1885. CONGRESSIONAL . RECORD-· SENATE. 1191 

Also, resolution of Philadelphia Academy of·Natnral Sciences, urging 

that scientific books and apparatus be placed on free-lis~to the Committee on Ways and :Means. 

By Mr. FORNEY: Papers relating to the claim of John Edwarcl, 

of De Kalb County, Alabama-to the Committee on War Claims. 

By Mr. GEORGE: Petition of citizens of Oregon, to mtify certain 

patents made by Richard Nieolls and Thomas Dargan, governors of the 

Colony of New York-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

By. Mr. HOLJI~: Petition of Hon. Alvin P. Hovey, of Indiana, 

for the enactment of a law to promot-e purity and integrity in elections 

and appointments, accompanied by a bill for that purpose-to the Committee on the Judiciary. · 

By·lli. B. W. JONES: Resolutions of the New York Board ofTrade 

and Transportation, relative to the bankrnptcy bill-to the same com- mittee. . · 

By l\Ir. LOWRY: Petition of 61 citizens of Fort Wayne, Ind., in 

reference to the Mormon question-to the same committee. 

By Mr: MORSE: Petition of Thomas H. Hill ~d 3 others, praying 

for an increase of widows' pensions-to the Committee on Pensions. 

By Jilr. PRYOR: A. bill for the relief of Isaac Stinnett, jr., of Limestone County, Alabama-to the Committee on War Claims. 

.Also, _papers relating to the claim of James Clendinnin, of Jackson 

County, Alabama-to the same committee. · By Mr. RANDALL: Petition of citizens of Philadelphia, against the 

ratification of the treat:y with Spain or an extension of the treaty with 

Hawaii, and against the measures to cauyinto operation the treaty with 

Mexico-to the Committee on Ways and Means. . .Also, two petitions of managers and officers of houses of refuge and 

reformatories for children, to publish information concerning such institutions-to the Committee on Appropriations. .By Jifr. REAGAN: Petition of shippers of live-stock, of Chicago, Til., 'praying for the pass..<tge of House bill No. 6403, which provid~ for the 

inspection oflive-stock, hog prodncts,. and dl'eSSed meats intended for 

exportation--to the Committee.on Commerce. 

Also, petition of pork-packers and dealers in and shippers of hog prodnets, praying· for the ~ssage of House bill No. 6405, which provides 

.for the inspection of live-stock, hog products, and dressed meats intended for exportation-to-the same committee. 

By Jifr. ROSECRANS: Petition of J ndson Knight, praying for a pension for disability incurred in the military sei·vice and in the line of 

his duty-to the Committee on Invn.lid Pensions. 

By Mr. RYAN: Petitions of citizens of Kansas, to open Oklahoma to 

settlement-to the Committee on the Public Lands. 

By Mr. SINGLETON: Papers relating to the claim of Turner Babbitt, of Scott County, Mississippi, for quartermaster stores and property taken from him by the Uni~ States Army during the latewarto the Committee on War Claims. 

By .M:r. STEELE: Petition of~. P. Ef.lnger and others, of Peru, 

Ind. 1 and of Andrew J. Reynolds and others, of Decatur, Ind., asking 

legislation on the :Mormon question-to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. STEPHENSON: Petition of C. J. Higgins and 62 others, of 

Ashland, Wis., praying that the United States acquire title to the Portage Lake and Lalce Superior Canals, and make the same fioee of tollsto the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

By Mr. STORM: PetitionofPhiladelphiaCoiilJllercialExchimge, asking for the passage of a bankrupt bill-to the Committ-ee on the Judi:· 

ciary. · 

Also, petition of the Academy of Natural Sci4?nces, aslrlng that certain 

books and. apparatus be placed on the free-list-to the Committee on 

'Vays and Means. . By Mr. THOMAS: Petition of Thomas C. White, of Cartersville, 

Ill., for additional pay for soldiers of the late war-to. the Select Committee on the Payment of Pensions, Bourity, a.nd Back Pay. 

By Mr. WARD: Petibion ofMrs. Sallie Jackson, ofClintonCouuty, 

Indiana, for relief-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions. 

The following petitions for the passage of the ~lexica~ war pension 

bill with Senate amendments -w:ere presented and severally referred to 

the Committee on Pensions: 

By Mr. ANDERSON: Of citizens of White Rock, of Clifton, of Belleville, and of Delphos, Kans. . · 

By Mr. ALEXANDER: Of citizens of Chariton County, of Randolph 

County, and of Grundy County, :Missouri. 

By 1\lr. A'l'KINSON: Of citizens of Huntingdon County, of Su1livan 

County, and of Juniata County, Pennsylvania. · · 

By Jilr. BOUTELLE: Of citizens of Brewer, l\Ie. -and of l\Iedford 

Centre, Me. - .By Mr. BRAINERD: ·Of citizens of Warren .County and of Erie 

County, Pennsylvania. · . 

· By Mr. T. ~. BRO""«'NE: Of citizens of Cambridge City, Ind. 

By Mr. W, W. BROWN: Of citizens of Tioga County, Pennsylvania. 

By Mr. CANNON: Of citizens of Champaign County, lllinois. 

By Air. DING LEY: Of citizens of Oxford County, Maine. 

By Mr. ELLWOOD: Of citizens of Harvard, of Aurora, of Saint 

Charles., and ofNunda, ill. · · 

I 

.By ~Ir. GOFF: Of citizens of Gilmer County, of Harrison County, 

ofTyler County, and ofWetzel County, West Virginia. . By M:r. HANBACK: Of Citizens of Ellsworth County, of Norton 

County, of Phillips County, of Smith County, of Rooks Oounty, of Osborne County, and of Russell County, Kansas. 

ByW. H. HATCH: Of citizens ofPutnamCounty, ofCanton County, 

ofMarion County, ofClarke County, and of Schuyler County, Missouri. 

By Mr. D. B. HENDERSON: Of citizens of Cedar Falls, of Independence, and ofWater1oo, Iowa. 

ByMr. T. J. HENDERSOX: OfcitizensofBureauCounty,ofHenry 

County, and of Lee County. 

ByMr.HEP.BURN: Of citizen ofNew York, andofTaylorCounty, 

Iowa. · 

By l\Ir. HILL: Of citizens of Defiance County and :or Van V{ert 

County, Ohio. 

Byl\Ir.HOLJtiES: OfcitizeusofHardin.CountyandofBooneCounty, 

Iowa. • By Mr. HOUSEMAN: Of citizens of Ottawa County, of Ail egan 

County, of Grand ·Rapids, of Ionia County, Michigan. 

By :Mr. B. W. JONES: OfcitizensofFayetteCounty, ofGroonCounty, 

and of Dane County, Wisconsin. 

By Mr. KLEINER: Of ex-soldie.rS of Cannelton, Ind . 

By Mr. LA. WRlli~CE: Of citizens of Ohioville, of New Castle, and 

of Rochester, Pa. · . By Mr. LACEY: Of citiz·ens of unfield, Mich. 

By :Mr. LEFEVRE: Of citizens of Saint :Mary's, of Wapakoneta, of 

Sidney, and of Moulton, Ohio. 

By Mr. LOWERY: Of citizens ofSteuben County, of Allen County; 

and of Whitlt;y County, Indiana. · 

By Mr. 111ATSON: Of citizens of Hendricks County, of Monroe 

County, and of Morgan County, Indiana. · , By Ur. S. li. MILLER: Of citizens of Sandy Lake, and of Crawford 

County, Pennsylvania. · By Mr. MORRILL: Of citizens of Jackson County, Kansas. 

By Mr. MORSE: Of citizens of Natick and of Cambridge, Mass. 

By Mr. NELSON: Of citizens of Polk County, of Douglas County, 

of Becker County, of Stearns County; and·of Wadena County, Minnesota. . By Mr. NUTTING: Of citizens of Oswego County, New York. 

By Jt:h-. PETERS: Of citizens of Kinkfield, Ed war~ CQunty, Kansas. 

By l\Ir. PRICE: Of citizens of Barrow. County, of Eau· Claire, of 

Trempealeau County, Wisconsin. 

By ~Ir. PUSEY: Of citizens of Cas County, of Crawford County, 

and of Harrison-County, Iowa. . 1 By Mr. T. B. REED: Of citizen of Brooklyn, of Penobscot, of Yarmouth, of S~ow-hegan, of West Sumner, of Greenfield, of Monticello, 

of Fayette County, of Uapleton, of South Etna, and of North Waterborough, Me. . · 1 

By Mr. RUSSELL: Of citizens of North Dana and of Athol, Mass. 

By Mr. H. Y. SMITH: Of citizens of ~p, Madison County, of 

Dallas County, and of Dexter, Dallas County, Iowa. 

By Mr. STEELE: Of citizens of Pennvijle, Ind. 

By Mr. STRUBLE: Of citizens of Sioux County, of Dickinson County·, and of Calhonn County, Iowa. 

By Mr. WOOD: Citizens of Cass County, of Newton County, of Pulaski County, of Fulton Cotmty, of White County, and of Hammond, 

Lake County, Indiana. · , 

By Mr. WOODW A.RD: Of citizens of Richland County, Wisconsin. 

By Ur. YAPLE: Of· citizens of White Pigeo'n, of Bloomingdale, ol 

Sturgis, ofEau Claire; of Howardsville, and of Scott, Mich. 

SENATE. 

TUESDAY, February 3, 1885. 

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. E .. D. HUNTLEY, D. D._ The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. 

CREDEXTIALS. 

Mr. MILLER, of X ew York, presented the credentials of William 

M. Evarts, chosen by the Legislature of New York a S-enator from that 

State .for the term commencing March 4, 1885; which were read. 

lli. HOAR. I ask permission to say, having had occasion to ex~ 

amine the subject as chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, that in my judgment a certifi~tefrom the executive, the proper 

certificate officer of a State, saying simply that A· B on a certain day was dnly elected a Senator of the United States 'from that State for the 

term mentioned is a sufficient credential under the usages of the Senate and the·law of the Unit-ed States. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Chair will state to the Senator 

from ~assachusetts that this paper contains no certificate from the governor whatever, as required by the act of Congress. The paper will be pia~. on file, if there be no objection. 

Mr. H;OA.R. Then I move that it be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. 
L/C6Ttf '2,. 

'11!)2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRU.Afi ~3'dThe rRESIDENT pro te11tpore. The Senator from Massachusetts moves that the paper be referred t-o the Committee on Privileges and 

Election . That order will be entered, ifibere be no objection. 

THiftD IXTERSATIOXAL RED CRO S CO~"'FERE...."'\ CE. 

The PRESIDENT pro tem:Pore laid before the Senate the following 

message from the President of the United States; which was read, and, 

with the accompanying papers, ordered . to be printed and refened to 

the Committee on Foreign Relations: 

To the Senate of the United Stales: I transmit be1·~,~·ith totbeSenatcacommunication fl·oru the Secretary of State, f3ubmitting, at the reQ.\1l'St of·a delegate from the United ~tales to the third internRtionul confEorence of the Red Cro , held in ~cptember, l8S-t, a copy of the 

pre.llminary report of that confe renc-e. CIIESTER A. ARTHUR. 

Es:ECCTIYE 1\I.~s ws, February!?, 1 '"'. 

s.ano_-AL BO~-\.'RD OF H~ALTH REPORT. 

The PRESIDENT pro tc;."1porc laid before the Senate the 1ollowing 

message from the Pre~dent of the United States; which war· read, and, 

wjth the acc6mpanying papers, referred to the Comm,ittee on Epidemic 

Diseases, and ordered to be printed: 

To the Se1w.te and House oj RepresentC~tires: . 

I transmit herewith, for the conside-ration of Congt·es , the report of the :::\ationa! Board of Health fo.r the year 1~. 

CITE TER A. ARTHGR. EXECGTIVE :U.\.SSIOS, ·Febr110ry 2, 1885. 

.A.. bill (H. R. 7672) granting an increase of pension to Elbert Hewitt; 

A bill (H. R. 772-2) -grunting a pension to .Almira K. Parker; 

A bill (H. R. 7724) granting a pension to Lydia Wetherbee; 

A bill (H. R. 7769 to grant a pension to Joseph R. Dodds; 

A bill (H. R. 7803 granting a pension to L. W. Pitts; 

A. bill.(H. R. 7805 granting a pension to Capt. Vincent Phelps; 

A bill (H. R.. 7822 gmnting n. pension to Mark Spencer Van Loan; 

A bill (H. R. 7836 for the relief of l\Irs. Ida, P. Belcher; ~\.bill (H. R. 7869 gmnting a pension to Emeline L. Fitch; . A bill (H. n. -8033) granting an increa e of pension to George W •. 

ClarkA biD {H. R. 038) granting a pen ·ion to Harriet A. B. Corts; 

A. bill (H. R. 104) gl'anting an increase .of pension to GeorgeS. Hawley; 

A bill (H. R. 132) to restore to the peQ. ion-roll the name of Raebael 

A. Queen· aml · A. bill (H. R. 133) grauting a pension-to Thomas l\IcGill. 

PETITIO:'\ .L'IiD ~IEJIORI.AL . .• 

ThePUE 'lDEXT p1·otemporepre entedthememorialofE. W.Oyster, 

president, and J. F. Billingsley, secretary, on behalf of the laborunions 

of the District of Colombia, 1·emonstrating against the passage of the 

bill (S. 2507) to an1end the law concerning mechanics' liens in the District of Columbia· which was referred to t,he Committee on the District 

of"Columbia. - REPORT OF X.ATI~XAL .lCADE:IIT OF .·ciEXC.ES. . He also presented the mem01·ial· of A. W. Parker and H. R. Morgan, 

ThePRESIDEXT pro tempore laid before the Senate.acommqnication of Plea...~nt Valley, Wis., urging ~ch legislation as shall prohibit railfrom thePresidentof'theNationalAcademyofSciences, t~n~mitting, in r~atls betw~n States from <.:har;swg more for a short than for a long 

.compliance with the-act of Congress of 1Harc_h 3, 186~, a report of the~ <l1stance; wh1ch was ordered tQ lt~ <?n the table. . operations of the ~Tational Academy·of Sciences during the past iear; ~Ir. P~L~IERpresentcd. thepe_ti_hqnofHon. J<?hnqwen, .A. Y .. :L.~dwhich was ordered to be printed. and with the accompanyinu report, 83)-, E. U. "'alker, and -18 other CJtJzens()f Detroit, M1ch.; the petition 

referred to the Committee on Printing. "" of Moffat Tazline, Capt. Darius Cole, .M.S. Smith & Co., Friend Palmer, · and 50 other citizens of Detroit,. Mich.; .the petition of Merrick Essel- rrou E BILL:s REFERRED. e-lyne (..:Co., Capt. S. n. Greenwood, Georg~ W. Brady, Willard Parker, 

The bill (II. n. 7 ... 7) for the relief of Juliet Leef, widow7 nnd the heirs and 4 other-citizens of Detroit, :Mich.; and the petitionofDavid Carter, 

of Henry Leef, decea~ed, owner of the b.ark ~Uary Teresa, illegally E. li .• m:ill, .Alfred Russell, nnd GO other , of Detroit, Mich., praying 

seized by Alexander H." Tyler," consul of the ~nited States-at Bahia, that the GoYernment pro"\""icle for the purchase of the two canals cros.c:;-

Bmzil, was read twice by·its title, and referred to the Committee on ing Point Keweenaw, Lake-Superior, Mi<.:higan, ac:; recommended by the 

Foreign R~lations. Secretary of War· whic:h were referred to the Committee on Commerce: 

The bill (H. R 037) to amend the tenth ection of the act to re- ~Ir. l\iiTCHELL. I present a _concurrent resolution of the Legis.; move cerbdn burdens on the Ameriean marine, c·c., was rend twice by 1atme of Pennsylrania fa"\"'oring the repen.l of the-act of Congress of 

itc:; title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce. July 22, 1876, by which . the legal-tender ·quality of the trade-dollar 

The joint resolution (LL Res. 323) for the p1·inting of certain eulogies wa abrogated. I also present a concurrent resoh~tion of the Legisla.: 

(lelh'ered. in Congress upon the late Willian1.A. Duncan was read tmee true ot' Pennsylvania f.'lvoring the passageof"the measure known as the · by its title, and referred ·to the Committee on Printing. . foreign-contract-labor bill. I beliflve the trade·ifolla.r bil-l has been re- · . The bill (H. R. 1·33!>) to increase the appropriation f01: the erection ported ince I wa.<> la t present in th~ Senate, and. the oth~rbill also, I 

of the 'Pnblic .buililing at, Pittsburgh, Pa., was. read twice by its title. tbink1 is before tlHl enate. I therefore mo"\"'e that the resolutions lie 

The PRESIDENT pr(J tempore. . If there be no objection this bill will on the table. 

be referred· to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion was agree<.l to. . · · 

Mr. CAMERO~, o( Penn ylmnia. I sug~;est that the bill sboul<l ~ir. MITCHELL presented' the petition of 325 officials and business 

be referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds. · men of Allegheny, Pa., the' petition of 125 citizens of Parker's Landing, 

The PRESIDENT p;·o tempore. That refe1:ence will be made, if Pa., and the petition of 624 workmen and own-ers of wor~s at Pittsthere be no objection. As the bill provides for ihe increase of an ap- burgh, Pa., praying for an appropriation for the improvement of the 

proprintion the Chair was of the opinion that it hould b, referred to Allegheny Hiver; which were referred to the Committee on Commerce. 

the Committee on Appropriation . He aJ~o presented two memorials of the Philadelphia (Pa.) Boat·d of 

The following bills were eyer-ally read ·twice by their title.s, and re- Trade, a memorial of the'Pittsbnrgh (Pa.) Board of Trade, and n. meferrcd 'to the Committee on Claims: morial of 52 citizens of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, remonstrating 

A bill (H. R. 653) for the relief of John B. DaYis; against t"he mtitication of the propo ed Spanish reciprOcity treaty; 

A. bill (H. R. 21ii8) for tbe benefit of John C. Herndon; . which were referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

A lJill (H, R. 43Q'll for the relief of William H. Da"i.s; He also presented a petition of !-he Lumberman's Exchange of WillA bill (H." R. 4685 for the.relief of Hol)ert Tally, colored; iam port, Pa., praying for an appropriation for the improvement of the 

.A. b.ill (H. ~- 46 6 for the relief of Fendall Carpenter; 1 West Branch of the • nsq_uehanna Rin~r; which was referred to fbe 

A bill (H. R. 4687 for the relief of A. Gates Lee; .... Committee on Commerce. _ 

A. bill (H. R. 46 for the 1·elief of William Clift; and lli. PLUMB prese~ted a. resolution of the I..egislatme of the State of 

.A. bill (H. R. 034) for the relief of the estates of Hugh and Byrd Kansas, remonstrating against the creation of the so-called cattle tr:lll 

Douglas, deceased.. across the State of Kansas; which was 1·eferred to the Committee on The following bills were seYernlly reafl twice by their title~, and re- Commerce. • · fcrred to the Committee on Pensions: . :ur. BECK presented the petition of George II. McKinney, of LinA bill (H. R 2.j2) gmnting a pension to Peter .:JI. Hagler; -coln County, ltentucky, praying for an increase of facilities in the 

A. bill (H. R. 1091) granting an increase of pension to Sophia A. :Uor- Patent-Office so as to expedite the issuance of patents; which was re- ~an, widow of the late Charles H. ~!organ, a brevet brigadier-general ferred to the Committee on Patents. 

in tbe United "States .Army; Mr. HAWLEY presented the petition of the Scoville l\Ianuf.'l.ctnring 

A hill (H. R. 25-Wl grnntinti a pension to Priscilla J . Small; Company and 12 other corporations and citizens of Connecticut, in 

A bill (H. R. 3052 tor the relief of John C. Glark; favor.of free canals between Por~age Lake, in Michigan, and Lake SuA bill (H. R. 3185 granting a pension ~-o David Peterson· . perior; which was referred to the Uommittee on Commerce. 

A bill (H. R. 3901) granting :;t pension t-o Mrs. Oli"\"'C W. Parker; Ur. CONGER presented the petition of H: W. Bradley, Dwight N . .A. l>ill (H. R. 4216) granting a pension to. David~- Bryan; · Lowell, and 16 other citi~ens of 1\omeo, Mich., praying for the passage 

A bill (H. R. 4766tgranting a pension to David C-ompropst· of a bill proYiding that the overfiowetlshoal-water lands in Lake Saint 

A pill (H. R. 59'29) for the relief of Abigail Honey; Clair, known as the Saint Clair Flats, beset aside and lceptfor a public 

A bill (H. R. 66.33 } granting a pension to Mary C . .Axline; I'esort; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands. 

A bill (H. R. 6948) granting a. pension to George W. Eagles; 1\fr. RIDDLEBERGER. I pre...~t the petftion of Ni'bholas White, 

A bill (H. R. 7000~ for the relief of Clark G. Maine; ofWa8hingfun, D. C., prayingreimbursementforcertainproperty taken 

A bill (H. R. 7256 granting a pension to .John Vanderhoff; by the United States forces during the late war. I move that the petiA bill (H. R. 7386 granting a pension to Eliza M. Byers; · tion be referred to, the Committee on Cl~im'>, where a bill is now peniling 

A bill (H. R. 7524) .granting a pension to Lavisa. Heth; . . for the relief of the cla.ilJla.nt . .A biH (H. R. 7602) to grant a pension t-o Harriet M. Baily; The motion was agreed to. 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. "1193· 

:REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. 

:Ur. COCKRELL, from the Committee on Militru·y Affairs, to whom was referred the bjll (S. 2447) to remove the chargeofdesertio.n existing 

against Daniel Morris, late of Company F, Fortieth Regiment of New 

York State Volnntee~, submitted an adverse report thereon, wliich was agreed t.G; and the bill was postponed -indefinitely: · Mr. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania. I am directed by the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom wa,s referred the bill (S. 2365) for there1lief of First Lieut. Augustus R. Eg,bert, SecoridRegiment United States 

Infantq, to report it ad,·ersely and to ask its indefinite postponement. 

I will state as the reason for the ad ,-erse report that a general bill is now before the Senate ccrvering this and all similar cases. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be indefinitely postponed. _ 1\{r. DAWES, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom the 

subject was referred, reported a bill ( 2609) to provide permooent res- ervations for the Indiaru) in Northern Montana, and for other purposes;_ which was read twice by its title. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. 

2544) to authorize· the Secretary of the Interior to extend the time of 

payment, of installments to be paid by actual settlers1 of Omaha and Otoe 

Indian lands, in the States of Nebraska an~ansas, reported it with a.n amendment. · 

Mr. JACKSON, from the Cpmmittee on Pensions, to whom was re.: ferred_ the petition of c. w. :Minnix, prnying"that his name be placed on the pension-roll, reporte9. adversely thereon; and the prayer of the 

petition was denied. 

He also, from the same committee, fo whom was referred the bill (S. 

