lovering, Riggs,
Compton, Halsell, Lowry, Robertson,
Comstock, Hammond, Lyman, Rockwell,
Conger, Harmer, Mahoney, , Rogers,
Cooper, Harris, Matson, Romeis,
606
Rowell,
Rusk,
Ryan,
Sadler,
Sawyer,
Sayers,
Scott,
Scranton,
Sessions,
Shaw,
Singleton,
Skinner,
Sowden,
Spooner,
Springer,
Allen, C. H.
Anderson, C. M.
Bliss,
Boutelle,
Boyle,
Bragg,
Brumm,
Campbell, J. E.
Caswell,
Dibble,
Ely,
Aiken,
Atkinson,
Bacon,
Bingham,
Bland,
Browne, T. M.
Buchanan,
Burleigh,
Campbell, T. J.
Candler,
Clardy,
Cobb,
Cox, S.S.
Dargan,
Davenport,
Steele, Taylor, Zach,
Stephenson, Thomas, J. R.
Stewart, Charles Thomas, O. B.
Stone, W. J., Ky. Thompson,
Stone, W. J., Mo. Tillman,
Storm, Townshend,
Strait, Trigg,
Struble, Tucker,
Swope, Turner,
Symes, Van Eaton,
Tarsney, Van Schaick,
Taulbee, Wade,
Taylor, E. B. Wakefield,
Taylor, I. H. Wallace,
Taylor, J. M. Ward, J. H.
NAYS–41.
Evans, Ketcham,
Felton, Libbey,
Findlay, Long,
Frederick, Markham,
Gay, Martin,
Gilfillan, McKenna,
Grosvenor, Miller,
Hayden, Morrow,
Hill, Oates,
Johnson, F. A. O’Neill, Charles
Relley, O'Neill, J. J.
NOT WOTING—58.
Davidson, A. C. Kleiner,
Davis, Laird,
Erment rout, Maybury,
Ford, Merriman,
Forney, Mitchell,
Gibson, Eustace Morgan,
Glass, Negley,
Guenther, O'Hara,
Hanback, Payne,
Hiscock, Pidcock,
Houk, Pindar,
Hutton, Reagan,
Jackson, Reese,
James, Seney,
Ring, Smalls,
Ward, T. B.
Warner, A. J.
Warner, William
Weber,
Wellborn,
Wheeler,
White, Milo
Wilkins,
Willis,
Wilson,
Wimans,
Wolford,
Woodburn,
Worthington.
Ranney,
Reed,
Rice,
Seymour,
Wadsworth,
Wait,
Weaver, J. B.
White, A. C.
Snyder,
Spriggs,
Stahl'necker,
Stewart, J. W.
St. Martin,
Stone, E. F.
Swinburne,
Throckmorton,
Viele,
Weaver, A. J.
Wi.
hiting,
Wise.
So the report of the committee of conference was agreed to.
Mr. CRISP. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of names of
members voting be dispensed with.
Mr. BRUMM and Mr. SOWDEN objected, and the names were read.
Mr. LANHAM.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say in behalf of my col-
league, Mr. THROCKMORTON, that if he were present he would vote
“aye.”
colleague Judge REAGAN.
Mr. DAVIDSON, of Alabama.
Mr. DOCKERY.
called home by illness in his family.
“ay.”
Mr. HOLMAN.
detained at home by illness.
§Mr. WILSON, of West Virginia.
{ {
vote “aye.”
I desire to make a similiar statement also with reference to my
Mr. Speaker, I am paired on this
question; otherwise I should vote “aye.”
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. BLAND, has been
If he were present he would vote
I desire to state that my colleague, Mr. COBB, is
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr.
SNYDER, is absent by leave of the House; if he were present be would
Mr. DUNHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have voted “aye” on this call; but
I desire to state that had I had an opportunity I would have voted to
strike out the fourth section of the bill.
[Laughter.]
607
Mr. BUCK (before the announcement of the result). Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent to have my vote recorded.
The SPEAKER. Was the gentleman in the Hall when his name
was called ?
Mr. BUCK. I was in the Hall before the roll-call closed.
The SPEAKER If the gentleman states that he was in the Hall
when his name was called, he is entitled to have his vote recorded.
Mr. BUCK. No; I was not. I was inside of the Hall while the
roll-call was still going on, but I did not hear my name called.
Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important
vote, and as the gentleman was in the Hall before the conclusion of the
roll-call, I ask unanimous consent that his vote be recorded.
The SPEAKER. The rule provides that unless a gentleman responds
on the second roll-call, the Chair shall not thereafter even entertain a
request for unanimous consent to record the vote; but, under that rule,
a practice has grown up in the House by which gentlemen who state
that they were in their seats during the roll-call and failed to hear their
names called are permitted to vote, upon the idea that there is at times
so much confusion in the Hall that it is difficult or impossible for mem-
bers to hear the call.
Mr. BUCK. I was inside of the Hall during the roll-call, but did
not hear my name.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman states that he was in the Hall, but
did not hear his name. If there be no objection his vote will be re-
corded.
There was no objection.
Mr. KING. Mr. Speaker, I was not in the Hall when my name was
called, because I had been informed that the vote would not be taken
until 1 o'clock. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to vote.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule it is not in order for the Chair to
entertain the gentleman’s request.
Mr. KING. If I were permitted to vote Ishould vote “aye.”
Mr. ALLEN, of Massachusetts. My colleague Mr. WHITING is
paired. If present, he would vote “no.”
The following named members were announced as paired until fur-
ther notice:
Mr. THROCKMORTON with Mr. ATKINSON.
Mr. ERMENTROUT with Mr. LAIRD.
Mr. BLAND with Mr. JAMES.
Mr. REAGAN with Mr. HISCOCK.
Mr. MORGAN with Mr. ZACH. TAYLOR.
Mr. MITCHELL With Mr. WHITING.
Mr. REESE with Mr. WEAVER, of Nebraska.
Mr. CANDLER with Mr. WEST.
Mr. SPRIGGS with Mr. HOUK.
Mr. DAVIDSON, of Alabama, with Mr. SWINBURNE.
Mr. FORNEY with Mr. PAYNE.
Mr. Cox, of New York, with Mr. BURLEIGH.
Mr. Cobb with Mr. BROWNE, of Indiana.
Mr. GIBSON, of West Virginia, with Mr. STEwART, of Vermont.
Mr. WIELE and Mr. DAVENPORT were announced as paired until
January 24.
The following named members were announced as paired on the in-
terstate-commerce bill.
Mr. SNYDER with Mr. HAN BACK. If present Mr. SNYDER would
vote for the bill and Mr. HANBACK against it.
608
Mr. STONE, of Massachusetts, with Mr. DAVIS. If present Mr.
STONE would vote for the bill and Mr. DAVIS against it.
Mr. MERRIMAN with Mr. BACON. If present Mr. MERRIMAN
would vote for the bill and Mr. BACON against it.
Mr. GLASS with Mr. O'HARA. If present Mr. GLASS would vote
for the bill and Mr. O'HARA against it.
Mr. CLARDY with Mr. BINGHAM. If present Mr. CLARDY would
vote for the bill and Mr. BINGHAM against it.
Mr. WISE with Mr. NEGLEY. If present Mr. WISE would vote
“aye” and Mr. NEGLEY “no.”
The following-named members were announced as paired for this day:
Mr. SENEY with Mr. GUENTHER,
Mr. STAHLNECKER, with Mr. BUCHANAN.
Mr. KLEINER with Mr. JACKSON.
Mr. JAMES. Mr. Speaker, I notice that I am announced as paired
with Mr. BLAND.. I voted for the bill; but as I am paired, I will
withdraw my vote.
Mr. STEELE. Mr. Speaker, I desire to state that my colleague [Mr.
BROWNE] is absent on account of his own illness and severe illness in
his family.
The result of the vote was announced as above stated.
Mr. CRISP moved to reconsider the vote just taken; and also moved
that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
_A_IP IP E IN ID IX
*- TO THE
D E B A T E
IN THE
EIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
INTER STATE COMMER CE,
“LEAVES To PRINT,”
THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 1887.
The House being in Committee of the Whole, and having under consideration
the report of the committee of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce—
Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio, said:
Mr. SPEAKER : The report under consideration, when adopted, will
result in legislation conceded by its friends to be crude and believed
by its enemies to be empiric. That it is certain of passage by this
House nobody who sees the stampede in its favor can doubt. It is
questionable whether one-sixth of the Representatives present will go
On record against it. Yet nobody understands it; none of the conferees
in either Chamber agree upon its meaning; and no one has pretended
to intelligently explain some of its provisions. It was truthfully as
well as pungently said by one of the Senators from Kansas [Mr. IN-
GALLS) :
This is a bill which practically nobody wants, and which everybody intends
to vote for; a bill which nobody is satisfied with, and which everybody intends
to accept; a bill which nobody knows what it means, and yet we have all agreed
it ought to pass.
Not only did he indulge in caustic criticism of the bill but his ad-
verse opinion was shared in by the acting Vice-President [Mr. SHER-
MAN] and by many other Senators, whose ability in exposing the
shortcomings of the measure was equalled only by their inconsistency
in voting for it.
Nearly the entire Senate found fault with the bill, and yet, upon its
passage by that body a few days ago, only 15 votes were recorded
against it.
In this House the debate has been carried on in much the same man-
ner. For two whole days we have enjoyed a ludicrous spectacle. One
member after another has risen in his seat, gravely denounced the bill
as ambiguous, pernicious, or unnecessary, and finally wound up, in a
I S C–39 609
610
shame-faced manner, with the illogical statement that he intended to
vote for it as an experiment—apparently trusting to Providence that it
might not result in irretrievable disaster to the country. If gentlemen
will thus contradict their votes by their public utterances what will
they not say in private? It is my belief that a large majority of the
membership of this House will frankly admit this bill to be dangerous
in its tendencies, and that one, at least, of its provisions is a deadly
menace to every business interest.
I am afraid that too many gentlemen here are overanxious to please
a clamorous but misinformed constituency, and that in trying to do
this they are about to fasten upon the country a law which, while it
has some good features, is liable to create greater evils than those we
are striving to cure. No one disputes or justifies the existence of the
many and bitter grievances which have exasperated the people against
the railroads. Those corporations have robbed their stockholders,
ruined their builders, discriminated against shippers, fostered monopo-
lies, oppressed producers, stolen Government subsidies, misappropriated
public lands, evaded taxes, corrupted the administration of justice, in-
creased their tolls beyond the point of endurance in order to pay ex-
travagant salaries and dividends on watered stock. They have heart-
lessly disregarded the lives and safety of their passengers and are
notorious for overworking and underpaying their employés. Their ra-
pacity and brutality have become a by-word in the land.
The committee appointed by the Senate to take testimony upon the
subject of interstate commerce have drawn an indictment against the
railroads embodying the grievances which the business interests have
complained of, and which are as follows:
1. That local rates are unreasonably high, compared with through rates.
2. That both local and through rates are unreasonably high at non-competing
points, either from the absence of competition or in consequence of pooling
agreements that restrict its operation.
3. That rates are established without apparent regard to the actual cost of the
service performed, and are based largely on “what the traffic will bear.”
4. That unjustifiable discriminations are constantly made between individuals
in the rates charged for like service under similar circumstances.
5. That improper discriminations are made between articles of freight and
branches of business of a like character and between different quantities of the
same class of freight.
6. º unreasonable discriminations are made between localities similarly
situated.
7. That the effect of the prevailing policy of railroad management is, by an
elaborate system of secret special rates, rebates, drawbacks, and concessions,
to foster monoply, to enrich favored shippers, and to prevent free competition in
many lines of trade in which the item of transportation is an important factor.
8. That such favoritism and secrecy introduce an element of uncertainty into
legitimate business that greatly retards the development of our industries and
COIYırner Ge.
9. That the secret cutting of rates and the sudden flucturations that constantly
take place are demoralizing to all business except that of a purely speculative
character, and frequently occasion great injustice and heavy losses.
10. That, in the absence of national and uniform legislation, the railroads are
able by various devices to avoid their responsibility as carriers, especially on
shipments over more than one road, or from one State to another, and that
shippers find great difficulty in recovering damages for the loss of property or
for injury thereto.
11. That railroads refuse to be bound by their own contracts, and arbitrarily
collect large sums in the shape of overcharges in addition to the rates agreed
upon at the time of shipment.
12. That railroads often refuse to recognize or be responsible for the acts of
dishonest agents acting under their authority.
13. That the common law fails to afford a remedy for such grievances, and
that in cases of dispute the shipper is compelled to submit to the decision of
the railroad manager or pool commissioner, or run the risk of incurring further
losses by greater discriminations.
14. That the differences in the classifications in use in various parts of the coun-
* 611
try, and sometimes for shipments over the same roads in different directions,
. a fruitful source of misunderstandings, and are often made a means of ex-
rtion.
15. That a privileged class is created by the granting of passes, and that the
cost of the passenger service is largely increased by the extent of this abuse.
16. That the capitalization and bonded indebtedness of the roads largely ex-
ceed the actual cost of their construction or their present value, and that unrea-
sonable rates are charged in the effort to pay dividends on watered stock and
interest on bonds improperly issued.
17. That railroad corporations have improperly engaged in lines of business
entirely distinct from that of transportation, and that undue advantages have
been afforded to business enterprises in which railroad officials were interested.
18. That the management of the railroad business is extravagant and waste-
ful, and that a needless tax is imposed upon the shipping and traveling public
by the unnecessary expenditure of large sums in the maintenance of a costly
force of agents engaged in a reckless strife for competitive business.
The foregoing charges, formulated by the committee, are, as to many
of the railroads of the country, unquestionably true.
These corporations were created by the people, and can be made
amenable to their control. They must be compelled to do equal and
exact justice to everybody. They must be so compelled by the strong
arm of the Federal Government. It is true that where they lie wholly
within one State they are subject only to the jurisdiction of that State;
but when they cross State lines they become subject to the sovereignty
of the United States; and it is the right and duty of Congress to inter-
fere and protect the people from their greed and mismanagement.
Let us see what attempts have been made in this Congress to exer-
cise that power. A brief glance at the action of both Houses will re-
fresh our recollection and fix the responsibility for success or failure
where it properly belongs.
On the 12th day of last May the Senate passed a bill (S. 1532) known
as the “Cullom bill,” and sent it to us for consideration. After some
debate we refused their bill, and on July 30 passed a substitute, known
as the “Reagan bill” (being similar to H. R. 6657), and sent it back
to the Senate. Said substitute thereby became Senate bill No. 1532.
For that substitute I voted, although I did not approve some of its
provisions—as I may explain later. It provided full remedies for the
principal grievances complained of in railroad management, and was
wholly in the interest of the people. It went to the full extent that any
tentative legislation should go, and even farther than was thought pru-
dent by myself and others of its supporters. That bill was based upon
the theory of furnishing remedies in both State and Federal courts for
violations of its provisions. It commanded what should be done by
the railroads, and prohibited what should not be done.
Its leading features are succinctly stated in House Report No. 902,
which recites that the bill—
Provides that the charges of the railroads shall be reasonable; that persons
engaged in the transportation of interstate commerce by railroads shall furnish
without discrimination the same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery,
storage and handling of property of like character, and shall perform with
equal expedition the same kind of services connected with contemporaneous
transportation.
It makes provision against evasion of the continuous carriage of freights by
prohibiting stoppage or interruption of the transmission of freights at interme-
diate stations. It makes it unlawful to allow any rebate, drawback, or other
advantage in any form upon shipments made for any person. It makes com-
binations for pooling unlawful, and it prohibits charging more for a given
amount and kind of service for a shorter than for a longer distance, which in-
cludes the shorter distance on any one railroad.
It provides that the railroad companies shall post up schedules of the rates and
charges on their respective roads, and shall not change schedules so as to in-
crease charges without giving five days' notice. It makes provision that rail-
roads receiving freight for shipment in the United States to be carried through
a foreign country, the ultimate destination of which is some place in the United
61.2
States, shall keep posted in a conspicuous place at the depot where said freight
is received for shipment schedules giving the through rates to all the points in
the United States beyond the foreign territory, and it provides that any freight
shipped into a foreign country and reshipped into the United States, the through
rate on which shall not have been made public as required by this act, shall,
before it is admitted into the United States from said foreign country, be subject
to customs duties.
It provides that those violating the provisions of the act shall be held to pay
to the person or persons injured the full amount of the damage sustained by
such violation, together with reasonable counsel’s or attorney’s fees, to be fixed
by the court in every case of recovery, and that suits under this provision of the
act may be brought in any State or United States court of competent jurisdiction.
It provides for the equitable cognizance of cases arising under this act, for
the production of the books, papers, &c., of any company when necessary, and
that parties to such suits may be compelled to testify, with the reservation that
their testimony shall not be used against them in a criminal prosecution. It also
provides that for any violation of the provisions of this act the parties guilty of
such violation shall be liable to a fine of not more than $2,000, and that nothing
in the act shall apply to the carriage, receiving, storage, handling, and forward-
ing of property wholly within one State, and not shipped from or destined to
some foreign country or other State or Territory or the District of Columbia ; nor
shall it apply to property carried for the United States at lower rates of freight
and charges than for the general public, or to the traſhsportation of articles free
or at reduced rates of freight for charitable or religious pyurposes, or to and from
public fairs and expositions for exhibition.
These constitute a portion of the leading features ostMe bill which we report
to the House. It is believed that the enactment and enforcement of such a law
will provide for the just and necessary abridgement of the monopoly powers of
these corporations, and protect the people against unreasonable charges and
extortionate exactions, and will at the same time not interfere with or embar-
rass the management of railroad corporations in anything which it is reasona-
ble and just they should do.
This salutary measure went back to the Senate and they refused to
concur. Thereupon a conference committee was appointed, and as a
result of their labors we have the pending bill, which passed the Senate
a few days ago and has now become the Senate bill No. 1532.
The principal changes made by the conference committee in the
substitute bill heretofore passed by the House and above referred to are
as follows:
It extends the operation of the law to include passenger traffic, as
well as freight, and seeks to control water ways in addition to rail-
roads. To these changes I have no serious objection, although it would
have been wiser, in such purely experimental legislation, to have moved
more slowly. It takes away from the people any right to seek justice
in the State courts, and compels them to resort to a commission located
at Washington city, or to Federal courts which are few in number, and
usually distant from the places where rights of action accrue.
This is a provision in the interest of the railways and derogatory to
the rights of the people; yet if it were the only objectionable addi-
tion I would support the bill, hoping for a change in this respect at
the next session of Congress. I do most earnestly protest, however,
that the State courts should have concurrent jurisdiction with the
Federal courts in all suits against railroads which are contemplated by
this bill. I do not agree with the Senate conferees who injected this
idea into it. I am an advocate of the right of the people to try the
issues which may be forced upon them in the courts nearest their
homes. The State courts have the power of life and death. They
can be trusted to administer upon all the property we have or hope
for, but in the judgment of Some people they are not good enough to
try cases against a railroad company. Perhaps they are too convenient
of access and too inexpensive in costs to suit the ideas of gentlemen
at the other end of the Capitol. However, I pass over this section,
contenting myself by adding that it shows the drift and tendency of
p
613
the changes engrafted by the Senate—shows that somebody is anxious
to succor the railroads rather than the people who may be compelled
to sue them.
This bill creates a sort of railway syndicate, designated as “The
interstate-commerce commission,” consisting of five persons. appointed
by the President of the United States, who have an office at Washington
city. They are empowered to hold Sessions elsewhere, and any single
member may take testimony anywhere. They have authority to employ
as many persons as they deem proper, and pay them what they please,
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, provided, of
course, that Congress appropriate enough money. Into the hands of
these five gentlemen, from whose actions and decisions in all vitally
important uatters there is no appeal, is placed 130,000 miles of rail-
roads, the great waterways of the continent, and all the business which
is carried over them or affected by them. As was well said on this
floor yesterday, this bill ought to be entitled “A bill to more completely
give over the control of the business and political interests of the people
into the hands of the confederated monopolists.”
These five men can build up the business of one road and tear down
that of another. They can make and unmake fortunes with the stroke
of a pen. They can prostrate or destroy the commerce of any city,
State, or section. Every railroad and transportation company is made
a beggar at their feet and can practically do nothing—-not even keep
its accounts—except in such manner as may, forsooth, please these, their
masters. No potentate in the world would dare attempt the exercise
40f such arbitrary and unlimited powers.
This bill is a wide departure from the customs of this Republic. It
is a gigantic stride toward paternal government, and is fraught with
dangers yet to follow. It will create alarm among the people when
its startling innovations are known and understood. Yet, we have
been warned. Chambers of commerce and boards of trade all over the
country have memorialized us. As showing the character of their pre-
dictions I read a sentence or two from the resolutions sent here by the
.citizens of Minneapolis:
At best, it gives to five men, about whose competency, experience, and integ-
Tity nothing can be known in advance, almost autocratic power over the market
value of hundreds of millions of dollars of railway stocks and bonds, over the
market value of the agricultural products of half a continent, as well as of the
lands upon which these products are grown.
So great a power and so tremendous a temptation to its abuse ought not to be
presented unnecessarily to any committee of citizens or be made the foot-ball
of politics.
Under the provisions of this bill this commission can create large num-
bers of office-holders, and with these and the business of the country
under their iron control what political schemes may not be consum-
mated? What elections may not be carried? What doubtful or dis-
puted Presidential successions may not lie within their power? For
while they are the masters of the people the President of the United
States is their master, and he becomes by this bill the absolute polit-
ical monarch of the country. I can not better express my sentiments
on this subject than by quoting the words of the eloquent Senator from
Alabama [Mr. MoRGAN]:
I have heard of Presidents with whom I would not trust that power. I do
not say that I would not trust that power in the hands of Mr. Cleveland, for I
think he is a very honest man, but it is a dangerous power to put into the hands
of any man. He can appoint three commissioners of his own political party,
and then the responsibility of those commissioners is directly on him. The re-
sponsibility is not with the Senate on impeachment; it is not with a grand jury
614
on a question of fraud in the administration of their offices. By this bill their
responsibility is made directly to the President, and not the responsibility
merely, but all that they do. The President is the man who acts through them,
and they are responsible to him, and he removes them if they do not suit him.
Suppose he wanted to be re-elected President of the United States and he
should say, “Here is a doubtful State;” it may be Indiana; “I wish you would
just arrange to find sufficient reasons why this law ought to be let up on that
railroad company out there. They have a great many employés. It is a very
powerful organization. There need not be anything said about it; there is no
crime about it. It is a mere piece of political strategy. Could you not afford
just quietly to let up on that Indiana railroad company and let its competitor,
running north and south through Illinois, which is a dead-certain Republican
State, feel all the force of the law 2° Why not? This thing will probably never
be done; but how have we provided that it shall not be done? That is the
question. What safeguards are we putting in the way of a temptation of this
kind, which to my mind it seems at least is one of the greatest that could be
Set?
Mr. President, it will not do to put this sort of power of the administration
of private rights into the hands of any five men in the United States, and then
leave the question of their remaining in office, and continuing to do things that
they want to do in the hands of one man, and he the President of the United
States. It is autocratic and oligarchic power, a power that American statesmen
ought never to trust in the hands of any man in the world.
As for me I do not believe in any such omnipotent commission.
There are not five men living whom I would trust with such unbridled
power. I prefer that every right of the people should be adjudged and
passed upon by the courts and juries of the country, and when a com-
mission can be formed whose every act can be reviewed by or appealed
to a court, then, and not until then, will I vote to establish it.
But this is not all. Worse yet is to follow. The bill as it originally
passed the House contained a provision called the “long and short
haul clause,” which read as follows:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the
transportation of property as provided in the first section of this act to charge or
receive any greater compensation for a similar amount and kind of property,
for carrying, receiving, storing, forwarding, or handling the same, for a shorter
than for a longer distance, which includes the shorter distance, on any one rail-
road; and the road of a corporation shall include all the road in use by such
corporation, whether owned or operated by it under a contract, agreement, or
lease by such corporation.
While this may have overstepped the actual requirements of a meas-
ure tentative in its nature, and partly conjectural as to its results, yet
it was a square, plain prohibition aimed directly at the outrageous dis-
crimination existing against local shippers. But now comes the con-
ference bill, and so metamorphoses this section that its own father
[Judge REAGAN], if he were here, could not recognize a single linea-
ment of its features. The section now reads:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the Commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transpor-
tation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act.
The first half of this section is a mass of pompous verbiage, mean-
ing nothing, and intended by its framer to mean a good deal less than
nothing. The latter half of the section contains a grant of power to
615
the commission, the power of arbitrarily fixing rates for every pound
of freight that travels by land or water, which is simply appalling.
Let us first address ourselves to the meaning of the section. Does
anybody understand it? Who has been able to explain its scope and
extent? The conferees do not agree. No two Senators appear to agree.
