Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of discrimination, uncertainty, and secret injury. The complaint of investors is that two-sevenths of the capitalized investment is water, and that through inside combinations the masters of Wall street are able to realize vast profits upon railroad wreckage and the depreciation of railroad property, as well as upon their prudent conduct and honest management. A great stride toward personal liberty was believed to have been made when our Government was organized with the prohibition of entail; but the sovereignty of trunk lines and railroad systems, imperishable as they are, present a more dangerous imperium in imperio for our consideration than the largest entailed interests of the world.

RAILROADS SERVANTS, NOT MASTERS.

Railroads are beneficent servants, but they must not become masters. The dwarf has grown large enough for us to impose restrictions upon his growth, else the old fable will be illustrated in practical life. If unchecked he bids fair to develop into an Afrite of gigantic stature and overwhelming and malignant influence. Railroads are no longer dull, insensate things. They are imbued with intelligence, and an intelligence that neither slumbers nor sleeps. They are no longer joint stock companies alone; they are dynasties.

They are already outlined, and in a few years if not supervised and controlled by legislation they will have become as firmly fixed in their grasp upon continued power, commercial, social, and political, as the Hapsborgs, the Hohenzollerns, or the Guelphs. These reigning houses were born of force. They were the triumph of the strong over the weak. These modern dynasties will have been born of law and of concession and will be the triumph of the creature over the creator.

The old cry of the mayor of the palace when he appeared at the window of the Tuilleries, "The king is dead, long live the king," may well be proclaimed when the railroad magnate goes to his long home. Not a schedule is changed, not a locomotive puffs less fircely, not a sardine less is sold in the restaurant. The same intelligence, fortified and intensified possibly by new blood, wields the scepter and utters its mandates. The fact that the stock changes hands does not detract from its power or alter its purposes. It is more remorseless than man, for the responsibility is divided. The cabinet or ministers who shape its policy and carry out its behests justify their course by the plea of necessity, and feel no tremors of conscience from the fact that their personality is merged in that of the corporation.

SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR NONE-EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.

Hitherto content has come to the plain people of our land, to the mechanic, to the farmer, to the artisan, because, as he sat by his hearth noting the progress of his fellows who had outstripped him in life's race, his eye turned to the bright boy and the laughing girl with a knowledge that to them America offered every possibility of culture, wealth, and power. He knew that the history of the men whom America had delighted to honor had shown that from the humblest beginnings nothing restricted or directed the development of the American citizen outside of himself. To-day he sees the price of his labor determined not from his surroundings. He sees his village built up or destroyed by a foreign will. He sees the value of his little property decreased and that of the property of his fellow in an adjoining village increased without the action of either and beyond the control of any. He sees his neighbor, by secret arrangement with the railroad company, increasing his store with no extra labor or display of energy or ability, while his fellows are correspondingly depressed.

These things it is the object of this measure to correct.

All the American citizen has asked in the past or will ask in the future is a fair chance; no odds of the Government, but its protection, for which his life is pledged, and its schools, for which his money is paid. Special privileges for none, equal rights for all.

Mr. SEWELL. I wish to ask a question about one amendment which has been adopted. On page 14, in section 12, line 20, my memorandum has it an amendment was adopted inserting "and to the satisfaction of the party or parties complaining." I ask the Senator from Illinois if the word "and," at the beginning of line 20, should not be "or," because by that language you have first to satisfy the commission and get their judgment and then satisfy the parties afterward?

Mr. CULLOM. I am not sure but that the Senator is right. If the complainant is satisfied, of course the matter ends. I have no objection

to that change.

Mr. SEWELL.

I ask that that change be made. The PRESIDING OFFICER.

ing?

Will the Senator send it up in writ

Mr. CULLOM. It is only a suggestion to change the word "and, " at the beginnig of line 20 of section 12, to the word "or;" so as to read:

In compliance with the report and notice of the commission, or to the satisfaction of the party or parties complaining.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection the modification will be considered as agreed to.

Mr. ALLISON. I now move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. SEWELL. I ask the Senator from Iowa to allow me to present some amendments to the pending bill and to have them printed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

printed.

The amendments will be received and

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I ask that the bill which has been under consideration be printed as amended, so that we may have it in its present state as proposed by the committee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection that order will be made.