2158) granting an increase of pension to Jesse S. Harrold, reported it 

without ame~dment, and submitted a report thereon. He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the following bills, submitted adverse reports thereon, which were agreed to; and 

the bills were indefinitely postponed: 

A bill (S. 2068) to increase the pension of William Baldwin; 

A bill (S. 2010) granting a pension_ to JohnS. Williams; and 

A bill (S. 2138) granting-a pension to Nancy S. Daniels. · Mr. JACKSON. I am instructed by the Committee on Pensions, to 

whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2377) granting a pension to James 

St«kton, to submit an adverse report thereon. . ~lr. COCKRELL. Let the bill be placed upon the Calendar until 

I can sec the report. . .· The PRESIDEXT pro teri1pcrre. The bill wil~ be placed on the Calendar with the ad verse report of the committee. - Mr. HARRISO~. Tatn directed by the Committee on Military Affairs to report adversely and to ask the indefinite postponement of the 

bill (S. 2305) for the relief of Frederick Schwatku. The Senator from 

Oregon [Mr. DoLPH] introduced the bill; I do not know whether be 

desires to have it placed upon the Calendar. 

llr. DOLPH. Let the bill be placed upon the Calendar. 

The PRESIDENT p,-o tem-pore. The bill will be placed upon the Calendar with the adverse report of the committee. · 

1\Ir. CULLOM. I am directed by the Committee on Pensio~, to 

whom were referred the bill (S. 1899) gmhting an increase of pension 

to James M. Blades, andtbe bill "(S. 2U56) grantinganincreaseofpension to James M. Blades, to repott them adversely. · 

I desire -to st-ate that the claimant can get whatever relief he is justly 

entitled to from the Commissioner of Pensions. I mm·e that the bills 

be postponed indefinitely . . The motion was agreed to. 

:Mr. CULLOU, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom were re- ferred the following bills, :reported them se\erally without amendment, 

and submitted reports thereon: . A bill (S. 1365) granting an increase of pension to Eugene 0. Sulli-

"Van, late a ~ergeant of Company K, Eighteenth Missouri Vohmteer Iniantry; and · · · 

A bill (S. 2514) granting a pension to David T. Hoover. • · Mr. UITCHELL, irom the Committee on Pensions, to whom were 

referred the following bills, reported them without amendment, and ~bmitted re~rts thereon: 

A bill (H. R. 5565) granting a pension to Tbeo. Ahren.S; _and:- A bill (H. R. 2692) granting a pension to Sarah Kennedy. 

Mr. MITCHELL, from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the bill (H. ll. 5543) gtanting a pension to David :M. Nagle, re- ported it with amendments, and submitted a report thereon. 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill (S. 

1805) granting an increase of pensi9n to Miles Barber, submitted an dv~ report thereon, which wa:s agreed to; and the bill was postponed 

indefinitely. 

Mr. INGALLS, from the Commit.t~e on the District of Columl:iia, re- ported an am~ndment intended to be proposed to the District of Columbia appropri..'ttion bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. - . · 

Mr. BLAIR. By d4'ection of the Committee on Pensions I reporl 

adversely on the petition of Hugh Boden; late private COmpany B, One 

hundred and ninety-eigJ:lth Regiment Pe~lvania Volunteel'S, p~ying to be restored to the pension-roll. The com:mittee report recommending that the Pension Office afford him the benefit.ofanothcr examinaf ion in reference t.o his restoration, and ask to be discharged from 

the further consideration of the petition, and that the repo:t:t be printed 

in order that the attention of the Pension Office may be called-to H. 

The report was agreed to. 

Mr. BLAIR, fl'om the Committee on Pensions, to whom ·was referred _the bill (S. 2009) granting a pension to Isabella Turner, reported it 

without amendment, and submitted a report thereon. 

Mr. WILSON~ from the Committee on Pensions, to whom was re- ferred the petition of Patrick Furlong, of Hinesblirg, Vt., praying for a pension, submitted a report thereon, accompanied by a bill (S. 2610) 

granting a pension to Patrick Furlong; which was read twice by its 

titla · · 

He also, from the same committee, to whom was referred the bill · (H. R. 6726) granting a pension -to Margaret A. Maguire, reported it 

mthout amendment, and submitted a report thereon. . He also, from the same committee, to whom were referred the following bills, submitted adverse reports thereon, which were agreed to; 

and the bills were postponed indefinitely: 

A bill (H. R. 6803) granting a pension to John T. Brake; and 

A bill {H. R. 6692) granting a pension to David Whittington. 

ltlr. WILSO~. I also report from the Committee on Pensions the 

bill (H. R. 2485) for the relief of Treadwell Seaman, jr., adversely, on the ground that the case is still pending in the P~nsion Office. I mo\e 

tha.t the bill be postponed indefinitely. 

The motion was agreed to. . 

WOOXSOCKET NATIO:NAL B~"'K. 

1\Ir. ALDRICH. I am directed ·by the Committee on Finance, to 

whom wa,s referred the bill (S. 2600) for the relief of the Woonsocket 

Natiqnal Bank, of Woonsocket, R. I., to report it favorably and without amendment. · · · Mr. CHACE. I ask unanimous consent that-the bill may be put on 

its passage. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Let it be read for information. 

The PRESIDEXT pro tempoi·e. The-bill will be read, if there be no 

objection. 

The Chief Clerk read the bill, as follo.ws: 

Whereas D. W. Gooch, l:nited States pension ·agent at Boston, 1\lass., on the 

13th day of October 1884, issued check numbered 301408, on the assistant treas- urer of the United States at Boston, ::\lass., payable to. the order of Burton God- dard, for the sum of 1,24.7.60, which said clleck, it is claimed, was indorsed by 

said Goddard to the 'Voonsocket National Bank, 'Voonsocket, R.I., and by said 

bank to the l\IaYerick :s-ationa-1 Bank, of Boston, Mass., and stolen from the snfe 

of the Adams Express Company,Woonsocket, R. 1., to whom H had been delivered for transmission to'Boston on the 21st day of October, 1884, aqd has never been received by said l\I~verick National Bank, nor paid by the assistant treas- urer of the United States at Boston, Mass.: '.fherefore; · Be it enacted, &c., That D. W. Gooch, United States pension agent at Boston 1\Iass., be, and he is hereby, instn1cted to isssue a duplicate of the above-described 

check, No. 301408, for 1.247.60, in favor of Burton Goddard, and the Secretary 

of the Treasury is hereby instmcted to make sa.id duplicate check payable to sn.id 'Voonsocket National Bank: Prot·ided, That smd w :oonsocket National 

Bank shall first execute a bond with good and sufficient sureties, to be tPproved 

by th~ Secretary of the Treasury, to hold the United States harmless agamst the 

double payment of said check. . 

By unanimous consent, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, 

proceeded to consider the bill. 

The bill was reported to the Senate without.amenument, ordered to be 

engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and I}assed. 

The preamble was agreed to. 

BJLLS l~TRODCCED. 

Mr. MORG.!..N {by request) introduced a bill (S. 2611) tol·eviveandamend the act of Congress of August" 15, 1876, to encourage ~d promote telegraphic communication between America and Asia; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee .on Foreign 

Relations. 

He also introduced a joint resolution (S. R. 115) providing for the 

supply of public documents to certain nations in the Indian Territory; 

which was read twice by its title, and referred to t~e Committee on 

Printin~. . He also introduced a joint resolution (S. R. 116) relating to the loan 

of tents to the association at Mobile, Ala., in control of the inter. tate 

drill; which was read t.wice by its title. . Mr. MORGAN. In connection with this joint resolution I ask leave 

to present as accompanying-papers a memorbl of the Legislature of 

Alabama and other papers relating to the subject, which I move be re- ferred with the j9int resolution to the Committee on Military Affairs. 

The motion was agreed to. . Mr. PALME~ (by request).inh·oduced a joint resolutiol}. (S. R.ll7) 

referring the title of Mary A. Washington to property referred to in 

94 United States Report8, page 716, to the Court of Claims; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claim~ 

EBSEST H, W .-\RDWELL. 

Mr. HAMPTON. · I ask, by diredion of the CollllDittee on l\lilita1·y 

Affairs, that the bill (S. 521) for the relief of Ernest H. Wardwell, be 

recommitted to that committee. . It .was r.eported some time ago a:1d 

indefinitely postponed. · · The PRESIDENT pro tempoi"e. The Chair finds on reference oo the 
1194 CONGRE SIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBUUARY 3s 

I 

minutes that the· bill was indefinitely postponed in April, 1884, at a previous ileSSion of the Senate, and the bill is on the files of the Senate 

but is- not· present at-the Secretary's desk. The Senator from South 

Carolina asks unanimous consent that the vote of the-Senate taken in 

April, 1884, indefinitely postponing the bill, be reronsidered, and that 

it be recommitted to the Committee on Military A:ffah'S. Is there objection? The Chair hear.s none, and it is so ordered. · · 

JOSHUA SIIEP ARD. 

l\Ir. COCKRELL. I ask that the bill (H. R. 3691) for the relief of 

Joshua Shepard, which was· reported adversely by the Senator from 

Jowa ()-Ir. WILSON], be recommitted to the Committee on Pe~ons, 

with the adverse report, on the ground that addit~on~l evidence has 

been filed with the committee, and I think that the evidence-so I am advised-wiU have weight in deterinining the decision of the committee to reverse the report that has been. mad~. . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri asks 

unanimous con ent that the bill be taken from the Calendar and re- committed to the Committee on PensiollEI. Is there obj~tiou? ').'he 

Chair hears none, and the order will be ~ntered. 

1\IESS~GE FRO:\! THE HOUSE. 

A message from the HQuse of Representatives, by Mr. CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the Honse had passed the bill (S. 646) for the 

relief of R. G. P. White, Peter Hanger; and L. T. Green. 

. The message also announced that the· Hause had pa.sSed a joint res- olution (H. Res. 327) providing for printing the eulogies-delivered in 

Congress upon the late .Jo~ H. Evins, late a _ Representative in the 

Forty-eighth Congress from the State of South Carolina; in which it 

requested the concurrence of the Senate. · 

· ADDITIONAL SENATE .El\LPWyEs. 

Mr. JONES, of Nevada. I move that the Senate proceed to the con- sideration of the resolution on the Calendar authorizing· the increase 

of the force in·the office of IJle Sergeant-at-Arms. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The resolution is before the Senate, 

and will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the resolution, as .(ollows: 

ReiOlvedJ.ThatQle Sergeant-Rt-Arms of the Senate be, and he is hereby, author- ized and airected to employ three messengers at $1,440 el\ch; two skilled labor- ersa.tSl,OOO each; two laborers atr3i20 each; two firemen at l,080ea.ch; two janitors at $900 each. And the Secretary of the Senate is hereby authorized and directed to pay the above employes out· of the mi cellaneous items of the con- tingent fun <;I- of the Senate. · 

Mr. JO~, of Nevada. A .~;esolution was passed at the last ses:" 

siop. directing the Sergeant-at-Arms of the Senate and the Architect of 

the Capitol to elect convenient rooms for the committees which had no 

rooms in this building, and also instructing them to rent such building, 

when they should find on~ appropriate, with· the consent of the Committee ro Audit and Control the Contingent Expenses of the Senate. 

They fqund a building, and with the consent of that committee rented 

it. The officers provided for in the resolution are for the purpose of 

serving the five committees who now have rooms there, and to keep the 

building in order and to give such ferce as hall enable the committees 

conveniently to perform their duties. 

The PRESIDENT pr() tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

1·esolution. · · · The t·esolution waa agreed to. 

MESS~GE FROi\[ THE HOUSE. 

A message from the House of Representatives, by Mr: CLARK, its 

Clerk, announced that the House had passed a bill (H. R. 7163) to regulate the forms ofbills'oflading and the duties and liabilities of ship- owners and othe:rs; in which it requested the concurrence of the Senate. 

· COMMITTEE SERVICE. 

Mr. ALLISON. I move that the Chair fill the vacancies occurring 

upon committees by the absence of the late Senator Sheffield. 

The PRESIDENT pro t-empore. The Senator from Iowa asks unani- mous consent to offe:r at this time an order. Is.there objection? The 

Chair hears none. · 

Mr. ALLISON. I merely ask that the Chair be authorized to fill 

the vacancies on certain C'.Ommittees. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. The Senator-from Iowa asks unanimous consent to move at this time that the Chair be authorized to fill 

the vacancies on committees occasioned by the retit'ement of ·Senator 

Sheffield, late a Senator fro.m the State of Rhode Island. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Is there objection to the motion proposed by the Sena-tor from Iowa? The Chair hears il.one, and it is so ordered. 

AMENDMEKT. TO A BU.L. 

l\Ir. JONAS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 

him to the bill (H. R. 100) relative to the Chinese mdemnity fund; 

which was refel'l"ed to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and oroered 

h> be.printed. · . 

INTERSTATE COMMERCE •. 

Mr. CULLOM. I desire to make amotionoow to proceed to the consideration of the unfinished business. As the Senate is aware, I gave no~ce yesterday that I should ask the friends of the int.ersta.te-com~ 

merce bill toremain hereto-day until its completion. Imovethatthe· Senate proceed to the consideration ofthe bill (H. R. 5461) t.Oregulat 

interstate commerce and toprohibit unjustdiscriminations by common carriers. • 

The motion was agreed to; and -the Senate, a in-Committee of th 

Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill. 

The PRESIPENT pro tempore. · The pending question is on agreeinj"" 

to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMn 

to the amendment offered by the senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK]. 

Mr. PLU~MB. On that I ask for the yeas and nays. Th~ yeas and nays -were ordered. 

1\Ir. BECK. Let the amendment and the amendment to the amendment be read once more. . 

The P~ESIDENT p1·o tempore. The amendment of the Senator from 

Kentucky and_ the amendment offered to it by the Senator from Kansas ·will be again read. . 

The CHIEF CLERK. The amendment of Mr. PLUMB is to add to the 

proposed amendment the words: "Under similar conditions .and circumstances;" so as to make the amendment read: . 

Any distance less than the whole length of the line than i charged for iruilar 

service over the whole length of the llne, under similar condltions and cireum- st:ances. 

· The PRESi1;>ENT pro tempore·. The question is. on agreeing to these 

last words proposed by the Senator from K~a.s, on which the yeas 

and nays have be-en ordered. · 

The Secretary proceeded to call the 1·oll. 

Mr. GARLAND (when his name was called). I am piu.red with the 

Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN]. 

Mr. 'JONAS (wh_en his name was called). I am paired on the pend· 

ing amendment with· the Senator from Indiana [Mr. liARRisox]. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

l\Ir. CAMERON, of Pennsylvania. I am paired with ~he Senator 

from California [Mr. FARLEY]. 

.Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I am paired with the Senator from Arkan- sas [Mr. WALKER] on the bill which came·from the other Honse and on the bill which was reported from the Senate commi_ttee. I do not 

know -how he would vote on any of these amendments; and I announce once for the day that if I were not paired I should vote for the Senate 

bill as it came from the Committee on Railroads without change or amendment. Being paired on the bills, !withhold myvoteon the pending amendment. . · 

Mr. 1t1ILLER, of New York. I am paired with the -Senator from 

Maryland [Mr. GROOME]. 

The result was announced-yeas 26, nays 20; a follows: 

Allison, 

Ba:~ ard, 

Blah·, 

Cameron of Wis., 'Chace, · Dawes, 

Dolph, 

Aldrich ' Beck, ' Call. 

Cockrell, Coke, 

YEAS-26. 

Frye, 

Hawley, 

Hoar,. Ingalls, 

Jqnes of Nevad"a., 

Lapham, 

Manderson, 

l\fitchell, 

l\lorgan, 

Morrill, Palther, P1ke 

Platt, 

.Plumb, 

NAYS-20. 

C<mger, 

Cullom. 

Edmunds, 

Fair, 

Hampton , 

.Jackson, 

Kenna, 

McPher. on, Maxey, 

Saulsbury, 

ABSENT-30. 

Bowen, George, .Jonas, 

Brown, Gibson, . .Jones of Florida, 

Butler, Gorman, Lamar, 

Camden, Groome, Lo<>'an Camer6n of Pa., Hale, 1\lclt:lillan, 

Colqultt, Harris, Mahone, . Farley, Harrison, JlljlJer of Cal., 

Garland, ~Ii~, Miller of N. Y., 

Pugh, 

Sabin·, Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherm&u. 

Slater, 

Vanee, 

Van W)rclc, Vest, Wilson. 

Pendleton, 

"Ransom, 

Riddlebet-ger, 

Voorhees, Walker, 

WillialllS. 

•. 

So the amendment to the amendment ~ agreed t{). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GARLAND ilL the chair}. The 

question recurs on the amendment oft'ered by the Senator from Ken- ·tncky [Mr. BECK] as amended, ;md upon that the yeas and nays have 

been ordered. 

:Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, before the final vote is taken upon 

this amendment of the Senator from Kentucky I desire to submit _a few 

remarks to the Senate. · • · 

The struggles of a great abuse to prevent its abolition and reform is 

one of the most instructive views which a political student can take of our history. It shows better than anything else the strength which 

power and wealth can e~ertin resisting simple truth and justice: 

Now, .sir, I believe without exception everybody admits that great 

wrongs and abuses have crept into the management of transportation 

lines in" this country; and a few SenatoJS in this body with common- sense instincts believe that i~ is our duty to try to eradicate those abuses. 

Others say that it can not be done and therefore it is best not to try; . 

while others again profess to try but witlt snQh weak measures that it 

almost b~mes a caricature of legislation. 

Mr. President, let ns .. ex.amine for a IpOment the reason given b.r 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1195· 

thosewho obstruct reform in railroadmanagement. In the first place, of the business except. by actual experience. You will dQ more harm 

theysaythatwe·are too ignorant on the subject; that the United States than you will do good by your enactment, ' continues the address of the 

Senate does not comprise tpe ability or the experie-nce or the knowl- delegation tQ the Legislature, " you will do more harm than good by 

edge ufficienttolegislateon thlssubj~ct: Thisissaid, Ibelie>ealmost your laws if you are n<'t verycareful; we can not standinflexible, iron 

without exception, by all who speak in de.J?recation of these attempt n~les; we must beleftt9theeffectofcompetitionand thelawsoftrade. 

at reform. The Senator from Alabama LM:r. PUGH], a day or two . If you are not careful and your law become too rigid, you willabseago, avowing his own, alleged the universal ignorance of the Senate lutely force u to go to work, or you will drive us into the pork bllili~ 

on this subject; and he invited us to look for light to one Albert Fink, ne s, in'which case the pig-raisers of the country will have to bear the anu to listen to what ·he said as pointing out the true path of reform~ loss of the short bani on chickens. If you will go into this business, 

the aforesaid ·Mr. Albert Fink being one of the ohief indi;ridualB whose if you will undertake to enact laws about a business of which you are doing it is proposed to reform. profoundly ignorant, the least you cando is to hear us and our experts 

Now, sir, of the intricate details of transport:l.tion, and of the com- and business men and follow our advice. We offer to you, in lieu of 

plicated rh-alri~; theconflictingintere ts of the variou. lines, I prof~ss your imperfect knowledge, the testimony of one Bill Sykes, who has 

myself to have very little knowledge; much less ha \"e I any knowledge been in the busin for tbrty years, and, in :fuct, is an expert. He can of the va.dous tricks of the trade, and it is to be hoped.. at least that all tell an ohl hen from a pnllet by starlight in the top of the loftiest apple 

other • enators are in like· blissful ignorance. But of the common prin- tree in a Jhrm-yard. • Hear him. If you are determined to pursue this 

ciples of justlce and of right and wrong I do profess to have a reason- course, take Sykes s ad·\ice, appoint a committee of constables in every 

able amount of knowledge, and I ·ask any Senator what it is there that neighborhood to watch us when we go out upon our nightly forays, and 

is abstruse and incomprehensible and unmanageable by the ordinary see llow many fowl we take ai1d from whom we take them, but..do not 

methods of legislation in. what is known as the R~gan bill, the House give them any power to arrest us; simply let. them throw the light of 

bill, for which it is proposed to substitute the Senate bill. publicity in upon our doings; perka.ps we will quit of our own accord; 

If I remember aright the pro vi ions of th:1t bill, they provide in the but we think in fairness to both parties, as you profess to ·want to do 

:fi..t-st place that freights shall be rea onable. I cim see nothing pecri.l- justice to all. classes oft he community we ought to .have a hand in ap- ·iarly abstruse in that. If it. is, we mu t charge the obscurity upon the pointing that commission that is to watch us!" common law. · That is about the sum and substance of the argument used in this 

Second. That one man shall pay no more than another man for the case. Yon are ignorant, they say, of everything connected with railsame· service. Is that beyond the comprebeusion of any Senator? Is roads; you do not-know anything about the complications and ra.mifi.-

tha.t beyond the comprehension of any page who waits upon us on this cation of this transportation business throughout all regions of the 

floor? · country, and all the interest of b~!ness people, and how there is action 

Ifprovides again that there hall be no rebate nor drawback, which and reaction; and bow a single L'tw that you will pass here, simple as is simply another form of stating that all men shall be cilllrged alike it m:ly look, will redound to the ruin of all men who have invested capifor the like service. · tal in these great enterpt·ises. That is a.hout the argument. 