No two members of this House, so far as I can learn, have even at-
tempted an agreement. The author of the Senate bill [Mr. CULLOM]
interprets this ambiguous muddle of words as follows:
The limitations placed upon the prohibition that is made are very significant,
and they must not be overlooked. They require that in determining the sum
that may be charged for a shorter as compared with a longer distance, the com-
parison must be made—
1. Between shipments “ of like kind of property.”
2. “Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.”
3. “Over the same line.”
4. “In the same direction.”
5. When the shorter is “included within the longer distance.”
When the act is to be applied in any given case to measure the charge that
may be made for any distance, as compared with a longer distance, all of these
limitations must be taken into account, and they must all apply to the case—not
three or four of them, but all of them.
Whereupon another learned Senator [Mr. GEORGE] retorts very
truthfully that if the clause is to receive such a construction “then
the whole provision in the bill in reference to the long and short hauls.
amounts to nothing.” There is a growing suspicion pervading this.
House that the railroads “have had their finger in the pie,” and that
this section has been so manipulated that it is not intended to hamper
them much on either long or short hauls.
One Senator [Mr. FRYE] says:
I should like to know what the fourth section means from this discussion. I
should like to know how I or my constituents are to determine what it means:
from this discussion. I should like to know what lights have been thrown upon.
it. The conferees disagree in relation to it; almost every Senator who has dis-
cussed it disagrees with the other Senators in relation to it. Boards of trade
in Boston and Indianapolis, the Chamber of Commerce in New York, Legisla-
tures of the different States, all absolutely disagree diametrically as to what
this fourth section is.
Another Senator says:
Honorable Senators on this floor who announce their adherence to each and
every section of the bill, and who propose to vote for it as a whole as it stands,
without the dotting of an “i’’ or the crossing of a “t,” and who do not desire
its amendment in any particular, differ widely, and radically, and irreconcila-
bly as to the proper construction to be placed on some of its most important
provisions. That the bill is therefore in its most salient features ambiguous in
its phraseology, uncertain in its purpose, and vague and misleading in its struct-
ure, if not indeed absolutely inefficient as a means of meeting and overcoming
the evil against which it is ostensibly directed, is a fact patent to all.
While a member of this House [Mr. ELY] says:
Nobody knows what the language used in this section means. Attempts have
been made by the members of the conference committee and others to define
the principal proposition of this section and its collateral supports, but in vain.
Only yesterday the gentleman from Iowa inquired of the gentleman from
Georgia, a member of the conference committee, whether the word “cases” in
this section referred to shipments or to roads. The gentleman from Georgia
replied that it referred to shipments. The gentleman from Iowa evidently
believes that it refers to roads. The gentleman from Georgia is asked to ex-
plain and illustrate the provisions of this section so that we can understand it,
and he admits his inability to do so. The meaning of every important phrase
in this fourth section is incomprehensible even to the members of the commit-
tee who reported the bill.
And everybody else expresses just about the same opinion.
I submit whether, if nobody here can agree on the meaning of this
section, it is probable that the five commissioners created by the bill
6L6
will agree? If the framers of this important section do not know its
meaning will not endless litigation arise out of it? And will not “con-
fusion worse confounded ” come when the various Federal courts have
put their contradictory constructions upon it? It seems to me that
such legislation should be certain and unambiguous. Nothing ought
to be left to the discretion of the commission, and as little as pos-
sible for the decision of the courts. When I read and re-read this sec-
tion, in a hopeless attempt to unravel it, I feel like exclaiming, as was
done here yesterday, that “it seems to be the theory of the pending
bill to do as little for the people as possible, and to render those sec-
tions relating to the rights of the people as obscure and unintelligible
as human ingenuity can make them.”
Now let us turn our attention to the most astonishing, and to me
utterly indefensible, feature of the bill. It is contained in the follow-
ing lines of the section just referred to:
That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of
this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the
commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances
for the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from
time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may
be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.
If the first half of the section should turn out to really mean some-
thing, and the law proves to be that through freights shall regulate
local freights, then the commission is empowered to suspend, abrogate,
or modify it at their own sweet will, and no court in the land can be
appealed to for injunction against threatened ruin, or compensation for
damage however great. Was ever legislation stretched so far? Not
the President, nor the Cabinet, nor the governors of the States, nor the
highest courts have ever been intrusted with power to suspend, repeal,
or annul the law. Yet this commission, which may be ignorant, will-
ful, or corrupt, can abrogate the law as to one road and enforce it upon
another, being all the while responsible to nobody for their action :
Was such a thing ever dreamed of before? It was well said by Senator
ING ALLS that— -
This is the first time in the history of legislation that such power as this was
declared, that such a declaration was made that this particular discrimination
should be unlawful, that it should be denounced in a legislative enactment, and
at the same time that the tribunal which was created to enforce the law should
in specific terms be authorized to abrogate, veto, annul, and repeal it.
This section vests in these commissioners, or, in fact, in a bare ma-
jority of them, the power to send the stock of one railroad up and an-
other down by the mere order to suspend or enforce this law. They
can put millions into Wall street in one day and take millions out of
it the next. They can furnish information, or permit it to be done, by
which fortunes can be made by one man at the expense of another’s
bankruptcy. They may favor one competing line of railway until it
becomes overgrown and rich and utterly destroy its rival. I do not
intend to vote to put this temptation before anybody, for, sooner or later,
somebody will fall and public scandal ensue.
This section is not only pernicious, but it is ridiculous. The absurd-
ity consists in describing an offense, forbidding its practice, decreeing
its punishment, and then serenely permitting it to be committed with
impunity by the consent of a commission who are empowered by law
to grant the privilege of sinning. Nothing like it has been known
since the sale of indulgences, which Martin Luther thundered against
and which disrupted the all-powerful Roman Church. If this principle
is to be ingrafted upon our jurisprudence it would be next in order
617
to establish a commission to modify or annul the decalogue and pre-
scribe upon what terms, certain favored persons, might steal, covet,
and commit other offenses prohibited in that fundamental moral law.
Then there is another absurdity in those sections of the bill which rel-
egate to this commission the hearing and settling of all complaints and
difficulties affecting the transportation business of the country. Does
anybody seriously urge that these five men can determine even a tithe
of the controversies arising between sixty millions of people and the
network of railroads crossing the country like a labyrinth? The com-
mission will be utterly impotent to protect the people even if it were
so inclined. You know how overcrowded are the courts of this coun-
try sitting in every city and county—Federal, State, and municipal.
There are thousands of courts transacting the business of the people,
and nearly all of them behind with their dockets. How is it possible
for one little commission to transact the enormous business of railroad-
ing 2 I do not believe anybody imagines it can be properly done.
Senator MORRILL gives his estimates in the following words:
To take charge of this bill under its present terms I do not think fifty com-
missioners would be able the first year to transact the business that will be
thrown on their hands, and yet we provide in this bill that there shall be only
five commissioners, and leave it, even for those who are not at all interested in
any freight matter, to make any complaint that they see fit, and that complaint
has to be considered by these five cornmissioners.
Senator SHERMAN concurs, and says:
Then the bill limits the powers of the commission to allow special rates to a
considerable extent, somewhat more than the original Senate bill did, because
they must take up each particular case, each particular matter, and decide upon
that. What does that mean? Does that mean that they shall not make any
general regulations which would apply to all articles exported to foreign coun-
tries? Not at all. But they must take up the case as applied to a particular
railroad under particular circumstances and particular conditions. If that is the
duty imposed on this commission there will not be time in the twelve months
between January and January to act upon one-tenth of the cases that will be
presented to it.
And so says nearly every member of either House who has spoken
to this point. The practical railroad men of the country see it in the
same light. The president of the New York, Lake Erie and Western
Railroad is reported in the New York Tribune of December 19 as fol-
lows:
The proposed board of commissioners will at least for a long time only aggra-
vate the situation. Five commissioners to examine and decide promptly such
delicate, difficult, and complicated questions as these ! Seventy-five commis-
.sioners well trained in the necessary requirements of their positions could not
do it. It would require the whole time of five commissioners to hear and pass
upon the grievances of this company alone. It would take five for each of the
other trunk lines. It would take months of careful and diligent examination to
make an intelligent report or reach a wise conclusion.
The only redeeming feature of the matter is that the commission
may be kept so busy and overworked by these details that they will be
comparatively powerless to perpetrate the mischief lurking in other
sections of the bill. The less they are permitted to meddle with the
business of the country the better it will be. I can not stop to discuss
other evils of the conference bill—such is the wide door thrown open
to systematic and universal blackmailing of railroads under fictitious
complaints—for I assume that dangers of that character will be exposed
by gentlemen who are accustomed to espouse the cause of the rail-
roads. I find use for all my time in laying bare the jeopardy in which
the people are placed by this ill-advised bill.
Before I close my argument I wish to say a few words in regard to
the subject of “pooling.” Section 5 of the pending bill absolutely
618
and unconditionally prohibits the pooling of freights or the division of
aggregate receipts between competing railroads. This provision was
also embodied in the House bill for which I voted. I do not, however,
assent wholly to the proposition. Pooling should not be prohibited,
for it is often a benefit rather than an injury to the public. It should
be regulated, controlled, and held thoroughly in check, so that it could
not be used as a means of imposing on the shipper or producer. This
could be readily done under either the House bill or the pending bill,
both of which prohibit unjust and unreasonable charges for transporta-
tion. Any one who will carefully peruse the report of Hon. Joseph
Nimmo, jr., Chief of the Bureau of Statistics, made to the Secretary of the
Treasury December 31, 1884, upon the subject of “railroad federations
and the relation of railroads to commerce,” will, I think, concur in the
opinion that pooling should be directed and kept within proper bounds,
but not prohibited. I quote so much of his report as contains his con-
clusions upon this subject in condensed form:
In conclusion, the following general observations may be made in regard to.
railroad federations or pooling organizations:
First. They have been instrumental in preventing unjust discriminations
through special secret rates to favored shippers, and the consequent demorali-
zation of trade.
Second. They have prevented many unjust and ruinous discriminations,
against towns and cities, and against particular States or sections of the coun-
try.
Third. They have put a stop to violently fluctuating rates.
Fourth. They have had the effect of protecting the weaker lines and of pre-
venting their absorption by the stronger lines, and thus of conserving elements
of competition in transportation.
Fifth. By preventing the absorption of the weaker by the stronger lines they
have prevented the threatened danger to the country of its being districted
among a few great corporations, by which means the regulating influence of the
competition of trade forces would have been eliminated, and transportation
would have gotten the mastery of trade.
Sixth. They have tended to prevent those shocks to the financial interests of
the country which generally accompany the bankruptcy of great railroad cor-
porations. -
Seventh. Since they have been adopted the railroad transportation facilities
of the country have been greatly extended. The volume of traffic has also
enormously increased, and rates have constantly fallen. These facts seem to
prove that railroad federation has not had the effect of obstructing the benefi-
cial operation of the competition of trade forces and of the direct competition
between transportation lines. Statistics hereinbefore presenied clearly indi-
cate this fact. . - \
Eighth. The most hopeful aspect of federations for the division or pooling of
traffic is that thereby the railroads have been brought to a condition in which
their accountability to the public interests may be more clearly defined, and in
which any departure from undoubted principles of right can be observed and
the responsibility therefor located. It is believed to be much easier to regulate
great federations of railroads with respect to matters relating to commerce
among the States than to regulate a great number of railroads acting inde-
pendently, for the reason that these federations constitute concrete expressions
of relationships and antagonisms both among railroads and among trade cen-
ters, and tend to illustrate the relative force of the same. s
Ninth. Railroad pools have not proved to be rigid compacts, but they have
been constantly subject to change. Occasional and even protracted wars of
rates render their requirements at times almost entirely inoperative. This
must, in the light of public interest, be regarded as a favorable symptom of their
practical workings. The conditions surrounding and governing the commer-
cial and transportation interests of the country are constantly subject to change,
and it is impracticable that any fixed rules or set of rules should be formulated
which in practice would tend to prevent such changes.
This seems to me to be sound logic, good judgment, fair to the rail-
roads, and for the general benefit of the public.
In concluding I presume it is unnecessary for me to say that I shall
vote “may.” Such a vote does not, nor do I intend it should, imply
that I disfavor legislation upon this subject. Neither do I wish it un
619
derstood that I would not support a reasonable bill even if it did not,
precisely conform to my views. In my judgment this conference re-
port ought not to be concurred in by the House. Such action here will
send it back to a new conference committee which, in all probability,
would amend the bill so that the commission might be empowered only
to hear, investigate, and recommend, with the additional right to exer-
cise certain executive functions, subject at all times to the restraining
orders of the courts. The long and short haul clause should be so mod-
ified as not to risk the diversion or destruction of our transcontinental
carrying trade, whereby the products of China and India are trans-
ported to Europe in competition with the Suez Canal, the Panama route,
and the ocean lines. It should also be so modified as not to interfere
with the free shipment abroad of the agricultural products of the great
West and the mechanical products of the interior cities. The pooling
clause should also be made more elastic.
Were these changes made I would earnestly, although not without
apprehension, support the bill. If it did not prove all that it ought
to be we could, at future sessions, so amend it that it would become a
wise and beneficent law. But in its present condition, with the insu-
perable objections I have pointed out, I can not vote to concur.
APPENDIX A.
THE BILL AS IT PASSED THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVEs JULY 30, 1886—conſ-
MONLY CALLED THE REAGAN BILL.
Be it enacted by the Senate and Howse of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person or per-
sons engaged alone or associated with others in the transportation of property
by railroad from one State or Territory or the District of Columbia to or through
one or more other States or Territories of the United States or the District of
Columbia, or to or from any foreign country, directly or indirectly to charge to
or receive from any person or persons any greater or less rate or amount of
freight, compensation, or reward than is charged to or received from any other
person or persons for like and contemporaneous service in the carrying, receiv-
ing, delivering, storing, or handling of the same. All charges for such services
shall be reasonable. And all persons engaged as aforesaid shall furnish, with-
out discrimination, the same facilities for the carriage, receiving, delivery, stor-
age, and handling of all property of like character carried by him or them, and
shall perform with equal expedition the same kind of services connected with
the contemporaneous transportation thereof as aforesaid. No break, stoppage,
or interruption, nor any contract, agreement, or understanding, shall be made
to prevent the carriage of any property from being and being treated as one
continuous carriage, in the meaning of this act, from the place of shipment to
the place of destination, unless such stoppage, interruption, contract, arrange-
ment, or understanding shall bave been made in good faith for some practical
and necessary purpose, without any intent to avoid or interrupt such contin-
uous carriage or to evade any of the provisions of this act.
SEC. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the car-
riage, receiving, storage, or handling of property as mentioned in the first section
of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or agreement, by changes of
schedule, carriage in different cars, or by any other means, with intent to pre-
vent the carriage of such property from being continuous from the place of
shipment to the place of destination, whether carried on one or several rail-
roads; and it shall be unlawful for any person or persons carrying property as
aforesaid to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination for the pooling
of freights, or to pool the freights, of different and competing railroads, by
dividing between them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such
railroads, or any portion of them; and in any case of an agreement for the pool-
ing of freights or earnings as aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be
deemed a separate offense.
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the
transportation of property as aforesaid directly or indirectly to allow any rebate,
drawback, or other advantage, in any form, upon shipments made or services
rendered as aforesaid by him or them.
SEC. 4, That it shall be unlawful for any person or persons engaged in the
transportation of property as provided in the first section of this act to charge
620
or receive any greater compensation for a similar amount and kind of property,
for carrying, receiving, storing, forwarding, or handling the same, for a shorter
than for alonger distance, which includes the shorter distance, on any one rail-
road; and the road of a corporation shall include all the road in use by such
.corporation, whether owned or operated by it under a contract, agreement, or
lease by such corporation.
SEC. 5. That all persons engaged in carrying property as provided in the first
section of this act shall adopt and keep posted up schedules on their respective
roads, as described in section 4 of this act, which shall plainly state:
First. The different kinds and classes of property to be carried.
Second. The different places between which such property shall be carried.
Third. The rates of freight and prices of carriage between such places, and
for all services connected with the receiving, delivery, loading, unloading, stor-
ing, or handling the same. And the accounts for such service shall show what
part of the charges are for transportation, and what part are for loading, un-
loading, and other terminal facilities.
Such schedules may be changed from time to time as hereinafter provided.
Copies of such schedules shall be printed in plain, large type, at least the size
of ordinary pica, and shall be kept plainly posted for public inspection in at
least two places in every depot where freights are received or delivered; and
no such schedule shall be raised in any particular except by the substitution
of another schedule containing the specifications above required, which sub-
stitute schedule shall plainly state the time when it shall go into effect, and
copies of which, printed as aforesaid, shall be posted as above provided at least
five days before the same shall go into effect; and the same shall remain in force
until another schedule shall as aforesaid be substituted; and it shall be unlaw-
ful for any person or persons engaged in Carrying property on railroads as afore-
said, after thirty days after the passage of this act, to charge or receive more or
less compensation for the carriage, receiving, delivery, loading, unloading,
handling, or storing of any of the property contemplated by the first section of
this act than shall be specified in such schedule as may at the time be in force.
Any company or corporation receiving freight for shipment in the United States
to be carried through a foreign country, the ultimate destination of which is
some place in the United States, said company so receiving said freight shall
keep posted in a conspicuous place at the depot where said freight is received
for shipment a schedule giving the through rates to all points in the United
States beyond the foreign territory, a failure to do which shall subject the said
company or corporation to all the penalties herein fixed; and any freight
shipped into a foreign country, and reshipped into the United States, the
through rate on which shall not have been made public as required by this act,
‘shall, before it is admitted into the United States from said foreign country, be
subject to customs duties as if said freight were of foreign production; and any
law in conflict with this section is hereby repealed.
SEC. 6. That each and all of the provisions of this act shall apply to all prop-
erty, and the receiving, delivery, loading, unloading, handling, storing, or
earriage of the same, on one actually or substantially continuous carriage, OT a S
part of such continuous carriage, as provided for in the first section of this act,
and the compensation thereof, whether such property be carried wholly on one
railroad or partly on several railroads, as defined in section 4 of this act, and
whether such services are performed or compensation paid or received by or to
one person alone or in connection with another or other persons.
SEC. 7. That each and every act, matter, or thing in this act declared to be
unlawful is hereby prohibited; and in case any person or persons as defined in
this act, engaged as aforesaid, shall do, suffer, or permit to be done any act,
matter, or thing in this act prohibited or forbidden, or shall omit to do any act,
matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or shall be guilty of any viola-
tion of the provisions of this act, such person or persons shall be held to pay
the person or persons injured the full amount of damages so sustained, together.
with a reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every
case of recovery, which attorney's fee shall be taxed and collected as costs in
the case, to be recovered by the person or persons so damaged by suit in any
State or United States court of competent jurisdiction where the person or per-
Sons causing such damage can be found or may have an agent, office, or place of
business. Any action to be brought as aforesaid may be considered, and if so
brought shall be regarded, as a subject of equity jurisdiction and discovery, and
affirmative relief may be sought and obtained therein. In any such action so
brought as a case of equitable cognizance as aforesaid, any director, officer, re-
ceiver, or trustee of any corporation or company aforesaid, or any receiver,
trustee, or person aforesaid, or any agent of any such corporation or company, re-
ceiver, trustee, or person aforesaid, or of any of them, alone or with any other per-
son or persons, party or parties, may and shall be compelled to attend, appear, and
testify and give evidence; and no claim that any such testimony or evidence
might or might not tend to criminate the person testifying or giving evidence
shall be of any avail, but such evidence or testimony shall not be used as against
such person on the trial of any indictment against him, The attendance and ap-
621
pearance of any of the persons who as aforesaid may be compelled to appear or
testify, and the giving of the testimony or evidence by the same, respectively,
and the production of books and papers thereby, may and shall be compelled the
'same as in the case of any other witness; and in case any deposition or evidence,
or the P. of any books or papers, may be desired or required for the pur-
pose of applying for or sustaining any such action, the same, and the production
of books and papers, may and shall be had, taken, and compelled by or before
any United States commissioner, or in any manner provided or to be provided
for as to the taking of other depositions or evidence, or the attendance of wit–
messes, or the production of other books or papers in or by chapter 17 of title
13 of the Revised statutes of the Únited States. No action aforesaid shali be
sustained unless brought within one year after the cause of action shall accrue,
or within one year after the party complaining shall have come to a knowledge
of his right of action. And as many causes of action as may accrue within the
year may be joined in the same suit or complaint.
SEC. 8. That any director or officer of any corporation or company acting or
engaged as aforesaid, or any receiver or trustee, lessee, or person acting or en-
gaged as aforesaid, or any agent of any such corporation or company, receiver,
trustee, or person aforesaid, or of one of them, alone or with any other corpora-
tion, company, person, or party, who shall willfully do, or cause or willingly
suffer or permit to be done, any act, matter, or thing in this act prohibited or
forbidden, or who shall aid or abet therein, or shall willfully omit or fail to do
any act, matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or cause or willingly
suffer or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act
to be done not to be so done, or shall aid or abet any such omission or failure,
or shall be guilty of any infraction of this act, or aid or abet therein, shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more
more than $2,000.
SEC. 9. That nothing in this act shall apply to the carriage, receiving, storage,
handling, or forwarding of property wholly within one State, and not shipped
from or destined to some foreign country or other State or Territory; nor shall
it apply to property carried for the United States at lower rates of freight and
charges than for the general public, or to the transportation of articles free or
at reduced rates of freight for charitable or religious purposes, or to or from
public fairs and expositions for exhibition.
SEC. 10. That the words “person or persons” as used in this act, except where
otherwise provided, shall be construed and held to mean person or persons, offi-
cer or officers, corporation or corporations, company or companies, receiver or
receivers, trustee or trustees, lessee or lessees, agent or agents, or other person
or persons acting or engaged in any of the matters and things mentioned in this
act.
APPENDIX B.
THE PENDING BILL, REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE, AND
AGREED TO BY THE SENATE JANUARY 14, 1887.
That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers
engaged in the transportation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or
partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used, under a common
control, management, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment,
from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to
any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, or
from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any
É. in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the
nited States, and also to the transportation in like manner of property shipped
from any place in the United States to a foreign country and carried from such
place to a port of transshipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place
in the United States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the
United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That the pro-
Visions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or prop-
erty, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property, wholly
within one State, and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any
State or Territory as aforesaid.
The term “railroad” as used in this act shall include all bridges and ferries
used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the roads in use
by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned or operated under a
contract, agreement, or lease; and the term “transportation” shall include all
instrumentalities of shipment or carriage.
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivery, storage, or handling of such property, shall be reason-
622
able and just, and every unjust, unreasonable charge for such service is prohib-
ited and declared to be unlawful.
SEC. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall,
directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device,
charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less
compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation
of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of this act, than it charges,
demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for
him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like
kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such
common carriershall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby
prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or ad-
vantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any
particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any par-
ticular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular descrip-
tion of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any
respect whatsoever.
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, according to
their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the
interchange of traffic between their respective lines, and for the receiving, for-
warding, and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several
lines and those connecting there with, and shall not discriminate in their rates
and charges between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as
requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal
facilities to another carrier engaged in like business.
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provis-
ions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate
for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substan-
tially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer dis-
tance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great
compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That
upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act
such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commis-
sion, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the
transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time
to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be
relieved from the operation of this section of this act. -
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provis-
ions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or combination with any
other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of freights of different and
competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds of
the earnings of such railroads, or any portion thereof; and in any case of an
agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance
shall be deemed a separate offense.
SEC. 6. That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall
print and keep for public inspection schedules showing the rates and fares and
charges for the transportation of passengers and property which any such com-
mon carrier has established and which are in force at the time upon its railroad,
as defined by the first section of this act. The schedules printed as aforesaid by
any such common carrier shall plainly state the places upon its railroad be-
tween which property and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the
Classification of freight in force upon such railroad, and shall also state sepa-
ratety the terminal charges and any rules or regulations which in any wise
change, affect, or determine any part of the aggregate of such aforesaid rates
and fares and charges. Such schedules shall be plainly printed in large type,
of at least the size of ordinary pica, and copies for the use of the public shall
be kept in every depot or station upon any such railroad, in such places and in
such form that they can be conveniently inspected. -
Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act receiving freight in
the United States to be carried through a foreign country to any place in the
United States shall also in like manner print and keep for public inspection, at
every depot where such freight is received for shipment, schedules showing
the through rates established and charged by such common carrier to all points
in the United States beyond the foreign country to which it accepts freight for
shipment; and any freight shipped from the United States through a foreign
country into the United States, the through rate on which shall not have been
made public as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United
States from said foreign country, be subject to customs duties as if said freight
Were fºreign production; and any law in conflict with this section is hereby
repealed.