[blocks in formation]

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the consideration of executive business. After one hour and five minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 5 o'clock and 20 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned.

[blocks in formation]

The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce.

Mr. VOORHEES. When the Senate adjourned yesterday it was the understanding that we should go into executive session at an early hour to-day. I yielded, however, for the purpose of allowing the Senator from Oregon [Mr. DOLPH] to make the remarks which he has made. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN] appeals to me to postpone my motion to go into executive session until he submits some remarks on the interstate-commerce bill, which is the pending order. Mr. CULLOM. Will the Senator allow me to make a remark? Mr. VOORHEES.

Certainly.

Mr. CULLOM. As a member of the Committee on Interstate Commerce which reported the bill before the Senate, I desire to give notice

to the Senate that after to-day, at the next sitting, I shall ask the Senate to renew the consideration of the bill and to continue its consideration from day to day until it is disposed of, in the hope that we may get it out of the way so that it will not be in the road of other bills that are being pressed before the Senate. I hope the Senate will bear in mind and allow the bill to be taken up on Monday, if we shall adjourn over until then, and will continue its consideration from day to day, if it requires more than one day, until it is finally disposed of by the Senate.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I think it right to say, in the absence of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, that there are subjects of pressing importance for consideration of the Senate acting with closed doors, which all the Senators understand, that have been pending a great deal longer than interstate commerce has, and that ought to be attended to, and therefore I shall put in my caveat for one that, now that we are not bound by courtesy to yield to my friend from West Virginia, I trust we shall proceed from day to day until we dispose of the pressing matters in executive session. That will be for the Senate to determine when the motion is made.

Mr. CULLOM. So far as I have been able to perceive there is not very much disposition to discuss the bill before the Senate at length; and I think if the Senate would allow its consideration for a day or a little more we should soon be able to dispose of it; and the Senator from Vermont can then get the floor for executive business, so far as I am concerned, as long as he wants to.

Mr. VOORHEES. I share the anxiety which the Senator from Vermont manifests to dispose of the executive business before the Senate. I can not, however, resist the appeal which the Senator from West Virginia makes to me that he be allowed to occupy the floor for a short time on the pending bill, and I give notice that at the end of his remarks I will then move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of executive business.

Mr. CAMDEN. Mr. President, the remarks I propose to make relate chiefly to the provisions of the fourth section of this bill, which I conceive to be its most important feature, and as I have proposed an amendment which materially affects its general application, I prefer to introduce it into the general discussion now in order that it may have its share of consideration along with the provisions of the bill as a whole. The committee appointed by the Senate to investigate and report upon the subject of interstate commerce has performed its duty laboriiously and with marked ability, and has submitted with its report a large amount of most interesting and useful information upon this important subject.

There is no longer any doubt that the interests of commerce and the demands of the country require effective legislation to equalize and regulate transportation. Public opinion as well as the railroads themselves have made marked progress in this direction in the past few years. The report of the committee only echoes the almost unanimous sentiment upon this subject when it says-I quote from page 175 of report:

It is the deliberate judgment of the committee that upon no public question are the people so nearly unanimous as upon the proposition that Congress should undertake in some way the regulation of interstate commerce. Omitting those who speak for the railroad interests, there is practically no difference of opinion as to the necessity and importance of such action by Congress, and this is fully substantiated by the testimony accompanying this report, which is a fair consensus of public sentiment upon the question. The committee has found among the leading representatives of the railroad interests an increasing readiness to accept the aid of Congress in working out the solution of the railroad problem which has obstinately baffled all their efforts, and not a few of the ablest

railroad men of the country seem disposed to look to the intervention of Congress as promising to afford the best means of ultimately securing a more equitable and satisfactory adjustment of the relations of the transportation interests to the community than they themselves have been able to bring about.

The evidence upon this point is so conclusive that the committee has no hesitation in declaring that prompt action by Congress upon this important subject is almost unanimously demanded by public sentiment.

I assume, therefore, that there is no longer much difference of opinion upon the wisdom and necessity of Congress passing a bill to regulate interstate commerce, and, in my judgment, the committee has submitted with its report a bill which, in its main features, will meet the approbation of the country.