It provides again that the arrc.Lilgement called pooling betwe-en these · Sir, I am willing to confcs ·my ignorance of the details and tricks of 

railroad lines or transportation lines of all kinds shall not be permitted- the trade of mil road transportation, and acknowledge that it is perhaps 

that is to say, that t-he pooling arrangements, which are intended to as great as that of any Senator on tllis floor. But that a pnhlic jn.stismother competition and to keep up prices in despite of the well-known tution, affected with a public "interest and chartered by the laws of the 

economic effects of competition, shall be forbidden. . Is there anything land and gi >en peculiar pri \·Heges for the purpose of doing certain things, 

very abstruse in that? Will any Senator say that this is a dangerollS should charge one man more than another for the same service, should 

nbject upon whlch he feels hesitation to enter? be permitted to smother the law of competition and keep up prices~ i5 

Again, the House bill p;ovides that greater charges sllall not be made something that if I were to con tess my ignorance of I would confess my 

for hauling products over a railroad a part of the distance than are made unworthiness to ·a seat in this or any other legisJati>e body in Christenfor hauling them over the same railroad the whole distance. If there dom. . is anything incomprehensible or D.lysterious about that which the plain Now, ir, they tell us that pooling is absolutely necessary; and I ~11 

common sense of Senators can not comprehend, I contess that 1 have your attention, ~It\ President; and that of the Senate to the argument 

been unable to find it. It is as plain a proposition to me as ever wa of Ur. Albert Fink w}).ich was read to us the other day and indorsed 

submitted to a legislator; and the abuses resulting from tlle· practices by the Senator from Alabama, on this subject. Pooling is absolutely 

whifh this portion of the bill se~ks to prohibit are as flagrant and as ne(·essnry! "~hat for? Why, in the first place, to keep up the charge.<J 

wei recognized as any abuses connected with the transportation sys- upon I he long haul, or from coropetiti\·e points to competitive points. 

tern. Well, what good doe.'i that do? That enables the railroad companies, 

Again ahd last.ly it requires the. rates prescribed by the railroad com- they say, to keep down the charges on t~e short haul or on the local 

panies to be printed and posted t{p in every depot, so that e>ery shipper frE'ight. It seems to me th'at I have heard that argument before on an- may know precisely what he has to pay. That may be incomprehen- other subject. It seems to me that I have heard it said on this floor 

sible to some Senators, but it seems to me plain that any man, how- tlmt a high protectiYe.ta'riffwould enable-the manufacturers topa.ytheir ever innoeent, wh~ ever saw a railroad. ought to be able to understand workmen higher wages; and that is very true, but I call your attenit, and how it conld affect witll a dangerous. action or reaction any ot' tion to a distinction between the ability of men to do things and the 

the interests of the railroads or the capital invested therein, is some- disposition of men to do things. They are able to pay their workmen 

thing I can not understand. higher w~aes; but do they do it? That i th~ question. Ifthe rates 

Again we are told by those who desire to devise mean to ob truct on the long hanl were kept up I acknowledge that it would enable the 

these reforms, that it ts dangerous to undertake it because of the great railroad men to reduce the fi·eight on the short haul; but wonld they nu:qiber of persons enf_raged in railroading. the great number of lines of do it? That is the question. Have they ever done so? I ~ve never railroads, the great number of miles of railroad tracks that .they 'oper- k:rio"-u the local freight charge upon people who were in the absolut-e· 

·ate, and the vast amount of capital engaged therein. They say there power of the road, and who could not patronize another, to be reduced, are over 1, 200 separate di tinct lines of railroad, co>ering 125,000 miles let the long haUl be higher or lower. 

of track, and therefore it is dangerous, and it is complicated, and we Well, they say again that it is nec'e5 ary to permit pooling for the 

ought not to attempt to legislate in regard to it . . Why, Mr. President, reason that the rates in that way can onl:y protect themselves against 

the same thing might be said of larceny; that there were so many peo- what may be called competitive strife; and Mr. Fink draws a very nice 

pie engaged in it and had been at all times, and they were $0 ramified distinction_, which as a· lawyer you ca.ri. understand, between legitimate 

through ,all portions of the community that it was dangerous to under- competition and competitive strife, as he calls it(. When the railroads 

t.ake to legislate to restrain. The same thrng might be said of fraud, are all at peace-with each other there is a legitimate competition beand of all crime. tween tnem as to who-shall plunder the people most, but when the pools 

Suppose, if yon can so imagine, a community of a somewhat Area- are broken up and competition exerts its natural force, then the com- dian simplicity where the crime of robbing hen-roost had come to be petition is as between themselves, and that is what 1\Ir. Fink calls" com- something of a nuisance; and suppose the Legislature, listening to the petiti ve strife, " or "cut-throat" competition, as the Senator from· 

clamors of the rural population engaged in that kind of industry, should Georgia [M:r. BROWN] tetmed it the other day. 

underu\ke to legislate and enact more stringent laws to prevent and Mr. President, that argument· amounts to this, aud nothing more, punish the · offense; and about the time they were ready to prC>ceed, that if you do not permit the railroads to plunder t.he people they-will 

suppose that a delegation from persons engaged in the hen-roost rob- plunder eaclt other. That is what it means. If yon will pennit them 

bery business should appear before the Legislature and shonld say to ·to m:~ke pools and put up the rates on their long hauls from all com- them, "Sirs, without meaning to be offensive; we warn yon that you are petitive points to the i~jury of the people, they will refrain from inignorant ofthis business; we notify you that the robbery of feathered juring each other; but if you don<ttdo that, if you compel them, they 

animals that fly is a highly complicated and technical business, differ- say, to meet the force of competition at all competiti\e points and let 

ing very much from the ordinary vulgar robbery of animalB that walk the charges for the long haul be reduced, then they will go to fighting 

upon the earth. We assure you that· all theoretic and speculative among themselves. · 

knowledge on this subject is entirely misleading and unsafe. There is I This is a candid defense of the policyofpoolin~ at all events, wheth2r a. popular error abroad on this subject, and~ been from the days of it be an acceptable one to the public or not. I should like to ask if 

old ~loses d'own. We &ay that no legislator can have any knowledge there is any reason why competition should not be peimitted and eoI 
1196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. FEBRUARY 3, 

oouraged between tr-.;msportati~n lines just the saine as it is permitted 

and encouraged and becomes the obYious policy of the law in all other 

busine...."S? But it seems that there is to be a different rule adopted in 

rela.tion to the b:ansport4tion companies from that ~hich operates in 

all other business. Senators will get up on this floor and they will ar- gue very eloquently indeed, and yet do nothing; in fact I believe that 

the eloquence exhibited bere is in inYei e proportion to the disposition 

of the speakers to do anything .to remove the evils whic4 are the subject of their eloquence. The moment you undertake to do anything 

practical to remove the evils they all with one accord begin to make excuses. They will exclaim almost, if not quite, in the language of 

Scriptme: " Touch not mine incorporated, domyproffits no harm " - spelling it with two" f 's. " _ · · · - In justification ofthe pOsition that nothing. -hould be done, Senators 

have undertaken, it seems to me, to ch:mge thei ue entirely. IlmYe 

listened to some of the mo ·t eloquent speeches that I ha-\c eYer had the 

pleasure of hearing in praise of railroads pe1· e. We have been told 

that they are most excellent things for any Civilized community. I 

listened, notably, to the speech of the Senator from G~rgia, in which he 

oold us what benefit they had conferred on the communities that came within his kllowle:lge; how the great apd pro perous city of Atlanta, 

or the ground on which it now stands, had not many years ago beon 

bought for the prioeofa horse, bridle, and saddle, and now it is covered 

mth great bu iness houses and immen e wealth. We ha•e been told, al.s?J how it increases the price of L<md, and how it causes vast additions 

to tne population and w the business of the country. I listened to these 

encomiums upon the institution of railroads until I-became con\inced 

and well satisfied in my mind that a. railroad could actually beat an old dirt-road and wagon-for the transportation of freight-let me speak 

cautiously-I mean for long distances and for hea ry loads; and I became 

satiSfied that steam as applicable to water com·eyances was absolutely 

better than the old-fashioned raft, because the old raft _ had frequently 

to wait until tbe river rose, whereas the steamboat, ·as I haYe been 

told, could get up steam, and, if the vessel did · not draw too much 

water, start off just ·the same as you. could start a. wago1:1 on the road. 

So I was convinced that the railroads were useful -things, and I was convinced from the course of the argument that the attempt was made 

to. make the public believe that those of us who wanted to reform the 

operations of. rdilroads were opposed to those institutions; else if it were not for. that purpose it" was certainly wasted eloquence. · The Senator 

from Georgia in particular used the term, " a long tine of steel rails 

against·_which so much has ·been said. ' :Xow I should like to know 

wllo has said: anything against steel mils. Who has said anything 

against long lines of steel rails? Who- has said anything . against the 

superior advantages of railroads overthe old-fushioned methods of con- veyance? I have not heard any such thing said on this floor, and I do 

not remember to have heard any-such thing said eYen by the statesmen 

who preside over the destinies of the intersections of highways in the 

rural districts. But because they do all these things is that any reason for refusing to control those who manage the~? _ We are told again that freights are cheaper now than they eYer have 

been. That is Iio doubt true: We a.re told that this fa.ct is due to the 

railroads. That is undoubtedly tme. But that the freights on railroads would be cheaper eYen than they now are but for the management of the managers of-railroads in resisting the clamor of the people for a reform is most true vf all. ~o thanks tO.railroad managers for oheap 

freights. We owe thanks to science that has given them superior means of transportation O\er the old methods. .That is where we owe thanks; 

and whenever the Huntingtons- and the Goulds and the Vanderbilts 

and the Finks et id gem ts Qmne come he1:e or anywhere else and claim · credit for cheap freights, they claim that which is due to science, and 

that which has been brought about in spite of their energies to maintain high freights. As well might the sieve claim praise for yielding up 

the water. which was poured into it as for them to claim credit for the 

charges whieh they can not get and ha.Ye tried in vain to get. 

Because the manufacturer of cloth, equipped with all the inventions 

of :modem science, can make cheaper cloth than the old hand-loom and 

cards, are we therefore particularly and specially to adore tha.t manu- facturer? Do we owe any of the adnmtages of chilization arising from 

cheap literature to the genius of the authors and the art of printing, or do we owe it all to the -compositors who set np the type and the pressmen who strike off the work? Do we owe anything to Morse and to 

·science for the telegraph, ordo·weowe it aU to the men who set up the 

poles and arrange the wires ? And because printing has been beneficial 

to civilization, shall there therefore be no laws against slander, libel, and 

defamation of character? And because telegraphs are useful, shall 

there be no laws to regulate them in their dealings with the community? 

Verily, sir, it would seem not. But, in my opinion,. every ill$titution 

of any kind whatsoever, whose operations affect the public should be 

made subservient to the laws and the regu1'ltions imposed upon them 

by the laws. _ · Nor is it true, sir that we owe any great amount of credit to the rail-

~oad corporations of the country for their generous investment of capital for the public good. At least half of ::ill .the railroads, if nota ma- jority, with which I have personal acquaintance, were either built by 

tho p01.blic taxation of the States or they were bUilt by syndicates who 

would commence operatwns with about half the means necessary to 

finish. · They would go through the country and have public_ meetings 

called, speeches made, and the public expectation excited, and obtain 

all th~ private subscriptions that were possible, all the town and county 

subsci:iptions that cotlld be obtained toward building the road; and 

when they were all received and expended in building the road, and 

perhapsihey would about half finish it, then a mortgage by the syndicate would be placed upon the whole work for its completion, and in 

duetimethatmortgagewould be foreclosed; theprivatestock, thetown 

and county stock, and all the little -fellows would be forced out, and 

the road pa.gsed int() the han de; of the syndicate for half price. · That is 

tho history of the roads built in my country; that is the history ofthe 

majority of them, perhaps everywhere, especially in the earlier periods 

of railroad construction. They are not now in the hands of ~he men whose money was originally put in to construct them; and yet men and 

the representatives of men who obt-ained control oftll.ese corpoiateworks 

in this manner are the very loudest in protest?-ng against any laws being 

passed which shall interfere-with their right to do as they please with 

their property . 

It is ~so worthy of note that much as these roads deprecate any interference of (he law with their right to do as. they please, they are willing, on the other hand, ·to obtain some more concessions from the 

law-to strengthen them in their unjust discriminations. Witness the 

willingness and the anxiety of 1\Ir. Fin~ and others to obtain laws 

making their pooling system legal. . . The amount of capital inv~ted in railroads in this country, upon the 

face of the statisti~s, we find to be a.bout 7,500,000,000, in round num- bers, and. the gross receipts that they obtain for their operations from 

the people amount, in round numbers, to $823,000,000 per annum. Thereforeitis eeu at once that thesecorporationswhich it is preposed 

shall not be controlled by the public levy and CQllectfrom the American people about two and a half times more money annually than is 

levied and colJected by the Government of the United StateS for its support; and these are the institutions which we propose to exempt from 

all control 

Why, sir, the territory of this country is parceled out for taxation by 

these ~ailroads in great geographical boundaries, as the Romans_ parceled out the adjacent world for conquest and plunder, assigning con- suls and armies 1or the purpose. These financtal fields are assigned to 

certain groups of transportation lines whicl! are governed by central 

associations. Mr. Fink is at tho head of one, and the Senator from 

Georgia informed us the other day that he was at the head of another; 

anrl there are still others beyond th~ Mississippi. I am told that the 

region of country which each line is permitted to supply is carefully 

laid out, and any trespass by competing lines on that territory a-s well ~ any infringement of the established rates is promptly punished by 

the central association. So the great syndicates which regulate freights 

have, in fact,.a greater power over the property and fortunes ot our people than Congress is inYested witq, for the taxing power of Congress 

is limited and defined by the Constitution;· but what is to limit or define the tax of the transportation lines either ~n methods or amount? J 

Most of our States provide in their constitutions that ta:x~tion shall 

be uniform; but Senators say that it will not begin to do to apply the 

principle of uniformity to the taxation imposed by corporations. Many 

of the States protide that taxation shall be ad valorem, but this the - friends of monopoly reject on behalf of the railroads; yet the represent~ 

atives. of the people, their powers being Iin:Pted by the Constitution, are 

still further restrained by the direct responsibility which they owe to 

the people, whereas there is no responsibility whatever upon those who 

regulate rates for transportation. They meet in secret conclave; they are afraid of nobody; they a.re afraid of no influence. They levy tax.: 

ation-not according to the ad valorem character of the property on which 

it is levied, butaccordingto the a-mount which the productwill bearthat is to say, they take the last cent that they can U\.l{e without stopping the shipment and transportation of the article; and as for the public, they are in a position to say, as it is said one of their greatest men ha said, '

1 The public be damned. '' · .And yet Senaoors say th~e things must not be changed! . ~Ir. President, I was wrong. I confess there is a mystery .about this 

transportation business after all. It is a great and incomprehensible 

mystery to me. That mystery consists in the meek endurance, the longsuftering patienCe of the .American people. That is the most mysterious 

thing connected with the whole transaction. 

It is too late to say that there is no power in the law to control these 

corporations or to redr~ the grie:vruices under which we labor. The 

great lawyers of the country ha•e settled that. They are publicinstitntions; they are subject to public control by virtue of their public 

capacity. The States within their borders can regulate them, and under 

the power given in the Constitution to Congress they can be rt-gulated 

by Congress when their lines extend beyond the State borders. If not, 

then they are micontrollable; and·as the great wealth of the country con- sists in the value of its productions, and as these derive all their _valne 

from the facility with which they can be got to a market, we might as 

well surrender at once the property and fortunes of our peo;tle to incOrporated human avarice. 

Candid Senators should look llle issue squarely in 1.he face, and 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1197 

should say either that they will or that they will not undertake to regulate these great railroads. There should be no more dodging-if I may 

be excused the expression; there should be no more doubting aa to the 

power; there should be no more pleas of ignorance of the subject, and 

that they are afraid of doing wrong, because they per~t wrong to be 

done every hour by failing to act. · · . As for the Senate bill which it is propoSed to substitute for the House 

bill, however well meant it may have been, I oonsider it entirely d~ 

lusive; I consider it absolutely inefficient. Why, Mr. President, it is 

proposed that nine commissioners shall operate over thirty-eight States 

and eig'Qt Territories, shall control and regulate traffic as far as it is 

invested with the power to do so over 1,200 railroads and 125,000 

miles of lines. That of itself will impress every ca.ndid-think:ing man 

in the country with the idea that the purpose of the Cullom bill is to 

tlo nothing, that it is the direct progeny of the circumlocution office 

where the highest effort of British genius was "how not to do it." 

That is the way, it seems to me, that candid statesmen will be compelled to view it. · . . What remedy does it give that does not already exist? It is already 

the privilege of any citizen who feels himself aggrieved to bring a suit 

against a railroad company for the redress of his wrongs. As the law now stande he can bring if either in the State courts or in the Federal 

courts, acoordjng to the question of jurisdiction. This bill would compel 

him to bring two suits and to bring both in the Federal tribunal-that 

is to say, he must first go before this commission. Where will the com- mission sit? Is it to be a traveling oommission, and are its writs, "like 

those of the old Engl.ish. kings, to be returnable ubicu·nque fueri 1n-us '! 

After he b~ brought all his witnesses and employed his counsel and · made his case known to the commisSion, and the commission decides 

in his favor, then what? Then the commission can do him no good. 

He is permitted to bring his suit, and he is to have the service of the 

district attorney of the district for the purpose of bringing his suit, with 

all the penalties ·aa to costs and all the misf9rtunes arising from failure 

that he bas now. Ifthesecommissionersareinvested with the extraordinary powers proposed-not in extent, but in character-to be given 

them by this bill, I hope that there )Vill be appended as their instructions Dogberry's charge to the watch· when he stationed them for the 

night. Says Dogberry, addressing the watch: "You are tbougbthere 

to be the most senseless anil fit man for the cons~ble Qf the watch, 

therefore bear you the lantern. This is your charge: You shall com- prehend all vagrom men; you are to bid :my man stand in tbeprince's name. Watch: How if a' will not stand? Dogberry: Why, then, 

take no notA3 of him, but let him go; and presently call the rest of the 

watch together, and thank GOO you are rid of a knave." · These commissioners are charged by the bill to comprehend all vag- rom raUroads, and bid them do justice in the name of the United 

States, and how if they will not do justice? Well then you are to .take no note of them, but let them go and call the commissioners together, 

and tb:mk God you are rid Of a knave. That is the proposition with 

which gra:ve Senators expect to satisfy the clamor of the country ! 

Mr. President, let me remind Senators of the story of the Sibylline 

books. You ~I remember that when the old Roman king was offered 

the whole I,rine at a certain high price be refused to purchase them. 

The Sibyl went away and burned three, and returned and offered 

him six for the same price. He still refused. The Sibyl went away 

and burned three more, and came back the third time and offered him 

the three for the same price, and_ by the advfce of the augurs the price was 'paid. Now, ·sir, let me say to Senators that you will reject the 

demands of the people now, the honest demands for the redress of.tbese 

grievances. I have no doubt the corporations have friends enough in 

this Congress to enable them to defeat a measure that will do any good; 

but the people will not abate one jot of their honest demands, and at 

every refusal their favor for the railroads will become lffiS and less, and 

they will ultimately attain the full mea.c;ure of all that they ask. 

I shall close these few imperfect remarks by .repeating what I said in 

debate some two weeks ago, that the interests of all concerned, railroad 

men and the public, will be subserved if the corporations will come in 

with a spirit of fairness ~nd give us the advantage of their technical 

knowledge, and lead us in the safe and wise way to, redress these grievances. The · PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The 

question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky as amended. · Mr. BECK. I desire to say that I shall vote against the amendment 

I offered because the amendment made to it was evidently intended to 

destroy it, and I agree that it does. It was voted for generally by the men who intended to kill the House or Reagan bill, so called, and I am content to stand on the provisions of the Reagan bill as they came from 

the House, rather .than vote for an amended amendment which I intended in good faith to be attached to the bill for the purpose of getting clear of many of the things which gentlemen on the other side 

have always <'laimed the Senate bill provided for better. In regard to 

regulating hauls along a line where one haul ·might be longer than another, it was said there might be terminal difficnl:ties at different points 

along the line t~at made it important to charge a little more for a some- w bat shorter haul than was cbarged for a longer one. I looked into the 

matter and-sought in good faith to remove-one flagrant evil, an acknowledged evil, and that was to say and to say no more than that the· charge 

for hauling over thew bole length of the line should be as great as should 

be made for a haUl over any lesser or shorter part of it. 

No man can deny that the proposition is fair and just, leaving all the 

questions in regard to intermediate hauls, whether they were a little 

longer or a little shorter,to be arranged hereafter. But when the Senate adds '

1

under similar oonditions and ciicumstances,'' it is evident 

that.tbere can be no similar conditions and circumstances between a 

haul part of the way and a · haul the whole length of the line. The 

oonditions and circumstances must differ; the terminal points must be 

different. The conditions perhaps as to the cost of taking off or putting on freight must be different; and it must open up~ series of-lawsuits 

and controversies with the great power and wealth of the combined 

railroad corporations against the individual man who has the courage or audacity to sue them, by being able to say, u You know the conditions 

and circumstances were different because the termini were different, 

and many other conditions were different; " and no individual man will venture to enter into controversies with a system of roads controlling 125,000 miles and $6,000,000,000 of capital.. · · 

When my amendment to the first section of the Honse bill was voted 

down I saw very clearly what would be the-tactics of the enemies of 

the bill. . They dicl not intend to make it any better or less objectionable than it was when it came from the House. One of their principal 

grounds of attack was that the House bill limited the passenger charge 

to 3 cents a mile by providing that the railroads should not charge more than that for passenger travel. I thought that there might be conditions under whicl;l it might be proper to charge more than that. I did 

not deshe to .go into the question of limiting thein as to their passenger charge ~ -per mile. Let that be settled by a commission after examination. But most of tlie- enemies of the House bill, ·who wer_e opposed to 

the 3-cents-a-mile clause, voted upon a call of the yeas and nays to retain 

that provision in the House bill. Why? · Was it beca'u.se they desired 

it to be retained? No; it bad been their main point of attack. I was 

seeking-to divest the House bill of that objection and of other provisions, ~;uch as distinctions between one short haul and another short;er 

hanl, neither of which extended over thew hole length of the lin~, which 

was another of tb'eir points of attack, 80 as to make the House bill as little objectionable to them as possible. And yet upon a call of the 

yeas and nays the RECORD will show that a large majority of the men who are opposed to the House bill, nearly all who desire to do nothing 

but· to allow the railroads to continue tbe.n,psolute control over the com- merce of ·the country which they ·have now in the interstate roads, :VI 

who desire that Congress should adjourn and have the Senate get away 

as far from the House as possible and leave the conferees nothing to 

oonfer, certainly nothing to agree ahout, placed themselves on record to 

maintain in the House bill the very provisions they had contended made 

it unoonstitutional, and therefore vicious l~<rislation. · . _ No higher evidence can be. given to .prove to the country that they 

do not intend to consider the House bill or to make it correspond with 

the views tbey 'profess to entertain. Now, when they have added an amendment to my amendment, by which I in good faith sought to make. the bill more acceptable to the men who weroopposing some of the provisions of _the House bill by saying we Will not go into the question of 

charges between different short hauls over portions of the road, but will 

simply deal withone·greatquestion,which is that the maximum charge 

furanyseryiceuponanyroadshall bethemaximumchargedoveranypart 

of it, leaving the other matters to be considered hereafter, they oppose 

it. I illustrated yesterday tbat.it was n.n outrage ·to charge $800 per car to Virginia City, Nev., and only $300 for an eight hundred miles 

longer haul to San Francisco over the same line, on the same train, .for 

the same class of goods; and when I called that to the attention of the 

Senate, and also alluded to the charge from Memphis to New Orleans 

of $1 a balet and from Winona to New Orleans, a s~orter haul by one hundr~ ana twenty-five miles, at $3 a bale, the Senator from Kansas 

said there were only two or three cases of that sort, as if there bad been more the Senator from Kentucky would hav~ mentioned them.. There are hundreds of such cases; there may be th~usands of them. In t~e 

city where I live within a very few.years we have paid more to get 

freight from Cincinnati to LexingtQn than it cost to bring the same freight from New York to "Cincinnati. I have before me the argument 

of Judge Black, of Pcmisylvania, wherein be s_bowed that some years 

ago coal w~cb was hauled from the mines of Pennsylvania through the 

city of York, Pa., for sixty miles farther along the same line on the same train to Baltimore w~ delivered to the purchasers in Ba.ltimore 

at a dollar and a half a ton less than it was delivered to men in York, on the same line of road1 sixty miles nearer the mine. Thus, men living in York, Pa., carrymg on blast-furnaces for .eiample, oould not 

compete with men living iB Baltimore carrying on the same business, 

because their coal costs them a dollar and a half a ton more in York 

than it does in Baltimore, though the coal that went to Baltimore was 

hauled sixty miles farther over the same road on the same train that 

left it at York. . · 

. Mr. PLUMB. Will the Senator from Kentucky·permit me to aak 

him a questio.n? - Mr. BECK. Yes, sir. 