623
No advance shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges which have been
‘established and published as aforesaid by any common carrier in compliance
with the requirements of this section, except after ten days’ public notice, which
shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made in the schedule then in force,
and the time when the increased rates, fares, or charges will go into effect; and
the proposed changes shall be shown by printing new schedules, or shall be
plainly indicated upon the schedules in force at the time and kept for public in-
spection. Reductions in such published rates, fares, or charges may be made
without previous public notice; but whenever any such reduction is made, no-
tice of the same shall immediately be publicly posted and the changes made shall
immediately be made public by printing new schedules, or shall immediately
be plainly indicated upon the schedules at the time in force and kept for public
inspection.
And when any such common carrier shall have established and published its
rates, fares, and charges, in compliance with the provisions of this section, it
shall be unlawful for such common carrier to charge, demand, collect, or receive
from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for the transportation
of passengers or property, or for any services in connection there with, than is
specified in such published schedule of rates, fares, and charges as may at the
time be in force. -
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the
commission hereinafter provided for copies of its schedules of rates, fares, and
charges which have been established and published in compliance with the
requirements of this section, and shall promptly notify said commission of all
changes made in the same. Every such common carrier shall also file with said
commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangemerits with other
common carriers in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this act
to which it may be a party. And in cases where passengers and freight pass
over continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier,
and the several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish joint
tariffs of rates, or fares, or charges for such continuous lines or routes, copies of
such joint tariffs shall also, in like manner, be filed with said commission. Such
joint rates, fares, and charges on such continuous lines so filed as aforesaid shall
be made public by such common carriers when directed by said commission, in
so far as may, in the judgment of the commission, be deemed practicable; and
said commission shall from time to time prescribe the measure of publicity
which shall be given to such rates, fares, and charges, or to such part of them as
it may deem it practicable for such common carriers to publish, and the places
in which they shall be published; but no common carrier party to any such
joint tariff shall be liable for the failure of any other common carrier party
#." to observe and adhere to the rates, fares, or charges thus made and pub-
ISI) eCi.
If any such common carrier shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its
schedules or tariffs of rates, fares, and charges as provided in this section, or
any part of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to other penalties
Therein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit
court of the United States in the judicial district wherein the principal office of
said common carrier is situated or wherein such offense may be committed,
and if such common carrier be a foreign corporation, in the judicial circuit
wherein such common carrier accepts traffic and has an agent to perform such
service, to compel compliance with the aforesaid provisions of this section;
and such writ shall issue in the name of the people of the United States, at the
relation of the commissioners appointed under the provisions of this act; and
failure to comply with its requirements shall be punishable as and for a con-
tempt ; and the said commissioners, as complainants, may also apply, in any
such circuit court of the United States, for a writ of injunction against such
common carrier, to restrain such common carrier from receiving or transporting
property among the several States and Territories of the United States, or be-
tween the United States and adjacent foreign countries, or between ports of
transshipment and of entry and the several States and Territories of the United
States, as mentioned in the first section of this act, until such common carrier
shall have complied with the aforesaid provisions of this section of this act.
SEC. 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or agreement, ex-
pressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time schedule, carriage in different
cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage of freights from being continuous
from the place of shipment to the place of destina ion; and no break of bulk,
stoppage, or interruption made by such common carrier shall prevent the car-
riage of freights from being and being treated as one continuous carriage from
the place of shipment to the place of destination, unless such break, stoppage,
or interruption was made in good faith for some necessary purpose, and with-
out any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous carriage or
to evade any of the provisions of this act.
SEC. 8. That in case any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act
shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any act, matter, or thing in this
624
act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall omit to do any act, matter, or
thing in this act required to be done, such common carrier shall be liable to the
person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in
consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this act, together with a
reasonable counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of re-
†. which attorney’s fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the costs in
the case. .
SEC. 9. That any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act may either make complaint to the
commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring suit in his or their own
behalf for the recovery of the damages for which such common carrier may
be liable under the provisions of this act, in any district or circuit court of the
United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person or persons shall not
have the right to pursue both of said remedies, and must in each case elects
which one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will
adopt. In any such action brought for the recovery of damages the court be-
fore which the same shall be pending may compel any director, officer, receiver,
trustee, or agent of the corporation or company defendant in such suit to at-
tend, appear, and testify in such case, and may compel the production of the
books and papers of such corporation or company party to any such suit; the
claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person
giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying, but such
evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding.
SEC. 10. That any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or,
whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any director or officer thereof,
or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person acting for or employed by such
corporation, who alone or with any other corporation, company, person, or
party, shall willfully do or cause to be done, or shall willingly suffer or permit to
be done, any act, matter, or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be unlaw-
ful, or who shall aid or abet therein, or shall willfully omit or fail to do any act,
matter, or thing in this act required to be done, or shall cause or willingly suffer
or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act to be done
not to be so done, or shall aid or abet any such omission or failure, or shall be
guilty of any infraction of this act, or shall aid or abet therein, shall be deemed.
guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any district court
of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such offense was com-
mitted, be subject to a fine of not to exceed $5,000 for each offense.
SEC. 11. That a commission is hereby created and established, to be known as.
the interstate-commerce commission, which shall be composed of five commis-
sioners, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate. The commissioners first appointed under this act shall
continue in office for the term of two, three, four, five, and six years, respectively,
from the 1st day of January, A. D. 1887, the term of each to be designated by the
President ; but their successors shall be appointed for terms of six years, except.
that any person chosen to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unex-
pired term of the commissioner whom he shall succeed. Any commissioner
may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance
in office. Not more than three of the commissioners shall be appointed from
the same political party. No person in the employ of, or holding any official
relation to, any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or owning:
stock or bonds thereof, or who is in any way pecuniarily interested therein, shall
enter upon the duties of or hold such office. Said commissioners shall not engage
in any other business, vocation, or employment. No vacancy in the commis-
sion shall impair the right of the remaining commissioners to exercise all the
powers of the commission. - -
SEC. 12. That the commission hereby created shall have authority to inquire
into the management of the business of all common carriers subject to the pro-
visions of this act, and shall keep itself informed as to the manner and method
in which the same is conducted, and shall have the right to obtain from such
common carriers full and complete information necessary to enable the com-
mission to perform the duties and carry out the objects for which it was created;
and for the purposes of this act the commission shall have power to require the
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers,
tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under in-
vestigation, and to that end may invoke the aid of any court of the United
States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the produc-
tion of books, papers, and documents under the provisions of this section.
And any of the circuit courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of
which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey
a subpoena issued to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act,
or other persons, issue an order, requiring such common carrier or other person
to appear before said commission (and produce books and papers if so ordered)
and give evidence touching the matter in question ; and any failure to obey such
order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. Ther
625
claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person
giving such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but such
evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any
criminal proceeding.
SF.C. 13. That any person, firm, corporation, or association, or any mercantile,
agricultural, or manufacturing society, or any body politic or municipal organ-
ization, complaining of anything done or omitted to be done by any common
carrier subject to the provisions of this act in contravention of the provisions
thereof, may apply to said commission by petition, which shall briefly state the
facts; whereupon a statement of the charges thus made shall be forwarded by
the commission to such common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the
complaint or to answer the same in writing within a reasonable time, to be
specified by the commission. If such common carrier, within the time speci-
fied, shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, said car-
rier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the particular vio-
lation of law thus complained of. If such carrier shall not satisfy the cond plaint
within the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for
investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the commission to investi-
gate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall
deem proper.
Said commission shall, in like manner, investigate any complaint forwarded
by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any State or Territory,
at the request of such commissioner or commission, and may institute any in-
quiry on its own motion in the same manner and to the same effect as though
complaint had been made.
No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence of direct
damage to the complainant.
SEC. 14. That whenever an investigation shall be made by said commission it
shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall 1n-
clude the findings of fact up on which the conclusions of the connmission are
based, together with its recommendation as to what reparation, if any, should
be made by the common carrier to any party or parties who inay be found to
have been injured; and such findings so made shall thereafter, in all judicial
proceedings, be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found.
All reports of investigations made by the commission shall be entered of rec-
ord, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the party who may have com-
plained, and to any common carrier that may have been complained of.
SEC. 15. That if in any case in which an investigation shall be made by said
commission it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the commission,
either by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence, that anything has been
done or omitted to be done in violation of the provisions of this act, or of any
law cognizable by said commission, by any connmon carrier, or that any injury
or damage has been sustained by the party or parties complaining, or by other
parties aggrieved in consequence of any such violation, it shall be the duty of
the commission to forth with cause a copy of its report in respect thereto to be
delivered to such common carrier, together with a notice to said common car-
rier to cease and desist from such violation, or to make reparation for the in-
jury so found to have been done, or both, within a reasonable time, to be speci-
fied by the commission ; and if, within the time specified, it shall be made to
appear to the commission that such common carrier has ceased from such vio-
lation of law, and has made reparation for the injury found to have been done,
in compliance with the report and notice of the commission, or to the satisfac-
tion of the party complaining, a statement to that effect shall be entered of rec-
ord by the commission, and the said common carriershall thereupon be relieved
from further liability or penalty for such particular violation of law.
SEC. 16. That whenever any common carrier, as defined in and subject to the
provisions of this act, shall violate or refuse or neglect to obey any lawful order
or requirement of the commission in this act named, it shall be the duty of the
commission, and lawful for any company or person interested in such order or
requirement, to apply, in a summary way, by petition, to the circuit court of the
United States sitting in equity in the judicial district in which the common car-
rier coumplained of has its principal office, or in which the violation or disobedi-
ence of such order or requirement shall happen, alleging such violation or dis-
obedience, as the case may be ; and the said court shall have power to hear and
determine the matter, on such short notice to the common carrier complained
of as the court shall deem reasonable; and such notice may be served on such
common carrier, his or its officers, agents, or servants, in Sueh manner as the
court shall direct; and said court shall proceed to hear and determine the mat-
ter speedily as a court of equity and without the formal pleadings and proceed-
ing applicable to ordinary suits in equity, but in such a manner as to do justice
in the premises; and to this end such court shall have power, if it think fit, to
direct and prosecute, in such mode and by such persons as it may appoint, all
such inquiries as the court may think needful to enable it to form a just judg-
I S C–40
626
ment in the matter of such petition; and on such hearing the report of said
commission shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated; and if it
be made to appear to such court, on such hearing or on report of any such person
or persons, that the lawful order or requirement of said commission drawn in
question has been violated or disobeyed, it shall be lawful for such court to issue
a writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain
such common carrier from further continuing such violation or disobedience of
such order or requirement of said commission, and enjoining obedience to the
same; and in case of any disobedience of any such writ of injunction or other
proper process, mandatory or otherwise, it shall be lawful for such court to issue
writs of attachment, or any other process of said court incident or applicable to
writs of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, against such
common carrier, and if a corporation, against one or more of the directors, of
ficers, or agents of the same, or against any owner, lessee, trustee, receiver, or
other person failing to obey such writ of injunction or other proper process,
mandatory or otherwise; and said court may, if it shall think fit, make an order
directing such common carrier or other person so disobeying such writ of in-
junction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to pay such sum of
money not exceeding for each carrier or person in default the sum of $500 for
every day after a day to be named in the order that such carrier or other per-
son shall fail to obey such injunction or other proper process, mandatory or
otherwise; and such moneys shall be payable as the court shall direct, either
to the party complaining, or into court to abide the ultimate decision of the
court, or into the Treasury: and payment thereof may, without prejudice to
any other mode of recovering the same, be enforced by attachment or order
in the nature of a writ of execution, in like manner as if the same had been
recovered by a final decree in personam in such court. When the subject in
dispute shall be of the value of $2,000 or more, either party to such proceeding
before said court may appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, under
the same regulations now provided by law in respect of security for such ap-
peal; but such appeal shall not operate to stay or supersede the order of the
court or the execution of any writ or process thereon ; and such court may, in
every such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as shall be
deemed reasonable. Whenever any such petition shall be filed or presented by
the commission it shall be the duty of the district attorney, under the direction
of the Attorney-General of the United States, to prosecute the same; and the
costs and expenses of such prosecution shall be paid out of the appropriation
for the expenses of the courts of the United States. For the purposes of this
act, excepting its penal provisions, the circuit courts of the United States shall
be deemed to be always in session.
SEC. 17. That the commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as
will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice. A
majority of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of busi-
ness, but no commissioner shall participate in any hearing or proceeding in
which he has any pecuniary interest. Said commission may, from time to time,
make or amend such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the order
and regulation of proceedings before it, including forms of notices and the serv-
ice thereof, which shall conform, as nearly as may be, to those in use in the
courts of the United States. Any party may appear before said commission and
be heard, in person or by attorney. Every vote and official act of the commis-
sion shall be entered of ecord, and its proceedings shall be public upon the re-
quest of either party interested. Said commission shall have an official seal,
which shall be judicially noticed. Either of the members of the commission
maw administer oaths and affirmations.
SEC. 18. That cach commissioner shall receive an annual salary of $7,500, pay-
able in the same manner as the salaries of judges of the courts of the United
States. The commission shall appoint a secretary, who shall receive an annual
salary of $3,500, payable in like manner. The commission shall have authority
to employ and fix the compensation of such other employés as it may find neces-
sary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
The commission shall be furnished by the Secretary of the Interior with suit-
able offices and all necessary office supplies. Witnesses summoned before the
commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in
the courts of the United States. All of the expenses of the commission, including
all necessary expenses for transportation incurred by the connmissioners, or
by their employés under their orders, in making any investigation in any other
places than in the city of Washington, shall be allowed and paid, on the presen-
tation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the chairman of the commis-
sion and the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 19. That the principal office of the commission small be in the city of
Washington, where its general sessions shall be held; but whenever the con-
venience of the public or of the parties may be promoted or delay or expense
prevented thereby, the commission may hold special sessions in any part of
627
the United States. It may, by one or more of the commissioners, prosecute
any inquiry necessary to its duties, in any part of the United States, into any
matter or question of fact pertaining to the business of any common carrier
gubject to the provisions of this act.
SEC. 20. That the commission is hereby authorized to require annual reports
from all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act, to fix the time and
prescribe the manner in which such reports shall be made, and to require from
such carriers specific answers to all questions upon which the commission may
need information. Such annual reports shall show in detail the amount of cap-
‘ital stock issued, the amounts paid therefor, and the manner of payment for
the same; the dividends paid, the surplus fund, if any, and the nuzaber of stock-
holders; the funded and floating debts, and the interest paid thereon ; the cost
and value of the carrier’s property, franchises, and equipment; the number of
employés, and the salary paid each class; the amounts expended for improve-
ments each year, how expended, and the character of such improvements; the
earnings and receipts for each branch of business and from all sources; the
operating and other expenses; the balances of profit and loss; and a complete
exhibit of the financial operation of the carrier each year, including an annual
balance-sheet. Such reports shall also contain such information in relation to
rates or regulations, concerning fares or freights, or agreements, arrangements,
or contracts with other common carriers, as the commission may require; and
the said commission may, within its discretion, for the purpose of enabling it
the better to carry out the purposes of this act, prescribe (if in the opinion of the
commission it is practicable to prescribe such uniformity and methods of keep-
ing accounts) a period of time within which all common carriers subject to the
provisions of this act shall have, as near as may be, a uniforn) system of ac-
counts, and the manner in which such accounts shall be kept.
SEC. 21. That the commission shall, on or before the 1st day of December in
each year, make a report to the Secretary of the Interior, which shall be by him
transmitted to Congress, and copies of which shall be distributed as are the
other reports issued from the Interior Department. This report shall contain
such information and data collected by the commission as may be considered of
value in the determination of questions connected with the regulation of com-
merce, together with such recommendations as to additional legislation relat-
ing thereto as the commission play deem necessary. -
SEC, 22. That nothing in this act shall apply to the carriage, storage, or hand-
ling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States, State, or munici-
pal governments, or for charitable purposes, or to or from fairs and expositions
for exhibition thereat, or the issuance of mileage, excursion, or commutation
passenger tickets; nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit any com-
mon carrier from giving reduced rates to ministers of religion; nothing in this
act shall be construed to prevent railroads from giving free carriage to their own
officers and employés, or to prevent the principal officers of any railroad com-
pany or companies from exchanging passes or tickets with other railroad com-
panies for their officers and employés; and nothing in this act contained shall
in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by
statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies: Provided,
That no pending litigation shall in any way be affected by this act.
SEC. 23. That the sum of $100,000 is hereby appropriated for the use and pur-
poses of this act for the fiscal year ending June 30, A. D. 1888, and the interven-
ing time anterior thereto.
SEC, 24. That the provisions of sections 11 and 18 of this act, relating to the ap-
pointment and organization of the commission herein provided for, shall take
effect immediately, and the remaining provisions of this act shall take effect
sixty days after its passage.
Mr. EVANS said: -
Mr. SPEAKER: I shall not occupy the time of the House very long in
what I have to say on the question now under discussion. It would
seem to me that the query to be determined at this time is: Is it better
to accept this bill with its doubtful provisions and great imperfections
than to fail to pass it in this Congress?
It has been asserted by at least one learned Senator that—
It is a bill which practically nobody wants and which everybody intends to
vote for; a bill which nobody is satisfied with and which everybody intends to
accept; a bill which nobody knows what it means, and yet we have all agreed
it ought to pass.
There is much truth in what the Senator says; for in the discussion
of the question in that body of wise men scarcely two could be found
to put the same construction upon some of the sections of the bill. We
628
find that boards of trade in the East and in the West and in New York,
as well as Legislatures of different States, disagree as to its provisions.
We need not be surprised when the conferees who have reported the
bill can not agree to place the same construction upon it. It is of the
highest importance that those who make the law should be able to tell
us exactly what it means, and yet the gentleman from Georgia says
that he can only give his own views and does not pretend to speak for
other members of the conference committee.
In view of the fact that almost every Senator and every Member of
the House will say that the bill is imperfect and that it is a doubtful
experiment, would it not be better for us to wait another Congress at
least than to endeavor to pass it at this short session ? For a period
of more than fifty years, ever since the establishment of railroads
without any national legislation regulating interstate commerce, is
it not possible for us to get along another year, or until we have
time to fully mature and perfect a bill which will be just to all parties,
just to the shipper, just to the carrier as well as to the consumer, and
just to those whose means have been honestly invested in the great
railroad enterprises which have done so much to develop the resources
of our country? And in addition we should not forget to be just to
those, many of them women and orphan children, whose means of Sup-
port are derived from dividends made from the earnings of railroads.
Many of us, indeed I may say most of us, have no experience and very
little knowledge of the great business of these common carriers. It is
also of the utmost importance that we legislate so that the millions and,
millions of dollars invested and otherwise employed in the internal
commerce of this vast country shall not be so deranged as to bring
about a crisis in our financial affairs, which would not only bankrupt
many railroads, but, like the pebble on the smooth waters, its influence
would be felt far and wide. Agriculture, commerce, manufactures,
and, most of all, labor would suffer greatly by such a result.
While I believe that an interstate-commerce law might be passed by
Congress that would be of benefit to the whole country, and with this
belief I voted last session to substitute the Cullom for the Reagan bill,
which in many of its provisions was similar to this bill, but in others
it was very different It is not necessary for me to state wherein they
differ; that has been done by my colleague Mr. O’NEILL. As an evi-.
dence of their difference, we had the Legislatures of the different States,
boards of trade, chambers of commerce, and other commercial bodies
passing resolutions and sending us petitions favoring the Cullom bill;
but how is it now? The very same bodies are now protesting against the
passage of this bill, or at least two of its sections. Mr. Speaker, I fail
to see the great advantage to be gained by the passage of this crude
and imperfect bill; it can only be experimental, and in its consequences
may be disastrous, not only to our interstate but to our foreign com-
TOleICe.
Under the present arrangement with the railroads the wheat and
other grains shipped from the West to our seaboard expressly for ex-
port are entitled to a rebate, so that our shippers can compete in a
measure with the cheap wheat of Russia and India in the European
markets. This enables us to get rid of a portion of our surplus cereals,
which would be thrown on our own markets if the freights were so high
as to shut it out of the foreign market. Should this bill become a law
it will not admit of rebates or discriminations, and the grain of the
West, if exported at all, will have to find its way to the seaboard
through the Mississippi River and the Canadian Pacific Railroad.
629
The people of my immediate district are interested in more ways than
one in the shipment of western freights to the East. We are engaged
in agriculture and manufactures, and the two great cities of New York
and Philadelphia are our markets; hence our prosperity greatly de-
pends on their welfare and prosperity. But in addition to this, many
of my people invested their earnings in Northern Pacific Railroad secur-
ities, believing that they would get a fair rate of interest for their
money. They would not feel that I was looking after their interests if
I should vote for a bill which should discriminate against that road,
and in favor of the Canadian Pacific, which runs parallel to it across
the continent to the Pacific Ocean. There are no legislative restrictions
in Canada against their roads On the contrary, the British Govern-
ment has subsidized the Canadian Pacific by guaranteeing $60,000,000
of its stock at 3 per gent., a higher rate of interest than is paid in Eng-
land. The object of this is to steal away our trade on the Pacific roads
to Australia, China, and Japan.
The passage of this bill with its restrictions, if carried out, will not
only bankrupt the Northern Pacific Railroad but will destroy in a great
measure the prosperity of the great West through which the road passes. ,
The State of Pennsylvania, which I have the honor in part to represent,
ships largely to the West coal, iron, and other products; and we in re-
turn receive their grain, lumber, salt, &c. This reciprocal interchange
of commodities is necessary to our growth, prosperity, and well being
as a nation. Let us not put such restrictions on these common carriers
as will retard the progress of our country. On the other hand, let us
do everything to encourage our own people to build it up and to be de-
pendent on each other instead of the people and the products of other
lands.
It seems to me there is a morbid antipathy in the masses against
corporations, and especially against railroads. They forget that these
great arteries of trade and commerce have been the principal means of
developing the varied resources of our vast domain. They never stop
to think of the advantages the building of railroads have given to almost
every section of our country and how little has been realized by many
who have invested their money in these roads. We find in Poor’s
Railroad Manual that in 1885 the capital and the earnings of all the
railroads in the United States were as follows: -
Capital stock.................................... - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * $3,817,697, 862
Funded debt ... ..................... ........................................................ 3,765,727,966
Other debt ............................ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 259, 108,281
On which the earnings were as follows:
Per Gent.
Cn the stock........................................ ....................................................... 2.02
On the bonds............................................................... ................................ 3.77
On the bonds and debt ............................................................................... 4.62
And on the average of the whole amount of indebtedness 3.36 per
Cent,
Can it be charged with any claim to fairness that 3% per cent. is too
great a rate of interest for those who have been willing to risk their
money in these great enterprises? I think not. Neither can it be
charged that the rates of freight have been exorbitant. Within the
last decade the rates have been reduced from 23 cents to less than 1
cent per ton per mile. Many of these roads, which have been of great
benefit to the districts through which they pass, have paid nothing to
the stockholders, nor even to the bondholders; and yet the people are
crying out against th. arbitrary and lawless management of railroads,
630
iº
which they pretend to claim are run for the sole purpose of paying
enormous dividends to their stockholders.
No doubf some of the members of this House regard it as a popular
thing to do, as evinced in the language of the reverend member
from Kansas, who says, “for many years these men have been beyond
all control, except the general ‘cussedness’ of themselves.” He re-
gards it “the duty of the Government to put itself between the people
of the United States and the rapacity of these irresponsible pirates.”
How strange it is we are so largely governed by our selfish interests,
and fail to see that which is for the good of the whole people. The
gentleman from Kansas and his constituents are of the opinion that
the rates of freight are so high that it is ruinous to the prosperity of
the Western farmer.
On the other hand, my constituents who are engaged in farming, feel
that the freights are so low that it is ruinous to their prosperity. They
feel that it would be to their advantage if the railroads could be com-
pelled to charge the same proportionately for the long as for the short
haul. But there is nothing in this bill which requires them to do it;
therefore it can not benefit the farmers of my district. It must be ad-
mitted that the fourth section of the bill is very vague and indistinct,
which makes its practical application very uncertain; but the framers
of the bill all agree that under its provisions as much can be charged
for a short haul as a long haul, but no greater charge; this is in the ag-
gregate, not per mile. Why is it, may I ask, that all these restrictions
are to be put on the railroads? There is not one word in the bill against
discrimination or pooling by water carriage. -
The canals, the steamboat navigation of our rivers, and the steam-
ships on the great lakes, they can discriminate, form pools and make
rates as they choose, and yet nothing is said or done. If we are to have
an interstate law let it apply to all common carriers alike. If you fail
to do this you are discriminating and legislating in the interest of
water carriage as against railroads. This bill provides for five com-
missioners to be immediately appointed by the President. Is it pos-
sible that a board of five men can successfully supervise, control, make
decisions and rules for the management of more than 138,000 miles of
railroad, spreading its network in all directions over the United States?
I find on investigation we have over eighteen hundred railroads.