The methods for carrying out and enforcing the provisions of the bill by creating a Government bureau in the Interior Department for that purpose will, I think, be regarded with particular favor for the reason that it establishes a tribunal under the control of the Government to enforce its provisions without cost to individual shippers. No matter how wise and efficient any law for this purpose may be in its provisions, if its execution depends upon the efforts of individuals to enforce it many violations would be submitted to rather than incur the expense and trouble of seeking redress in the courts.

But, Mr. President, it is not my object to discuss the general features of the bill that has already occupied the attention of the Senate. My object is to call the attention of the Senate to the fourth section of the bill as reported by the committee, and to urge the adoption of the amendment proposed by me to that section.

I will ask the Secretary to report the amendment.

The Chief Clerk read as follows:

Strike out all of section 4 from the first to the eighteenth lines, inclusive, and insert in lieu thereof:

"SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier, 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 railroad; 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.”

Mr. CAMDEN. follows:

The fourth section as it now stands in the bill is as

SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggrgate 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 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 covering exceptions to any such common carrier, 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 published they shall have like force and effect as though the same had been specified in this section.

Any common carrier who shall violate the provisions of this section of this act shall be deemed guilty of extortion, and shall be liable to the person or persons against whom any such excessive charge was made for all damages occasioned by such violation.

The provision contained in the section, as reported, to prohibit charging more for a shorter than a longer haul does not go far enough to provide against the evils of discrimination most largely complained of by shippers all over the country.

At the last session of the Forty-eighth Congress, when a bill somewhat similar to the one now under consideration was before the Senate, but which did not contain any provision to regulate charges for

long and short hauls, I advocated an amendment substantially the same as the one now proposed.

I have always been of the decided opinion that a provision prohibiting the charging more for a shorter than a longer haul, which embraced the shorter haul, embodied the most important feature that could be embraced in any bill for the regulation of transportation, and I am more and more impressed every day with the comprehensive justice and importance of such a provision, unqualified by limitations and exceptions. In my opinion it is the key to the whole transportation problem to prevent discriminations and to force the railroads to properly adjust rates from competing points. The principle is fair to both railroads and shippers under all circumstances, and there should be no exceptions to the rule.

The fourth section of the bill as reported is intended to recognize this principle, but its limitations and provisos destroy its force and value, and renders it inadequate to meet the universal demands of all sections of the country upon this subject. The committee in its report recognizes this principle.

I quote from page 195:

RATES ON LONG AND SHORT HAULS.

The most popular remedy proposed for the prevention of unjust discriminations between places and persons on account of distance has been what is called a "short-haul law," or the prohibition of a greater aggregate charge for a shorter than for a longer distance as between shipments of the same kind over the same road and going in the same direction.

No question connected with the problem of railroad regulation has given the committee more perplexity than that relating to the utility and expediency of legislation prohibiting a carrier from charging more for a shorter than for a longer haul under any circumstances; not that we have any doubt as to the injustice of such a charge under most circumstances, but because it seems inexpedient to enforce such a regulation under all circumstances.

Palpable discriminations, peculiar to no State or locality, but too common, apparently, to all, would seem to be remedied by such a provision. It is asked for and urged to preclude the carriers from reimbursing out of local rates and shippers what they lose by reckless and needless competition upon through rates. It is too plain to be made plainer by argument that, within certain limits and under certain oft-occurring conditions, the provision would be a useful and fair

one.

It does not seem as if there could be any justification for charging one shipper more for hauling a car of grain 50 miles than he or another is at the same time charged for hauling another car of grain 100 miles over the same road and in the same direction. The unfairness of the greater charge for a shorter distance is apparent, and yet when careful consideration is given to such instances and illustrations as have been cited to the committee it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, while the principle that no greater charge should be made for a shorter than for a longer distance is just and right, exceptions to the general rule may sometimes be warranted, even in the case of individual roads. And when the effect of the proposed prohibition 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 enforcing the proposed regulation 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 the tide water, without practical or appreciable advantage to intervening points.

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, and to prevent corporate carriers from charging such shippers unreasonable rates in order to recoup the losses sustained in reckless rate wars and by carrying through freights at less than cost.

The accomplishment of the purpose aimed at is a "consummation most devoutly to be wished," and the necessity of remedying the discriminations complained of is apparent. The real question to be considered is, therefore, whether an absolute prohibition of a greater charge for a shorter than for a longer distance would accomplish the result desired by those who favor such legislation.

« AnteriorContinuar »