I 
1198 OONGRESSIONAL: RECORD-SENATE. 

Mr. PLU!)ffi. I ('Bk him if the two cases which he bas mentioned, Mr. PLUMB. No; it gives him that additional right. one of the transportation to Baltimore. and to York and the other the Mr. BECK. And if he does not get consent from them, he can not 

transportation fromCincinnaii to Lou:isTille and Lexinocrton, are not getmnchfurther. Theirreportswill,ofcon.rse, bemadeupintheinter. cas~ of unjust discrimination? est of the corporations, who will dictate who shall compose the oom.miaMx. BECK. Obviously. sion, JUSt as the men interested dictated the Tariff Commission. 

Mr. PLmm. Then are theynot speeifi.Callyprovidedforin the Sen- . Mr. PLUMB. I ask th.e Senator why would a commission be any 

ate bill? more the creature of the corporations than a court appointed by the 

Mr. BECK. _The Senate bill provides for nothing except through same authority and confirmed by the sa.me Senate? 

the action of a commission of doubtful constitutionality . . There wpuld ~Ir. BECK. The court is appointed for life, or good behavior, and i.!l 

not be a railroad in the country that would not attack the legality of independent of everybody, ~epublicanor Democrat, and cnn not be disthat commiBsion, both for .its semi-legislative powers and semi-judicial tnrbed, because .they do not pander to power. The Tarift' Commi&'3ion, 

powers, and keep all questions made against them in the courts of the everybody know , was made up and controlled by the parties in intercountry for five years to te.st that question. If it i& not unjust dis- est, and men interested were allowed to draw their own schedules, as crimination, why n.Ot l~t the man affected go to the courts of thecoun- the Senator from Iowa. [Ur. ALLISON] said in his speech in regard t~ 

try·where he can have a hearing without let or hindrance or appeal to the cotton schedule, and as we all know was done in regard to the sugar 

any commission o..r to any other body of men to control his action? and other· schedules. Why did Charles F.rallcis Adams, when he was Mr . . PLUMB. Will the Senator advise me as to the particular pro- disinterested, argue in favor of the Reagan bill and every principle of it, 

vision of the Constitution which is violated by the appointment of this and then turn around when employed by the milroads and denounce 

commission? theHousebillandallsimilarlaws? Why did Mr. Fink, withhis$26,000 

1\Ir. BECK. Congress has the power t.o regulate commerce among a year, go before our Labor Co,mmittee and talk about the folly of legthe States, but we have no right to invest any body of men with the islation unless you gave the power to him? We may as well underpower of a oonrt by om: appoint~ent for a term of years, for one, two, stand that 1,200 great railroad corporations', with $6,000,000,000 capithree, four, five, or nine, as this commission is. .Judges must be ap- tal, controlling 125,000 miles, are too big almost for Congress to hanpoinred for life or good behavior. Have we, I ~k the Senator from die, far less a body of three, four, fi¥e, se¥en, or nine men. Kansas? . But I rose only to say that I would vote against my own amendment, 

Mr. PLUMB. I do not think. we are creating a court. to do that. emasculated. as it is now by the amendment added to it. 

J!.!r. BECK. Then what do ·we create the commission for? Mr .. CULLOU. 1\lr. President, I bnly desire .to say a word, and I 

Mr. PLUMB. We create a certain agency to act under such instrnc- should not have done that had it not been for the Senat.or from Kentions as may be from time to time given to them by Congress in rCoo-ard tucky making the statement that the Senate bill is a cunningly devised 

to this matter? bill, the purpose of which is to do nothing. I undertake to say, sir, Mr. BECK. If you will read your own bill-·- that the House bill is a cunningly devised bill which will result in 

Mr. PLUMB. That is to say, we shall have done that. if this bill shall nothing so far as the public good is concerned, and I want to say that 

pass: If we have not the right to do this through any agency of that . I drew the Senate bill myself, and I di(l it because I believed as I dre~ 

kind, then of course·the only right we have is to dictate specific rates the bill that it was a bill which would operate in the interest of the 

for e>ery kind and character of haul that is transported over. a railroad people against· the corporations of this country. . line. There is no cunning about it so far a protecting or.shielding the corMr. BECK. I .beg pardon. poratio~ of the country is concerned; but it is a bill the result of my 

Mr. PLUMB. I want to say one othe~ thing in the same connection. judgment,. having 'had experience, more I may be allowed to say than 

I do not uilderstand that th~ bill in ..'l:DY .wise prevents any one from ex- the Senator fi'om }{entucky, in dealing with commissions and railroads, 

~ing any righ.t which he is now permitted to exercise. Every per- andneverhavingan interesttotheextentofa5-centpieceina.nyra.ilroad son .ean bring his suit for unj nst discrimination under the common law, on earth. But I believe from my experience that the Senate bill which 

and I remember a few days ago that a judgment was rendered in the is now before this body along with the House bill is the bi.IJ that will 

Standard Oil ease, which the Senat.or is undoubtedly familiar with, be- give t.he country relief from the impositions upon the people alleged by 

cause he is up in all that class of cases, in the city of CJev-eland, where the Senator from Kentucky. · the eourt held that the discrimination which had been practiced was The Senator talks about the House bill as being ·the remedy for all 

lllljust1 and awarded damages by reason of it; and that class of cases the evils that exist; but, in my judgment, that House bill would fall 

and all such caaes are permitted to go on as before if the party does·not to .the goound without any sort of consequence to the country at a~ behimself choose to resort to the remedies and to the agency provided by cause it would not be enforced in pradice before the country, andt as the Senate bill. . . the Senator from 1\Iassachusetts [Mr. DA \\"E ] suggests, it is impracti1\Ir. BECK. The very object of the House bill is to declare that acta cable. whic~ up to this time have not been unlawful shall be declared unlaw- The Senator from Kentucky talks about .the action of the States of 

ful Could the managel'S of the roads heretofore be punished for gi:ring this Union. It is true that about thirty States of the Union have legback rebates to the Standar4 Oil Company to the amountof$10, 000,000? islation and some of them constitutional provisions upon tlilit subject, 

What law prohibit-ed that? · None. ·We propose to pass a law saying but nearly all of them, about twenty-five of them I belie>e, have com- that that shall be unlawful. · missions for the purpose 'of executing whate>er laws the St-ates have 

Mr: PLUMB.. The oourt in Cleveland, Ohio, in-the absence of Con- passed on the subject. When the Senator talks about this being a gressionallegislation, decided it to be unlawful the other ~ay. novel proceeding, something unheard-o~ the Senat.or talks about what 

1\Ir. BECK. u~doubtcdly under State laws and State authority men is th~ role in this country so fur ris legislation is concerned by the can be reached for violatio~ of Sta.te law. Why was it necessary for . State governments. 

ten States in the Union to prohibit th~ acj.s in theii constitutions? I ~mly rose now to say that I desire to call the attention of the SenWhy was it necessary for thirty States to enact laws against them if ate to what has been the history of legislat].on in the British Govern-:-

they can be reached without law, and why should interstate commerce ment as well ~in this country on some of the points which have been 

remain without Congressional control while all the States of the Union referre4 to. I shnll refer to some passages in the paper before me. I 

are regulating their common. carriers by law? I should like the Sen- take !)Ut this paper not for the purpose of reading a speech, but simply a tor .from Kansas to answer that. If it was necessary for ten States to for the purpose of reading extracts from a report of a select committee 

put it in their constitutions, if it was necessary for the Legislatures of of Parliament upon the subjectB that are now before the Senate. 

thirty States to put it into their la:w-books, surely in the far larger class The report of this select committee was ordered published by the 

of cases under Congressional control as interstate commerce it is equally· house of commons in 1882. The. committee consisted of twenty-seven tt~ to declare what shall~ illeg{l.l, what shall be extortion, what members, and they were charged with the duty of looking into the workshall lie unjust discriminatio~ and what shall be the fine and other ings of the railway commission established in 1873, and to report any 

penalties for the inen who are guilty of such acts. Is it not important amendments to the laws governing rail"~YR and canals. Referring to 

to -say that.he shall be sent to jail either for a year, or a day, and be the railway (X)mm:ission, th~ committee say: 

fined not le~ than a thousand dollars if he is guilty? Would not that The next question iB the nature and conBtitutio•~ of the tribunal from which. 

be a great restraint and important. aid in prohibiting men from com- agpieved parties are to seek redress. Your oommittee are, first of all, of the 

mitting these offenses? o~mion that t~e ~ibunal should be made pe~nent ~~.ell 88 epecl.al . • The " . - railway COilliXUS!Iton has to a great extent been hindered m 1ts work by the t-em- Mr. PLUMB~ The Senator eTtdently has not read the Senate bill pora.ry character with which it has hitherto been invested. A.ti the same time 

. Mr. BECK. ·I have read the Senate bill, and I regard it a8 a very your oommi~ee are con,'inced that the. est&;bl~hm;ent.of a oom.missi<?n has been. 

cunning expedient to pretend to do a good deal and. to do nothing of great pubhc.advantage. not merely •n causl!lg JUStice~ be e~y do~e in . . · those cases wh1ch have been brought before 1t, but also m preventing dilfe~ 

?tlr. PLUl\IB. The House bill IB not of that sort! ences from arising 88 between railway companies and tho public. Its utility i8 

Mr .. BECK. . The Honse bill is not, because the Honse bill says that not to be meaa~ 80Iely by. the instances in which it has ~n .called upon .to 

unjust discrimination shall be punished by fine and imprisonment, and :=:~! d~termme, but also hy the deterrent and controlling mfiuence of 1b 

the man aggrieved may go directly to the .cou.rtB ~f the country and de- · mand redtess. Is there anything wrong or unusual about tb.a.t? Is Again, they say: that not the mlmly and direct way of doing it? . Representatives of the railway companiesHr. PLUMB. That is just what the .Sepate bill says. . .And I desire to call the attention of ihe Senatol' from· ~e11to.cky to 

Mr. BECK. · No; theSenatebillsays thatheshallgotoacom~on this subject- · and lay hi.s papers before them. · · · . - Represento.tlve of the railway companies, backed up by legal (;entlemen or 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL REOORD--8ENATE. 1199 

eminence, haye urged upon your oommittee that it is not desirable to continue . portion to the distance for which they are carried. This point 'Wrul urged before 

the spooial tnbunalin its present for-':11, but that the court should be recoll8ti- the royal oommission, and is so effectuall:r disposed of by their report that it 

tuted by the appointment of a. single Judge, to be selected fro~ t-he ~ncb or the seems scarcel:r necessaey to dwell upon it further. The:r say it would prevent 

b!ll, aided by a.sse880rswherever other than legal knowledge1s ~mred. railwa:r companies from lowering their tares and mtes so as to compete wltll_ 

Th S to fr K ·tuck · h d · · tsL'.\.t th" traftWbysea,bycanal,otbyashorterorotherwisecheaperrailwa.y andwouJtl . e ena 'I' om en . ycomesill erean lDSlS wm ~o mg ~husdeprivethepublicofthebene.litofcompetitionandthecompan'yo!alegitolS necessary but to pass an uon-clad law and turn the people o>er to 1mate source of]>rofit. · · the courts of the country. This committee of Parliament consisting of It wo~d preyentrailway companies from making perfectly !air arrangements 

tw ty be aft th English Go had had ' , for Cl\rrymg at 1}. lower rate than usual goods brought in larger and constant en . -seven mem ~~ . er e vernment . ten years quantitles, or for carrying for long distances at a. lower rate than for short di&-

expenence of a commiSSIOn, say that the lawyers representing the cor- ta.noes. 

porations go before them and insist on the repeal of the statute and . Uwould CC?mpel a. cofnpany tocar~y over a linew~ic~ has been ver:Ye~nsive 1 t' th 1 · toth urts th l · d h . el mconstructiOn,orwhlchfromgmdtentsorotherwLSeUJY.eryexpen81vemwork- ~e e.~ mg e peop e agam e co as e S? e JU ge anng pur Y ing, at the same rate at which it carries over less expensiYe lines. 

JUdictal controL We say that that does not g~ve the people the relief They further say that- • which we are seeking that they should have in this country because a . • · 1 · di-:-1 trib---, · t th kind f tribunal· that th' pl · The proposers of equal mtleage h:we admitted that there niust be numerous srmp e JU cuu l1ll<U IS no e 0 · e peo e ill exceptions where there is sea competition where low rates for long distances 

the mass of th~ cases can ever go to and get through in securing j~ will bring n.profit, or where the article oa.r~ied at low rates is a necessar:r, such 

tice against great corporations. We say that we want .a commission ~s coal. It lB scarcely neoessa.!Y to observe• that such exceptions as these, whila 

t d th t hall t be -"'-- ff +'- th · f th I tha madequate to meet all the var10us cases, destroy the value of equal milea"'e as crea ;e . a s no ~· 0 .uom e IIUl8S o e peop e t have a principle or the possibility of applying it as a general rUle. "' 

to deru w1th these corporations-not that they shall ha-.e to go to them, . . but that the commission, the tribunal specially created; shall go to the ~r. P1·es1de~t, I haT"e quoted ~noug~ to. show at least that t~e co~-

shipper and go to the people. So·u~der the bill of the Senate to-day, mittee ofParlia~ent, after long.mvestlgatlon, .after y~ ~fl~ve if it were a law, no shipper having a complaint would be compelled contt:oi of the. railways of .~e ~gd~m, were.unqn:alified m then: decto go out of his county or his toWI\ scarcely in mak-ing up his case laration that It would be IDJurlous to the.bwnness rnterests of the~­

and turning i~ over to the commission if he desired to do so, and that ple to.p~ a ~aw on ~hetheoryofequa.lmileagera~es. Ontheq~'?n 

is tile very theory upon which the bill was drawn; it is the very theory of legislation ?l rela~on t<> agr~ments between: railway compames-m 

given by these twenty-se,ven ~embers of a committee of Parliament, other words, ill relation to pooling-the committee say: • who say tkat the lawyers for the railroads want the commission repealed As to the ~nfeten~ of companies for the purpose or. mutual agree~ent, wch 

and · die' established fi th h · f th .. t l'k as.. the Engbsh and Irish tralllcconference, yourcoDlmltteewouldpomtoutthat a JU mr;r or . e eanng O e e C..'lSeS JUS ~1 e ~my such association are inevitable and find place in almost every branch of trade. 

others that mtght come before It. . . I tell. my fri~nds that we cannot expect to give any relief to the peo- Now, Mr. P~deut1 from what has been how:n.d~itn~~m wiser 

ple ngamst these corporntions unless we give them a pecial tribunal to lea>e out ot a:r;ty· b~ we maY: pass !hese proVISions whicli are danthat they can go to or that can come to them in making their com- ~erous to the bus~ess 1~terests lf .put mto ~ sta~te ~n~ en!orced,. and 

plaints, and afford them a tribunal that will look into t~e <'omplaints, ms~d t.opassa.b~makingextorhonand 't1DJnstdiscnmmationacrliD.e, 

.find the testimony, ca.rry it forward, make a decision, and if the corpo- pro~·t~e a. commtSSI6~ of a.ble a~d ~tono~le me:r;t to enforce the. law, a~d 

ration does not submit t<> it then turn it 0 ,·er to the courts and help the while domg so furrush .all the an.t?rm~t10n poss1ble for our gu1dance_ m district attorney in prosecuting it further. What does the Honse bill the enactrncn~ of m1~, .. turt~er l("gLSL'ltion. to secure a_bsolute protedi.on 

do in t.his case? The House bill says, it is ~rue, as the Senator from to tho p~pl~ m dealmg With t~nspoi·~tion .compames? . Indiana [Mr. IlABRisox] said y·esteTday, that they can go into the T!te prmc1ple of <J:overnm~nt rn~ectwn With a coilliD.lS3I!>n ~o enforce 

courts and sue, and iftlleyrecover ajlldgment they will be entitled to eqmta~le treatment IS s~fest and, rn the Ion~ run1 mor~ e:ft'ecti>e: . ~e 

smart-money . . So it is; that is the pl'otision oqhe Hou~e bill; but I people m ~ny of the Sta~esare w:ell.supplied w1th railroad faCilities: 

tell y~u, sir, that practicaliy I).O hipper of ordinary means will e>er get Y ?~ ma,r tra~erse th~ ron tLnent enJ~r.wg almost th~ comforts of l~ome. to the end of a prosecution in the courts. First, he would have to em- Fretg'ht IS shtp~d WI~ great expedi~1o~ from one side of the continent 

ploy a lawyer, pay him a retaining-feet<> follow his case, hunt up his to the .oth~r, a tact whtch I ~Iay.say ~ m a great measure due to the 

testimony, go through two or three courts, a"Qd if he u-.ed long enough . con oh~ation of roads. resultmg m umty o~ ~~ement. There is no and had money enough to pay the expenses he would then forsooth be com_plamt, then, on accou~t of lack of facilities or promptness o~ con- entitled to a little smart-money. >eme.ore . . Th~~e.are portions of the country where t~ere is s~a.l~k 

I say, Mr. President, that th~ interest of the people is in tbe line of of rmlro~ul facil.tttcs, and we should· be careful to ~~o1d any legislation 

establishing a commission that will g<> to the complainant. ask him the .eff~t of whtch wo~d be to put a t.op to ~he further investment of 

what his grievance is, ask him who hiswitnesses.are hunt up his wit- capital m t_h~ ~nstruction of rru.lroad-- m ectwnsofthecountrywhere 

nes~es, , take ~heir testimony, examine into the fuct~, make a t·eport, grer~~er !aallt.Ies are ?ceded .. Let us ~en favor · o~ly su~h ~e~isla~on notify the raD:road company, and if the railroad company do not pav as 1\ tl:l ecure the people agamst extortion and n;tJUst discn~tion, 

then tum it over to the district attorney and aid him in the pro;; all_ow:illg only reasonable ~barge.~ by transportation ~mpames: The 

cnti,on of the man's ca e in the ordinary courts af the country. But ~nnrtple that trm~ •. <qX>rtatlOn charg~ honld be mad~ m exact proporthe Senator from Kentucky says that we flo not allow the hipper to . t10o to the ex_nct_ ~lStD:nc~ o~e~· which ~ods are earn~, known as the 

go anywhere else. I say, as the Sena.tor from Indiana said yesterday, pro -:ata or mtle.'lge prmctple! IS recogm~ .as correct m the. abstract,. 

that a man has a right to pursue his own remedy a the law exists to- but It C.:'\n not be made of uni>e:rsa!- application, because ~ tariff should 

day if he does not desire tO allow the commission to look into the ca:;e. be based o!l the ~t of transportation, cost of road, quantity, and many 

But what does the Parliamentary comruittee 8ay in refer("nl'e to the other comnderatlons that must be counted as factors in determining people? It says: the ~pense of t~e transactiou. A la.w to prevent the exercise of busiFroni the t.~ers and the general pu!Jiic, Oil tlle oth.er h~nd. no de~aml ha n~ J ~dgment rn ·any case, and t~t ffi:3kes no a_ll?wance for the con- COID;e ror such a ~hang~. On the ~ntra:ry, the general t~nor of their eYidenee ditions that ca.use :rates to vary, will, ill my opm~on, be ~ bad law, 

exhibits sa~isf!lct10n wtth the sernces rendered to the puolic by the exi ting rail- ancl we would be called upon very soon to repeal It. Gram and fuel way commLSSI9n. and the necessaries of life should be ·carried at the lowest possible rates, 

"' "' · * *· '' * * . a1;1d .the profits made· by higher rates on luxuries. . Your OOD?Jllittee can not ee any 'reasowfol' reYersing the le~httion of 1873 "l'ri p 'd · h ft bee and re~ummg to ~he purely. legal tribuna.! which, as the court of common pleas . r. res1 ent, 1t as o en . n said in this Senate that the question was tned from 1854 t:o 1873.and then abandoned. ' of regulating commerce among the seYeral States is a great and im-

• · • " * * • '* portant one, and· yet there has seemed to be a little disposition to avoid . Your oommittee further consider ll.la.t the jurisdiction of the railwa,... commis- its consideration The subiect of the +.-.nannrta....:. f fre' hts d ~loners shoula be e~ended, and, ~hat they h.ould have pow~r to enf(;ree in the · OJ .., .. ~.!"" IILOn_o Ig an mterests of the publtc the prons10ns of general and special actaaffectiug rail- the mode of securing its transportation at the cheapest rate possible is 

WD:Y.companies (exclu iye of que..rotio~ touching the safety of passengers), to engaging the attention not only of the people of this nation, but of ~nJom .and enforce obedience and to gtve 1·edresa in any case ofiUegal charges, many of the !!Teat nations of the world We have about as manv miles 

mcludmgpower to order paym.ent of damages for any inj ur,· alrea.dv sustained. , • ' 0 · • · ~ " ., of railroad as all the rest of the world. They represent a nominal 

Th~ paragrap~, Mr. ~resident, are some of the expressions of' the capital of $7,000,000,000 and a real capital of between three and 

commtttee of Parliament rn 1 2, after more than ten years of' trial of four billions: The >a1ue of our internal com.n!erce is said to amo1mt to 

a commission, showing the judgment of that committee as to the im- 15,000,~0,000 per year. The railroads cairy tpe greater part of the 

portanoo of the commission and fa-.oring its retention with an enlarge- internal commerce of the couritry, by far the larger portion, and hence m~nt of i~s powers. In _England maxim~ rates are ·fixed by law. the attention gi>en by the people to the subject of Government reguThe question of equal mileage-and I desue to ·a k the attention of lation of interstate commerce. The Yast amount of-capital invested 

the Senate to this-i: discussed in the committee's report, which in- in these roads, furnishing facilities to the people for carrying them 

v?lves th.e questio:r;t of charges for long and short hams. The Honse and their products to market, should not be depreciated in valne nor bill provides that 1t shall be unlawful for any.person engaged in inter- the rightfl of the roads disregarded. And in the performance of our smte commerce to charge more for the transportation of property for a constitutional duty to re.::.aulate commerce between the States we should 

shorter than for a longer distance. The Senate bill says nothing about treat these corporations as we do other interests, with fairness. The 

long or sh?rt hauls, but leavea the commission charged with the d nty people should be protected from imposition at the hands of these transof prot:ecting the people from ext<>rtion and unjust discrimination. port.'l>tion companies. There should be no real antagonism between the 

Now, sJ.r, .what does the committee of the British Parliament say afte'r carrier aqd the customer, and in my judgment the way to avoid such 

years of_experien.ce? They sa.y: antagonism is to pass a bill providing against extortion and unjust disThe form which the proposal tor a fixed standard or charges baa usually taken crimination., arnd providing for the punishment of its violation, and t& Is equal mlle&ge--'1. e., a charge for each cll\98 of goods and passengers in pro- place the whole ma.tter in the bands of a commisSion fot: .enfOrcement. 
t~ 

1200 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--:-SENA-TE. FEBRUARY 3, 

I have-shown the position of Parliament and the English law on this 

subject. We are not safe in going further than the present law'of England goes. The best we can do will ·in a measure fail in satisfying 

the whole people1 and do the best we can in relation to the regula-_ tion of interstate commerce we shaH still be unable to secure the transportation of freights as cheaply as we hope they may finally be carried. 