Most of these have from nineto fifteen directors; allowing nine members
to each board it would make over sixteen thousand persons whose
business it is to look after the interests of these roads. Can it be that
five men, selected on the shortest notice, will be equal in knowledge,
business capacity and experience to the combined knowledge and ex-
perience of all the directors of all the railroads in the United States?
If they can be found, they will be more than human, both in under-
standing and in physical endurance.
If it is the intention of the Federal Government to regulate and
control the railroad business of the United States, it would seem that
it ought to be done intelligently, impartially, and effectively; and in
order to do that there should be appointed, in my judgment, one com-
missioner for every State in the Union, whose duty it should be to
collect and compile all information, statistical and otherwise, in refer-
ence to the railroad business of the State he represents, and to report
the same to the five commissioners at Washington. In this way the
interests of all the States could be carefully guarded and protected.
The State commissioners would stand somewhat in the same relation to
the five commissioners that the consuls do to the Secretary of State.
631
Their work would greatly relieve the labors of the Washington board,
and thereby give them more time to arrive at just conclusions and de-
CISIODS.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the good in this bill is not commensurate
with the evil which may come out of it. Its ambiguity will, I fear,
lead to endless litigation and obstructions, which will seriously cripple
the industries of our people, and may lead to bankruptcy and finan-
cial ruin the great commercial and other business interests of the coun-
try. I am therefore in favor of recommitting it for revision and amend-
ment; and in 9rder to do that I shall vote against the adoption of the
report of the committee in the hope that the House will have the good
sense to recommit it.
Mr. HANBACK Said :
Mr. CHAIRMAN: Twenty-two years ago I went to Kansas a young
man. The State was then in its infancy, having only 35 miles of rail-
road. From that time on I have seen my State develop almost alone
by and through the influence of railways. We have now nearly 5,000
miles of railway built by men who have invested their money because
they believed success would attend their efforts.
Undoubtedly wrongs have been committed by the great transporta-
tion lines through my State. I remember well when the Kansas Pacific
was simply two lines of rust; when the cars that ran on these lines of
rust were linked together as they were in the days of our fathers, and
I remember well, also, the time when a great man who has been greatly
abused by some people within my State came there and put the Kansas
Pacific into such condition that from 12 miles an hour the speed was
increased to 30 miles. Through his endeavor the lines of railway and
telegraphic dispatch through my district were made safe; so much so
that any man who traveled need not take out a life-insurance policy if
he desired to go 10 or 15 miles or more.
This man was one of the developers of my State. In the hour of its
adversity, without solicitation (when the question was a doubtful one as
to whether the part of the State where I live would be a success or
not), he gave thousands where others gave dollars, and by his confi-
dent action he gave faith and hope to the men who were striving for
their existence, under most adverse circumstances; but that day has
passed, and that part of the State that he assisted and where I lived is
independent, so far as the future is concerned. I have said this much
preliminary to what I desire to say in support of my decision upon the
vote I would give if I was not paired with my distinguished friend
from West Virginia.
My judgment, composed by years of experience, leads me to believe
that the legislation proposed by the bill in question will be fatal to the
best interests of my State, as well as to the whole country. The men
who in their early manhood made it great came there from all the
States in the Union. They brought with them their wives and chil-
dren; they endured the calamities belonging to a new country. The
storm of winter or the hot and parching summer sky made no differ-
ence to them. They had a determined will, and out of that will the
State has grown magnificently.
Where I live, sixteen years ago, the buffalo and the Indian controlled
the land. Through the enterprise of men through the eastern portion
of this great country railroads were built in my State and will be built
there. We all know that capital is timid, providing as it does for the
support of men and women in my country. The people who labor are
632
well paid; I desire that they shall continue to be as well paid in the
future as they have in the past.
This is one of the main reasons why I oppose the bill in question. I
admit the power, but deny the remedy. I have grave doubts as to the
right of the Government to interfere in affairs of this kind; and I say
this as a Republican. As I said before, my State has been built up by
the railroads, and I have no desire to vote for legislation the tendency
of which will be to defeat competition.
I am as well Satisfied as I can possibly be on any question that my
State will be greatly injured by the passage of this bill. We are in-
terested in the long haul. We are in the center of the United States,
and we raise corn, wheat, cattle, horses, and hogs. Like the men of
the State, all these products are of the best degree. Situated as I have
said, we can feed the North, the South, the West, and the East, but the
natural line of our communication is to New York and Boston. Wool
to Boston and corn and wheat to New York, thence to Liverpool, at
this time the great terminal point of the world.
I think it is Safe to say, and upon that opinion I stand, that these
great lines of industry, the product of capital and the employer of Jabor,
ought not to be interfered with, as they will be by the provisions of
this bill. I admit that wrongs have been committed in the past, but
and well satisfied that the future will settle the balance in favor of the
people through competitive forces, and so relying upon the future, I
give my vote against this bill.
Mr. LITTLE said:
Mr. SPEAKER: A statement of reasons influencing any member in his
vote upon an important measure becoming law may have value. Espe-
cially is this true where controversy is likely to arise as to the true intent
and construction of the measure. -
This consideration leads me to submit some observations, under the
general leave, upon the interstate-commerce bill.
That Congress has the authority to legislate upon the subject of in-
terstate commerce as it pertains to common carriers of all kinds under
the specific grant “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
among the several States and with the Indian tribes,” is beyond the
pale of profitable controversy. What Congress may do, if anything,
toward regulating commerce wholly within a State, if such regulation
becomes necessary or expedient to the full and effective enjoyment of
its authority so specifically given, is a question not involved in this
bill, and not necessary now to be considered.
I may say, however, that for one I am unwilling to subscribe to the
broad and unqualified doctrine repeatedly asserted here and elsewhere
that under no circumstances can Congress in the exercise of this power
interfere with common carriers operating, or commerce carried on,
wholly within a State. It is conceivable that cases may arise under
this very bill, matured into law, where its enforcement may be hindered
or even defeated by great railroad corporations acting entirely within
State boundaries.
Take the case of the New York Central Railroad, leading from Buf-
falo to New York city, altogether within the State of New York.
Should this great highway of commerce be so managed, and it seems
to me it might be so managed, as to impede, frustrate, or render im-
practicable the operation or enforcement of such a law as this in re-
spect of other lines, interstate, competing for freights between other
States and that great seaboard city, carried by, but not stored on its way
6.33
at Buffalo; in such a case could not Congress raise its hands in support
of its own enactment, in restraint of interference with the due opera-
tion thereof.” Would Congress be compelled to give up its jurisdiction
over these competing interstate lines because of the conduct of the State
line, or could it exert a restraining authority over the latter?
Strong reason might be urged for such an exercise of incidental power,
supported by analogies in legislation and by judicial decision. But
sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
The wrongs which beset the commerce of the country because of the
conduct of railroads have been so often portrayed in Congress and out
that they need not be recounted. They are generally known, and in no
quarter denied. That these evils, quite possibly often overstated, are,
as to railroads crossing State lines, beyond correction by State authority,
is judicially established. They are widespread and far-reaching, if not
colossal. They affect individuals and communities, operating to take
from one for the upbuilding of another, to impose unjust and unrea-
sonable burdens, and to subject to sudden and severe losses.
Congress alone is adequate to afford the legislative correction, and
the time has fully come for its action. Indeed, the people have justly
complained at its delay hitherto. The question then is not whether
we shall legislate, but how we shall legislate. It is even narrower
than that at this particular juncture. It is just now whether we shall
take the legislation proposed by the conference report or none, for the
report is not amendable.
With the differences, substantially the same as two years ago, devel-
oped between the two Houses, the agreement upon another report, should
this one be defeated and especially defeated because of departure from
the House bill, would be exceedingly doubtful at this late day of the
session. If another agreement were reached its adoption would be as
doubtful. The practical question then is whether we shall take this
bill reported from the conference or mone; take it, or defer action to
the next Congress, or the next, or the next. In this situation, with my
understanding of the measure, I can not hesitate in my support.
If we are to wait till a bill is matured to suit the views of all, or
until even plausible objections cease to be made, we shall wait forever.
Yet, much as legislation may be needed and is desired, if the fear of
evil consequences expressed by the opponents of this measure had sub-
stantial basis in its provisions, it should not be adopted, even though
its errors might be cured at the next session. But after thoughtful
examination of the objections made I am persuaded there is no good
ground for such fear. -
What about this bill, them, which a few, assuming with precisely as
much information as modesty to speak for all, say nobody wants yet
everybody intends to vote for? -
An attentive reading will disclose, I am sure, two chief underlying
principles or features which it is framed and fashioned to impress upon
the business of common carriers subject to its provisions; that is, those
doing a carrying business across State lines, namely:
1. Reasonableness and justice in all charges.
2. Equality, all things considered, in accommodations and facilities,
as well as in charges.
I might add a third, although perhaps a corollary to the first, to
wit: Reasonable permanency in rates once established. Its provisions
seem to me intended, and not inaptly devised and constructed, to give
effect to and enforce the plain common-law principles indicated.
The first of these is the chief one. It is formulated in the first section,
634
and forms, to my mind, the great, commanding, pervading precept of the
measure. It is in these words:
All charges made for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection there with, or for
the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such property SHALL BE rea-
semable and just.
It applies to all the railroad and other lines contemplated by the
bill, and to all their charges of every kind and character pertaining to
traffic or carriage across any State line. It is always a present com-
mand in respect of any service. Whatever else happens, whatever other
rule pertains, “all charges shall be reasonable and just.” This rule is
absolute. No power can suspend, no tribunal refuse to enforce it. It
is the guiding star of the measure in cases of doubt and uncertainty.
It is the key for the solution of difficulties under the suspension clause
of section 4, which manifestly was inserted that it might be relieved
of possible hindrance in any case.
Subsidiary or ancillary rules are laid down as aids in the application
and enforcement of these common-law ones.
The rule against discrimination in charges, the one against discrimi-
nation in accommodations and facilities, the one against rebates and
drawbacks which are mere devices to cover up favoritism in rates, the
one on the long and short haul, the one against pooling, are of this
character. I might include in the category the general prohibition of
favoritism. And right here it is worth while to note a fact not men-
tioned in this discussion, so far as I have heard, that the effect of all
these provisions unquestionably will be to prevent the issue of free
passes for carriage across a State line—a circumstance not of the great-
est importance in itselſ, yet worthy of mention.
The things prohibited are in the judgment of Congress—if it so be—
unreasonable and work injustice. Their prohibition is just so much
accomplished toward the application and enforcement of the great com-
mon law precepts referred to.
Jnstead of leaving it to the slow process of the courts to work out
and define the practices and doings not permitted by these principles of
the common law, Congress starts out in this new field of national legis-
lation and jurisprudence, if I may so term it, with a few of such prac-
tices defined and condemned, leaving it to the future to make such .
additions, subtractions, alterations and corrections as experience may
Suggest. -
It will be observed that these ancillary provisions are not of the cast-
iron pattern. Carriers, for instance, are not prohibited absolutely from
charging one person more for a given service than another person for
the same or a like service. It is only when the services are contempo-
raneous and performed “under substantially similar circumstances and
conditions,” that the prohibition applies. It is not absolutély forbid-
den to give a preference to one person, place, or commodity over an-
other. It is only an “undue or unreasonable preference or advantage '’
that is inhibited. So the prohibition against charging more in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or like"kind of property for a
shorter than a longer distance, &c., is not absolute. It may be relieved
against by the commission. I should prefer to say it is left with the
commission to determine in what cases the common-law rule of sec-
tion 1 relieves against it.
And why this freedom from rigidity in these ancillary provisions?
My answer is: Simply and solely that the great common law rules
635
spoken of may have free Scope for unimpeded operation in all cases and
under any and all circumstances and conditions. 4.
Cases might arise, and they often do, where reason and justice would
unite in granting preferences and advantages in shipment as to one
person, commodity, or locality over another. Shipments—I do not al-
lude to those for “charitable purposes”—to or from localities suffering
from or threatened with epidemics, or other calamities, are of this
class. So, perhaps, would be those the failure to make which would
cause great and peculiar loss or hardship. Quantity and character of
shipments and the business concerned may be factors in the question.
There are various objections urged to the bill as it comes from the
conference committee. Some oppose it because it is not sufficiently
radical—does not go the lengths they think they desire; others for an
opposite reason.
The main objections seem to be directed at the fourth section and
from opposite standpoints. That section reads:
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the pro-
visions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line, in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any
common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great com-
pensation for a shorter as for a longer distance : Provided, however. That upon
application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act. such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be
authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transpor-
tation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time
prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved
from the operation of this section of this act.
One refuses his support because there is any long-and-short-haul
provision at all; another because that provision is not absolute: one
because it is in any case commanded that such a rule shall be enforced;
the other because it is not so commanded in every case. I care only
to notice briefly some of the objections of the former. They come from
sources entitled to great respect.
Many commercial bodies and men of large experience and mature
judgment have petitioned us to eliminate this section. I beg to hand
in, to be printed as an appendix to these remarks, a letter from the
Messrs. Whiteley & Kelly, of Springfield, Ohio, as a forcible and able
presentation of objections to this section as well as one lending strong
support to other mooted provisions. They are manufacturers of the
Champion harvesting machines, which are sent from that city annually
to perhaps every cereal-producing locality in the country, as well as to
all the civilized countries in the world. Perhaps fifty to seventy-five
thousand of these machines are thus shipped out every year. Their
experience, therefore, with common carriers, as to local, through, and
foreign freights, is, and has been, such as to entitle their judgment on
this subject to great weight.
It will be observed, however, that they, like many others who have
sent in their protests, are under a misapprehension as to the section.
It does not, as they suppose, require that no more per mile be charged
for the short than the long haul. The prohibition is simply that no
more in the aggregate shall be charged. Under the section a railroad,
for illustration, would not be authorized to charge them a greater sum
for shipping a reaper or mower from Springfield, Ohio, to Indianapo-
lis than to ship the same or a like machine on through Indianapolis to
Saint Louis, “under substantially similar circumstances and condi-
tions.” It would not follow that if the railroad's charge for a car-load
636
of say ten machines to the latter point were $100, its charge for a single
machine to the former must not exceed $10; for the “conditions and
circumstances” would not necessarily be the same. The amount
shipped is a circumstance to be considered, doubtless.
Nor would it follow for the same reason if its charge for fifty car-
loads to Saint Louis were $100 each that the charge to Indianapolis for
a single car-load should not exceed that figure. I mean it would not
follow from this section. Independently of this section, however, if
$100 for the car, or $10 for the single machine, to Indianapolis would
be an unreasonable or unjust charge, it would be unlawful and could
not be enforced because of the common-law rule in section 1, which,
as stated, is always operative.
There is little doubt that the vast bulk of the through carrying busi-
ness of the country is now done in accordance with—that is, not in con-
travention to—the long-and short haul provision. There will be no
revolution therefore in this business, and no material drawback to busi-
ness interests generally. That there will be some disturbance for a
time, by way of needed changes and corrections, I do not question.
Shipments of farm products from the far West east to the seaboard at
unremunerative rates will be checked, and, in time, perhaps, turned to
other and nearer markets. In reason and justice should they not be?
Losses in such shipments must be made up by increase of way freights.
Is this right? Why should the Ohio farmer, for instance, pay an excess
of freight to carry his grain and -cattle to the Eastern markets in order
that the Colorado farmer may ship his there to compete at less than the
cost of carriage? -
In other words, why should the intermediate States be taxed by ex-
cessive freights for the benefit of those at the ends of carrying lines 2
Ohio farmers pay for their advantages of proximity to markets in the
increased cost of their land. And these advantages should not be taxed
away in high freights for the benefit of others. And what is right
or wrong as to Ohio farmers is right or wrong, of course, as to those of
other States. The farmers of any State are entitled to the natural ad-
vantages of their location and soil. They pay for them in their lands,
and the railroads should not disturb their enjoyment by burdensome
freights.
That the tendency of this measure will be to stimulate farming and .
stock-raising in Ohio and other Middle States I think is quite proba-
ble; and this I think, also, quite reasonable and just. Should the
through rates be raised, or all rates—which is more probable—equal-
ized to conform to the law, the effect will be the same. Farming com-
munities will be more certainly than hitherto assured of the rightful
advantages of their proximity to markets; and this remark will apply
also to mining and other industrial interests.
Again, it may be—it probably will be—that a healthful disturbance,
not great, not violent, but moderate and gradual, will result in manu-
facturing industries. It has become so, as shown in the Congressional
investigation and known by common observation, that manufacturing
establishments have necessarily been drawn from localities of their
choice, where their products are most needed, to great cities on account
of the reduced rates on railroads allowed there. In this way and by
this policy of the railroad interests which are concentrated at the great
centers such cities have grown enormously at the expense of the rest of
the country. If this clause shall materially check and hinder this
tendency it will, in my humble judgment, prove a great blessing to
the country. At any rate, the country and smaller town manufactories
{
z' 637
will no longer be subjected to so unequal a contest with their city rivals.
When one remembers that the long-and-short-haul clause does not re-
lieve from the requirement that “all charges * * * shall be rea-
Sonable and just,” it is difficult to understand what valid objection can
be made to it. How can any shipper ask to pay less than what is
reasonable and just? How can a railroad demand more?
It may be retorted, what then is the use of section 4 if the com-
mon law rule is to be applied in every case? Like the other ancillary
rules referred to, this provision is only an aid in applying the great
common law rule.
There would be no need of any of these aids were the common law
principles lived up to. Section 4 serves, so to speak, to shift the burden.
Under it the controling presumption is that reason and justice require
Short hauls to be made as cheaply, in the aggregate, as long ones under
like conditions and circumstances, and it is for those who assert the
contrary to establish their claim before the commission. Without the
section the presumption would be in favor of the practice adopted, and
he who would assert the contrary would have to complain to the com-
mission or go into court and establish his claim. Thus it seems to me
the section will prove very useful. -
It is objected that the commission created is given vast and danger-
ous powers, and its authority to relieve, in special cases, after examina-
tion and under certain circumstances, against the operation of the long-
and-short-haul provision, is cited as one such power.
But this authority is of a judicial character. It is not for arbitrary
exercise. I take it the commission can give relief, on investigation, in
any case, to the extent and only to the extent that reason and justice
may require. Otherwise, it would be suspending the common-law rule
of section 1, which it has no power to do. The principle of construc-
tion and execution of law is familiar, that all provisions of an act must
be given operation when that can be done. Aside from this one feature
it is really interesting to note how little power the commission has. Its
other authority is, I believe, entirely of an inquisitorial, advisory, or
ancillary character.
. It may investigate, advise, complain, and sue. That is about the
sum of its alleged dangerous powers. The courts are always between
it and binding orders and decrees, even in subpoenaing witnesses. But
suppose it had great powers? Is that an objection to its creation?
What officer of the United States is not clothed with powers that might
not be dangerously exerted ? When has injury sprung from the dan-
gerous exercise of authority? It is in the mind of all when harm,
appalling harm, came from lack of exercise of power The commis-
sioners are subject to removal by the President, and liable to impeach-
ment. That is ample security even if they were fatally bent on mis-
chief.
It is further objected that the phrase “under substantially similar
circumstances and conditions,” as found in section 4 and elsewhere in
the bill, is vague, ambiguous, uncertain, and sure to give rise to litiga-
tion. The clause with which it is connected, wherever occurring, forms
a part of a rule to be applied in numberless situations. Specific lan-
guage, as if there were but one condition of things, is impossible. Gen-
eral terms alone can be used. Let him who thinks he can improve on
this phrase try his hand at a substitute. Before he proceeds far he will
probably conclude to let it stand and leave its interpretation to the
one who is to tell just what equity is, and what is meant by the familiar
phrase, “reasonable and just.”
638
It seems to me there will be no such difficulty in practice as is an-
ticipated. Suits undoubtedly will arise, not so much because of doubt
as to the meaning of the phrase, as because of dispute of fact concerning
the existence of alleged circumstances and conditions. But should liti-
gation occur, the decisions and judgments of courts will be worth
more than their cost. The common law will be enriched, which is the
best and the least costly of all law. - p
Again, still it is objected that the State courts are not given jurisdic-
tion concurrently with the national courts under the bill. It is sufficient
to say, in reply, that by express reservation the State courts will retain
all their present jurisdiction—all they would have without this act.
This bill in no way curtails any one in his rights or remedies as per-
tains to State courts. It adds new ones which he may pursue before
other tribunals. That is all. This is of a class of objections which
are merely captious and need not be further noticed. *
After as thoughtful a consideration to these and other objections
urged against this bill as I could give, I do not find them of sufficient
moment to defeat or endanger legislation on this subject.
I feel that a beginning should be no longer delayed. These na-
tional highways of commerce, operating more than a hundred thou-
sand miles of road, representing thousands of millions of capital, and
gathering annually from the people eight hundred millions of money—
an income largely in excess of that of any government of the world—
have come to be, through combinations and combination influences, an
enormous and an enormously growing power. A controling and guid-
ing authority over it, on behalf of the public, is no longer merely de-
sirable; it is a public necessity. The United States alone can provide
that authority. There is no other power strong enough. This bill
makes at least the beginning to that end, and, in my opinion, a fairly
good one. It may not be wisest in all its appointments and features.
I, myself, should have preferred a more simple measure. But its su-
perfluities, defects, and errors, if they exist, can readily be lopped off,
supplied, or corrected as they develop themselves.
In fact, one of the good results of the law may be to reveal its own
shortcomings and mistakes and open up the way to better legislation.
The bill has at least the elements and foundation of a good legis-
lative structure. It may not be the panacea for all real or supposed
railroad ills—it is quite sure not to be. It is quite sure to disappoint
its most sanguine friends in not accomplishing all they expect. On
the whole, however, it will prove, I doubt not, to be greatly beneficial.
Mr. Speaker, give the common-law precepts underlying and pervad-
ing this bill full scope and operation; let its provisions be administered
in complete accordance there with, and the measure matured into law
will prove a beneficent one, and be numbered among the great enact-
ments of the American Congress.
SPRINGFIELD, OHIO, January 14, 1887.
DEAR SIR : Other pressing engagements have prevented us from earlier care-
fully examining into the provisions of the Reagan-Cullom interstate-commerce
bill, which we need not advise you, owing to our extensive business interests
and their connections with the general business interests and the prosperity of
the country, we feel especially interested in. g
As extensive manufacturers of agricultural implements and machinery we
necessarily sustain very close relations to other manufacturing and mining in-
terests, notably the manufacture of iron and steel in all its various forms, the
mining of coal, ores, &c., and to the entire farming community, and whatever
affects the general manufacturing, mining, and agricultural interests of this
country directly interests and affects us, as well as all other parties engaged in
similar pursuits. r
639
That some kind of interstate-commerce legislation is probably demanded and
might be made advantageous, or at least mutually equitable to all of the various
interests of the country, we agree, and it would be specially desirable that Con-
gress should so legislate as would avoid the necessity of State or Territorial leg-
islation by any of the several States and Territories, and thus secure as far as
practicable uniform laws governing the commerce of the country, but in this
legislation we think you will agree with us that the greatest care should be ex-
...} so that in endeavoring to correct existing errors graver ones are not
C2, U1862C1.
In this connection, after a careful examination of the bill referred to, together
with the amendments thereto agreed upon by the Cullom conference commit-
tee, we are of the opinion that while certain provisions of the bill should meet
with general approval, other provisions of it are seriously objectionable and ad-
verse to the interests of the country generally.
Sections 2 and 3. While the provisions of the bill generally, and especially
sections 2 and 3 prohibiting any discrimination by common carriers in favor of
or against any person, firm, company, or corporation would not be objectionable
if it could be applied to unjust discrimination, we think it hardly fair or practi-
cable to prevent discrimination which may be advantageous and equitable.
However, if that portion of section 2 which reads as follows: “A like and cotem-
poraneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substan-
tially similar circumstances and conditions,” is construed considering the vol-
ume of business done by each and its value to the common carrier, &c., we see
no special objections to the provisions of sections 2 and 3.
Section 4, known as the long and short haul section, which provides “that it
shall be unlawful to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggre-
gate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property under sub-
stantially similar circumstances and conditions for a shorter than for a longer
distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included
within the longer distance ’’ is, we think, the most objectionable feature or pro-
vision of the bill, for while this section also provides that upon application to
the commission such common carrier may in special cases, after investigation
by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than shorter dis-
tances, &c., to the extent which may from time to time be prescribed by said
commission, unless the exemptions from the provision of this section by the
commission were made the rule instead of the exception, the result would work
almost inestimable injury, if not actual bankruptcy, to sonne of the most impor-
tant industries of the country.
It is, we believe, a well-settled fact that the future prosperity of all of the va-
rious agricultural, mechanical, commercial, and mercantile interests of the
United States depends very largely upon the American farmer being enabled
to produce wheat, corn, cotton, beef, &c., at prices that will enable us to com-
pete favorably with other countries in supplying the European market with
our surplus product, and if this be true, and prices in foreign markets are fixed
by connpetition, it is imperatively necessary that our producers be enabled to
produce and market our surplus products on the most economical basis, while
the inevitable result of the provisions of section 4 of this biil would be to mate-
rially advance prices in our own principal markets to an extent that would
make it impossible to export in competition with other countries and bankrupt
the agricultural and stock-raising interests, and all other interests dependent
upon them, in the vast portion of territory unfavorably situated to the principal
markets, or to bankrupt the railroad interests, which would be equally disas-
trous.
It is also, we believe, an equally well-established fact that it is impossible for
railroad and other transportation connpanies to receive the same, or approximat-
ingly the same proportionate revenue on all kinds of business, or on the same
class of business emanating at the same point and shipped to different markets,
or emanating at different points for the same market. In fact it should be a
part of the mission of the railroad and transportation companies to foster and
build up in every way practical all of the various agricultural, mining, manu-
facturing, and commercial interests of the country, for in that they best pro-
mote the general interests, and in this each particular line of railroad should
not only be permitted but, if practical, required to co-operate with its connect-
ing lines in transporting to market the product of the country on a basis that
will enable it to compete successfully with similar products of other portions of
the country, and in order to do this the railroads must necessarily govern their
revenue to a certain extent by what the product can afford to pay.
Take as an illustration the Cambria Iron Company, of Johnstown, Pa., one of
the iargest producers of steel and iron in the country, located on the Pennsyl-
vania Railroad. If said railroad company and its connecting lines were to charge
the Cambria Iron Company the same rate per mile on its product to all markets
it would be deprived of many of its customers, and its customers would be de-
prived of the competition thus afforded them in making favorable purchases,
and the business of that company would be limited to supplying the trade within
equal distances with other manufacturers in its line.
640
Again, if the railroad companies are compelled to charge on wheat, corn, &c.,
shipped from Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and other Western States over their lines
to the Eastern markets the same rate per mile as they charge for business pass-
ing the same or a shorter distance over their lines, they must necessarily mate-
rially advance the rates, and to such a point that after paying the transportation
the farmers of those Western States could not realize for their grain the expense
of raising it, saying nothing of the value of their lands.
And the same rule applied to the shipment of agricultural implements, ma-
Chinery, and merchandise generally from the Fastern and Central to the West-
ern States would increase the prices of same to the Western farmers so that
they could not afford to purchase them, even if they could realize present prices
for their product; while on the contrary, the fact that the railroad companies
transport at a proportionately less rate agricultural implements and machinery
from Ohio to Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Texas, Minnesota, I)akota, and territory
farther West, as well as to points in the Eastern and New England States, and
transport the farm products of those Western States to the Eastern markets at
proportionately less rates than the same is transported within the State of Ohio,
or between points within the State of Ohio and adjoining States or Eastern
markets is, we maintain, no injustice to any portion of the business interests of
Ohio, while it is manifestly advantageous to the great mining and manufactur-
ing interests of this State.
It is impractical for manufacturers and equally impractical for railroad and
transportation companies to realize the same net profits, earnings or revenue
from all business of the same class. The railroads are aftected equally with the
other business interests by competition and must necessarily adapt themselves
to it, and any legislation tending to reduce the price of the produce of the West-
ern farmer or increase the price of agricultural implements, machinery, and all
other supplies to him is antagonistic to the best interests of the people of Ohio,
and we believe of the country generally.
Through the open competition and the necessity of enabling the farmer to pro-
duce and market his crops at the lowest possible cost, as recognized by the
manufacturers, the prices of agricultural implements and machinery have been
steadily reduced until the profits of the manufacturer have been reduced to a
mininnum and in some cases entirely abrogated, and yet it is urged and pretty
generally admitted that present prices are as high as the farmers can afford to
pay in proportion to prices which they are able to realize for their products.
Through the open competition in transportation, except where pools or other
combinations have been formed, the railroad companies have aided the manu-
facturer in reducing the cost of supplies to the farmer, and we believe that the
very best guarantee of remunerative prices to the producer, as well as the low-
est prices to the consumer is afforded by open competition in all classes of busi-
ness, including transportation. *
While it is generally conceded that the business interests of the country, which
have been so universally depressed for the pasu two years, are now in a more
prosperous condition, prospectively at least, we believe that if the provisions of
section 4 of this bill should become a law the result would prove most dis-
astrous, especially to the Western country, depriving the farming community of
the means of paying debts already contracted, or making additional purchases,
prohibiting the manufacturers and others who have extended large credits to
them from making collections, and seriously embarrass the interests of the .
country generally.
In this connection we are aware that it may be, and no doubt has been, urged
that if by the passage of this bill greater evils are created than are sought to be
remedied, after giving it a trial, the law may be amended, &c., but in our opin-
ion this would be a very dangerous experiment, and one that would be likely
to cause irreparable damage.
Section 5, by the provisions of which all contracts or connbinations of com-
mon carriers with other comraon carriers for the pooling of freights of different
and competing railroads, or to divide between them the aggregate or net pro-
ceeds of the earnings of such railroads, &c., are prohibited, we heartily approve,
as we believe that all such combinations, pools, and similar organizations are
antagonistic to the best interests of the country, depriving the community of
the open competition that they would otherwise have the benefit of. We have
never known of any combination formed for the benefit of its patrons or cus-
tomers, but on the contrary the reverse is always the case, and as the railroads
enjoy certain special privileges on account of their necessity they should not
be permitted through combination to deprive the people of legitimate compe-
tition. -
In open competition we believe the rule is that the shortest line presumably
establishes the rate, based upon an equitable revenue to the railroad company,
and the other longer lines who compete for the business are expected to meet
the competition, and where they can not do so and realize a profit from the busi-
mess we maintain that such lines have no right to form combinations and ad-
vance the rates, requiring the community to pay a satisfactory revenue to the
641
longer lines, which combinations usually result in charging unreasonably high,
if not extortionate rates. -
We presume it is hardly necessary for us to refer to the manifest objections to
that feature of the bill giving the commission provided for almost unlimited
power, and the dangers attending the clothing of human beings with such
power, the corruption likely to follow, &c.; and while it is undoubtedly proper
that the business of the transportation companies, to the construction of which
the people have contributed to a considerable extent, should be reasonably con-
trolled by proper restrictions, in view of the enormous amount of capital in-
vested by such companies, and the advantages to be derived from them by the
community through efficient as well as reasonably liberal management, it is,
we think, very questionable whether, in justice, the Government can assume
such unlimited control of the business of the railroads as is contemplated by
the powers delegated by this bill to the commission, without first purchasing
the property to be so controlled.
For these and many other equally good reasons which we have no doubt will
be apparent to you, we think this bill with its present objectionable features
should not become a law, and presuming that it will not and that another and
more equitable and practical bill will be introduced, we beg to suggest inserting
therein a provision making the common carrier whose officer or agent contracts
for the transportation of property from any point within any of the States or
Territories to any other point within any of the other States or Territories of the
|United States the agent of all of the other common carrier connecting lines by
whom said property is to be transported from the point of shipment to destina-
tion, binding them for the contracts and acts of said agent, so that the prepay-
ment, of freight at the contracted rate named in the bills of lading signed by the
agent of the contracting line, or written contract or proposition made by said
contracting line, or the tender of the freight at the rate named in such contracts
to the line that delivers same at the point of destination, shall be considered full
payment or legal-tender of payment, and a refusal to accept in full payment so
tendered and deliver the property shall give the consignee or the shipper the
right of action to recover the property by writ of replevin at the expense of said
common carrier.
The object of this provision being to prevent a system of overcharging by the
railroad companies at the point of delivery, and the serious difficulties and vex-
atious delays experienced by shippers and consignees in collecting from the
railroad companies overcharges which they have been required to pay on ship-
ments, such a provision of law we believe would be just and equitable to all
and relieve the community of one of the worst evils inflicted, and in many cases
systematically practiced, upon the community, giving the railroad companies of
the United States the use of millions of dollars collected by them from their
patrons as overcharges and refunded by them only at their pleasure, if at all.
Very respectfully,
AMOS WHITELY.
W. N. WHITELY.
O. S. K.F.L.I.Y.
Hon. John LITTLE, M. C., Washington, D. C.
Mr. THOMAS Said:
Mr. SPEAKER: After a careful examination of the provisions of the
bill agreed to by the committee of conference, and after attentively lis-
tening to the able arguments on both sides of the question presented
in this House, I have no doubt whatever as to my duty to vote for this
bill. While many would prefer the Reagan bill, which has been be-
fore Congress for a long time, and many others would prefer the Senate
bill, known as the Cullom bill, it must be remembered that the pend-
ing bill is a compromise made by the committee of conference, and we
must now at this stage take this measure as presented by this confer-
ence committee, or else abandon the subject entirely and fail to pass
any bill whatever, as has been done so many times before.
At the first session of this Congress when this question was before
the House I voted for the Cullom bill, and when that measure was de-
feated I voted for the Reagan bill. I am one of those who believe that
it is the duty of Congress to regulate the railway traffic between the
States. The power to do this is conceded. The necessity for a meas-
ure of this kind is found in the general desire and demand of the
I S C–41
f
ar
642
people for it all over this broad land. The great evils complained of
can not be remedied without this kind of legislation. The railroads
themselves, however well disposed, are powerless in the matter. Is it
then best to defeat all legislation upon this subject because we can not
get just what we want?
It is the complaint of the opponents of this bill that section 4, in rela-
tion to the long and short haul, is a dangerous provision; that it will be
the means of increasing the freight charges on through freights from the
West to such an extent that the producers of the West will find it diffi-
cult to profitably market their wheat and other productions on account
of the increase of freight charges which the railroads will be compelled
to make by reason of this law. The conference committee seems to have
felt that there might be force in this objection, and have so changed
the House bill as to give the power to the commissioners to modify the
rule in such cases as they may find it to be just to do so after investi-
gation. It is probable that sharp competition of transportation com-
panies with each other by rail and water have reduced freight charges
on through freights from the West below a paying rate oftentimes, and
that to make up for such losses increased charges upon freights shipped
at intermediate non-competing points on the same line have been found
necessary by the railroad companies.
As a general rule and under ordinary circumstances I do not see that
there is any justice whateverin permitting the common carrier to charge
and receive a greater compensation for the transportation of property
for a shorter than a longer distance over the same line under substan-
tially similar circumstances. The mere statement of the proposition
shows that it is a grave violation of the rights of the people who are
obliged to employ the services of these common carriers. Why should
a railway company be permitted to charge you more for the transpor-
tation of your property 500 miles than it charges me for like transpor-
tation for a thousand miles? There can be but one case where such
charge would be even tolerable, and that would be where the shippers
for the longer distance on account of their location could not afford to
pay a just and adequate compensation, and it became necessary in or-
der that they might have transportation facilities at all that those liv-
ing nearer market should bear a part of their transportation charges.
In such case the commissioners may relieve the companies from the
strict letter of the law; if in any other case there is any good reason
for such discrimination I am unable to see it. This is one of the evils
that this bill seeks to remedy; but such remedy, as will be seem, is ap-
plied with great care. The people, as I said before, are demanding
a remedy for this, as they believe, unjust system adopted, it may be
by force of circumstances by transportation companies. The subject of
the regulation of freight and passenger charges has been considered by
many of the States of the Uuion, and in some of them, especially in
my own State, legislation directly controlling these charges has been
adopted. In commerce between the States, however, these State laws
have no force or effect, consequently it becomes a matter of great neces-
sity that some act of this kind should be passed by Congress. The two
other important features of this bill are the provisions against draw-
backs and rebates and pooling.
I do not believe these practices should be allowed. They are inju-
rious and extremely detrimental to the public. The railroad compa-
nies have granted to them extraordinary powers in order that they may
accomplish the objects for which they are organized; but they should
be held to a strict account and not permitted to go beyond these objects.
*
643
When a transportation company receives for its services an adequate
and just compensation it should be permitted to go no further in that
direction. It should not be permitted to discriminate in favor of one
shipper and against another. It should be prohibited from entering
into unjust and oppressive combinations with other like companies to
keep up the prices of freight charges, and ought not to be allowed to
build up one town or locality at the expense of another.
All these things are wrong, are oppressive and injurious to the public,
are beyond the objects for which transportation companies are organ-
ized, and the bill before us seeks to prevent such practices. In aid of
this the bill requires the publication of the schedule of freight and pas-
senger charges by each company, and prohibits a change in such sched-
ule, except to reduce such charges, until after ten days’ public notice.
Suitable penalties are provided for violation of the provisions of this act,
and the courts are opened to all persons injured for the recovery of
damages, or complaint may be made to the Čommission, which has the
power to redress the wrong. I think in the main this bill is as wise,
just, and practicable as an initial measure of this kind can be made.
I have no idea that it is a perfect law, or that in its operation it will
do in all cases exact justice to the people or the common carriers; but
nothing has been suggested that is in any manner better than this.
There has been much criticism upon this bill, but it is vastly easier to
criticise than to create, and I have noticed with interest that during
the discussion in this House upon this measure there has been a great
amount of denunciation, but not a word of suggestion of improve-
ment. This, I submit, is hardly fair, if, as is claimed, every one rec-
ognizes and desires in some proper way to remedy the evils now ex-
isting.
While this measure is as yet an untried experiment, and in the actual
practical operation of its provisions there may be many things that will
require improvement, I submit that this would be the case to a greater
or less extent in relation to any measure of this kind that could be
adopted. I shall vote for the bill, and hope that it may become a law;
and if upon the test of practical application it shall be apparent that
any of its provisions need amendment in order to better serve the in-
terests of the people or relieve transportation companies from any unjust
burdens, Congress may be relied upon to pass the necessary legislation.
Mr. HOLMAN said:
Mr. CHAIRMAN: No subject in a time of peace has received the at-
tention of Congress of greater importance than the subject now under
debate. The extraordinary capacity of the railroads of the United
States to unite into a general and consolidated system was not seen
prior to the late war, and no effort was made in Congress until 1864 to
impose any limitations on the aggressive methods and extortionate de-
mands of railroad corporations. The first struggle in Congress to re-
strict the power of these corporations was over the question whether
or no they should be permitted to add to their charges for the trans-
portation of passengers the tax of 23 per cent. which Congress imposed
on their gross earnings as a war measure. This action of Congress grew
out of the fact that certain States of the eastern section of the Union
had imposed a specific limitation on the charges by railroads for the
transportation of passengers, and the railroads were determined to im-
pose the tax which Congress had imposed on them on the traveling
public by increasing the fare, and thus overriding the laws of the States
644 *
imposing such limitation. This attempt to restrict the charges of rail-
road companies failed, as I will hereafter show, for even then it ap-
peared, from the action of Congress, only a strong and well-defined
public opinion could secure legislation which would impose restrictions
on corporations possessed of the extraordinary advantages incident to
the railroad system.
But the first systematic effort to regulate commerce between the States
was thirteen years ago, in the Forty-third Congress, 1874, and the meas-
ure then pending was House bill No. 1385, entitled “A bill to regulate
commerce by railroads in the United States.” The bill was elaborately
discussed. That discussion disposed of many questions which are now
considered forever settled, especially the question of the power of Con-
gress to regulate commerce between the States by railroads. That
question is no longer open to controversy. Indeed, the discussion at
this time is greatly simplified. There is now no doubt of the power of
Congress to regulate railroad traffic between the States, or, as it is now
termed, “commerce between the States,” and no doubt exists about the
authority of the States to regulate local railroad traffic within the limit
of the States. The question now is simply one of expediency. The
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States have in the mean
time disposed of all of the other questions.
The bill to which I have referred of 1874 was elaborately discussed
and passed the House by a close vote, but received no attention in the
Senate. It involved all the leading features of the pending bill in its
general provisions, but was far less valuable than the present bill on
account of the meagerness of its details. The fundamental provision
of that bill was that railroads should transport persons and freights at
“fair and reasonable rates,” reasserting a principle of the common law,
providing a commission to ascertain what such “fair and reasonable
rates” were, making the determination of the commission prima facie
evidence of the fact and providing the means of compelling the rail-
road corporations to observe the schedule of rates established by the
commission. As a preliminary measure of legislation on a great ques-
tion it is entitled to high consideration.
The merit of the pending bill lies in the fact that it goes beyond the
general provisions of the former bill and enters into the details, for the
feature of a commission, which was very prominent in the former bill.
and subordinate in the present measure, is manifestly of doubtful expe-
diency.
When the bill of 1874 was pending I called attention to the effort
made by Congress in 1864 to restrict railroad charges in some detail,
and set forth and in brief the discussion of the subject in the House in
the following terms:
Now, Mr. Speaker, one other fact. We have heard fervent appeals to the Con-
stitution against this bill. It is singular how we shift grounds here in this House
on constitutional questions. This subject has been before Congress once before.
I brought it to the attention of the House of Representatives in 1864. It was then
sufficiently manifest that at an early day the exercise of this power by Congress
would be inevitable, unless the whole country was to be left at the mercy of
these monopolies. It was then manifest, as it is now, that it was not the inten-
tion, and had not been, of these corporations to content themselves with a rea-
sonable profit on their investments. When was monopoly ever moderate in its
demands? The power of monopoly was too great; and great power inevitably
leads to great abuses.
Everybody in this country knows that that which is made to represent the
wealth of these corporations, the bonds in various forms, and the stocks, rep-
resent a wealth far beyond the capital actually invested, and on which reason-
able profits should be made. Everybody saw years ago that the thing to be
645
condemned and resisted was the systematic struggle of these corporations by
the consolidation and monopoly to make the industries and labor of the whole
country pay a profit on fictitious capitals.
It was very manifest in 1864 that the railroads were determined that their fic-
titious stocks should pay dividends. The times were favorable for such schemes,
for the attention of the whole country was engrossed by the then impending
struggle for the Union. Taxation was inevitable, and the railroads were resist-
ing taxation. !
When I brought this subject to the attention of Congress, I brought it in the
best form I could under the necessities of the hour. Congress was considering
the subject of the taxation of railroad corporations; it had imposed a tax of 2;
per cent. On to the gross earnings, and inasmuch as New York and some
other States east of the mountains had, as to some of their roads, limited the
charges for passengers, the people on this side of the mountains having been
much more vigilant and considerate of their rights as to these corporations
than the States of the West, they were not able to add this tax of 2% per cent.
on to the charges which they were authorized to make. Congress, therefore,
was proposing to enable them to escape bearing the burden of the tax them-
selves by providing that a railroad corporation might add the tax imposed upon
it to the cost of transportation of persons and freight, notwithstanding it was
limited in its charges by the act creating it. This was a case in which the inter-
ference of Congress was invoked in behalf of the railroad.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. HOLMAN. I ask for a few moments longer.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be al-
lowed to proceed.
There was no objection. * -
Mr. HoDMAN. Congress was asked by the Republican leader of this House to
override the legislation of the States fixing the cost of transportation, by per-
mitting citizens to be taxed by the railroads to pay the very tax which was imposed
upon the corporations. I then brought forward this proposition in an amend-
ment :
“That whenever any railroad company shall demand or receive a rate of tax
for passengers over and above 3 cents per mile for each mile that any passen-
ger may be carried, the excess over such rate shall be deemed and taken as a
tax levied upon such railroad company, to be returned and paid in the same
manner as is provided in this act for the collection of the per cent. on the gross
receipts of said company; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be so
construed as to authorize any railroad company to charge and receive a higher
price for the conveyance of passengers than shall be allowed by the laws of the
State chartering the same.” -
Would any gentleman suppose that that was a violation of the Constitution?
But, sir, strangely enough the appeal to the Constitution on behalf of railroad
corporations came from the other side of the House. A gentleman from Ver-
mont appealed to the doctrine of State rights against this nuanifestly just and
fair proposition.
In submitting this proposition to the House I said:
“I trust the importance of this proposition will secure it some consideration.
I think no more important subject has been brought to the attention of this com-
mittee since the consideration of this bill commenced. It will be observed that
the duty inaposed on the gross amount of the receipts of railroads is 2 per cent.,
and the question is whether that 2 per cent. duty imposed upon the railroads
shall be paid by the railroads themselves or by the traveling public who are com-
pelled to resort to that mode of transportation. The effect of the amendment is
to compel the railroads to bear this duty, and if they charge more than three
cents per mile—which is a very fair and liberal compensation—that surplus shall
be deemed a tax, and be paid into the Treasury of the United States instead of
into the treasury of these corporations.
“Mr. GANson. I would suggest to the gentleman that if the whole excess over
three cents a mile shall go into the Treasury of the United States, no railroad
company will charge more than that, I therefore suggest that he make the
amount so to be paid in one-half.
“Mr. HolyAN. Ithink my proposition will very effectually accomplish the ob-
ject I have in view. It is to prevent the railroad from adding the tax to the fare on
travelers. If they charge more than three cents a mile let the people have the
benefit of it through their Government. If you simply propose to tax them upon
their gross earnings, they will add not simply 2 but 4 or 5 per cent., and in some
instances 10 per cent. upon the travel to the country by the increased fare they will
exact. It is asserted that railroads are compelled to increase the fare with the tax.
I have compiled from the American Railroad Journal a statement of dividends
of a number of the leading roads, East and West, to repel that pretense, and in-
§: their earnings at the present rates. I ask that it may be read by the
€I*R,
646
“The statement, which was read, is as follows: * i.
Dividends and price of stock of certain railroads during the past year.
U} = - ºt-
* # a º
* 3 gº Q}
Railroads. | rt & $ §
; : 5 ‘ā’;
| S P ſº
Illinois Central................................................................._* s is e º s = a a • * s e º º 7 130
Terre Haute and Richmond ......... ............................. .................. 13 125
New York and New Haven ................................... .... .................. 12 160%
New Castle and Frenchtown................................... ....................... 9 |.... .......
Indianapolis and Cincinnati............................................... * * * * * * * * * g e 9 100
Michigan Central ..................... ..... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tº a tº s e º tº s ºr º e º e < e s e s tº a ſº e º 'º - 8 141%
Camden and Amboy....................................................................... 10 186
Central New Jersey........................................................................ 10 175
Buffalo and State Line.............. § s tº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 11 201
Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton.................................................. 10 132
Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati.............................. .......:...... 20 170
Cleveland, Painesville and Ashtabula....... .............. .................... 33% 180
Columbus and Xenia................................................. .................... 15 ............
Little Miami ...... ..................................... • * * * * * * * * * * g º º is tº s tº a º sº a tº 4 & e º & tº ºn 4 e º º tº a $ s 15 140
Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne and Chicago..................... ................ • * * * * * I0 114
Pennsylvania “.......... ........... ................................ ....................... .8 75}
New York Central ............................, a • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 135}
“Mr. HOLMAN. I take the dividends on the Illinois Central from other sources
than the Journal referred to, but equally reliable. º
“Mr. MORRILL. I desire to ask the gentleman from Indiana whether that per-,
centage is not calculated on the capital of these roads merely, and not on all their
indebtedness?
“Mr. Holmſ AN. I understand that these are the dividends declared on their cap-
ital stock. I take the statement from the American Railroad Journal.
“Mr. MORRILL. Many of those roads have got three or four times as much
money represented in their indebtedness as in their capital.
“Mr. Hof,MAN. A single instance will illustrate how these dividends are made,
and whether the basis is reliable or not. The Illinois Central declared a dividend
of 7 per cent. during the past year, and still had remaining of cash assets, after
the paying of the last February’s dividend, $2,000,000. . That is but one of many
instances indicating the extraordinary profits of these roads. I take this state-
ment from a leading New York paper.
“Under the influence of the war the profits of most of the leading roads have
more than doubled in four years. The capital is mostly held by European capi-
talists, from whom you receive no other tax than what is imposed upon the roads'
themselves. They are managed with no reference to public interests or con-
venience, but only for their own profit, favored monopolies; and yet you im-
pose upon them less tax than the individual citizen must pay, and give them
an opportunity—yes, you invite them by the proviso I propose to strike out—
to inn pose the tax you impose on them on the traveling public who possess no
remedy against their exactions. The enormity of this proviso I will not at-
tempt to argue. It is infamous, and only needs to be read to be condemned.”
Mr. Price, of Iowa, opposed the proposition; and said in the course of his re-
marks :
“It is impolitic to authorize or restrict railroad companies, for they will
always manage in some way to escape from your restrictions.”
Mr. Farnsworth, of Illinois, supported the proposition, and said:
“We might as well come at once and declare a tax upon passengers on rail-
roads, for unless you place restrictions in the way, the railroad companies that
you tax will exact their taxation out of the passengers. They will increase the
rates of fare so as to cover the taxes twice over. This we can prevent them
doing in a very simple, easy manner, such as the gentleman from Indiana pro-
posses.
Mr. James C. Allen, of Illinois, supported the measure, and in the course of
his remarks said:
“Now, sir, gentlemen who know anything about railroads, in the West particu-
larly, know that as soon as the tax bill passed last Congress they advanced both
their passage fares and their freight charges, not in proportion to the tax inn-
posed on them, but upon the principal roads in the West they advanced their
fare 1 cent a mile ; and I believe some of the roads running eastward to New
York advanced their freights from 75 cents to $1.50 on a barrel of flour, and on
647
a barrel of pork, for which they formerly eharged $1.25, they now charge $3; so
of everything in proportion.”