While we are working in the interes~ of fair ·dealing between the railroads and the people and finally to reduce the rates, we shall be com- pelled to do as other nations are doing-not only regulate commerce on railroads, but give our attention to the improvement of all our water 

ways as well. While England is. now controlling and regulating her 

railways, she is at the same time entering upon a syst-em of canals 

which it is said Will cost $350,000,000, notwithstanding the fact that 

traffic by rail has been reduced to the minimum of cost. Gern;tany also 

is about to spend in the same way about one hundred niillions; France 

about eighty millions outsiqe of the Panama Canal, which has not tiDfrequently been referred to of late. 

I will not take up time longer in reading further passages from the 

report of the committee of the BritiSh Parliament which go to show 

that after the long experience they have had there legisla~g to control 

the railroads of that country for a bon t thirty years, ·:finally in 1873 they 

adopted the commission plan and refused to legislate on the subject of 

long and short hauls, or upon the subject of pools, and they in their • report saythat it is not in theinterestofthepublic thateitherofthose 

things" should be :fixed by statute, but that they had better be left to a commission whose exclusive business it should oe to deal with the tmnsportation companies in the interest of the people, a;nd . eeto it that the 

people have fairplay as between them and the corporn.tions of that .coun- try. .And that is what I -have been seeking and w.hat the Committee on Railroads of the Senate have been seeking by the report of their bill. 

The Committee on Railroads are just as anxious as the Senator from 

Kentucky or the Senator from Texas or the Senator from .Xorth Carolina to do whatever is best in the inter~t of the public in regulating 

these great transportation companies -of the country and I insist that 

the apparently persistent-effort on the part of those distinguished Senators to create the impression on this floor that every man w.ho is not in 

favor of the House bill belongs to the corporations and is simply tryingto do nothing, is not justified or true as a matter of fact; and' I honestly believe that if the Senate bill were to pass it would prove to- b~ 

more in theinterestofthep-eople than the bill of the House of Representatives which is now under consideration would prove to be. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 

:une~dment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BEq] as am.ende9, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered. · The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. '·Mr. GARLAND' (when his name was called). I am paired on this 

question with the Senator from We tVirginia [Mr. CAMDE..."'i). !should 

vote "~y" if he were p·resent. 

T_he roll call was concluded. . Mr:COKE {after having voted in the negati ve). I desire to withdraw my vote. I remember now that I was paired with the Senator 

from Alabama (Mr. MORGAN]. If he were present, he would vote '~ yea" and I should vote 11 nay. ' · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The vote will be withdrawn if there 

be no objection. . . 

Mr. CULLOU. My colleague [Mr. LOGAN] -is paired with the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. RA~ 03:1]. · · 

Mr. PLUMB {after having voted. in the negative}. I voted under a mistake. I am paired with th~ Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GIBSON]. 

I withdraw my vote. · ·· 

The PRESIDENT pro temPQre. The vote will be withdrawn if there 

be no objection. _ 

Mr. RANSOM. I am paired with the· Senator from Illinois [Mr. 

LoGAN) wheneyer his colleague says so; I do not know how he would 

vote on this amendment. If at liQerty ,_ I shQnld vote •' nay~'' 

_The result was announced-yeas 6, nays 41; as follows: 

Bayard, 

Co~ger, 

Allison, 

Beck, 

Blair, 

Olll, 

Cameron of W i.'l., Chace, 

ColquJ.tt, 

.()u]]()m, 

Da.wes, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Hawley, 

. Platt, 

Fair, Frye, • Hamptoi), · Harrts, 

Harrison , Hoar, Ingalls, · Jackson, 

Jonas, 

Kenna, 

Lamar, 

YEAS-6. 

VanWyck, 

NAYS-41. 

McMillan, McPherson, 

Mahone, 

MandE~rson, 

Maxey, _ Miller of Cal., Mitchel1, 

Morrin, 

Palmer, 

Pike, 

Pugh, 

ABSENT-29. 

.Aldrich, Farley, Jones of Florid~, BoweR, Garland, Jones of Nevada, 

Brown, George, · Lapham, But.ler, Gibson, Logan · Camden, Gorman, Miller 'ot N.Y., 

Cameron of Pa., Groome, Morgan, Oocltrell, Hale, Pendleton, 

Ooke, Hill, Plumb, 

So the amendment as amended-was rejected. 

' I 

Vest. 