Mr. MORRILL, of Vermont, answering the gentleman from Illinois, said:
“I desire to ask the gentleman a question. I ask the gentleman whether he
does not think that these are State institutions which ought not to be interfered
with by the Government?”
Mr. J. C. Allen, in reply to this, said:
“Mr. Chairman, we in the West suffer enough now from the exactions of rail-
road corporations; we have in one sense become their slaves.”
The proposition was defeated, but it was evident, from the spirit of the debate,
* ſhe oppressive exactions of these corporations would be ultimately re-
SIS [e:Ci. .
Mr. E. B. Washburne, of Illinois, was, at the time of this debate, in the chair,
and therefore did not engage in the discussion, but he was an earnest supporter
of this attempt to limit railroad.charges, and was, during his long period of serv-
” ice in this House, the most able, effective, and persistent enemy to the en-
croachments and exactions of corporations.
I submit the foregoing statement from the public records to show the
beginning of this movement and illustrate the spirit of corporate power
at a period of great public embarrassment, and to show that while rail-
road corporations were realizing unexampled profits from public mis-
fortunes they were seeking to escape from the burdens of taxation all
classes of citizens submitted to without complaint.
In reviewing the discussion on the bill I have mentioned of 1874, I am
astonished to find that the extortions of which our people now so justly
complain were then as well understood as now, and this extraordinary
delay of Congressin redressing the evils of which the country has so long
complained, and complained with so much justice, only illustrates the
power these corporations exert in controlling the affairs of Government—
their control over the action of Congress.
The vast system of railroads, aggregating 128,967 miles and exercis-
ing the absolute power to control the trade and commerce of the coun-
try, is a dangerous power in a republic, and when its methods are con-
sidered the peril is greatly increased. The capital stock of the railroads
of the United States is the sum of $3,817,697,832. Their funded debt
is the enormous sum of $3,765,727,066. Their unfunded debt, $259,-
108,281. Their shares, capital and indebtedness, reach in the aggre-
gate $7,676,399,054. The amount of interest paid last year, $189,426,-
035, and dividends, $77,672,105. And these billions of dollars of in-
debtedness, as well as billions of dollars of capital stock, to say nothing
of the unfunded debt, are as exacting in their demands as the tax levied
by the United States to meet the public debt and requirements of the
Government.
‘And these are public corporations, organized for public purposes,
and yet claim exemption from public control. I insist that the right
to it. and control these corporations is absolutely necessary for
the public safety. There can be no doubt of the power of Congress to
regulate the interstate traffic of these corporations, or of the States to
regulate their traffic within their borders and control their charges for
transporting persons and freight. The extraordinary privileges con-
ferred on them indicates this.
It must be admitted that the right of eminent domain and sovereign prerog-
atives which have been employed under the authority of the several States in
the creation of these railways, appropriating the property of the citizen and sub-
ordinating his rights to a corporation, would never have been tolerated except
to promote a high public purpose. Certainly all this has not been done and these
corporations invested with perpetual franchises simply for the aggrandizements
of the stockholders. Such an interpretation of the laws which underlie this vast
:* of railway corporations would be repugnant to the spirit of our institu-
1OI)S. -
No, sir; these railways are public highways, and these corporations are in-
vested with great franchises for public purposes, and the aggrandizement of the
648
stockholders is subordinate, and must be subordinate, to the public purpose of
securing commercial channels at a reasonable cost to the people. The good faith
of the States and of the nation requires that these corporators shall be entitled
to charge and receive areasonable compensation for transportation based, per-
haps, on the capital actually invested, uothing more; and no charter, granted
by any State can receive any other interpretation. A charter attempting any-
thing more weuld be still subject to this limitation by the law of the highest
public policy.
I deny that a State of this-Union can clothe a corporate body with a portion
of her sovereignty and with unlimited power to tax the industry of the people
by the monopoly even of advantages, and beyond and above legislative con-
trol. “If the Dartmouth College case sustains such pretensions—grants of the
State sovereignty from the control of successive Legislatures forever--I deny
its authority at this day.” But the power of Congress to regulate commerce is
not limited by special franchises. -
This vast network of railways by the consolidation of corporâte power not
only monopolizes the channels of commerce, but monopolizes all advantages,
and its power is wielded by a handful of successful adventurers. A handful of
men emerging from the stock-gambling chambers of Wall street have almost
the entire labor of the country at their mercy. A convention at New York of
a few railroad kings, made such by the successful manipulation of stocks, deter-
mine what tax the industries of the country—this great nation of farmers and
mechanics and workmen in every field of productive industry—shall bear.
The country has seen how competition disappears before consolidation.
I expressed the foregoing views when the bill of 1874 was pending.
I reaffirm them now; and it is now more manifest than then that this
enormous railroad system must be subject to the control of the Govern-
ment or the Government and the people will become subordinate to
its interests and demands.
The railroad system has aided in a marvelous degree to develop the
resources of the United States, but it must be admitted that it has
opened up unexampled opportunities for the fraudulent employment
of public grants and franchises for personal aggrandizement.
It is very manifest that those opportunities have not been neglected
and that private fortunes have been amassed, within the last quarter of
a century, through the public franchises granted to these corporations
unexampled in the history of the world, and all this by an almost di-
rect tax on every other industry of the country. The mere statement
of capital stock and indebtedness of these corporations clearly indicated
the fraudulent method. Capital stock and indebtedness, represented by
interest-bearing bonds, $7,842,533,179; gross earnings, $772,568,833;
net earnings, $269,493,931. Now, sir, Poor's Manual of Railroads (the
highest authority we have on this subject) for 1884 makes this state-
ment:
If it be assumed that the cost in money of all the roads in operation in the
United States in 1883 d?d not exceed, as it certainly did not, the amount of their
funded and floating debts, $3,787,410,728, the actual investment was a most prof-
itable one. The net earnings for the year were $336,911,884, a sum equaling about
9 per cent. on their cost. If the fictitious capital could be eliminated from their
accounts their success as investments would have no parallel.
Hudson's work, recently published, entitled “The Railways and the
Republic,” says: -
Surely the estimate of Poor's Manual that the actual cost in money of all the
railroads in the United States did not exceed their funded and floating debts, an
aggregate of $3,787,000,000, and that the fictitious capitalization was $3,708,000,000
is moderate and conservative. *
Now, what is the result of all this? If it affected only the holders
of these securities it would be a matter of little moment; but this ficti-
tious indebtedness represented by stocks and bonds demands interest
and dividends, and the whole of the industries of the country must be
taxed to support this vast volume of fictitious securities, greatly ex-
ceeding in amount the public debt of the United States at the close of
the war. Yes, exceeding the public debt at the highest point it reached
*
649
more than a billion dollars. The result is manifest; the railroad sys-
tem with an absolute control of the industries of the country and a
power of taxation as systematic and absolute as that of the Govern-
ment of the United States, by fraudulent methods compels the country
to support not only a legitimate capital of $3,787,410,728, but an ad-
ditional and wholly fictitious capital in bonds and stocks of $3,708,-
000,000, and the country can not escape this burden even partially ex-
cept by breaking down the consolidation of the railroad system. It is
through this system of consolidation, this pooling of interests, destroy-
ing just and wholesome competition, that a few railroad kings are able
to tax the whole people at their pleasure, and give solidity and value
to a gigantic mass of fictitious wealth.
Our country and our free institutions are undergoing a change the
magnitude of which our people hardly seem conscious. The excessive
taxation imposed upon our people by the Federal Government far be-
yond the just requirements of the public service; the enormous grants
of our most valuable public possessions, our public lands, heretofore
made, and the mass of public securities issued by railroad corporations,
which rest upon the industries of the country, are centralizing the
wealth of our people to an extent never before experienced in the his-
tory of the world. We see vast private estates on the one hand and a
growing multitude of impoverished people on the other. The farmers
of the country, that great and conservative body of men, who in all
ages have been the support of free institutions, find the fruits of their
fields burdened by oppressive exactions, and their labor unprofitable.
It must be admitted that the extortionate demands of the railway
corporations on the labor of the country are a leading cause of this dis-
couraging condition in our affairs. Great corporate interests, always ex-
acting, extortionate, and despotic, and great private estates, always
timid, have no faith in free institutions or a free people, but seek the
shelter of a strong government. Hence the extraordinary effort we are
now witnessing, at a time of profound peace, with higher guarantees,
if possible, than those we have formerly possessed of peace with all
the world, to place this Government on a military foundation. I admit
that Congress is making concessions to the great capital interests slowly,
but the movement goes on without pause. Unconsciously we drift into
the old methods of government from which our fathers believed they
had forever emancipated our Republic.
Any measure, therefore, that will restrict the aggressive tendencies
of these corporations and secure the wholesome power of free competi-
tion and put an end to the practice of unjust discriminations between
persons dependent on railroad facilities, will so far at least be of bene-
fit to the people and will curtail the power for evil of these corpora-
tions. This bill aims at the following results:
1. It prohibits unjust discriminations and favoritism to any particu-
lar person, company, or corporation.
2. It prohibits any railroad company from charging a greater price
for transporting persons or freight for a shorter than a longer distance
on the same line.
3. It prohibits the pooling of freights of different and competing rail-
roads or dividing between them the aggregate or net earnings of such
railroads or any part thereof.
There are many subordinate provisions of the bill of value, but this
statement presents the leading features. I sincerely regret that such
large power is conferred on the commissioners over the question of
charges for a shorter than a longer distance. I think the rule should
650
have been absolute. I regret indeed the creation of this commission,
but it is a small evil compared with the great good sought to be secured.
Considering the bill as a whole I give it my cordial support, yet it is
clear that it will require years to perfect the measure. It is certain
that the Government must regulate and control these powerful corpo-
rations, else they will control the Government. This bill is at least a
good beginning, but the work will not be completed until the legisla-
tion of Congress shall establish beyond question that the imperial
franchises conferred upon these corporations were designed to promote
public interests and advance the public good, and not for the mere pur-
pose of creating imperial private estates; that the Government—not a few
railroad kings, arrogant in the possession of imperial power—shall de-
termine what are fair and reasonable charges for the transportation of
persons and freights. -
This measure, too, will encourage the States to exercise the power they
possess to regulate the local railroad traffic within their borders, and
with the passage of this bill the hope may be indulged that in the course
of a few years, by the united action of the Federal Government and the
States, within their respective jurisdictions, this gigantic system of rail-
road corporations, organized for the public good, but with its enormous
powers perverted to the purposes of extortion, injustice, and personal
aggrandizement to an extent that no Government, monarchy or repub-
lic—with any remaining sense of justice could tolerate, will be brought
within the proper control of law, a subject and servant of the Govern-
ment and not its master, the agent of the people and not their arrogant
oppressor.
After these years of contest I congratulate this House on the cer-
tainty that this bill will soon become a law; that one system at least
of corporate franchises and overbearing monopoly, which has hitherto
employed its combined powers in the amassing of imperial private
fortunes by extortion, oppression, and injustice, will be placed under
the restrictions of imperative law. This measure, at least, is an auspi-
cious beginning.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE said:
Mr. SPEAKER: Throughout this debate we have heard complaints
without criticisms and objections without reasons. Gentlemen rise to
condemn, and conclude with the statement that they will support the
bill. It does not quite suit them in all respects. They would like it
much if ‘‘some things” were omitted from it, or it would please them
greatly if ‘‘some other” provisions were incorporated in it. They en-
tertain grave doubts as to it in “some respects,” and though it will
doubtless do “some good,” yet there is serious apprehension that it
may result in ‘‘some harm.”
No man can have followed gentlemen who have spoken and failed to
observe the indefiniteness and general mistiness of much of the criti-
cism upon this bill by many even who support it. There appears to
be upon the part of certain gentlemen a consuming desire to hedge
against future developments when it shall have become an applied law.
Because certain sections have, under ingenious manipulation, been
twisted from the plain and manifest purpose of the words, they seem to.
see it as a deformity, a sort of legislative enigma. They describe it as
equivocal, uncertain, vague, obscure, ambiguous. *
Each one of them leaves with the House and the country the unmis-
takable impression that he could have framed a bill that would at
Once have brought this suffering and confused people, and particularly
651
f
this legislative body, out of the chaos of difficulties which close us
round; that he could have blessed us with the very acme of statutory
perfection by a few strokes of the pen. True they have none of them
said just how this would have been done, and it will surely go down
to history as one of the unfortunate things connected with this impor-
tant discussion that each of these distinguished gentlemen concluded
his speech of general complaint and solemn prophecy without a single
flash of his intellectual head-light on the Erebus-like darkness which
he has, alas, only sensibly deepened and intensified.
But, sir, it occurs to me to say that even if there were real, intelli-
gent differences of opinion, definitely and unqualifiedly expressed here
as to the purport of the several sections of this bill, it would not for
that reason alone stand condemned. The proper test of this or any
other measure is not whether it satisfies every one in all respects, nor
yet whether each one gives exactly the same interpretation to all of its
language. I apprehend that such a statute has never been passed in the
whole history of law-making.
If the framers of the Constitution had sought to define and limit the
meaning of each word used, and to explain the exact application of
every clause of that instrument in every possible contingency, they
would never have finished their labors, or if they had. the highest value
of that great charter would have been absolutely destroyed. So all
laws of large scope enact general propositions under which varied and
multitudinous controversies may be determined as they arise rather than
a complex infinity of rules to forestall every imaginary case which
human invention may suggest. Laws embracing large subjects to be
effective must enunciate principles and leave their application to the
COurtS.
The right test of this legislation is whether it provides with reason-
able certainty proper and efficient means of securing necessary, just,
and legitimate objects. The question at issue is, then, whether there
is necessity for Congress exercising its constitutional power to regulate
commerce between the States, and if so, will the provisions adopted by
the committee of conference fairly meet the objects for which they were
designed.
The discussion has arisen chiefly from difference of opinion as to the
best methods of correcting existing evils. That is an open question, a
new field of speculation, and consequently many different views have
been presented upon it. But there is no opportunity for theory and
conjecture and difference as to the necessity itself of some legislation.
There are too many bare, uncontrovertible facts testifying the urgency
of some action designed to remove the unequal burdens which par-
tiality and favoritism have created, and to secure to the great body of
producers and consumers alike common rights and common justice.
This bill has been so long resisted, so strenuously opposed on the one
hand, and so ardently advocated, so persistently sustained on the other,
its disastrous effects so tragically depicted and its certain benefits so
glowingly declaimed upon, that the opinion prevails everywhere that
it is a most unusual and extravagant piece of legislation. It is sup-
posed to deprive railways of nearly all their natural rights and with
the same stroke to confer on the people very extraordinary powers and
privileges.
As I understand this bill it but declares certain common-law pro-
visions in reference to common carriers, and provides means for their
enforcement.
Railways have so long ignored all the restrictions of the common law
652
that they have actually come to believe their rights are not only co-
extensive with but paramount to those of individuals. They are so
sincerely convinced of the necessity and justice of their business code
that they succeed in convincing others of it; and it has taken sixteen
years to persuade Congress that there is anything intrinsically wrong
in it. Even now many defend this bill much as a “war measure,”
much as though there were no excuse for it except necessity. Some of
its supporters seem to feel that it is a bold invasion of the natural rights
of railways instead of a removal of encroachments made by railways on
the natural rights of the people.
Now, if I believed such to be the character of this bill; if I believed
that it is designed or would operate to place arbitrary and artificial
barriers about commerce, I would not vote for it. But its purpose is
simply to remove the artificial restrictions that hinder the natural op-
eration and course of trade and traffic.
There is probably not a railway of any importance in the country that
does not make itself liable to countless common-law actions daily.
Whenever and wherever persons engage in the business of public carry-
ing, the law says to them: You must provide efficient service, you must
be fair and impartial, your charges must be just and reasonable. Your
“legitimate function is transportation.” In your capacity as a public
servant you must know nothing of persons, things, or places. You are
legally bound to treat all alike. Discriminations and favoritisms are
forbidden.
How do the practices of railways conform to these first principles of
the common law 2 While Congress has been considering, debating, and
through its committees investigating this important subject, interesting
evidence has been taken, many facts compiled, and much valuable mat-
ter contributed to the railway history of this country. I invite your
consideration for a moment to a few typical illustrations of usages vio-
lative of the public obligations mentiomed, and answering fully and
plainly the question just asked. * -
The respective classification of domestic dry goods and groceries imposed in
1883 a rate of 75 cents per hundred pounds on domestic dry goods from New
York to Chicago, while the rate on coffee or sugar by the car-load was 35 cents
per hundred pounds. The representatives of the dry-goods interest urged that
it cost no more to haul a car-load of cotton fabrics from New York to Chicago
than it did a car-load of coffee; that dry goods were cleaner, more easily handled,
and less liable to damage than sugar and coffee; and, finally, that the profit on
domestic dry goods was notably smaller than on almost any other class of
wholesale trade, and furnished no justification for the policy of making it bear
twice as large a proportion of the railway charges as other lines of trade.
The unjust distribution of charges in this instance probably has its
origin in custom, and is a sort of survival. The profits on cotton goods
were much greater formerly than now, and according to the practice of
“charging freight what it will bear,” the rates were established which
it is now found impossible to get changed. No such explanation, how-
ever, can be offered for the discrimination made in rates on live-stock
and dressed beef, under which on the first day of last month dressed
beef was charged 65 cents per hundred pounds and live cattle 35 cents
per hundred for transportation from Chicago to New York. One writer,
after reviewing the reasons assigned on the part of the railroads in de-
fense of this practice, says:
The inadequacy of these pretexts forces us to believe that the real reason
why the railways uphold this discrimination is, the generally received one, that
railway corporations themselves, or the influential railway managers, have large
proprietary interests in live-stock yards throughout the country, and that, rather
than allow their vested interests to be depreciated by the general introduction
of dressed beef, they are united in depriving shippers and consumers of the
653
º of the economy of transportation made possible by the dressed-beef
trade. -
Discriminations as to places have led to some highly ridiculous absurd-
ities. Think of goods being transported one-fourth cheaper from New
York to New Orleans than from New York to Atlanta, ' Behold Pitts-
burgh freight destined for Texas start for New York and return by way of
Pittsburgh . Look at Pennsylvania wheat going by way of Ohio to New
York; of goods from Chicago to Denver by way of San Francisco, and
the coal of Eastern Pennsylvania selling at a lower price in Boston than
in Philadelphia
It is scarcely necessary to cite instances of partiality to special cor-
porations and individuals. It is the most reprehensible and least ex-
cusable form of favoritism, and is by no means the least common.
There is scarcely a shipping point of any significance in the country
where railways have not practiced this vicious abuse. The Standard
Oil Company is an appalling example of its evils. It has been well
said concerning this that—
It does not require any great technical knowledge to see that the payment .
of $10,000,000 rebates to a single oil-refining corporation in sixteen months is a
vital attack upon the independence and even the existence of its competitors.
* * * The wealth of this company represents the reward which can be ob-
tained by securing the favor of the railways to crush out open and honest com-
petition. The infliction of that curse (the Standard Oil Counpany) upon the
nation must be charged to the policy which unites the railways in efforts to
suppress competition among themselves and to give favored shippers a monop-
oly of the traffic by discriminating rates.
No one on this floor can defend such acts as these. Think for a
moment of their general application. If individuals were to resort to
such practice it would condemn and ruin any private business depend-
ent on the good will of the public for its support. What would become
of the farmer's market if the price of his produce varied with his cus-
tomer’s ability to pay? What liveryman could afford to charge patrons
more for the hire of his carriage one hour than for ten? How long
would any merchant stay in business who favored customers from one
locality over those of another?
No, gentlemen, such a system of management is absolutely without
defense or justification. It violates not only the simplest and best un-
derstood common-law obligations, but it unsettles all business calcula-
tions—is against all business principles. It builds up one man’s for-
tunes on the ruins of another, is without legal or moral support any-
where, and unchecked is a menace to private and public prosperity.
Any measure which deals temperately and fairly with the great in-
terests involved, but at the same time brings the railways back and
confines them with strong hand to their legitimate business as corn-
mon carriers, restoring to the public its own again, would be little less
than a second bill of rights. -
I am not such an enthusiast as to expect this of a single legislative act
alone, nor a single spasm of interest in the subject by the people; but
all advancement must have its origin, and I am for this bill because I
believe it moves out in that direction.
The key-note of the whole measure is sounded in the first section,
which declares that all rates shall be reasonable and just. The next
few sections, until we come to the provision for the establishment of
/the commission, little more than specify and forbid special practices of
railways which are in violation of this principle.
It is unjust and unreasonable for a common carrier to charge one per-
son more than another for the same service, under similar circumstances
654
and conditions, so the second section prohibits special rates and draw-
backs. And all devices which are a means to this end are prohibited
and declared unlawful.
The third section involves exactly the same principle, but especially
directs its application to the prevention of preferences being given to
one place or kind of traffic to the prejudice or disadvantage of any other
place or kind of traffic.
The much-discussed fourth section seems to me to be little more
than a corollary to those which precede it. The practice of charging
more for a short than for a long haul when the shorter is included
within the longer presents on its face an unjust discrimination. Hence,
the section specifies such cases as violations of law. This would doubt-
less have been the judgment of the courts in most instances when such
cases came before them for determination without this express provision.
The value of this as well as the two preceding sections liesin the fact that
the application of the law is here made certain and definitely settled in
a large class of cases, and in some measure a proportionate amount of
litigation will be thereby forestalled and obviated.
It is, however, contended that it is not unjust and unreasonable to
charge more for a short than for a long haul, and gentlemen here and
elsewhere have pronounced this section both arbitrary and preposterous.
They maintain that it will work great hardship to railroad companies
and greatly injure the large commercial cities and shipping points and
country tributary thereto; that it will deprive them of the natural
advantages which built them up and bring them to the common level,
commercially, of every little village and station in the country. They
argue that it is not an unfair discrimination to charge, for instance,
less for a car from Chicago to New York than from some intermediate
point. §
They say the effect of this law will be to raise the price of the car
from Chicago without in the least degree lessening the rate from the
intermediate point. The natural inference to be drawn from this is
that railways are carrying through freight at a losing rate and making
their profit upon local traffic; and it has been asserted that through
freights are simply carried because they help pay running expenses,
while local charges are regulated to yield a fair return upon the great
capital invested. f
Whether this be true, the public has no means of knowing. They
are ignorant, totally ignorant, of the profits or losses of railways on
their capital actually invested. There is, however, no sufficient reason
which suggests itself to the average mind why railways, obeying no
law but their own voluntary regulations, should fix through rates so
low as to yield no profit at all. But some one says competition forces
them down at these great shipping points to actual losing rates. Surely
competition between the railways alone does not do this, for none of
the competitors could or would long pursue such an expensive policy
from choice. Besides, they have a plan of combination called “pool-
ing,” which pretty effectually dulls the edge of railway competition,
makes the different corporations members of one great family, with ties
stronger than those of blood. *
Ay; but, says some gentleman, strife with river, lake, and coastwise
carriers is, however, a competition which forces rates below all possi-
bility of profit for the railways, and where this exists they always carry
at an actual loss on the through freight. While it is true that lake
and canal charges modify railway rates in a degree in localities and on
lines in contact with the water system, still even here railways are not
655
wholly defenseless, although it has been asserted and gone unchallenged
in this debate that they are. Several qualifications, and even excep-
tions, I think, may be fairly made to this claim, and I state them
briefly without taking the time to enlarge upon them. -
Carrying by water is limited to comparatively few shipping points,
while the discriminations complained of in long and short hauls are not
confined to those competing points nor their connecting lines, and can
not, therefore, be assigned to this cause alone. -
Water ways are open to use for only a portion of the year, and though
the effect of their competition is marked during that time in the sec-
tions of country contiguous to them, yet the advance in railway rates
in the winter months is not so great as to indicate a certain losing rate
while navigation is open.