Sa. bin, 

Saulsbury, 

Sawyer, · Se'well, · Sherman, 

~~~ Wili!on.' 

Ransom, 

Riddle berger, Vance, 

Vool'heee, 

Walker. 

MJ:. SHERMAN. Mr. President--

The PRESIDENT pro temp<if·e. The Chair understands that -the Sen· 

ator from Kentucky h~ another amendment he w;ishes to propose. 

Mr. BECK. I propose to amend in section 5, line 26, by adding after 

the word 11 substituted." the fo1lowing proviSo: -

Prcwided, That there may be a reduction of ro.tes prior to the posting of such new schedule. Bat in such case the new schedule shall be posted as aforesaid 

within five days after such -reduction shall be made, and said sched ale shall also 

specify the date a t which t~e reduction commenced, 

The PRESIDENT p ro tempore: The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK]. 

Mr. _MAXE_Y.- Mr. President, the essential distinction, as I understand 1t, between t.he Seaate bill and the House bill is whether or not 

the grievances complained of by the people as to the action of the railroads shall be investigated by a commission without authority of law 

to hear and determine, or whether the grievances complained of shall 

be set forth and declared misdemeanors and submitted to the courts for 

adjudication, like any other misdemeanor or grievance. 

It has been said that the Senate bill provides agamst poolino-. The 

system of pooling is one of the gravest and most serious objections the 

people have to tl1e present railroad management. I insist that the Sen~ 

ate bill does not provide against pooling, but that it admits the principle of pooling. It does it in a qualified way, but it a(4nits the right 

of the railroads to pool, and the etiect of pooling is a monopoly of all 

the railroads by a combination of some· of them; and what they regard as an equitable distribution of the profits arising from:transportation on any one of the roads in the combination is made for the common 

g?Od ?f ~ll. That i_s pooling. · It is making a corner upon transportati.on ;_ 1t ~ fo~estallmg the market upon transportatio~. The House 

b1ll, ill unqalified terms, make that unlawful. The Senate bill makes 

it lawful. · 

Is not this. o? Let u . ee. The Senate bill,~ section 11, page 10 

of the last pnnt we bave, declares one of the objects to be: 

Fo r _t he prevent,i<?n of uch pooling ~rrangem nts and ngreements to refrain. from _Ju·;t <.-ompet1t10n ~ may tend to 1mpose unreasonable burden upon said commerce among the States. 

That 'is, the commission is to dete_imine what arrangement and agreement _will tend to impose unreasonable burdens upon the commerce among the States. :J'hat is a. qu~iio'n -which according to the Senate 

bill is _not to be determined judicially, but to be passed upon by the 

comDllSSion, and when passed upon by the commission no remedy' what- ever can be applied by the commission to .redress that grievance. 

:.\Ir. CULLOM. I believe the Senator was reading from the Senate 

bill at· section 1 L - Mr. MAXEY. I was, sir. . . 

Mr. OU LLOU. That section has no )egislation in it any fo.rther than an instruction to the commission to examine into the question of pooling as well as every other question named there, and to repm:t to a futnr~ CongreLs. . . 

Mr. l\1_AXEY. That is precisely i;pe obj~on which I have to the 

whole theory of the Senate bill. You create a commission and you 

clothe· ~hat commission 'vith power to go out into the countrY and hear complamts and after they have heard the compla,ints they are power~ 

less to affor~a.remedyforthose complaints. That is the objection which 

I have to the whole theory of the bill. It is a promise to the ear to be 

broken to the hope. On tl]e contrary, the House bill in terms declares: 

~nd it shall_be unlawful for any l>erson or persons carryini property as afore~ sa1~ to ter mto any o~traet., ag!'e.ement, or comb, nation for tlie pooling of 

ftetghts, or to pool the tre1ghts of d lil cre a t and competing railroads, or to divide 

between the_m the aggregate or n et proceeds of the earnin~:S of such railroads or any portion ofthem. ' 

This distinction is as broad as the difference between sun in the noon- day heavens and the darkest midnight. One tolerates and agrees to the 

propriety and th~ right of the p~ling sys~m, and then says that any 

arrangement which shall tend to illterfere with commerce shall be re- ported. Who reports it? The commission. When it is reported what 

good ~oes that d~ ?- Who determines it? Then you go through all the 

machmery of laymg the matter thus reported before the <!\strict attorney, and after a while, if yo.u can work up· a case, it goes to thecourts! 

ID; o~er words, a ~an who is -r~y aggrieved has to go before the com- nns.•uon and have his case looked illto by the commission with all the 

~x~nse accompanJ?n~ that investigation, and after he h~ done that it IB lmd ·before the district attorney, and if there is enough in it to make 

a ca.se;_for a bill in eqnio/ ?r an indictment, then you have to send that 

to Uruted States commlSSloners to take up the ptoof, and again comes in this double expense. _ "' 

The effect of it is in its very nature and neces:;a.rily to deter any man 

who~ re~y aggrieved from ever making an effort to have a remedy 

for biB gnevances, whereas the Honse bill is both a square and manly 

~easure .. It declares ~l~g, whichisa.monopoly, which is a. contract m restraint of trade, which IB a. forestalling of the market 'to be unlawful. Itmerelyrepeatawba.thasbeenknown to be the co~mon Iawfor 

centuries, and makes that a. part and parcel of the law of the land. . Mr .. S~AN.. Mr. President, I 1?-ave had more difficulty in deafmg With thlS question than any of the Important -questionS presented at 

the p~t ~on of Congress.. The people of Ohio are very largely interested ill railroad tran.spOrta.tion. We have 7,200 miles of railways! 

probably as -large a number of miles in proportion .to the extent of our 
1885. CON.GR.ESSIONA-L RECO.RD-SENATE. 120) 

ten"ito-ry as any State in the Union: Our people are lal'gely iaterested votes for the Reagan bill it will become a law rather than if the Bernas owners and managers of railways, the capital and debts of such cor- tor should vote for th~ Senate bill it can become a law?. As a question 

pomtions amounting to .over $500,000',000. Therefore it _is that the of practical legislation, would it not be better for the Senator to support 

people of Ohio take the deepest interest in the proposed legislation by the Re..1.gan bill in order to procure a law on the subject? ~ongress. I can safely say that, without division of party, the people 1\Ir. SHERMlL.~. If I shall be able to sbo.JV that the Senate bill is 

of Ohio are in favor of strong, just, and liberal legislation upon the better !ban the Reagan bill the Senator ought to join with me in pa..~­

•Juestion of tl'ansportation and the management and control by Con- ing the Senate bill, and the Honse, I have no doubt, would agree to it. 

gress of interstate comme1·ce. I know the feeling in the Hou e, because I haYe conversed with mem- There is no doubt expressed anywhere but that Congress alone has bers of the House of both political parties who voted for the Reagan 

the power to deal with this question. . The interstate commerce extends bill, and 1bey are not entirely satisfied with its prov:isions, but with 

J:.o the great body of the commerce of this country. The local commerce the expectation and hope that the Senate would make such changes as within the. limits eV'en of a State so large as Ohio :is comparatively small. would make it more wide-reaching, comprehensi;e, and effecth·e than 

Nea.rly .all the surplus productions of Ohio are sl1ipped to States beyoml the Reagan bill, they gaYo it tl1eir support. our limi-ts, and nead5' all t.hat is consumed not the products of Ohio The 1·eason why Congress bas not heretofore acted upon this que - has been the subject of interstate commerce. So that I may say that tion is ;ery palpable. Our whole commerce is changed, not only in its 

the body of the commerce of the State is interstate. It so happens, too, extent but in the mode of transportation. Within my period of man- that ne..1.rly all the great leading lines of mil way in the United States hood eYery railroad in the United SL'ttes has been built. When. as a cross that Stat~ certainly all the four great trunk-lines runnin~ from young man, I crossed the .Alleghany 1\Iountains and struck a raih·oad 

east to west, and ome of those running from north to south. So our at Cumberland, Md., I thoug'Jlt it was the greatest wonder in the WQ~ld. 

people are deeply interested in this question, and I have no doubt but Up to that time I had never seen a railroad. Indeed all the railroads 

that both my colleague and myself would agree that the people of Ohio in the United States hav.e been built since the period of manhoocl of the 

ru·e more intensely interested in.the subjects embraced in the bill than majority of Senators. - Even that great· motiye power, the steamboftt, 

in ~my other bill pending before Congress. · has bean invented, devised, and brought into being incethe f:ramers of 

In :respect to the power of Congress over the subject, as. I have said, the Constitution finished their handiwork. 

it :is indisputable. We find it plainly wribtep in the Constitution: · So we are dealing now not with a power tnat is doubtful, not upon 

The Congress sballllaye power * * * t.o fegulate commerce with foreign .a question on which we should have any difference of opinion, but we nat.ions, and among the se~·eral State . are dealing with new agencies of commerce·dev:ised in our generation 

It is a broad and exclu~ve power th::tt has not yet been fully exer- or in the preceding one, and we should bring to the subject the lights 

cised as it was expected to be by the framers of the Constitution. It of modern experience as well as the ideas aud objects thatprcYailed 

is only asserting a trite fact when I say that· but for the necessity of when the Constitution was formed. Steamboats and railroads are now 1·egulating commel'ce with. foreign nations· and among 'he States the the chief agencies of commerce. They have rcv~lutionized commerce: Constitution pt·obably would not have been formed at.tbe time it was. No longer does any onetlepend upon the slow-moving sailing crat't or In the very· first movements to form the Nationa.l Government the im- upon the prairie ''schooner'' or on the old Conestoga wagon over the 

portancc of regulating commerce among the States was declared to be mountains of Pennsylvania. Our modes of communication are entirely 

the leading motiv.e for the formation of the National Government. different, and therefore. we must look upon this question as practical 

· It ~ust be remelnbered that at that time commerce among the States men, and conform our measures to the wonderful development that was hut a very small item compared to what it is now. All the States bas been lnade ~ our productions, the revolution in our means of trans- were located along t~1e line of the Atlantic Ocean. Om· commerce with portation, and the almost fabu1ou stli:Ds invested in these new agencies 

foreign nations then was immensely greater than our commerce a.niong of commerce. - . . · the ~tates, but t.be enormous development of this conn try has changed Nearly every question which affects the problem we are now meeting 

the whole order of things. Now our foreign commerce, exports and has arisen within the last twenty years, because it must be remembered 

imports together, einbraces about $1,500,000,000, and our internal. com- that untill866 nearly every railroad in the United States ~as merely merce is estimated at $15,000,000,000, or ten to one. It is pretty dif- localin its character. There was no interstate commerce until in the last 

ficult indeed to estimate what is the extent of our interstate commerce. twenty or thirty.-yeius. ·For instance, the Erie road ended and termi-. It is so vast that :figures seem to fail J_o express the immense extent nated at Dtmh."irk, and the State of Pennsylvania refused to allow that 

of it. road and other roads to cross the State of Pennsylvania at the little 

It is affirmed that the navigation along .the Ohio River and the Mis- l)a.Ilbandle up on the Lake Shore. The roads of Ohio began and termis:issippi River is greater than our whole· external commerce. It iB said nated in Ohio. The great New Y m:k Central; which now stretches out 

that the navigation of the .lakes far exceeds our commerce with allfor- with its mighty arm across the continent, had its terminus at Buffalo; 

eign countries. So the question we arc dealing with :is not only with and tha.t road itself was divided into seYen distinct corporations, and it 

greater amounts .than any other problem before us, but affects every required years upon years to combine it into a &ingle line from New 

class of our people in the broad extent of our countr-y. York to Bufl:"'alo. 

Under the8e circumstance , I have felt it my duty, without hereto- Take the great Pennsy I vania Railroad, the tonnage of which is so en or- fore taking any share iu this debate, not being a member of ~be com- mous-more than·22,000,000 tons a year. That road itself was a local 

mittee which framed the bill, to examine it with all the care and atten- road. Within my recollection, yes, withfu twenty years, its terminus 

tion I could give to it, and I shall express niy opinions in as few wm;ds was in Pi ttsburgb, Pa. Going from Philadel pbia to Pitts 'burgh it there as possible as-to the choice to be made between the two bills. terminat£d, and there it joined another·road chartered by Pennsylvania w ·e have two propositions before us, one called the Reagan bill, to reach the Ohio State line, and there the ~e was taken up ccross which has been debated and passed by the House of Representatives, the State·of'Ohio by another l'oad, and across Indiaun, by another road, 

and another called the Cullom or Senate bill, framed by one of our and into Chicago, Ill., by another road. All thee· roads have been 

committees, aud which has been debated here in antagonism to the consolidated within thirty years. . Reagan bill. We are called upon to choose between them. I would .All the elements of this problem have changed, and now we have 

vote for either if the other was. away. It is, therefore, a mere choice connecting lines of railroad, which Congress required to be made. The 

between tho two measures; and I propose now to give the reasons why act of 1866 was oue oftbe wise~?t laws passed by Congre8s. Up to that 

I think on the whole the Senate· bi•ll is the most conservative in its time there was no continuous and continuing line of railroad going 

character,3 the most wide-reaching in its effect, the most beneficial to from State to State and doing the commerce of a continent. · They 

the people of all the States interested, the most beneficial even to the were mere local roads or local lines, subject only to local regulations. 

people of Texas and to the regions where the Reagan bill seems to Nowt~y are t:ran.Scontinental; they are .more than national-they are have the greatest strength. . international. The e lines have been formed by their connecting links, 

If I can convince.any Senator, as I have convinced myself, that this one after another. 

will be the efteot of the Senate bill as against the Reagan bill, then I I ought to have said that when the Baltimore and Ohio l'Oad was shall lla>e at least justified the vote that I shall give in favor of the stal'ted it was purely a local :I:Oad, and when it approached the borders 

Senate bill, and I shall haYe justified my conduct to my constituents of the State of Pennsylvania that State refused to allow the Baltimore 

who arc 'writing to me in grca.t number to act upon this question and Ohio road to cross its borders, and for years that was a· matter of 

promptly. That general public opinion has beeit in favor of the Reagan contention. The Baltimor(3 'and Ohio was compelled to deflect this 

bill solely because it proposed legislation controlling railways, but, as line to Bellaire instead of th~ natural route to Pittsburgh. · It .was a matter of course, the people have not yet studied .or examined the purely a local road; and could onl:}i go through, as it did, with the 

details or provisions of the Senate bill, so they have not been able to assent of the State of Virginfa. When it came to the Ohio line, Ohio, 

give any opinion on one as against the other. byanothcrrailroad, tookuptheBaltimoreandOhiolineandextendedit. 

Mr. MAXEY. Will the Senator from Ohio allow me to ask him a Until within twenty or twenty-fi>e years these were merely local 

question? roads· without the slight~t power to contract outside of the limits of 

~Ir. SHERMlL.~. Certainly.· the State, but gradually from a community of interests t-hese connecting 

Mr. MAXEY. The Senator states, and I was very glad to hear him lines formed their links by pooling, you may say, or. a species of poolaa.y so, that he would vote for either bill if the other was out of the . ing, by connecting their separate corporations, binding them in· con- way. Now, I askhimas apracticallegislat~rwithagrea.ttnanyyears' 1 necting-links by contract, until Congress in 1866 declm·ed 1 as the first 

t.xperience, if there is not a fur greater probability that if the Senate regulation of interstate railway commerce of an efi'l'ctive charactE-r in 

XVI--76 

• 
• 

1202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 3, 

this country, that where railroads connected they should be run as con- tinuous lines. Tha.t is the law -which was referred to by my honorable 

friend from Iowa [Mr. WILSoYl He says tltat he was part and paree1 

of the law and helped to make l:it. That was the first .law passed by 

Congress to make interstate commerce possible in this· country, and 

that has been done within twenty years. 

We thus by our law connected these lines of milroad so that instead 

of being local corporations they are great national corporations. The 

Pennsylvania line extends in one nnbroke~ management from New 

York to Chicago,. with interlacing lin stretching every way like a great 

tree. . . . Mr. SAULSBURY. I honld like to ask the Senator from Ohio, by 

his permission, whether the railroads enjoy that privilege under the 

authority conferred by Congress, or whethe1· the privilege which they 

have of uniting and consolidating is not derived by State legislation 

from the State charters of the companies that are thus consolidated? 

1\Ir. SHERMAN. I think the wholeofthatgrewoutofthe fact that 

the corporations were authorized to contrad and to be contracted with, 

and connecting lines by mutual agreements made arrangements with 

each other. I do not know how the State of Delaware could give any 

railroad in Delaware the right to go into Pennsylvania. The National 

Government can: give that right as a regulation ofinterstate commerce, or by mutual agreement. between adjoining States the power to con- nect may be given to corporations created by uch States . . 1\Ir. SAULSBURY. Does not the Senator see that a State Legislature may charter a company and give that company the power to con- soliqate with any othel' cOmpany chMtered by anotber State on such 

terms and conditions as the two companies may agree upon? That is 

frequently done. But the Senator was referring to an act of Congress, 

and I wanted ro ascertain whether there was·.any authority conferred 

by Congress under which any railroad companies were to-day operating 

conjointly. 

Mr. SHERliiAN. The States incorporating two eparate companies 

may authorize them to contract with each other and to make these ar- rangements, but Congress made it the duty of the roads to do so. ~t 

was not a mere permission to contract and extend and connect their 

lines of communication, but Congress made it imperative, and two 

railroads that merely touch each other by contact are compelled by the 

terms of that law to make through rates the whole extent of their lines. 

There is no doubt whatever but what that is within the power of Congress, because the power of Congress to regulate commerce includes also 

the power to regulate corporations created by States as well as natural 

individuals. 

Mr. SAULSBURY. If the Senator will not tliink me impertinent 

for asking the question-for it is information I want-:--

Mr. SHE~MAN. Certainly; I yield to the Senator. 

.1\Ir. SAULSBURY. I have had some difficulty in arriving at a eon- elusion fu my own mihd as to what was the proper thing to do in refer- ence to these bills. !wish to ask the Senator whether under the power 

to regulate commerce he thinks Congress has any authority whatever to 

deal with the question of freights and fares charged by railroads? I 

should like· to hear his views on that subject. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have no doubt of it . . I do not want to go into 

these collateral questions, because it will prolong my remax:k-s. I did 

not intend to speak long, but wished merely to give the reasons why I 

prefer one bill rather than another. · · 

I do not think Congress has the right to impair the obligation of con- tracts. I do not know by what authority Congress can change the con- tract made between the State and the individual, as is proposed in the 

Reagan·bill, by·providing that no railroad in the United States shall 

charge more than 3 cents a mile, although its construction ma.y have 

cost a million dollars a mile, and although the State may have authorized the railroad to.charge 5 cents a mile. Congress can not change 

the contract between the State and an, individual or corporation. · 

I have been looking for gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber 

to correct this ~w fu the Reagan bilL I should like to know, and to 

have them answer at their leisure, where is the a~thority in Congress 

to change a contract between a corporation and a State. · Here is a question where the doctrine of States' rights may come in. It seems to me that wherever States' rights should be asserted to do justice~ a corporation they are not asserted, bnt where they may be used to rob 

or plunder a corJ)()ration they are asserted and enforced. 

That Congress ought to legislate upon this subject is manifest to 

everybody. The railroads engaged in i,nterstate eommerce have cost, or are represented by ecurities amounting to 7,000,000,000. The 

number of miles of railroad is over 120,000 miles. All the legislation 

that can affut these railroads must come from -the National Government. Their local charters end with local boundaries. The States 

of Pennsylvani..'ll and New York, though powerful ·and great States, 

have no right to regulate contnwts made beyond their boundary line. 

They have no right to regulate anything in the way of commerce ex- tending beyond their boundary line, and unless the railroad corporations are subject to the jurisdiction of Congress they are a power within a power, stronger even than the State. 

If it were not for the power of Congress over these corporations they 

would be a supreme power in this country. But Congress is armed 

with full power to do by them as they may think it right in accordance 

with the Constitution of the United States, and without respect to local 

laws. It. is Congress, therefore, that must act upon this subject, and 

all of us OJ:,t thiS side of the Chamber, as well as on the other, admit 

that the power of Congress i'3 not only ample but it is exclusive, for·if 

it should be claimed that what we attempt. to do here can not be don , then a :railroad corpo:rati~n, armed wlth the charter of a State and with 

the authority of the National Government to connect at Smte lines 

across a continent, would be above and beyond all law. I do not believe that at all. I believe that the New York Central Railroad and 

the Pennsylvania Railroad, two of the greatest railroad corporations in 

. this country, are just as amenable to the laws of the land, just as muc:q 

within the local power of Congress, as I myself am subject to its juri - diction. . Now, Mr. President, wh::~.t is the duty of Congress in thi respect? 

The first duty of all is to protect the people from imposition, from injlll>-"tice, from wrong. Therefore I have no difficulty in de..'lling with 

the Reagan bill by admitting that with the exception of the attempt to 

change the contract between the State government and,the corporation 

Congre...c;;s has the power to do all that is asserted by the Reagan bill. 

Thi is but the beginning of legislation in regard te railroads. Hereafter it will continue and increase. I have no doubt that the making 

of suitable regulations in regard to railroads in this country Will be one of the great and immetlh.;te duties of Congress. I am therefore not disturbed about the power, but I say it is the duty of Congress to p!-"Qtect 

the people from injustice by the railroad corporations. I am willing 

to go as far as any one in doing justice, but I do not want to go so far as to destroy these great agencies of modern commerce. 1 do not want 

to destroy the goose that lays _the golden egg. It is the commerce of 

the, e railroads that has united our country more than any other circumstance. It is the commerce carried· on by these railroads that .bns 

enabled us to people ,and populate a vast region of country in theW est. 

It is the engineering, progressive, pushing force of these railroads into 

the wilderness that has made our continent and our country a magnificent whole. Before that time California was separated from the Missouri and the :m.ssissippi. The North and the onth were widely separated from each other for want of communieation. Ra.il:roads have done more to knit and bind. this comitry into one magnificent whole th..o'Ul all 

other agencies combined. Tbet·efore, while we protect our own people, 

we ought not to destroy the railroad . . I have no doubt that the power of Congr will be appealed to-it 

is appealed to now-not only to protect the people but to protect the 

railroads themselves cand the owners of those rnilroads. Within the ·twenty years since the rafuoads have formed their connecting lines 

they have been eaten to death by parasites. Every raih-oad. has had 

its little inner riilg and all soi:.fg of cunning schemes and devices have 

been made and entered into not only to cheat the people but to cheat 

their own stockholder-s. ! .doubt if there is a single rail,road in our 

country that has not in it and about it, composed of its officers, some of these parasites which prevent proper dividends from being paid to 

the stockholders. What are they? · The sleeping-car company is one. 

Railroad corporations make an arrangement with ~sleeping-car com- pany, an organization entirely outside of them,·.to run cars over their 

road. Such contracts become much more vru.uable property than the 

road itself which carries the cars over the rail,s. · Another mode is by express or freight companies. I believe that thi 

is pretty well broken up now, but foryears expre and fl·eight compai:rl.es have been incorporated and lines have been started, the Red Line> 

the Blue Line, and all sorts of lines, over the railroad . In this way a property right was created by a; contmct between the board of directors 

of a railroad with some favOl'ed individnaJs in the railroad, and then 

privileges and rates were given to the expl'e companies which bled and 

ate the life and substance and property of the . railroad stockholders. 

Those have existed, and I have no doubt we shall be called upon to protect the stockholders from this impo ition . . So with telegraph lin . Besides that, many boards of di.rectors by voting themse1ves high salaries and creating enormous expen.se, run the road not for the benefit of 

the owners, but for the benefit of a favored few. · Therefore it is possible in our countl-y that rnilroad tock may sell 

for $20 or $30 a hare in the market, when every man knows tha:t t.bis 

railroad stock will never pay a dividend. as long as water runs or fire 

burns. But it is the power to control the corporation giYen by the vote 

of the stock that enables men to seize and hold a great corporation and 

pay enormous sum8 for the stock of the road merely to exercise the 

power granted by the corporate law for ·their own gain and "profit. 

There are these and others; but I am not going to waste much time 

about it. In some cases salaries are given which shock almost our sense 

of justice, salaries not only by one corporation but by a dozen corporations. Not only that, but in some cases, although the railroads are 

represented by dil·ectors who are sworn, or at least who e duty it i 

made to guard the property they represent, they pile mortgage upon 

mortgage qn the property, create income bonds, preferred stock, andall 

orts of liens; and in that way many of the best railroads in this country, 

t.hatwould earn a fair dividend on their actualcost, by subtle plan on the part of the stockholders, the interest of the innocent citizen, men, 

women, and children, who perhaps have invested their little sums for stock, is fairly eaten out, lost, and destroyed. · · There ·is no dGubt that Congress, which is now exercising it power in 
·1885. OONGRESSIONAL -REOORD-_SENATE. ·1203 

this country to protect the people, will be SOO)l called upon to -protect the 

stockhold~, and I shan be j~38 ready then to vote reasonable legislation to protect against these abuses as I would vote for the bill to protect against undue discriminations, fares, and tolls in favor of-particular 

indi vidua.ls. I speak of this merely to show that this power over the 

subject-matter is vital to us, and that we ought to so act upon this bill as to show that we are fit to be trusted with this great andimportant power. 

I say that legislation by Congress upon this subject is demanded not 

only in the interest of the people, but in the interest of property honestly held and honestly earned. At this time the railroad system is in 

very great danger. No one e.an doubt that the enormous competition 

which bas been created by rival lines bas in many cases reduced the 

profits of the railroads and their earnings. The necessity of providing 

for- dividend on watered stock and the like lias been so great that 

there are but very few railroads of the United States, powerful as they 

are, which can .. pay dividends to their stockholders. Therefore any 

hostile legislation to further cripple their business ought to be very 

~efnlly guarded. If we do not look out we may really break down 

those corporations and compel them to divide the long-extended lines 

into broken links, and then the rates of transportation will .rapidly 'advance. The decrease in the mar1iet value. of railroad ·securities in the 

last two years is represented to be about40percent. It has disappeared 

in the Diarket value. Few of the- roads are now earning dividends. 

\ It has been sometimes said in this debate that the law of competition 

is a sufficient iegruation for railroad corporations. · In some respects the 

law of competition has worked well. Since these Jines have been con- nected the cost of transportation in the United States has been reduced 

m·:r marvelous degree. I remember when I was a member of what is · ~ed the Windom Committee· on Transportation we traveled all over 

the United States; ·wetookthetestimonyofall theexpertrailroad men 

we could find and men engaged in commerce of various kindS3. Upon 

bne question we found a singular unanimity of opinion, and that was that the minimum cost of transportation was t ·cent per lnile. The fig-

~es were pJ;Oduced, the actual details, the expenses shown, and this 

simple problem was absolutely demonstrated. 

It was Shown by the general superintendent of the New York Central, 

:who gave us the details of the cost of transportation, and the same evi-

~ence was given by other corporations, that the minimum of transpor- ~tion was 1 cent a ton per mile. That would be 10 a ton from Chicago :to New York, the distance being about a thousand miles. That was their statement of what is the lowest cost. Now, this system of com- Petition has gone on since then, and there has been a progress made in 

railroad building, a change so great that it is almo t marvelous when 

I now think of it. That was only ten years ago, and yet since that 

time by the introduction of st~el rn~ by new and improved cars, by new machinery in the way of brakes, by a thousand ingenious devices 

of out own people, the same freight can be transported over th~ -same railroad for less than one-half of what it could be only twelve years ago. 

I have.he1·e a table cut from one of the commercihl papers showing 

the enormous reduction that has been made by competition in long 

lines of trnn portation. I find that the freight from New York to Chicago on a bushel of wheat weighing sixty ponnds was in 1868, 29 cents j 

in 1869, 25 cents; in 1870, 22 cents; in 1872, 28 cent~, and so on. Then 

running down aga~, in 1874 it was 16 cents; in 187q, 14 cents, and so on until in 1884 the freight on a bushel of wheat from Chicago to 

New York was 9~ cents .. So that the freight by competition has been 

reduced to 9~- cents. Here is the statement: 

WHEAT PRICES AND FREIGHTS. 

[Ft·om the Cincinnati Price Cun-ent.] 

In t.he following compilation will be shown the annual wheat e;rops of the United States and exports (flour included), stated in millions of bushels, with th~ lowest and ~verage price of No. 2 wheat in Chi•ago, and average rates-of freight from Chicago to New York per bushel of wheat by lake and rail, with the lowest Chicago price and freight to New York added, annually for seven- teen years, from 1868 to 1885, inclusiv~: . 

4) .S.hi 't! 

"' tJI) 1-o 2 ~ Q>ai asQi _.:.0 ~Q) 

Year. a,·· .... 11!:·£ ~o<.$:! t~ .del 0 ...... 4) .... bill: 0 Q, 0~ ;.~ ·q;~ ·q; c. .... 

0 ~ ...:l < ~z ~ "' 

Milliom. Millions. Cents. Cents. Cents. Cents. 1803 ........................... 2'24 30 104} 170i 29 183t 1869 ........................... 200 54. 71P.- llll 2.5 lOll lSiO ........................... 236 53 73t 97 22 OOt lSil ........................... 231 4.0 99l 12li 25 124l 1872 ................. .......... 250 52 101 125i 28 129 1873 ........................... 281 92 89 117!. 26f 115f 