The rates from Chicago each month of the year 1885, which I give
you, do not, I think, show either such rates or such a variation in rates
as to warrant the belief that from the 1st day of May to the 1st day of
December the railroads were carrying freight to New York at less than
•COSt. - #
The rates from Chicago to New York upon certain products, as re-
ported by the several trunk lines upon the first day of each month for
the year 1885, were as follows:
[In cents per 100 pounds.]
i | re: | < | . . |
a #. . . # 3 | 3
Months. 3 : ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; = 2 3 #
# # # # 33 # 3 # # 3 # 3 à
5 i = | f | F a 2 3. # = & = |=
– ––– ------, - --> ------------
January...... ............. * * * * * * * * * * * * *
February.................. 40 60 50 30 70 25 25 30 32 30 30 60 32
March....................... 40 60 50 30 70 25 25 so 32 30 30 60 32
April...................... 40 60 50 25 70 20 20, 30 28 25 25 60 32
May.......................... 40 60 50 25 70 20 20 25 28 25 25 60 30
June......................... 30 60 40 23 7 #9 20 : 28 || 2: . 25 gº 39
July.. ...............; 25 60 40 20 43% 15 # 15 25 28 ; 25 25 60 30
August ......... 25 60 40 25 43} 20 20 25 24 25 25 60 30
September ............. * ... ii., § # 20 20 25 28 25 25 39 39
October............... ..... 25 60 40 25 43; 20 20, 25 28 25 25 60 30
November................ 25 60 40 25 43; 20 20 25 28 25 25 60 i 35
December........ ........ 25 to 40 30 3# 25 25 ; 25 28 30 30 60 35
. t - - - ! ! i
Some articles in the foregoing table are shipped almost entirely by
rail, and yet there runs about the same variation throughout the whole
list. All rates were a little lower through the summer and autumn
months, when there was not so much produce to move.
There is another significant fact meriting mention in this connec-
tion. In this day and age of changing markets and perfect telegraph
communication quick transportation is one of the most vital considera-
tions both with producers and shippers. Only a limited number of
articles of commerce can afford to take the chances of fluctuating mar-
kets to which they are subjected in the delays and uncertainties inci-
dent to water transportation. Quick and certain delivery at a fixed
-date, for most articles of farm produce especially, is demanded by the
commercial spirit of our times. These are strong inducements to all
shippers to pay freight charges to the railways, notwithstanding the op-
portunity to ship by water, which lifts them above the necessity of ac-
cepting a losing rate, or even one barely paying the expense of moving
the train. - -
656
And so I say it may be fairly doubted, even where the facilities for
water transportation are perfect, whether the railways in order to get
their share of the business in any instances are compelled to carry at
less than cost or indeed without a reasonable profit.
It must, however, be admitted that to a certain extent water ways and
railways are competitors, and that the former with their natural courses
have some advantages over the latter. It is for this reason, and for this
reason chiefly, I apprehend, that the bill confers upon the commission
it creates the authority to suspend the operation of the long and short
haul provision. I do not believe that clause was born out of an over-
Weaning desire on the part of the committee to protect either the rail-
ways or the shippers, but that it was prompted by a wise and thoughtful
prudence. e
And right in this connection I desire to ask the gentleman represent-
ing the conference committee on the part of the House, Judge CRISP,
whether I rightly understood his explanation of the term “special
cases '' as used in this fourth section. When the gentleman from Iowa.
[Mr. HEPBURNJ asked him whether these words in his judgment re-
ferred to shipments or to roads, he answered that in his judgment the
words referred to shipments. Following out that construction logically
it would mean this: Since the operation of the long and short haul pro-
vision will only be suspended by the commission “upon application,
in special cases,” if “special cases º' means special shipments then ap-
plication and decision will be required in each particular case or class
of shipments before exemption or suspension can be made. Such a con-
struction, it seems to me, and I say it with great respect to the distin-
guished gentleman, narrows the scope and meaning of the language un-
reasonably. *
Mr. CRISP. I did not intend to convey that idea. As I understand
this section, or that provision rather, it was inserted with this idea:
Some of us, and I was one, believed that the absolute prohibition of a
greater charge for a shorter haul should be made. I believed in that
principle. Other gentlemen insisted that there were particular cases
where it would be only just tothe railroad to permit the increased charge
for the shorter haul; and while I confess that to my mind any sugges-
tions they made in that regard were unsatisfactory, yet in the inter-
est of an agreement, and to prevent any sort of injury, we provided
that where there was a particular case, and the railroad company could
show it to the satisfaction of the commission, the commission should
have power to relieve that railroad company at that station or wherever
the case originated from the operation of the rule.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Let me inquire further. Do you mean by
particular case, particular shipments only, or may not the term fairly
apply in your judgment to a particular road or part of a road, as well
as to special cases or classes of shipments?
Mr. CRISP. I am inclined to think a reasonable construction of the
language would allow it also to apply either from a particular station
to a particular station, or to the whole line of road if they might show
a proper case. That is what I understand it to mean.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. That is exactly as I understand it, but it is
not the interpretation which the gentleman gave in answering the ques-
tion asked by the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. CRISP. I will look at the exact language.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. I think if you will look at your speech you
will find the construction there is not the same as the one just now
given.
657
And when a short time ago the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. PET-
TIBONE] said he would whip any twelve-year old boy in his school who
did not at once subscribe to a very similar construction of the same
clause, I wanted to advise him never to try it, for the boys ought to
and probably would pitch him from the school-house for attempting to
force such a reading as that upon them.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. That would be a strike. [Laugh-
ter.]
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. Yes, and would justify it, if anything could.
Mr. CRISP. I find on reference to the RECORD that this is the lan-
guage used: -
Mr. HEPBURN. I would be glad if my friend from Georgia would allow me a
question here before he proceeds with his remarks.
Mr. CRISP. Certainly.
Mr. HEPBURN. Does the word “cases,” in the fourteenth line of the fourth sec-
tion, in your judgment, refer to shipments or to roads?
I refer to the use of the word in connection with the proviso:
“Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under
the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after in-
vestigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for
shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property.”
Mr. CRISP. In my judgment it applies to shipments.
Mr. HEPBURN. If I believed that I would not vote for your bill.
Mr. CRISP. I should be sorry to lose the support of my friend from Iowa. I do
mot want to be misunderstood in the answer I have given. I think that it applies
to shipments in this sense, that all like cases on that railroad should be operated
under the same rule.
Is there any material difference? e
Mr. LA FOLLETTE. . It seems to methe only conclusion to be drawn
from the language just read is that the commission could not suspend
the operation of the rule in reference to places and roads, but only in
case of shipments. I did not believe that to be the right interpretation,
and I am glad to have drawn out the explanation and correction given
by the gentleman in this connection.
I do not agree with him in his opinion that the power to suspend in
special cases should have been altogether withheld. While I regret its
necessity, because it requires special application and decision to give it
effect, and on this account renders the section less serviceable than it
would otherwise be in contravening litigation and determining issues
really before they are raised, still I believe it was an absolutely neces-
sary discretion to confer on the commission, and I would not see itstricken
from the bill. And, sir, finally, when subjected to fair consideration this
entire section will be found wise in its purposes, certain in its terms,
practical in application.
The fifth section, which forbids pooling, is but a declaration of the
fundamental principle of law that agreements in restraint of trade
and competition are against public policy, and are therefore unlawful.
The question of the legality of pools has often been before our courts,
and they have almost uniformly held that such contracts are unlaw-
ful. In 15 Federal Reporter, 650, we find:
An association of carriers to regulate the price of freight, with provisions pro-
hibiting the members from engaging in similar business out of the association,
has a tendency to increase the price of carriage, and to suppress competition,
and is therefore illegal.
Language no less plain and strong can be found in the reports of New
York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other States. -
Those who object to this section can not do so on the ground that it
is any infringement of the lawful rights of railways. But there are
I S C–42
658
those who maintain that pooling is for the people's interest; that it se-
cures certainty and uniformity of rates and should be encouraged as a
matter of public policy. Some even seem to think Congress should
exercise its power to regulate commerce in making laws to sustain and
perfect the pooling system instead of providing means of enforcing the
common law against it. The practical objection to this is that pools do
not prevent frequent and bitter railway wars and correspondingly un-
certain fluctuations in rates. I believe the well-considered checks and
balances incorporated in this bill will absolutely protect phe business
interests of the country from the shocks and disorganizing effects of
variations in rates to which they are frequently subjected under the
present system.
The sºmple provisions of the sixth and seventh sections requiring rail-
ways to keep in convenient places for public use schedules of their rates
and fares, and requiring them to give ten days' notice of any advance in
such rates and fares, may seem at first glance to have little significance.
But these requirements, together with the restraints of the long and
short haul clause, will prove powerful agencies in securing equable and
uniform rates. Railways will be reluctant to hastily reduce their rates
if they are obliged to give ten days' notice before they can restore them.
They will not be apt to allow jealousy, nor strife nor even the desire to
injure or destroy another company to induce a rate-war when the law
forces them to lower all their local charges whenever and wherever those
of the short haul exceed those of the long.
The pool destroys competition. It fails signally to preserve even
moderately stable and uniform rates because the courts will not enforce
the pool agreements and rightly declare them agreements to suppress
competition and against public policy. They have therefore become a
kind of covenant made between railways with reference to the public
business, although the public is not a party, to be kept so long only as it
is more profitable to the immediate parties to keep than to break them,
and at pleasure ignored as quickly as it is not so profitable, no matter
how direful the consequences to the public interest.
It may be difficult to make the provisions of this bill reach every
species of these agreements, but it breaks through the line and an-
nouncesajudgment which at least is the beginning of the end of pooling.
I can not forbear to notice briefly in conclusion upon this section the
statement often made in the discussion that even if the pool does in-
terfere with competition this bill will in effect destroy it completely.
Why is competition desirable? Simply as a means of securing reason-
able rates to the public. And if the effect of this bill is to completely
destroy a competition which the pool has already practically suspended
it gives us something in its stead which the pool did not give us. It
gives us a law which says rates must be reasonable, and furnishes us
the means of enforcing that law. It lays bare to the public the busi-
ness, the books, the expenses, the earnings of the railways, so that it
may know when the rates are reasonable. This is all the most per-
fect competition could give the public, and infinitely more than com-
petition shackled with combinations and pools has ever been able to
bestow.
And now a glance at the means provided for the enforcement of these
provisions, and I am done. The reasons why unlawful discriminations
have been tolerated until a reaffirmance of the common law forbidding
them seems like a revolution are obvious. Few indeed dare enter
into litigation with railways. The amounts involved are usually small,
litigation expensive, results uncertain. Those who can afford to fight
659
the railways are those usually who enjoy their favor. And thus arises
the necessity of the Government providing means for the enforcement
and execution of the law.
To meet this necessity the bill provides for the creation of a commis-
sion whose duty it shall be to watch over the railways and punish vio-
lations of law. Every citizen of the United States is given the right to
present his grievance and have his case tried without the attendant
cost which now practically closes the courts to him. The definition of
the powers of the commission, the directions for making applications,
the requirement of written reports of all investigations and decisions,
thus preserving for public inspection full records of all their proceed-
ings, the right of appeal by petition to the United States courts and for
the payment of expenses, are simply means to an end, and for the first
time in our history arm the individual for an even-handed contest with
a corporation. It has been objected that the commission can not do
the work intended. The idea of five men overseeing all the railways
of this country has been much ridiculed. Answer might be made that
two or three men do dictate the policy of most of them under the
present régime; but without flippancy it may be suggested that it will
be easy to provide the necessary force to do the work as soon as it is
found that the commission is overburdened.
If it were to be presumed that the law would be persistently defied,
and that every case arising under it would be tried, the commission
and the courts would indeed have to be multiplied many times to meet
the emergency. But the committee has not progeeded upon any such
theory, nor is it the correct one. If we can judge the operation of this
law from the experience of States in the administration of similar leg-
islation affecting corporations, we must be prepared for some sharply-
contested litigation in the beginning. The railways will insist on their
own construction of it; the people upon theirs. But the cool, deter-
mined administration of the law in a few test cases settling pivotal
points will change the whole aspect of affairs, will bring order out of
chaos. The railways will alter their management to conform to the
*
decisions, and the benefits of the law will soon be secured without fur-
ther strife or opposition. The judicial functions of the commission will
cease to be arduous, and will become chiefly supervisory and executory.
Mr. Speaker, I have no apology to make for my support of this meas-
ure. I know little of railway management, but I think it is no in-
justice to suppose that some of the fear and alarm expressed in railway
circles céncerning this bill is but the exaggerated apprehension with
which conservative men always regard any radical change in the method
of conducting their business. The prosperity of this country and of
railways are interdependent. Any measure that would permanently in-
jure railways, that would cripple their usefulness, would certainly be
against public interests. But this legislation has been under consid-
eration many years. All sides have had a hearing. It is no hasty ex-
pedient adopted to meet some sudden emergency or popular demand of
the hour. It pursues no short-sighted, suicidal policy. And all rail-
ways that are sincerely anxious to put their business upon a firm and
stable, an honest and enduring basis will share the benefits of this law
equally with the public.
It is urged in vindication of these discriminations as to different
kinds of traffic that they are the result of custom and that railways
are not to blame for the practice. If railways maintain incongruous
rates upon dry goods and groceries simply because dealers in the one
660
insist upon a long-established low tariff while transporters of another
submit to a relatively exorbitant rate because of long usage, if man-
agers dare not make new classifications because of the responsibility
that the consequent strife and contention and business disturbance
would place upon them; if this is true—and it is the reasoning of men
who ought to know—then in this instance the law will surely be a great
benefaction to railways. They will secure the benefit of a reasonable
and just standard of classification without being in any degree made
answerable for any of the unfortunate consequences that may result
from the change. If the enforcement of the provision that all rates
must be just and reasonable should necessitate a readjustment of the
charges on different kinds of traffic, surely no one could complain nor
hold the railways answerable for any temporary business unsettlement
that might occur, because the classification would be made in accord-
ance with express law.
So if discriminations in favor of places are, as is claimed, necessary.
under existing conditions of competition, and if the provisions of this
law, operating as they do upon all railways alike, relieve them from
the pressure of that necessity, they will profit accordingly. If the
publication of rates, the obligation to give notice of any advance in
them, together with the restraint of the long and the short haul clause,
operate to make their business certain and stable, railways are as much
the gainers as the public. While it may cut off a few sources of large
profit, it acts as a preventive of great losses.
And so, sir, while it may be difficult for men of the present school of
railway management to adapt themselves to the new conditions; while it
may be impossible for them to understand how any other practices than
those which have been longestablished can succeed, still I believe the time
will come when even they will recognize the wisdom, from a business
standpoint, of the principles of this law; when they will wonder how
a management permitting such disproportional rates, such acts of favor-
itism, involving so many conflicting ideas, how such a management
ever flourished.
And, sir, the time will come when it will be a marvel how such
abuses ever arose and why they were so long tolerated; when all par-
ties alike will wonder how the just and simple provisions of this initia-
tory measure ever created such bitter and uncompromising opposition,
And so, Mr. Speaker, believing as I do that this legislation is for the
real interest of all parties and for the whole country, I give it my cor-
dial and hearty support without reservation or without qualification.
I do this, too, knowing full well that its enemies will not be swift to ad-
mit its wisdom, and that some of its friends will not find its immediate
effects an entire fulfillment of their most ardent anticipations.
Those who expect the law will cure all evils; that it will bring pros-
perous times and pay every man’s debts; that it will make the sun
shine opportunely and the rain fall in season; that it will open a mine
on every man’s land and put money in every man’s purse, are to be
grievously disappointed.
But those whose expectations are in line with the purposes of the
bill will, I trust, ultimately see its promises fulfilled. It may take
years of supplemental legislation to accomplish it, but I believe the
time will surely come, and I hope it is not far off, when railways
will be limited to their legitimate sphere as common carriers; when
they will conduct their business upon the same principles of impar-
tiality toward persons, places, and things as govern the United States
661
mail service; when they will have but one standard of regulating rates,
the cost of transportation; when they will seek but one object, perfect
service to the public and fair profits upon the great capital actually
invested.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri, said:
Mr. SPEAKER: There is one phase of this question that I can not un-
derstand. The friends of this bill say that you must vote for the con-
ference report, or if you do not vote for the conference report you are
voting against the bill. *
Mr. ADAMS, of New York. That is parliamentary law.
Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Well, that is a confession either that
gentlemen have not confidence in the members of those two commit-
tees, or else that they have not confidence in themselves. After a dis- .
cussion ranging through many days in the Senate and extending over
several days in the House, you have finally come to the conclusion that
there are but one or two defects in this bill. I believe that the fourth
section comprises nearly all of the points to which objections have been
urged—the provisions in regard to the long and the short haul—and I
believe the chairman of the committee would state to-night that if
that section could be changed the result would be that the bill would
pass this House by an almost unanimous vote. Now, for one, I am not
willing to admit that if I should vote against the conference report,
I would therefore be voting against the interstate-commerce bill. It
is six weeks before Congress adjourns; this is a privileged question;
your conference committee can report at any moment, and do you mean
to tell me that that conference committee, after having obtained the judg-
ment of the members of both Houses, could not meet and remove the
many points of objection which you admit exist in the bill as it now
stands?
Mr. CRISP. The trouble with the conferees would be in coming to
an agreement. If it is not unparliamentary, I will say to the gentle-
man that the Senate have agreed to this bill.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. I am aware that they have, but it re-
quires the consent of the two bodies to make a perfect agreement.
Mr. CRISP. But suppose we should disagree ?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. Then it would go back.
Mr. CRISP. But the mind of the Senate is satisfied with this bill.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat
what has transpired in the Senate, but everybody knows that Senator
after Senator got up there and stated that, while he did not think this
was a proper bill, and while he thought certain provisions ought to be
stricken out, yet he had to vote for the bill. -
Mr. CRISP. And right there is the danger. If the House should vote
down this report, whilst of course if I should have the honor to be one
of the conferees I would do every thing I could to bring about an agree-
ment, and while I would not say positively that we could not agree,
yet I fear that we might not reach an agreement and the result would
be that we should have no legislation upon this subject at this session.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. Let me tell the gentleman frankly that
I believe that inside of twenty-four hours this provision in the bill
which makes it objectionable and which causes members to hesitate to
vote for it would be changed, and then the bill would pass. Let us
look at this thing candidly. There is one serious defect in this bill. If
the long and short haul provision is enforced in the spirit in which it is
placed in the bill—if you leave out this little qualification about the
662
commission exercising their discretion and come right down to the plain
proposition that there shall not be any greater charge for the short than
for the long haul, then if that results practically in increasing the rates.
from the West to the seaboard, the consequence will be that the great
majority of your commerce from the cities on the lakes will go by rail
through Canada, or else will go through the lakes to Buffalo, and from
there over the New York Central road, which will not be controlled
by this bill. Of course we shall be told that in that case, rather than
see American commerce injured and the grain of our country shipped
through a foreign land, the commission would allow our own lines to
make different rates.
Mr. CRISP. May I ask the gentleman a question?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. Certainly. -
Mr. CRISP. My friend seems to be under the impression that the
House wants to change that fourth section.
Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Yes, sir. &
Mr. CRISP. Now, does not my friend believe that if the majorit
had the power to change that section, the change they would make
would be to strike out the authority given to the commission to make
any change at all in the rule?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. You have given the commission ample
power to prevent unjust discriminations, and that will do very well for
all those little local cases where there are excessive charges for short
distances; but you recognize the fact, as well as I do, that the trouble
does not arise from the business of the great cities. I represent, in
part, a city of about half a million people, and we have not much
trouble about rates. We have some five trunk-lines to the seaboard.
The trouble is at the way stations, and most of the support behind the
bill comes from those little way stations where they are compelled to
ship in broken cars and under other disadvantages.
Mr. CRISP. From the people.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. “The people.” Well, I representa city
of half a million people, and I have not had the first human being in
that city write to me in support of the long and short haul clause. On
the contrary, many of the brightest business men in Saint Louis claim
that it will seriously injure the great commercial interests of the coun-
try, and may also check the export of our grain. -
Mr. CRISP. The gentleman should remember that the large cities
do not embrace one-fifth of the population of the United States.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. I am not willing to admit, because I
want to perfect this bill to get it in proper shape, that I am opposed to
it, nor am I willing to admit that if I vote agninst this conference re-
port I am voting against the interstate-commerce bill, and I will not
be dragooned into voting for the bill under such conditions. That is
about the amount of it. We have had it drummed into our ears day.
after day that if we vote against this conference report we vote against
the bill. This is the first conference report you have had on the bill,
is it not?
Mr. CRISP. The agitation of twenty years has resulted and ripened
in this report.
Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. And it is the quintessence of human
wisdom.
Mr. CRISP. And if this report be not adopted, it is possible we may
have to wait twenty years more for another opportunity to consummate
this legislation.
663
Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. I do not know about that. I am will-
ing to trust this committee.
Mr. McADOO. Will the gentleman from Missouri allow me to in-
terrupt him a moment?
Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. Yes, sir.
Mr. McADOO. I wish only to say a word in reply about the New
York Central and the lake transportation—a subject which has been so
often brought up on the floor of this House, and to which the gentle-
man himself has just referred. Any undue advantage that there might
be in that direction is provided for in the proviso of the fourth section
Qf this bill; that is the very sort of exception with which this commis-
sion is authorized to deal. They will prevent your lake transportation,
your New York Central, and your Canadian railroads from having an
improper advantage.
. Mr. O'NEILL, of Missouri. The bill does not provide for that.
• Mr. McADOO. Oh, yes, it does.
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. How does this bill make provision in
reference to commerce shipped from Duluth, Chicago, and other cities
on the lakes?
Mr. MCADOO. Because the commission will have the discretion to
provide for just those exceptional cases. .
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. Then this is a sort of amendment to
the reciprocity treaty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have stated my objection to this bill; and I am
in earnest about it. If that objection were removed, I should be as
earnestly in favor of this measure as any one.
Mr. BROWN, of Pennsylvania. Will you not vote for it as it is?
Mr. O’NEILL, of Missouri. No, not for this conference report.
In view of the fact that we have six weeks of this session before ad-
journment, in view of the fact that this is a privileged matter, which
my friend from Georgia can bring up at any moment, and that there
are but one or two objectionable points which the members of the com-
mittee know ought not to be in it, I think it the plain duty of the House
to perfect this bill before enacting it into law. [Applause.]
C
[PUBLIC–No. 41.]
An act to regulate commerce.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
. States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of this act
shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transpor-
tation of passengers or property wholly by railroad, or partly by railroad
and partly by water when both are used, under a common control, man-
agement, or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment, from
one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Colum-
bia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District
of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent for-
eign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign
country to any other place in the United States, and also to the trans-
portation in like manner of property shipped from any place in the United
States to a foreign country and carried from such place to a port of trans-
shipment, or shipped from a foreign country to any place in the United
States and carried to such place from a port of entry either in the
United States or an adjacent foreign country: Provided, however, That
the provisions of this act shall not apply to the transportation of pas-
sengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or hand-
ling of property, wholly within one State, and not shipped to or from a
foreign country from or to any State or Territory as aforesaid. r
The term “railroad” as used in this act shall include all bridges and
ferries used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all
the road in use by any corporation operating a railroad, whether owned'
or operated under a contract, agreement, or lease; and the term “trans-
portation” shall include all instrumentalities of shipment or carriage.
All charges made for any service rendered or to be rendered in the
transportation of passengers or property as aforesaid, or in connection
there with, or for the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of such
property, shall be reasonable and just ; and every unjust and unreason-
able charge for such service is prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
SEC. 2. That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this
act shall, directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback,
or other device, charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or
persons a greater or less compensation for any service rendered, or to
lie rendered, in the transportation of passengers or property, subject to
the provisions of this act, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives
from any other person or persons for doing for him or them a like and
Contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic
under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such common
carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby
prohibited and declared to be unlawful.
SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to
the provisions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable
preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, cor-
poration, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, in any re.
Spect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm,
corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect what-
SOéVer.
2
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, ac-
cording to their respective powers, afford all reasonable, proper, and
equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective
lines, and for the receiving, forwarding, and delivering of passengers
and property to and from their several lines and those connecting there-
with, and shall not discriminate in their rates and charges between such
connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as requiring any such
common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to
another carrier engaged in like business.
SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to
the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation
in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of
property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for
a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same di-
rection, the shorter being included within the longer distance; but this
shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the
terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a
shorter as for a longer distance: Provided, however, That upon applica-
tion to the Commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such
common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the Com-
mission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter
distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the
Commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such
designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this
Section of this act. -
SEC. 5. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to
the provisions of this act to enter into any contract, agreement, or com-
bination with any other common carrier or carriers for the pooling of
freights of different and competing railroads, or to divide between them
the aggregate or uet proceeds of the earnings of such railroads, or any
portion thereof; and in any case of an agreement for the pooling of
freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be deemed a
separate offense.
SEC. 6. That every common carrier subject to the provisions of this
act shall print and keep for public inspection schedules showing the
rates and fares and charges for the transportation of passengers and
property which any such common carrier has established and which are
in force at the time upon its railroad, as defined by the first section of
this act. The schedules printed as aforesaid by any such common car-
rier shall plainly state the places upon its railroad between which prop-
erty and passengers will be carried, and shall contain the classification
of freight in force upon such railroad, and shall also state separately
the terminal charges and any rules or regulations which in any wise
change, affect, or determine any part or the aggregate of such aforesaid
rates and fares and charges. Such schedules shall be plainly printed
in large type, of at least the size of ordinary pica, and copies for the use
of the public shall be kept in every depot or station upon any such rail-
road, in such places and in such form that they can be conveniently in-
spected. - --
Any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act receiving
freight in the United States to be carried through a foreign country to
any place in the United States shall also in like manner print and keep
for public inspection, at every depot where such freight is received for
shipment, schedules showing the through rates established and charged
by such common carrier to all points in the United States beyond the
foreign country to which it accepts freight for shipment; and any freight
3
shipped from the United States through a foreign country into the
United States, the through rate on which shall not have been made
public as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United
States from said foreign country, be subject to customs duties as if said
freight were of foreign production ; and any law in conflict with this
section is hereby repealed.