t~}:::::::::::::::::::::: :: 309 73 Sit los! 16{- !>Sf 292 76 83t 98f 141 97f 18i6 .......................... 289 57 83 l02f llf 9# Ufl'l .. ..... : .............. : ... 364 93 lOt~ 128!. 15f 117t 1878 .......................... 4.20 14.9 77 961 . 11~ 88i 1879 .......................... 449 181 8lt 99t 13t 94f 1880 .......................... 498 186 86~ loot 15-i 102t 1881 .......................... 380 122 951- Ill» I OJ- 105f 1882 .......................... 504 149 9lt 118 l(ij 102 1883.: ........................ 450 111 90 IOU ll-4- IOH lS.S-t ......................... 513. ············~· 69} 82l- 9l- 79t 

In the above the exports are for twelve months beginning on Jllly 1 of the year stated The freight rates for 1884 are the average from Janual'y 1 to Sep- tembrll·l. 

What more do you want? If any man had told me when we we~ 

ru:ound on that pilgrimage seeking for cheap transportation that without a law of Congress, merely as the effect of competition, the price of 

the tJ:ansportation of wheat would be reduced .from 29' cents, as it was 

then, to 9 cents, I would have said that oi:tr committ.ee ought to disband because the thing would work out its own cure. So it will to a great·extent, but I shall take occasion ,to refer to the low rates. The ~-ates are now.so low from the great competing points owing to competition1 say from Chicago, Saint Louis, or Cincinnati, that if our Texas 

grangers bould try to reduce them m,pre they would break up every 

railroad corporation in the countrjr. The rates can not be further re- duced. There ts a point to which you can go, aud beyond that you 

will draw the life-blood. · 1 

The attempt to carry wheat at a lower rate than n cents in a long 

haul would be absolute destruction to all the raiJ.roa-d corporations. 

They can not do it.. It may be that we shall have some new invention; new d~vices, that will still enable thetn more and more to cheapen the 

rate. We know that .the great competing raih'Oad companies, each of 

them representing probably a . hruidred million dolL'l>rs, are eagerly 

watching out for every chance of competition, and they will reduce 

the rate still mm;e and more. That pas been done by competition probably more than could have been.done by legislation. ' 

If I were seeking only by the passage of this bill cheap transportation~ 

I would say, "hands off; let these mertcompete with. each <Y.".her." But 

that is notall that we are trying to accomplish by the bill. It is claimed 

that while fi;om certain points transportation is low enough, probably; 

from other points shorter in dis~ce and shorter in haul the rates are much higher, and that. there is an unjust discr~ation made between 

citizens, between towns, between States, and between individuals; that 

the railroad compani~ make contracts with favored individuals by 

which they give them the monopoly of transportation. 

~he common case pointed out by the Senator from Kentucky, I believe, was that the Standard Oil Company had a rate which a.ctually 

drove out of existence all competitors in their line of pusiness. That 

is wrong, intrinsically wrong, and I shall Yote to break it down if there 

is power enough in Congress to do it. If these corpOrations are soulless, they ought to be heartless, tl;ley ought to 'make no discrimination: 

gimg no favor, but making the same rule apply to all classes of transportation under-the same conditions; and to the extent that .this meas- ure will tend to effect that object I think it is of vital importance. 

The Reagan bill makes ample pronsion against discrimination. It 

says that no discrimination shall be made. It forbids it. ·It declares 

that if it is done it shall be illegal, and then ·provides a penalty a.t the 

end of a long lawsuit, a.nd the measure of the penalty is three times 

the damage done. The damage may be $10, in which case tlre penalty 

would be $30, and then the pla.intiff who has prosecuted his suit under 

the oparation of that bill, or has sought his remedy,wouldprQbablybe 

broken up in the contest, and the railroad would not care about drawing-a ch~k fo1· 30, bnt would pay him in silver dollars, or in anyway 

they thought would be easiest. '.fhe first objec~on I have to the Reagan bill, and I beg Senators _to think of it, is that it is a penal bill, penal 

in its nature and in all its pro-visions. It has no remedial feature in it, 

except the remedy ·that can be recovered at the end of .a long lawsuit. 

You can not make such a bill as that useful or operative, except to pun- i$. crime, and you can not make -this a crime of a magnitude and character which would justify you in sending to the penitentiary the president or tl;le directors of the company. If you choose to do it, if yon 

attelnpt to carry the measure by pena1law, you ought to furnish penalties and punishments that would send the president of the railroad to 

the penitentiary. 

But that is not all. The Reagan bill provides that the remedy shall 

be in the State courts, in any court where an agent can be found. 

Whether the injury occurred in that State makes no difference. Wher- ever the man who coin plains of the action of the railroad chooses to sue he can sue. He can go before a justice of the peace, if the amount is 

within the jurisdiction of a justice, or go before a county court, if it is over a hundred dollars, and commence suit in any tribunal: What is 

the effect of the judgment? You may make therailroad paythejullgment, but what does that amount to? Nothing. . 

:Besides there is no appeal from that decision. Suppose the railroad 

insist that they 1;\re not ·violating the law, must they try that great 

question, which turns upon the construction of an act of Congress, before a justice of the pea.ee in Texas? Must they try that great q~estion before some local tribunal in a State perhaps hostile to thi legislation? Must they try that question in a State which probably does 

not own a single share of the railroad st.qck .affected by the 01-,eratio~ 

of that judgment? 

According to the proposed law, although the questiqn involved may 

be a construction of the Constitution of the United States, although it 

may be the construction of the very law that we are passing, yet that case can in no event be carriecl to the Supreme Court of tp.e United 

States or to any Unil:ed States court: Thus thirty-eight different-tribunals all over this country, with their varying decisions, may be called 

upon to decide upon the terms of this measure without any power whatev~r to take the case to a court whose decision will beuniversaUy 

acknowledged. This, it seems to me, is the worst feature of the Reagan bill. It seems to he State rights gone mad. The very cause of 
1204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUAI~Y 3; 

Mr. SHERMAN. Perhaps, taking the usual course which I have seen pursued on both sides veryoften,-we require you to perfect :your own proposition in your own. way. Perhaps tl1at is the way, but at 

any rate that provision is clearly unconstitutional. Senators around me say, for I do not think I was present at the time, that other questions were involved in the same motion. But I certainly assure the 

Senator that if he will move to strike out that proposition I . hall vote 

with him "to impro•e the bill to that extent. · 1\11'. COKE. It will be done. 

1\Ir. HERMAN . . There is another feature of the Heagan· bill which 

struck me at first with a good deal of force, and it was only after a care- ful examination tba-tiwasable to sati fy myself that it ought not to be 

put in. I refer to the following provision, in ection 4 of the Reagan bill: . 

That it slJa ll IJe unln wful for any person or person engaged in the transPQrtation of pl"Operty as provided in the first eetion of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation for a siuUla1· amount and kind o!j>roperty, for carry- ing, recei'l'"ing, storing, forwardu1g, or handling the same, fora shorter than for a longer distance, wbic~ includes the shorter, on any one railroad ot· pipe-line. 

A an ab~tract proposition it would appear to be right and. just that no railroacl shoUld be authorized to charge Jess for a greater distance 

for transportation of the sanie kind of properly than for a shorter distance. That would seem to be right aml fair, but when you come to 

examine this que5tion in all it surroundings such a provision as that 

would in my judgment not only do great harm to·the people of the 

United tates, but I believe it wQnld confer a great benefit upon the 

l'!l.ilroad companies to the injury of. the people; and I hope my friend 

from Texas will listen to me upon that point. I have no doubt that if 

that provision. should become a law, wheat would not be tmn ported 

from Chicago to New York for 9} centfl 

a· bushel, by a, . great way. It 

would lea_p up at once to a rate in harmony with the local rate. 

I know enough abont corporations and milroads to know that the fit·~t effect of this provil ion woul(l be to compel an advance of freights 

at all the competing points. Why? IfthePcnnsylvania:Railroad, for 

instance, should attempt to carry wheat at the rate of 9t cents a bushel over the whole line .of its road from Chicago to Philadelphia' and from 

all the points aJong ibat line, the result would be bankruptcy to any 

mih"o:J.d in the United States which would undertake to carry all its 

freight upon that kind of a rate. Before submitting to bankruptcy the 

railroad would take the other a1ternative; they would raise the rate at 

Chicago, and then "all Rome would howl." Then our Western grap.-

gcrs and om Texas friends would begin to feel that their cattle would 

ha,-e to-pay a considerably larger sum. AU our Western friends, whose 

country has been developed by :railroad competition, 

w.ould find then 

.that they would have no advantage as they now have over the people 

of a State like Ohio, where we lie midway between the great Western 

ports and the .Atlantic coast: "If I were speaking only for the people of my own State, and only in a narrow, selfish interest, I should vote for thi proposition, because I 

lmow the eftect of it. While it might not reduce eur local freights in 

Ohio, it would ad vance the freights in the West, anQ. would relieve us from the enormous competition whicl1 Iowa now makes with us in 

raising wheat, pork, corn, and all those things; bnt·I do not think it 

would be right. Nor do I think it is wrong for the raih·oacl companies 

to mn.ke this discrimination in f:tvor of competing points. Why.? It 

is known that the great body of the transportation of a railroad is its 

local transportation. Different railroads differ in regard to that; but 

the general rule is that the local transportation is 70 per cent. and the 

through transportation is 30 per cent., but i~ most cases it is 5 per 

cent. local and 15 per cent. tin:ough. • For the purpose of gaining a sba1·e of the through transporta.tion from 

Chicago or Saint Louis or the great interior j)Oints, the raill'oads struggle for the through business, because whatever they can get from that source is so much added to their income without much in£reasing their 

expenses. · They struggle for it and make · competition and make the 

lowest ratesoftl"ansporta.tion; butifyou relieve them from thatnece ity 

and make a mandatory iron nue by whiCh tkey shall cbaige no more from Chicago than from Fort Wayne or other places it will raise their 

rate, and they will stand by that rate and say that" Congress, com-· posed largely of om fellow-citizens from Western States, COIDpel us to 

do it in order to live." That would be the effect of it; and I do not 

think that any railroad man who hears me or any man accustomed to 

their mode of business would think otherwise. · I have heard the remark made in the course of this debate that the 

railroads would not carry wheat for less than it would cost them. No, 

but it must be remembered that in peaking of the whole cost of a railroad you must take into account the interest on their bonds; you 

must take into account all of-what are called" in technical phrase fixed 

charges, charges which can not be avoided, not only the running ex- penses and interest.npon their debt, but fair dividends to their stockholders, proper improvements and additions to their equipment. · When 

they are contesting fo1· the trade in Chicago they can dispose of the fixed 

charges for the competition and say, 11 If you can get a portion. of the 

through freigh~ from Chicago we can afl:ord to carry it at a. reasonalJle 

profit on the actual running cost.'' I hope Senators will understand 

·the difference between them_ 
1885. CONGRESSIONAiJ RECORD-SENATE. 1205 

The :running cost of a railroad is the cost of the wear and tear of 

r-ailroad cars, the wear and tear of machinery, the pay of the engineer 

and the brakeman, and that is about ·aU. If they can get from this 

t1uough traffic, which gives to the West an enormous benefit over onr traffic, simply a compensation for their .running charges or n, reasonable 

profit, they will compete until they get their share of it. That is all 

there is about it. .But if, on the other hand, they shall not be permitted to do that, but shall charge as much under all circumstances 

from Chicago through to New York as from all the intermediate points, :tS a .matter of oourse they will first make a 11ttewhich they think: is just 

and fair ior their local stations, and then they will put Chicago at the same rate,. and if you complain they will point to your own law us a 

justj..ficaiion and an excuse for it: There can be no doubt about it. 

.There is another thing I beard my·friend from North Carolina [:Mr. 

V Al'WE] was very much troubled about-pooling. Pooling sometimes 

reduces rates; sometimes it• may be made to increase ·rates. Where 

there i but a small transportatJon, as on the failure of a crop or the 

like, the freights ha,ve fallen off largely,. and then pooling prevents 

competition, because there is not enough business for all the competing 

roads; but when there is a great crop ris there was two or three years 

ago, or when ever there is a great crop, using all the equipments and ma- chinery of all the competing roads, as a matter of course })()oling is bene· 

:ficial, because they nre enabled then at less cost to dhide the business 

among them. On some roads 'it may be best and most economical to · run all the whea.t, on anot·her road it may be best to run all the c..<tttle, 

and they divide the freight by arrang~ment between them, some carl rying one article, som.e another, accordmg to the grades, the equ.ipments, 

the natnr~ of the road, and a thousand circumstances which enter into 

it. In such cases the pooling ~rrangement is a beneficial one, and instead of adding to the co t it actually dimin.ishes·it. So if we attempt 

to impose upon these companies an ab~olute iron rule whiGh would preYent pooling in all cases, might defeat the object; of this bill. ·. Mr. President., I do uot propose to go .any further in the discuSiion 

of the Reagan bilL I haxe no doubt that the gent!rnl rules laid down 

by it are right. I respect the desire of the Senators who seek to pass 

it, but I say it will not accomplish the object they seek to gain, but, on the other hand, it will add to the l>mdens of all the Western people by 

compelling i:ailroads to charge them iocal rates substantially. It will 

prevent railroads from making ·such .arrangeme:ats with each other as 

will enable them to nm cl1eaply and successfully all the Yast products 

of this country. It will compel a discriiJl.i.!.lation in ·many ca es, be· cause where a railroa<.1 has an advantage by physical law, as the Kew 

York Central Railroad has an advantage by physical law, ha,ving a lower 

grade, if they are n.ll compelled to charge the same 1-ate at all times, it 

giYes to the road haYing physical ad,tantages a great advantage over another road that has had to ovel'('ome mountains and cross valleys. 

Now, a few words in regard to'theSena.tebill . . The Senate bill goes 

upon the ide~ of a, board ot' arhitration. I think if I had been called 

upon to frame a bill I shoultlliave 6alled it the board of arbitration 

instead of a commission. · But a name is nothing in a, matte1· of this 

kind. What is the theory of the Senate hill? We know now that the 

freight charges and the regulations of raiJ.roads are generally made by a litUe congress of five or sb: people chosen one from each of the great 

railioads. . They meet at Chicago; or at the Fifth A venue Hotel, or some other place where it i convenient and l)leasant, and they sit' 

down and make laws which afl"ect every per on in the United States. 

Sometimes they di crimina,te against persons, sometime against places. 

They make unreasonable rates fi.'Om particular localities, they make. 

discriminating rates against certain a1·ticles, the:r low-er ra.tes in re.,<ranl 

to other articles not founded upon any reason: 

In other words, as I have heard one of them sa.y:, th ey put uch rates as the market will afford without much respect to their equity. They are compelled to do it. Tl!ey are legislating for a lo{'al-eorporate interest. Unquestionably in doing this they often do injustice l,y their 

discrimination, and the people complain all over the country. The 

people sa.y, "We ought to have redress." Take a town in Ohio, where 

the people say, "Our charges are more than another neigliboring town 

where there is more competHJon.." That is wrong, and eYeryhody says 

it is wrong, but what i their redress? A suit in the court against a great railroad corporation. The suit under the- Reagan bill would be 

the merest farce, to enforce a 'penalty of three times the amou·nt inYolved. 

On the other hand the bill of the Sena.te provides for a board of arbitration, not a little local court who e opinions would not be respected 

by the corporation or anybody else, but a high tribnnal composed of 

menequalindignitytotheSupremeCourtofthe Unitetl States. There 

any citizen may seek his redress; any town may make its plea. That 

tribunal, in the terms of the bill, is armed not with the power of issuing 

execution but armed with the mora~ pow-er of the people of the United 

States. .A complaint is made in the name of the people, under this 

. proposed law, before this tribtmal of nine distinguished judges, among 

thebes~ in our country, who ougbt 1o be no_n-partisan in their character, because the bill I believe provides for that-men <;~fib~ highest. type, 

who are 'not interested in the subject-matter. The complaint i. sent_ to 

that tribnnal and they hear it in n. snmmary manner, as they could 

rapidly do, ~nd they 'Yonld say at once, ''This discrimination is unjust; 

it is wrong; we pronounce it to be, in the language of the law, extor· 

tion.l' Now, no railroad will submit.to that. No railroad would nolate in a plain case the inj~ction oftllls high tribunal, because if they 

did the decision of the tribunal would be certified to the prbper offi.ce11'; 

of the Government, and, armed with this decision, with the facts ~d 

circumstances of the C..'lSe a.p.d the opinion of the court, the parties eom- plaining would apply to the courts of law. 

The only reason, I suppose, why the commission_is not armed with 

the power of judgment and execution is that under the Constitution 

they can not be. They are not a court. in the true sense of the word. 

They might be created-a court if necessary, but I think the general 

judgment of the people would be against that. If they were constituted a court they ·would bejudges for life, and these are to be men in 

active life, able to work, able to take rt!stiinony and to hear causes. In 

other words, they ought to be men of such acthity that hey can travel 

around through their respective circuits, recei>ing complaints and hearing complaints so fa1· as they are authorized to bea.r them. The moral 

powers of such a comm~sion would be gr~er than the judgment of 

fi..fty State courts, which can not be supervised. 

'Vith the exception of th.e prorision about the long haul and the 

short haul I say that the Senate· bill contains every safe_guard, every 

restriction, every provision again ·t injustice that is contaitl'OO in the 

Reagan bill.. Its language against discri.JAination is as strong as that 

in the Reagan bill. It does.notllrescribe a7 an absolute rule that the 

charges should not be in any case that may be conceived less oh the 

short than on the long haul, but it does provide that the charges shall 

l)e reasonable, and it is autho,l'ized to }laSS and report upon the question as to how far mles may be prescrihed in the future. I only utteJ," the 

language and repeat the very admirable tatement made by the Senator 

from Alabama [l\Ir. PtJGH], when I say. that it _ contains more widereaching provisions that will command the respectoftbe 1-ailroads and 

comman<! enforcement and execution than the Reagan bill. 

The more I study it I regard it with more favor. At :fin.--t I feared it was not strong enough, but I belieYe now that it contains the foundation of a code which will be built up by the railroad commission into a body ofl~ws as the·commerciallaw of England was built up by the 

maste~ly.abilityof Chief-Justice Holt and Lord Mansfield. It bas been 

said over!hd over again that the commercialla,ws of that time, without the aid of acts of Parliament, were bup~ up by judicial decisions 

by ·those great men in a time when commerce was reviving over the 

country. .All the laws relating to bills of exchange and promissory 

notes and a vast field of cemmercial Jaw were the dictate of judicial decision. · Ihelieve. that this commission, if composed of su h men as it 

ought to he, will be able from time to time to frame such rules and 

regulations. 

.l\Ir. 1\IcPHERSON. Will the Sena-tot:from Ohioyieldforaquestion? 

Mr. SHE~l\IAN. Certainly. . Mr. McPHERSOX. Th~ ~tatement that he makes, found in the 

Senate bill, that the commission will have the power to determine as to 

the rtmsonablcness of rate, give& them the power to fix rates, does it not? 

1\Ir. SHERi\I.A.N. They are authorized by the general phraseology 

of the bill not onJy to say. what rates are reasonable, but to prescribe 

rules and regulations. Indeed, their field. is as broad as the· power of Congre...~. Whatever can be done underthe authority to regulate com- merce can be recommende(l by t}le commission. 

• Mr. McPHERSOX. Then the Se;nator places it a good deal stronger 

than my langua-ge did. Theil' power is b.nd:Isputed; it is not r~stricted 

in any pa;rticular at :ill· the discretion of the commission is the ·only 

thing in the world that is .to govern the rate. · The rate must be rea- sonable. ,I_t must depend entirely upon the judgment of the commission whether the ra-te is exorbitant or reasonable. Let me ask the 

Senator if he thinks. the1·e is any power lodged in Congress, under the 

Constitution of the country, to so regulate common carriers as to fix the 

rates upon which they shall do business? . Air. HERi\IA.~. I say that their decision is not final, because if 

they should decide, a railroad company is not bound to obey their declliion. · Therefore a suit may be commenced in the proper tribunal, 

and the court would decide tlu~t question, so that after all it is their 

moral power and influence that will be most operative. 

M:r. McPHERSON: Very true; but if the Senator will bear with me a. moment 1onger, the bill gives the commission power to fix the measur~ of damages resulting to the aggrieved party. He ma~ppeal 

to the court from tllc judgment of the commission. 

l\Ir. SHERMAN. '~here is no judgment rendered. • 

l\Ir. McPHERSO~. After all, the commission have the power to fix 

the rates and determine their rea onableness. Now let me present 

another question to t.he Senator. 

Mr. SHER~lAN. 1 trust the Senuto1· will not interfere now. I shall 

be thr~>Ugb in fi.\e minutes, if he will let me proceed. · 1\Ir. McPHERSON. I should like to ask the que tion, lJecau e it 

touches on this matter. · 

Ur. SHER~Lt\.N. I did not hear any question ptit to me. I waited 

for a question. 

Mr. ~cPRERSOX. Very well; I shall wait. 

l\1r. SHER~IA!'r. lf the Senator will put the question and not pre--

mise it with an argument I sha.U an wer it with plP.a.snre. 

r·-.. 
1206 OONGRESSIONAL RECORD- ENATE, ] EBRU.ARY 3, 

The experience of the States shows that the form of a commission here 

proposed is the best.. We have a railroad commissioner in Ohio who 

ha.s but very little power, and yet his influence has. been good. In 

many of the States they have commissions very much like the commissioR proposed in the Senate bill, and the experience in every one of 

them has been favorable in securing the rights of the people. What 

has been adopted by the States in regard to their local commerce might 

well he followed by the United States in regard to the broader :field of 

interstate commerce. .Again, the bill is merely tentative, inquiring, experimenting, pushing 

forward. No man ought to deal with a great question like this with a broad-ax or prescribe rules that have many exceptions to them. It is 

far better to pr~ by tentative, slow, and progressive acts, until 

:finally we shall have- a railroad code established in this ~nntry aftru; a few ·years' experience. 

Then, besides, it is cheap and easy. EveTy man can be his own lawyer 

in this business. He writes an intelligent statement of his grievance 

to intelligent men, and if they req'nire evidence to fortify his statement 

they can require it to be given and it will be given cheaply and plainly. 

The fa-cts may not be disputed. • Then it will apply uniform rules throughout the United States. 

These rul& are .made by national authority, while if the roles governing railroads as to what is a reasonable charge are o be decided by legal 

tribunals, we have thirty-eight different decisions, all differing, and no one having any force beyond the limits of. the State line. · 1\'Ir. President; thiB proposed law is baSed 'Upon general principles 

which apply to the whole country and·.not m~rely to localities, and it 

will be, therefore, respected and observed, while ~he laws of one State 

will not be respected or observed in another, and the decisions of the 

courts in one State will not be respected and observed in others . . It is 

based upon general principles. 

The·n it allows a just leeway for exceptions. There is no rule stated 

in either:of these bills that has not some exceptions. I could give them 

almost from my own knowledge ofrailroads. Thenon-the questionof 

discrimi..nation I could point out cases where discrimination wottld be 

justified, although thi prohibits it in all CMes: That is . probably a strong case. The rules ought to be universal; but as to the long haul 

n.nd short haul I can see exceptions; as to pooling I can see exceptions, 

and they are exceptions that may be defined properly by experience, 

and we shall have that experience in the Tarious complaints that will 

be made to thi con;unission. I say it is better for the protection of the 

railroads themselves. 

Indeed, I think the time has fully come when the ra.ilroAd corporations of the country ot(ght to be placed ·under the regis of the law. Unless this is done I believe railroad propertywill be like plank-road 

property, or turnpike property, or canal property, it will disappear from 

among the properties to be bought and sold unless it is protected from 

some. of the abuses that occur in nearly all the gre.:1.t railroad systems 

of the country. 

I think, therefore, in every way in which I can view this bill it will 

be beneficial to the people East and West, North and South. I believe · it will be beneficial to the owners of the railroads, the stockholders, 

and the men who have put.their money in them. · It will tend to curb 

and control and limit the powers of the men who now govern them with 

absolute sway. 

In eveq view of it, therefore, I think the Senate bill is better thah 

the Reagan bill, and although much popular favor has been enlisted 

from time to time in favor of th~ Reagan bill because it is a bill that 

deals with the question-that is all-not because they understand its 

provisions or· favor them, but because it grapples with and deals with 

the railroad corporations. I say the Senate bill does more. It not only 

grappl~ with them, but it lays the broad and deep foundation for an admirable system of :railroad law, which in my judgment will govern all 

the railroads of the country. 

Mr. KENNA. Mr. Presiden~ it has beenmanyyear inceanyquestion under discussion before the Senate has given rise to so great a divergence of thought and diversity of argument a.s that now under con- sidel-atlon. It seems to me, and I am not sure I am correct in that presumption, tliat the question has been made to present difficulties which 

do not properly belong to it. We have before us for consideration two 

bills, one involving a commission, the other bill aimed directly at the 

evils a{leged tQ e::tist. Both b:ills in their respeftive theories are based 

on the ajSumed power of Congress to deal with the subject. While the 

exercise of tliat power is vigorously resisted, r concur in its assertion. I 

desire briefly ·to call attention to a general line of declarations by a num- ber ofdecisionsofthe SnpremeCourtofthe United States touching the 

subject and to tate my own position in favor of the fullness of the power 

of Congress over it. . In the early case of Gibbons v. Ogden, reported in 9Wheaton, page 

195, Chief-Justice Marshall said; in delivering the opinion of the court: 

But in regulati n~ commerce with foreign nations the power of Congress does not stop at the jurtsdictionallines of the several States. It would be a. very use- less power if it could not pass those lines. The commerce of the United Stat-es 

wit-h foreign nations is that of.the whole United States; every district has a rigltt to participate in it. The deep st-reams which penetrate our country in ever~- direction pass through the interior of almost every State in the Union, 

and furnish the means of exercising this right. If Congre bas tho power to 

regulate it, that power ml18t be exercised wheneTer the subject exists. It it ex- U.ts within the States. if a foreign voyage may commence or terminate at a port within a State then the power of Congress may be exercised within a State, 

This principie is if PQS ible stillmore clear when applied to commerce" among 

the several States." They either join each other, in which case·they are sepa- rated by a mathematical line, or they are remote from each other, in which case other States lie between t-hem. What is commerce" among" them, and how is 

it to be conducted? Can a. trading expedition between two a.iljoining States commence and terminate outside of each? And if the trading intercourse be be- tween two States remote from each other, must it not commence in one, t-erminate 

in the oiher, and probably pass through a. third? Commerce among the States must of necessity be commerce with the States. In the regulation of trade with 

the Indian tribes the action of the law, especially when the· ConstituLion was made1 was chiefly within a. Stat-e. The power of Congress, thenJ whatever it 

may oe, must be exercised within the territorial jurisdiction or the several 

Stat()S. 

The sense of the nation on this subject is unequivocally manifested by the proTisions maue in the laws for transporting goods by land betweenBa.Uinlore and 

Providence, between New York and Philadelphia, and between Philadelphia. and Baltimore. · . We are now arrived at the inquiry, what is this power? It is the power t-o regulate-that is, to prescribe-the rule by which commerce is t-o be governed. This power, like others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are· prescribed in the Constitution. The e are expressed in plain terms, and do not affect the 

questions which arise in this case or wliicll have b-een discussed at the bar. If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specified objectsl is plenary as t{) those objects, the power over commerce with foreign nations ana among the several States 1S vested in Congress as absolutely as it would be in a single government having in its constituMon ~he same re- strictions on the exercise of the power as are found in the Constitution of the 

United States. 

1\Ir. Just.ice Johnson, in an opinion delivered in ·the same case, page 

225, support-ed by the decision of the court, said: 

The "power to fegulate commeree," here meant t-o be granted was that power to regulate commerce which previously existed in the States. But what was tlfat power? The St tes were, nnquestionably, supreme; and each poss-essed 

that power over commerce which is acknow1edged to res1de in every sovereign State. The definition and limits of that power are to be sought among the 

features of int-ernational law; and, as it was not only admitted b-ut insist-ed on by both parties, in ar,;ument, that, "unaffected by a state of war, by treaties, or by p:mnicipal regulations, all commerce among independent States was legitimate," there is no necessity to appeal to the oracles of the Jus commune forth~ 

correctness of that doctrine. 

The law of nations, regarding man a a. social animal, pronounces all com- meYce legitimate, in a state of peace, until prohibited by positive law. The 

power of a sovereign State over commerce, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasu,re. And since the power to prescribe the limits to its freedom necessarily implies the powe1· to determine what 

shall remain unrestrained, it follows that the power must be exclusive; it can reside but in one potentate; and hence the graut of this power carries with it 

the whole subject, leaving nothing for the State to act upon. 

And, Mr. President, following the l).ne of decisions of the Supreme 

Court, it seems to me to be settled bythattribWllll thatitmakesnodiffer- ence what agencies operate in the conduct of commercial intercourse. The 

power attaches according to the classification of the subject. Ifthat 

be interstate in its character, Congress has the power. If it be confined 

wholly within a single State, power over it remains in the State. In 

the case of the State freight tax (15 :Wallace, page 275), tb'is proposition 

is laid down, I th.hik, with sn:ffic!ent clearne~s. I read from the opinion .of the court: 