No advance shall be made in the rates, fares, and charges which have
been established and published as aforesaid by any common carrier in
compliance with the requirements of this section, except after ten days’
public notice, which shall plainly state the changes proposed to be made
in the schedule then in force, and the time when the increased rates,
fares, or charges will go into effect; and the proposed changes shall
be shown by printing new schedules, or shall be plainly indicated upon
the schedules in force at the time and kept for public inspection. Re-
ductions in such published rates, fares, or charges may be made with.
out previous public notice; but whenever any such reduction is made,
notice of the same shall immediately be publicly posted and the changes
made shall immediately be made public by printing new schedules, or
shall immediately be plainly indicated upon the schedules at the time
in force and kept for public inspection.
And when any such common carrier shall have established and pub-
lished its rates, fares, and charges in compliance with the provisions
of this section, it shall be unlawful for such common carrier to charge,
demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less
Compensation for the transportation of passengers or property, or for
any services in connection therewith, than is specified in such published
Schedule of rates, fares, and charges as may at the time be in force.
Every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall file
with the Commission hereinafter provided for copies of its schedules of
rates, fares, and charges which have been established and published in
compliance with the requirements of this section, and shall promptly
notify said Commission of all changes made in the same. Every such
Common carrier shall also file with said Commission copies of all con-
tracts, agreements, or arrangements with other common carriers in re-
lation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this act to which it
may be a party. And in cases where passengers and freight pass over
continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier,
and the Several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish
joint tariffs of rates or fares or charges for such continuous lines or
routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also, in like manner, be filed
With said Commission. Such joint rates, fares, and charges on such
Continuous lines so fiked as aforesaid shall be made public by such com-
mon carriers when directed by said Commission, in so far as may, in the
judgment of the Commission, be deemed practicable; and said Com-
mission shall from time to time prescribe the measure of publicity which
shall be given to such rates, fares, and charges, or to such part of them
as it may deem it practicable for such common carriers to publish, and
the places in which they shall be published; but no common carrier
party to any such joint tariff shall be liable for the failure of any other
common carrier party thereto to observe and adhere to the rates, fares,
or charges thus made and published. --
... If any such common carrier shall neglect or refuse to file or publish
its schedules or tariffs of rates, fares, and charges as provided in this
Section, or any part of the same such common carrier shall, in addition
to other penalties herein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus,
to be issued by any circuit court of the United States in the judicial
4.
district wherein the principal office of said common carrier is situated
or wherein such offense may be committed, and if such common carrier
be a foreign corporation, in the judicial circuit wherein such common
carrier accepts traffic and has an agent to perform such service, to com-
pel compliance with the aforesaid provisions of this section; and such
writ shall issue in the name of the people of the United States, at the
relation of the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of this
act; and failure to comply with its requirements shall be punishable as
and for a contempt; and the said Commissioners, as complainants, unay
also apply, in any such circuit court of the United States, for a writ of
injunction against such common carrier, to restrain such common car-
rier from receiving or transporting property among the several States
and Territories of the United States, or between the United States and
adjacent foreign countries, or between ports of transshipment and of
entry and the several States and Territoriés of the United States, as
mentioned in the first section of this act, until Such common carrier
shall have complied with the aforesaid provisions of this section of this
act. * *,
SEC. 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to
the provisions of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or
agreement, expressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time sched-
ule, carriage in different cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage
of freights from being continuous from the place of shipment to the place
of destination; and no break of bulk, stoppage, or interruption made by
such common carrier shall prevent the carriage of freights from being
and being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of ship-
ment to the place of destination, unless such break, stoppage, or inter-
ruption was made in good faith for Soune necessary purpose, and with-
out any intent to avoid or unnecessarily interrupt such continuous car-
riage or to evade any of the provisions of this act.
SEC. 8. That in case any common carrier subject to the provisions of
this act shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any act, mat-
ter, or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or shall
omit to do any act, matter, or thing in this act required to be done,
such common garrier shall be liable to the person or persons injured
thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of any
such violation of the provisions of this act, together with a reasonable
counsel or attorney’s fee, to be fixed by the court in every case of re-
covery, which attorney’s fee shall be taxed and collected as part of the
costs in the case.
SEC. 9. That any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any
common carrier subject to the provisions of this act may either make
complaint to the Commission as hereinafter provided for, or may bring
suit in his or their own behalf for the recovery of the damages for which
such common carrier may be liable under the provisions of this act, in
any district or circuit court of the United States of competent jurisdic-
tion; but such person or persons shall not have the right to pursue both
of said remedies, and must in each case elect which one of the two
methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will adopt. In
any such action brought for the recovery of damages the court before
which the same shall be pending may compel any director, officer, re-
ceiver, trustee, or agent of the corporation or company defendant in
such suit to attend, appear, and testify in such case, and may compel
the production of the books and papers of such corporation or company
party to any such suit; the claim that any such testimony or evidence
may tend to criminate the person giving such evidence shall not excuse
5
such witness from testifying, but such evidence or testimony shall not
be used against such person on the trial of any criminal proceeding.
SEC. 10. That any common carrier subject to the provisions of this
act, or, whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any director or
officer thereof, or any receiver, trustee, lessee, agent, or person acting
for or employed by such corporation, who, alone or with any other cor-
poration, company, person, or party, shall willfully do or cause to be
done, or shall willingly suffer or permit to be done, any act, matter, or
thing in this aet prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who shall aid
or abet therein, or shall willfully omit or fail to do any act, matter, or
thing in this act required to be done, or shall cause or willingly suffer
or permit any act, matter, or thing so directed or required by this act
to be done not to be so done, or shall aid or abet any such omission or
failure, or shall be guilty of any infraction of this act, or shall aid or
abet therein, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon
conviction thereof in any district court of the United States within the
jurisdiction of which such offense was committed, be subject to a fine
of not to exceed five thousand dollars for each offense.
SEC. 11. That a Commission is hereby created and established to be
known as the Inter-State Commerce Commission, which shall be com-
posed of five Commissioners, who shall be appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioners
first appointed under this act shall continue in office for the term of
two, three, four, five, and six years, respectively, from the first day of
January, anno Domini eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, the term of
each to be designated by the President; but their successors shall be
appointed for terms of six years, except that any person chosen to fill
a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired time of the Com-
missioner whom he shall succeed. Any Commissioner may be removed
by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Not more than three of the Commissioners shall be appointed from the
same political party. No person in the employ of or holding any official
relation to any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act, or
Owning stock or bonds thereof, or who is in any manner pecuniarily in-
terested therein, shall enter upon the duties of or hold such office.
Said Commissioners shall not engage in any other business, vocation,
or employment. No vacancy in the Commission shall impair the right
of the remaining Commissioners to exercise all the powers of the Com-
IIISSIOI).
SEC. 12. That the Commission hereby created shall have authority to
inquire into the management of the business of all common carriers
subject to the provisions of this act, and shall keep itself informed as
to the manner and method in which the same is conducted, and shall
have the right to obtain from such common carriers full and complete
information necessary to enable the Commission to perform the duties
and carry out the objects for which it was created; and for the purposes
of this act the Commission shall have power to require the attendance
and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books, papers,
tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter
under investigation, and to that end may invoke the aid of any court of
the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of wit-
Thesses and the production of books, papers, and documents under the
provisions of this section. k
And any of the circuit courts of the United States within the juris-
diction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy
or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any common carrier subject to
6
the provisions of this act, or other person, issue an order requiring such,
common carrier or other person to appear before said Commission (and
produce books and papers if so ordered) and give evidence touching the
matter in question; and any failure to obey such'order of the court may
be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. The claim that any
such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving
such evidence shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but such
evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial
of any criminal proceeding. - . -
SEC. 13. That any person, firm, corporation, or association, or any
mercantile, agricultural, or manufacturing society, or any body politic.
or municipal organization complaining of anything done or omitted to
be done by any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act in:
contravention of the provisions thereof, may apply to said Commission
by petition, which shall briefly state the facts; whereupon a statement.
of the charges thus made shall be forwarded by the Commission to such
common carrier, who shall be called upon to satisfy the complaint or to
answer the same in writing within a reasonable time, to be specified by
the Commission. If such common carrier, within the time specified,
shall make reparation for the injury alleged to have been done, said
carrier shall be relieved of liability to the complainant only for the par-
ticular violation of law thus complained of. If such carrier shall not
satisfy the complaint within the time specified, or there shall appear to
be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be
the duty of the Commission to investigate the matters complained of in:
such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper.
Said Commission shall in like manner investigate any complaint for-
warded by the railroad commissioner or railroad commission of any
State or Territory, at the request of such commissioner or commission,
and may institute any inquiry On its own motion in the same manner
and to the same effect as though complaint had been made. -
No complaint shall at any time be dismissed because of the absence
of direct damage to the complainant.
SEC. 14. That whenever an investigation shall be made by said Com-
mission, it shall be its duty to make a report in writing in respect
thereto, which shall include the findings of fact upon which the con-
clusions of the Commission are based, together with its recommenda-
tion as to what reparation, if any, should be made by the common
carrier to any party or parties who may be found to have been injured;
and such findings so made shall thereafter, in all judicial proceedings,
be deemed prima facie evidence as to each and every fact found.
All reports of investigations made by the Commission shall be en-
tered of record, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the party who
may have complained, and to any common carrier that may have been
complained of. -
SEC. 15. That if in any case in which an investigation shall be made
by said Commission it shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of
the Commission, either by the testimony of witnesses or other evidence,
that anything has been done or omitted to be done in violation of the
provisions of this act, or of any law cognizable by said Commission, by
any common carrier, or that any injury or damage has been sustained
by the party or parties complaining, or by other parties aggrieved in
consequence of any such violation, it shall be the duty of the Commis-
sion to forth with cause a copy of its report in respect thereto to be de-
livered to such common carrier, together with a notice to said common
carrier to cease and desist from such violation, or to make reparation
7
for the injury so found to have been done, or both, within a reasonable
time, to be specified by the Commission; and if, within the time speci-
fied, it shall be made to appear to the Commission that such common
carrier has ceased from such violation of law, and has made reparation
for the injury found to have been done, in compliance with the report
and notice of the Commission, or to the satisfaction of the party com-
plaining, a statement to that effect shall be entered of record by the
Commission, and the said common carrier shall thereupon be relieved
from further liability or penalty for such particular violation of law.
SEC. 16. That whenever any common carrier, as defined in and sub-
ject to the provisions of this act, shall violate or refuse or neglect to
6bey any lawful order or requirement of the Commission in this act
named, it shall be the duty of the Commission, and lawful for any com-
pany or person interested in such order or requirement, to apply, in a
summary way, by petition, to the circuit court of the United States
sitting in equity in the judicial district in which the common carrier
complained of has its principal office, or in which the violation or diso-
bedience of such order or requirement shall happen, alleging such vio-
lation or disobedience, as the case may be ; and the said court shall have
power to hear and determine the matter, on such short notice to the com-
mon carrier complained of as the court shall deem reasonable; and such
notice may be served on such common carrier, his or its officers, agents, or
servants, in such manner as the court shall direct; and said court shall
proceed to hear and determine the matter speedily as a court of equity,
and without the formal pleadings and proceedings applicable to ordi-
nary suits in equity, but in such manner as to do justice in the premises;
and to this end such court shall have power, if it think fit, to direct and
prosecute, in such mode and by such persons as it may appoint, all such
inquiries as the court may think needful to enable it to form a just judg-
ment in the matter of such petition ; and on such hearing the report of said
Commission shall be prima facie evidence of the matters therein stated ;
and if it be made to appear to such court, on such hearing or on report of
any such person or persons, that the lawful order or requirement of said
Commission drawn in question has been violated or disobeyed, it shall
be lawful for such court to issue a writ of injunction or other proper
process, mandatory or otherwise, to restrain such common carrier from
further continuing such violation or disobedience of such order or re-
quirement of said Commission, and enjoining obedience to the same;
and in case of any disobedience of any such writ of injunction or other
proper process, mandatory or otherwise, it shall be lawful for such
Court to issue writs of attachment, or any other process of said court
incident or applicable to writs of injunction or other proper process,
mandatory or otherwise, against such common carrier, and if a corpora-
tion, against one or more of the directors, officers, or agents of the same,
or against any owner, lessee, trustee, receiver, or other person failing
to obey such writ of injunction or other proper process, mandatory
or otherwise; and said court may, if it shall think fit, make an order
directing such common carrier or other person so disobeying such writ
of injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise, to pay
such sum of money not exceeding for each carrier or person in default the
sum of five hundred dollars for every day after a day to be named in
the order that such carrier or other person shall fail to obey such
injunction or other proper process, mandatory or otherwise; and such
moneys shall be payable as the court shall direct, either to the party
eomplaining, or into court to abide the ultimate decision of the court,
or into the Treasury; and payment thereof may, without prejudice to
8
any other mode of recovering the same, be enforced by attachment or
order in the nature of a writ of execution, in like manner as if the same
had been recovered by a final decree in personam in such court. When
the subject in dispute shall be of the value of two thousand dollars or
more, either party to such proceeding before said court may appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States, under the same regulations
now provided by law in respect of security for such appeal; but such
appeal shall not operate to stay or supersede the order of the court or
the execution of any writ or process thereon ; and such court may, in
every such matter, order the payment of such costs and counsel fees as
shall be deemed reasonable. Whenever any such petition shall be filed
or presented by the Commission it shall be the duty of the district
attorney, under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United
States, to prosecute the same; and the costs and expenses of such prose-
cution shall be paid out of the appropriation for the expenses of the
courts of the United States. For the purposes of this act, excepting
its penal provisions, the circuit courts of the United States shall be
deemed to be always in session.
SEC. 17. That the Commission may conduct its proceedings in such
manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to
the ends of justice. A majority of the Commission shall constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business, but no Commissioner shall par-
ticipate in any hearing or proceeding in which he has any pecuniary
interest. Said Commission may, from time to time, make or amend
such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the order and regu-
lation of proceedings before it, including forms of notices and the serv-
ice thereof, which shall sonform, as nearly as may be, to those in use
in the courts of the United States. Any party may appear before said
Commission and be heard, in person or by attorney. Every vote and
official act of the Commission shall be entered of record, and its pro-
ceedings shall be public upon the request of either party interested.
Said Commission shall have an official seal, which shall be judicially
noticed. Either of the members of the Commission may administer
oaths and affirmations.
SEC. 18. That each Commissioner shall receive an annual salary of
seven thousand five hundred dollars, payable in the same manner as
the salaries of judges of the courts of the United States. The Commis-
sion shall appoint a secretary, who shall receive an annual salary of
three thousand five hundred dollars, payable in like manner. The
Commission shall have authority to employ and fix the compensation
of such other employees as it may find necessary to the proper perform-
ance of its duties, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the In-
terior.
The Commission shall be furnished by the Secretary of the Interior
with suitable offices and all necessary office supplies. Witnesses sum-
moned before the Commission shall be paid the same fees and mileage
that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States.
All of the expenses of the Commission, including all necessary ex-
penses for transportation incurred by the Commissioners, or by their
employees under their orders, in making any investigation in any other
places than in the city of Washington, shall be allowed and paid, on
the presentation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the chair-
man of the Commission and the Secretary of the Interior. -
SEC. 19. That the principal office of the Commission shall be in the
city of Washington, where its general sessions shall be held; but when-
ever the convenience of the public or of the parties may be promoted or
9
delay or expense prevented thereby, the Commission may hold special
sessions in any part of the United States. It may, by one or more of
the Commissioners, prosecute any inquiry necessary to its duties, in any
part of the United States, into any matter or question of fact pertaining
to the business of any common carrier subject to the provisions of this
aCt.
SEC. 20. That the Commission is hereby authorized to require annual
reports from all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act,
to fix the time and prescribe the manner in which such reports shall be
made, and to require from such carriers specific answers to all ques-
tions upon which the Commission may need information. Such annual
reports shall show in detail the amount of capital stock issued, the
amounts paid therefor, and the manner of payment for the same; the
dividends paid, the surplus fund, if any, and the number of stock-
holders; the funded and floating debts and the interest paid thereon;
the cost and value of the carrier's property, franchises, and equipment;
the number of employees and the salaries paid each class; the amounts
expended for improvements each year, how expended, and the character
of such improvements; the earnings and receipts from each branch of
business and from all sources; the operating and other expenses; the
balances of profit and loss; and a complete exhibit of the financial oper-
ations of the carrier each year, including an annual balance-sheet. Such
reports shall also contain such information in relation to rates or regu-
lations concerning fares or freights, or agreements, arrangements, or
contracts with other common carriers, as the Commission may require;
and the said Commission may, within its discretion, for the purpose of
enabling it the better to carry out the purposes of this act, prescribe
(if in the opinion of the Commission it is practicable to prescribe such
uniformity and methods of keeping accounts) a period of time within
which all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act shall
have, as near as may be, a uniform system of accounts, and the man-
ner in which such accounts shall be kept.
SEC. 21. That the Commission shall, on or before the first day of De-
cember in each year, make a report to the Secretary of the Interior,
which shall be by him transmitted to Congress, and copies of which
shall be distributed as are the other reports issued from the Interior
Department. This report shall contain such information and data col-
lected by the Commission as may be considered of value in the determi-
nation of questions connected with the regulation of commerce, to-
gether with such recommendations as to additional legislation relating
thereto as the Commission may deem necessary.
SEC. 22. That nothing in this act shall apply to the carriage, storage,
or handling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States,
State, or municipal governments, or for charitable purposes, or to or
from fairs and expositions for exhibition thereat, or the issuance of mile-
age, excursion, or commutation passenger tickets; nothing in this act,
shall be construed to prohibit any common carrier from giving reduced
rates to ministers of religion; nothing in this act shall be construed to
prevent railroads from giving free carriage to their own officers and em-
ployees, or to prevent the principal officers of any railroad company or
companies from exchanging passes or tickets with other railroad compa-
nies for their officers and employees; and nothing in this act contained
shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common
law or by statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such
remedies: Provided, That no pending litigation shall in any way be
affected by this act.
10
SEC. 23. That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars is hereby ap-
propriated for the use and purposes of this act for the fiscal year ending
June thirtieth, anno Domini eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, and the
intervening time anterior thereto.
SEC. 24. That the provisions of sections eleven and eighteen of this
act, relating to the appointment and Organization of the Commission
herein provided for, shall take effect immediately, and the remaining
provisions of this act shall take effect sixty days after its passage.
Approved, February 4, 1887.
º ſºff （†§\， ,
8 . ， ， ， ） } }" >, ,，，^^^^^^^
\, ,'Nſºſſae. * }|¿?! ）
№
%
·：„ ” a, a
^, , , ººº^ , ^^ !
\,^^^^^^^^^^ '^^ .
●· ----№. º9、
：§ ***» º į
º ſº: :：·ț¢~--->•， ！
^ ./*\* ， , ， ſ^v ,º
≡~~ ~~~.�| }。
^^^^^^A^ry
|^ ' º ''
ſº
：： ~Q^ ^ ·^ , º, , , , ， , , ∞*^ ^\ | **, … “ſº,"|º ſº| }și * %}，|-' , ' ' ?ſº:&. ，, ſae… • w: ſººſ| | ',ſº } z, ,：ſº
ryº , ·|-|-ſv.• ·º “ſ∞|-ſ.' ！“.Aſºº|ſ.^Aſ.-^| || ·ſ’ ' .º.º}ſae
ººººº^^^^^^^^^^^,ſºwº ）（ſººſ"ºººoººººſae\，\!^^^^^^^
（, , ，''，''）" （, ， ， , aa,,,,，,,^^^^^^^^^^^*^）,
ķſ.| , ، ، |^ſº^^|ſºſſººſ： , ';
* * * * * * · · · · * *, j*， *）， , ، '; ; ^ ;，. /^'^^^^^^^^^^ ^^'^'^^^ ºº ,t.
| 7, ，;: ：2º ſºſ°′ſº' .^[^“¿A Aſaeſ·{}\!^}\ ！ '•- }įT8
º, þá ºz.}-ſ^（（\| ，£; ſººſº º º|A ſír.ſºrº，^* * *--ſºſ ， !：*** …|（*ا.|×）;%,，,^^^^^^^ſº... |
ſººſ " （ )* * ;"A^;^^^^^^^' " "" - （ )
„“.…...….… №
ſºrº，^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^`،
^ ^ ^^^^
│ │•^^^^^^©
*ſ ºz. º^|, ！+ | }|
º 6° A ? ? ? ? ? % ^ ;A,Ā,\,^ ^ ^ ^ „ /
：Åſº2Sſºſº.º.�A^{į .^^}ſ （ )|- ſ^
ſººſ ºſ}،ºſº
：·ſ ºſ ſº
§ 3 （ ）ſºſ， ， ， ,، ، ، ،' ' : „ ',\, ^\ ： \'^^ '^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^? ? ? ? Aº „“ ， A^* ^^ A^-|
{}^^^-, ， ºº, º *№ ... *' , !| ' | \s ſº ‘, .|, !| | | \{ º.zº t.| *！ \，\!;ç'ſ, .* , ！';º... \, ſ*.|N^
^^;^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
（ ）
ºs·
ºģ
Ķ
Ķ
ſl
ſae
$ $ $
ºž
§.3.
→====================*
：-（（（（ ））;
！-----------）
！--~~~~ （， ），
----
∞ （） （） ，
< ==
Kº =============
�=ę
r ==
«_>
№ =
> E
u. a.），），
© ±=-
;---：-（. ）， ）;
>------
± =======*=~
（， ）
�^
© :=≡
u 9 --~~~~*~*=~~~==
* –---
№ ：=≡=æ=
z =
P =）
……--~~~~）;
OD
Cro
CNI
Cro
cro
！=
<！--
CN]
O
LO !
！=
O !
OD
·ZN ſº ºs º £ € © ·
gº：Zae\ ^\ ^ ^ ^ ^ ;
º.
º ſº ſ|N
^ .
} | **，||| 3|-|.§ . .|N*** ;“.’,' ," , * ;^
ſº , ， , ,^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^\, ^ ^ ^ ^ _ ^ _ ^ || |
*° . . ***|- ~ ~ ||：/* .* -... *
- “ - r ， , , ， , .^ ^ ^ſ^1.3.
^[ 'ae'- -ºv, ſ
„ “ – „ “ （ ·^ . ）
| 2º w-- . "^^!
^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ :^^ ^^' "''
' ， “… " - º~ * .*,'.}*●.*^ſº|Nſ º& ſ? -
،º，
） - ſºº
?·|-|×
/~
，
^ ^ ^ ）
ſºs
^^^^
A. A
ſººſW|}^;
N

§
ķ
§@₪
vºvºv （º
, ， , , ，v, , ， , ,¡ ¿¡ ¿{ſ.|
（~~~~vvvvvvvvvv，
º y ºs º （, ， , ， ， ， ， ， ） v §
“www” （„…
ſvÁVU）,* · · · · ·
§.[ׄ“, v ~ ~ ~ ~ !
všºſſ）W（\?ſaeiÜ
\!
！”
●
ſº, ， ， , ,
} （）
.*¿¿.*№ž
&
} } （）
<.*
' , v., , , , , ， !| || iÄJÄ！
|（~V„Uv vJŲv¿gº）
v（~~~~ （JÑvvv/VMº.
| "...„|U ~）;Ūſº, ae, , ∞}}
）, （， „vºvvJJJJJJVV
5） ，
ºººººººººº，）
ſºs· · · - „“y!| 37
Ñ）-...º, ’
º 8 ：
ț¢
Jy --N.
[]w/.
-\ /~--~
（~~~
， , （ ~ .vvvvvvv，
|º/~ „JS★ → →º Jae-· · · · · §Jae-
U№ ，，,.,,，,，，,，，，
ŪŮŰVÙ№vºžºY№
AVVA）， „Vºvºv
„ .4^，| №\, § . . .|×ſs ||º， ,- … “
iſ ºſ ae§§§šº k;№vº！（ 5 ） . . . . .
' ： »
vaevae│ │ │ │ ، ،
|,\s. »…ºse :Ķ
Øw：
******）
u ºſk （* ,ſae.
~~' ） ！! !! ！！
\， V AV
33sae
*ș·
ºsº ;
ș și{
vvvvv，
º ſº…
Uvvvv，
∞ √ （ 2 ）
Ķe.
ºſv.
0
， ，
V ■
º ºvvvvvvv/?