Beyond all question the transportation of freight, or of the uLjects of com- merce, for the purpose of exchange or sale, is a constituent of commerce itself. 

This has never been doubted, and pYobably ~betran portat ion of articles of trade 

from one State to another was the prominent idea. in the minds of the framers of 

the Constitution when to Congre s was committed the power to regulate com- merce among t be several States. A power to prevent embarrassing restrictions 

by any State was the thing desired. The power was given by the same words 

and in the same clause by which was conferred power to regulate commerce with 

foreign nations. It would be absurd tosupposethnttheh·ansmission of the subjects of trade from the State to the buyer or from the-place of production to the 

mark twas not contemplated, for without that there could bo no consummated 

trade either with foreign nationsoramongtheStates. · In his work on the Constitution Judge Story asserts that the ensein which the 

word "commerce" is used in that instrument i}:lcludes not only traffic, but in- tercourse and navigation. And in the Passenger cases it was said: "Comme1·ce 

consists in selling the . uperftuity, in purchasing articles of necessity, as well pro- ductions as ma.nufactuYes, in buying from one nation and selling to another, or in transport.i,ng the merchandise from the seller to the buyer to gain the freight." 

Nor does it make any difference whether this interchange of comm oaities is by land or by wat-er. In either case the bringing of the goods fwm the seller t{) the 

buyer is commerce. Among the States it must have heen principally by laud 

when the Con. titution ''-as adopted. · 

tll * * * * • • Howe-ver this may be, the rule has been llsserted with great clearness that 

whenever the subjects over which n. powe.r to regulate commerce is asserted are in their nature na.tiona.l, or admif; of one uniform system or plan of regulation, they may justly be said t-o be of such a. natm· as to require exclusive legi lation 

by Congress. · 

And in the l\Iissouri case, reported in 1 Otto, page ~80, the same pi·oposition is discilssed: · 

Commerce is a t-erm of the largest imi>ort. It comprehend:> intercourse for 

the purposes of trade in any and all its forms, including the transportation, purchase sale, and excha,nge of commodities between the citizens of one coun- try and the citizens or subjects of other collhtries and between· the citizens of 

different States. The power to regulate it embrace all the in t.rumeut by 

which such commerce may be conducted . 

1\Ir. BAYARD. FrOm what case does the Senator read? 

Mr. KE.t"fNA. Welton vs. State of Missouri. So far as some of these instruments are concerned, and some subject which are local in their operation, it has been held that the States may provide regulations until Congress acts with reference to them; but where the subject to which the power applies is national in its character, or of such a nature as to admit of uniformity of regulation., the power is exclusive of all State authority. It will not be denied that that portion of commerce with foreign countries 

and between the States which consi. ts in the trnnsporta~ion and e:xchange of 
• 

1885. CONGRE SIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1207 

commodities is of national importance, and admits aud requires uniformity of 

regulation. The very object of investing this power in the General Government was to insure this uniformity against discriminafuig State legislation. 

It does notmatterJ accordil.1gto these decisions, that the agencywhich 

conducts commerce, that the agency which transports the commodities 

of any State to be exchanged for those of another, shall operatewholly 

w:ithin a State or within many States. The case of the Daniel Ball, 

reported in 10 Wallace, page 565, thoroughly esmblishes this position. 

The Daniel Ball wasasteamerplyingonGrandRiver, Michjgan, wholly 

within the State, not mnning in connection with any line of ~portation by land, or by water, or any continuous line, nor by arrangement 

with any line, but acting independently whol1y within the State and 

upon water within the Stat~ exclnsive)y. 

In thi.s case- . 

Said the courtit is admitted that the .steamer wu.s engaged in shipping and transporting down 

Grand River goods destined and marked for other States than Iichigan, and in 

receiving and tran porting up the river goods brought within the Stat~ from 

without its limits; but inasmuch as her agency in the t.ransportation was en- tirely within the limits of the State and she did not run in connection with or in continuation of any line of >essels or railway leading to other States, it is 

contended that she was engaged en tire]y in domestic commerce. But this con- clusion does not follow. 

So far as she was employed in transporting goods destined for other States, or goods brought from without the limits of Michigan and destined to places within 

that State, she was engaged In commerce between the States, and however limited that commerce may have been, she was, so far as it went, subjec~ to the 

legislation <.of Congress. She was employed as an instrument of that commerce; for whenever a commodity hD,s begun to mo>e a.'J an article of trade from one State to another, commerce in that commodity between the States has com- menced. The fact that several difterent and independent agencies are employed 

in transporting the commodity, some acting entlrelyin one State and some act- ing through two or more States, does in no respect affect the ~haract~r of the 

transaction. To the extent in which each agency acts in that transportation 

it is subject to the regulation of Congress. . 

:Mr. President, it makes no di:fferen~, according to the same line of 

antborities, that the agency did not exist when the Constitution was 

adopted. The distinction between commerce and the agency which con- ducts it is pointedly marked through the whole line of decisions. In a case decided not nry long ago, reported in 6 Otto, coming from Florida, a case, by the way, in which a. Senator now on this floor was one of the 

counsel, Chief-Justice Waite, delivering the opinion of the court, makes 

the following presentation: 

Congress has power II to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the 11everal States" (Constitut\on, Article I, section Bt .Paragraph 8); and "to 

establish po t-offices and posl roads~· (Id., paragraph 7). ·The Constitution of 

the Unit~d States a.nd the laws made in pursuaqce thereof are the supreme law 

of the land. (Article VI, par. 2.) A law of Congress made-in pursuance of the 

Constitut.ion suspends or overrides all State statutes with which it is in conflict. 

Since the case of Gibbons ur. Ogden (9 Wheat., 1) it has never been doubted that 

commercial interoonrse is an element of commerce which comes within the 

regulating power of Congress. ·Post-offices and post-roads are establJ&hed to facilitate the transmission of intelligence. Both commerce and the postal serv- ice are placed within the power of Congre s, because being nationa.l in their 

operation, they should be under the protecting care of the National Governinent. 

The powers thus grant~d are not confined to ·the instrumentalities of com- merce or the postal service known or in use when the Constitution was adopted. but they keep pace with the. progress of the country and adapt themselves to the new developments of time a,nd circumstances. They extend from the horse with 

its rider to the stage-coach, from the sailing vessel to the steamboat, from the 

coach and the steamboat to the railroad, and from. the railroa~ to the telegraph, . as the!'!e new agencies are successively brought into use to meet the demands of 

increasing population and wealth. They were int~nded for the government of 

the business to which they relate at all times and under all circumstances. As 

they were intrusted to the General Government for the-good of the nation, it is not only the right but the duty of Coi)gress to. see to it that intercourse among the States and the transmission of int~Uigence are not obstructed or unneces- sat?ly encumbered by St11.te legislation. · 

We are all aware of the fact that the power conferred upon Congress 

by the commercial clause of the Constitution was conferred for the very 

purpose of preventing improper and ~mbarrassing discriminations by 

the States. To admit for one moment that the ·power was conferred 

by the States upon Congress for the purpose of preventing and setting 

a perpetual bar against invidious action by the various States of the 

country upon a subject in which all were greatly concemed, and on the 

other hand to assert that a State may do by the charter of corporations 

what it confessedly can not· do by direct legislative enactment, would 

be an abandonment of the whole prerogative of Congress conferred by 

the commercial clause of the Constitution. It would do more. It 

would construe the clause to divest the States of the powe1·, and yet con- cede to the States the right to conf~ it on railroad corporations; thus, on the other hand, wresting it from Congress, and thereby, lli; President, grave as the assertion may appear, surrendering absolute control 

of the interstate commerce.of 50,000,000 of people to quasi-public and 

quasi-private, but in either event equally irresponsible, cOrporations. 

This startling conclusion, I assert, is the deliberate object of those 

who boldly deny the power of Qongress over interstate commerce. And this object would be equal1y accomplished if it be conceded for a moment that because an agency operates whol1y within a. State Congress can not reach it. What an anomaly ! ,A railroad, tor instance, 

runswhollywithin a State; tberefore,these corporationstell us, Congress can not act. But. that same railroad carries freighter pas::."ing from one State to anotber. This is interstate commerce i therefore the State can not act. Mr. President, that will not do. The power to regulate 

interstate commerce is as plenary in Congress as the control ov-er purely 

local or State commerce is supreme in the State. I have preferred iu 

presenting my views on this interesting questiou to employ the language of the courts, because it is apt and adds to argument the weight 

of authority. . Congress having the power, then, what is the demand for legislation on the subject? It bas been said here that 'the deJlland is popular; 

that. it is practically universal; that it comes from every quarter. I 

have satisfied myself by some observation on the subject that these 

deinands have come from very important sources. A number of the 

Legislatures of the States have demanded ·this legislation, among them 

New York and Pennsylvania. The National Board of Trade ba,s demanded it. Boards of trade and chambers of commerce tbrQughout the 

countrybaveurged it~ The Grain-Receivers' Association-here letme 

.remind the Senator from Ohio [M:r. SHERMAN], who illusti-ated his opposition to this bill by reference to its supposed injurious effect upon 

grain shipments from Chicago-the fact is that the Grain-Receivem' 

Association of Chicago bas demanded legislation in this very line. The 

1\Iillers' Association of Cincinnati, the ProdnceE:xchangeof'NewYork, 

the national and local boards of trade throughout the country, and 

merchants and ~tizens eve1·ywhere have appealed to Congress for na- tional intervention. ·· 

Why is it that legislation is dema.nded? Why is it that a country 

like this, which owes so much in the last half century of its development, of its greatness, of its pmsperity, to railroad enterp1·is~ alone, 

should thus early in the history ofthat development and enterprise be 

demanding that the strong hand of power be placed on these agencies 

to restrain them? The demand is riot unreasonable. It can not be. 

It comes from intelligent sources. It emanates from patriotic citizens, 

who would no sooner do injustice to railroad enterprise than that of 

the individual. 

Take my own State as an illUstration-with its coal and salt and it 

iron and oil, with its· magnificent timbers of every variety covering the 

whole face of the earth, natural resources which have become familiar 

everywhere-dependent as we necessarily must be for. an indefinite 

period upon railroad enterprise not on1y already undertaken by the 

gre..'l.t trunk lines that traverse om State, but which is to come in the 

future, wrapped up as we are and as we must be in present and pro.'-pect- · ive railroad development, why is it that West Virginia should ue in 

sympathy with this proposed legislation? Mr. President, there is a reason for it somewhere. It is not the development of a native instinct 

of hostility to railroads or to capital or to corporate interests. .I do not refer to unreasonable clamor. I !do not refer to that spirit 

of dema.gogism which would take the rostrum to array honorable and 

honest sentiment unjustly against capital or against men in all the 

forms of their activities and their successes. Not at all. I take no slillr~ in that. Legitimate enterprise mUstbe;respected and.protected. 

Snccess in life is a goal at which we all are striving. They who reach 

it legitin.la.tely, ·under the providences of God, I bid enjoy it legitimately, 

and I will never raise the· hand or the voice to injure or detract them. 

It is not that; it is not passion; it is not impulse; it is. a growing, 

deep-seated, well-founded, determined sentinlentof a free people, who, 

for cause, insist that there should be somewhere found the power .torestrain unrestrained and unlicensed COI-porate power. Why, sir, if there were no such demand, if there were no immediate cause for such demand, as we are in the habit of saying in the courts, on the very face of 

the papers, legislation in a conservative and reasonable spirit ought to 

be had upon this subject. . . What are these corporation.s? We all know the reasons, the human 

instinct common perhaps to us all, that led men in England to find in 

the doctrine of~ a. device whereby to escape laws enacted for their 

t·estraint. We know the craving of the human mind after perpetual 

enjoyment. We know what thedoctrinesofprimogeniture a.nd estates 

tail meant. We.lmow they were abolished for reasons familiar to the 

whole country, in a(leordance with the spirit of our institutions, in every 

State in this Union. But we have lived to see the day in which another form of perpetuity has come to life-coxporations which never die, corporations which live forever, and which do not fail-! do not 

discuss or reflect upon· motive-to find advocates upon this floor, as upon 

the floor of every legislative body in this great country, ready to advocate any theory they put forward for the maintenance of their prerogatives, ev~n jn defiance of the interests of the public and of the powers 

of the state ! · 

They never die. It is· true that sometimes they "sbuflle off this 

mortal coil," a receivership is established, a. temporary proceeding re- sorted to, but it is only the process by which they put on immortality. 

One hundred an<}. twenty-five thousand miles, some Senator stated today to be the length of the railroad tracks in this country. One hundred and twenty-five thousand miles was the sta,tement of the mileage 

of railroads in this country some months ago. I saw last night the most 

recentlytabulatedstatement, bycompaniesandownei'Ship;whicbibave 

met with anywhere, and.j,t places the milroad mileage of the United 

States at something over 143,000 miles ! It would reach nearly six 

t.imes around this earth; and the capital invested in it, according to the 

statement of railroad authorities before your comnrittees investigating 

these subjects recently, amount& to $6,250,000,000-money enough if 

in unse>ered national-currency notes to enable some mystic giant power 

• 
• 

1208 CO.r GRESSIONAL RECORD ~ENATE. :FEBRUARY 3, 

to take this world of ours in one hand and to wrap it and bind it thirty 

times around in greenbacks with the--other. r~ast year, according to the statement of 1\Jr. Fink, who is aid to be 

bt.tter informed on the subject than any other living man, these railroads 

collected in tariffs from the people of the United Sta.tes $700,000,000. I 

need not deal in exact figure: . Tn rn to the gro receipts of your Treasury from all sources-direct tM:es, internal revenue, imports, &'t.les of 

pu}?lic lands-take them all, and at least 30 per cent. more was collected 

ii·om the American people by railroad corporations in one year, the last 

year, than the total amount from every quarter collected by the Unitetl 

States QQvernment. Antl this bas happened under a system which has 

grown up without an enactment of Congress to 1·egulate or control it. 

How startling is the fllct. You have had. your tariff wars, your factional 

fights, and your ba-ttles of trade; your national conventions to pass upon 

questions of taxation; qut OYer and above them all has stood the law to 

controle>erypower. Freemenarealway jealousofthepoweroftaxation. 

The strongest sentiments of American citizenship surround and guard 

the power, which is confided to hu~an hand , to take from the citizen a portion of his earnings for-public purposes. No -bill can be enacted 

by the other Ho~e, or by this, touching the tariff that does not attract 

the earnest attention of tl1e people of this country; no discussion can be had touching the internal-revenue system·or elements of taxation 

in any form wUhout aftecting and to some extent agitating a large num- ber of people in every section of this great country. . And yet a. transportation system ha grown to proportions which dwarf 

every acknowledged measure of human enterp~·ise; which in>olves OTer 

$6,000,000,000 of invested capita1; w hi.ch carries o >er twelve billions of 

annual commercial values, and which drew fl·om the people last year 

$700,000,000 in freights and tariffi, and this withou~ the let or the 

hindrance of a law to controlthi tupelidous poweror to giYe it direction for the public good. . The Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHER:\I.AX] stated this morning that 

t.his was only tl1e l>eginning of legislation on this subject. I would 

thank QQd, ir, to see it b~c:rin. The Senator says in the same connec- tion that without legislation, without the exercise of the power and 

the performance of the duty impo ed upon Congt·ess by the Constitution of thi country, the railroad corporation are supreme. Then, Mr. 

President., tuey are supreme, for no such legislation exists. Can t.he 

people iotru t. uch power to inortal hand ~ It can n~ ._afcly be. 

Y c'J\ find m(tnkiu<J. a.re unco w eak ·An'..l.ittle to !Je tt·usted; If self tt1c waveri11g balance . h ake, H's rar<.'ly ri:::ht adjn'!leu. 

Let us <.:l1eck that supremacy. J.et n bring this great power into 

subject-ion .to law. ·Outside ofJtn act pa eu a few years -ago to require 

them to water and rest their cattle on the route· between the great 'Vest 

and the Ea t, I believe Congres has ne\-e1· lnill its finger on the transportation agencies of this great.·continent. It has been attempted over and over again, anti it has a;~ often 1:\iled. I had. ome familiarity with 

the history.of attempted legislation on the subject a far"lx~ck a •the 

Forty-third Congress. Au act pa ·ed th House of Repre entat ives 

March 26,1874, which esta.hlisbed acommi:-:-iou. I have·uot been able 

to find any record of it in the c.nate. I have not been ah1e to find 

what I understand to ha>e been a lleniling amendment when the bill was last heard from, but O:ll iuquh-y I httYe found that the bill actually 

reached the Senate of the United States. If it ever got further than the 

portal I baTe no information on the subject. That was a comruission 

bill. ·In the Forty-~onrth Cougre~s another bill was introduced-:-half a dozen of them. ·The bills pending in that Congress gave rise to what is 

recognized to-day a · the Reagan bill. What is now known as the Reagan 

bill is not1 howe>er, the original bill, nor is it. any one ofthe original bills. 

Again, in the · orty-fiftb Congress a number of bills were introduced. 

Sop1c of those bills pro>ided forcommL;;sions; some presented the idea 

containe<l in the Reagan bill with other p-z:o•isions added; some con- tained ideas that are not in either -bill. · ""'hat· is now known as the 

Reagan bill was reported to Congre.s , passed the House, and came to 

tb.i'5 botly a5 a substitute for the original bill which was prepared by some lawyer, I believe, in Bufr.llo,-N. Y. That was the origin of the 

Reagan bill. It passed the House of Repre~entatives of the Forty-fifth 

Congress, came to. the Senate, wa referred to tl1e Committee on Commerce, and there it died. 

In the present Congress, as we are all awai·e, the bill has again passed 

the House. This is the third time the House ha responded to the 

popular demand for action on this important subject. The last bill is 

before us. It is substantially the Reagan bill except that those provisions which unaert.ake to regulate the transportation of pas engers and 

to th specific rntes of charges thet'efor are interpolations. Tbey are no 

part or parcel either of the Reagan bill a it originally existed or of its 

ope or the01y. It might not be proper under the rules of the Senate 

to state where they found their origin, but they were no part of the 

prigina.l Reagan bill and did not emanate fxom its author, Now, 1\Ir. President, I favor legislation on this great subject. I do 

not accept that plan of legislation which is embraced in the Senate bill. 

I have not quite been able to get into my bead what our·friends mean by such proposed legislation. The first idea. I eYer acquired of law I d~rh·ed ft'Om Blackstone. I ha>e studied a good many law-hooks in 

the course of time, but I m\i. t exprc ·my surpri e in the face of all I 

have been aple to gather from the "books when it is boldly asserted in 

the S~uate of the United States that no enactment arisillg to the dignityofpositi>e law. can be made torea h thi ubject; that the subject 

is o great, so complex, so beyon1l the ordinary ken and ingenuity of common manhood, and the Senate so conespondingly ignorant, that 

there mn t be an in>ention, there must be a new device that will ena- ble us to !each the object, and w~ are to haYe fo1· the regulation of interstate commerce what Senatorial ferti.lity of resoul'ce has denominated a ''flexible law. '' Shades of departed lawgiYers! explain to us by orne proce of inspiration what we are to understand by a "flexible Jaw." '' Now you see it, and now you don't see it.'' I presume under the 

propo ed flexible commission we are to go to these commissioners on Monday morning bright and early alld ask them what the law is tQ-day. 

On Wedne day morning we go again and a.sk them what the law i that 

day, aud on Saturday we ma.y repea~ the experiment. 1\Ir. President, 

I n::.ean nQ disrespect ancl no discourresy to any Senator on this floor, 

but I ha.Ye been unable to work myself up to any other ~onception than 

that a fle:xible law is a flexible absurdity. 

Possibly the difficulty is met on the sugge tion of the. enato.r from 

Arkansas [1\Ir. GARLAND], by striking out of the Senate bill all thet'e was in it that was la.w of any kind and leaving it to e tablish a. mere roving commission something after the fashion of our own committees, 

which we sent out a summer or two ago, the product of who e labors we haYe ))een discussing here for a month or more and withalikelihood of 

reaching similar practical results. If the Reagan bill be not a proper 

bill let it be defeated; but in so far a the Sena.te un~ertakes to deal 

with this great subject let it make law, let it make rule, let it enact 

something that will go>ern omebody somewhere, that somebody on earth ~n understand a.nd know that he is bound by and must obey. 

Give u no ''flexible'' commission with '' fle:ribfe ' ' powers to mock the 

just demands of the public. Those demands are rea onable. They 

should fintl here a reasonable response. 

Now a word or two about the provision of the Reagan bill, and I 

shall not detain the Senate longer. The first section of the Reagan 

bill makes provision- · Th3.t it shall be unlawful for any p e r on or p e 1-son engaged· alone or oci- ated with otllera in the tra.usportat-ion of property by railroad or by pipe-line or lines from one Slate ot• 'l'erritory t6 or through one or more other States or Ter- ritories of the United States, or to or from any foreign country, directly or in- directly, to charge to or receiYe from any person or persons any greater or les rate m· amount of freight, compensation, or reward than is by him or them charged to o1· receiYed from uny other person or persons'for like und contempo- raneou er\"ice in the carrying, receiYing, deliYcring, toriug, or handling of the same. 

Equality of pay for equa}ity of service-nothing more, nothing less. 

I desire to call the attention of Senators to one important consideration 

in con.nection with this >ery prov~ion. I know more about the history of the origin of the Reagan bill than the proprieties of this b9dy 

under the rule which prohibit 1-eference to occurrences in the other 

House perhap will-permit me to say. I am sufficiently familia1· with 

the Reagrui bill and its origin to know that it never was intended to 

regulate passenger rates, it never was designed to regulate freights, it was never a part of its purpo e to control the charge and rates of trans- port~tion anywhere in this country for .intei tate commerce or com- merce of any kintl whatever. · It was intended-and mark the declaration-to take from thHailroad 

corporation of this great country t.be power which has been appropriated by them to regulate interstate commerce for the people. .That was the design, that was the purpose of the Riagan bill, and I defy 

any gentleman anywhere to give it with propriety any wider scope or range. It has been misrepresented. It has been advertised as a dangerous meddling with the details _of railroad afi'airs. It does nothing 

of tlle kind. It was never intended to do it: It is, I repeat, a resumption·by Congress of a. power to regulate interstate commerce which the . Constitution confers n_pOn Congress, a~cl which the railroads have 

usurped ;md absorbed. . Why, sil·, I am told that the rule" of equality of pay for equality of 

ervice, provided by this section, may prevent a railroad company 

from opening markets to the products of this country tha.t otherwise 

they can not reach. Some man will want to carry his 1 umber from ~Iichigau to New York, they tell us. Themilro:id company fixes a .tariffmakes it, in the language of l\Ir. Fink-all it will bear to carry that 

lumber to New York for consumption within ·our own boundaries. 

Some other gentlem~ associates with some Englishman or some French- man or some German or omebody somewhere for the shipment of lumber ~oroad to come iu competition with foreign production . It is all 

well enough for JHr. Fink in his testimony to state that if you require 

equality of service for equality of pay from the railroads you deprive 

the railroad company of the opportQ..Uity to make reducLions in behalf 

of the foreign shipper in order to enable him to ca.rry ~merican commerce to the remotest corners of the ea.rth; but I beg ·politely to inform that 

iRtelligent· gentleman that that is no part of the functions of a railroad 

corporation organized by the invocation of the sovereign power of eminent domain, a power which belongs to the whole people, to be exerci ed 

only forthe public good, and in whose benefits, in whatever form, those 

people are entitled equally and on equal terms to shal'tl. · 'l'hevery illustration giYen is the regulation of commerce with fcrt;:·lgn nation. . The 

• 
1885. CONGRESSIONAL R~CORD-BENATE. 1209 

railroad company gives one shipper, with his foreign associates, terms which it denies to another. It thereby says to one that he may, and 

to the other that he may not, engage in foreigfr commerce-. This is a power which the Constitution was designed to deny to the States and 

to confer e.."!clusively on Congress, an<l: which Congress can not., with . decent regard to its commonest obligations to the public, abrogate in 

favor of the l'Oads. Sitting here to-day and for weeks .I have failed as yet to hea1· submitted to the Sen:1te by any Senator who has assaulted thut clause of 

thls bill an illustration of the hardship it will do to the railroad interests of the country which was not at t.he same time an illustration of 

the regulation by the railroads of commerce between this and foreign 

cotmtries or between the States of this Union. . · Take the case the Senator from Ohio [1\Ir. SHER.1LAX] use a an illu - tration. The people of the great West, citizens of Chicago, or graindealers th~re, want to ship their grain lo New York. The railroa<ls 

fix a rate. Under this first clause the same rate must be charged to all 

persons for similar service. · In a common carrier,·condncting a business affecting t.he puJ?lic, with 

every element of power emhraced in hi charter, his VIH'Y existence 

drawn equally from the people, the head and front and source of all 

power, this would strike tl1e average conscience as a fair and reasona.- ble requirement. Bnt without this section, in the absence of thi re- . quirement, the road· may give a liTing rate to one shippel' a.ncl deny it 

to anothel', thus opening to one and closing to the other the great mar- kets of the East . 'Yhy, Mr. President, the Legislature of New York can not do it. The Legislature of Illinois can not do it. · All the Legislatures in the country can Jtot do-it, and its arbitrary achie\'ement by 

the railroad companie is simply and boldly an arbitrary usurpation of 

the powers of Congre s over comm~rce among tl1e seveml States. · The second p-roposition of this bill is simply: 

S.Ec. 2. That it shall be an unlawful act for any pm·.son or per ons engaged in 

the transportation of property as aforesaid directly m· indirectly to allow any 

rebste, drawback:, or other advantage, in any fonn , upon ~ipm nt made or services rendered as aforesaid by him or th~nt. 

That meana exactly what the first section mean , nothing more and 

nothing less. You. shall not collect in the first instance unequally, you 

s)lall co]Ject equally for equality of service, and having collected it, and 

by collecting it com plied with the terms of the first section of this act·, you shall not evade the law by handing half of it back. There is no possibility ofm, difference in the principle of the two provisions. The 

third clause is: 

SEc. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any person or per 01r engaged in the ear- riage, receiving, storage, or handling of properly as mentioned in the first sec- tion of t hie act to enter i uto any combination, con tl'a.ct., o1· agreement., by changes of schedule, carriage in different cars, or by nuy oth&· mejlus, with intent topre- >ent the carriage of such property from being continuous from tbe placeofship· ment to the place of stination , wlletber carrie~ on one or seYeral railroads. · 

'£hat only means that this law provide~ against its .own evasion: 

.A.nd it shall be .uu la wfu 1 for any person or persons canying properLy as afore; 

said to enter into any contract., o.greement, 01· combiilat-ion f9r the' pooling of 

freights, or to poot the freights of dift'erent and competing railroads, or to divide 

between.them tbe aggregate or net prot)eed of the earnings of snell 'railroads, or· any portion of them. · 

I may not understand what pooling freight' ineans. I have read a great deal about it; I ha.ve reall what; everybody who has te t.ified be1ore any of the committee~ has said a.bout it. The Senator from Kentucky [l\Ir. ,BECK] reminds me that tile State of New York does not . allowpoolinp;, e,·e!l between.tencanal-boa.tmen. It seems to me to be a plain proposition i.ha.t a· pooling of freights as between competing 

railroad lines-and that process never happens as between any others..:_ 

is riothing n1ore, was intended to be nothing more, and can in the nat- ure of the transaction be nothing mGre than a combination to destroy 

competition as bet'\'\'eeft carriers whic~ may bring down th~ price of their 

services to the public to the ordinary le.Vel of supply and demand. 

Mr. President., bearing in mind what this law me~, divesting it of 

the myste1'Y which ll~s been made to surround it, and believing that it 

is right and proper that the people whose great commerce is transported, over SO per cent. of it., now by rail should have the benefit in the handling of that great mass of material, of such competition a.S railroads 

have created, as railroad men have created by their voluntary investment in railroad enterprises, I have f:t>ored and defended this proposition in the interest of'. American commerce. · . The fourth section js as follows: 

SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any peraon or persons engaged in the · b·ansportation of property as provided in the first section of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation for a similarrunonnt 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, on any one railroad or pit}e-llne; and the roa.d.of a corporation shall include all the road or pipe-line muse by such corporatiOn, whether owned or opcrnt~d by it under a contract., 

agreement, or lease by such corporation. . . · 

Here, Ur. President, is the bone of contention. It has made more 

controversy, has excited more hostility among ra.ilroadmen, and, in my 

humble judgment, developed to higher degree the genius of invention 

in the attempt to cripple and destroy it, than any forty bills which 

have been presented to Congress in as many years. . In discussing this section of the bill I desire t<l. present two proposi-. tions. One is the·propriety of t.he section as it stands. The other is 

.. 

the impropriety of denouncing it u.pon a forced or fal e construction. 

Its enemies, instead of enabling its friends to perfect it and reach it 

object if it does not already do it, have entertained the Senate for two 

weeks and more by pointing out its anomalies and in my mind the ex- ceptional illustrations.ofits effects. Here is th~ open declaration that 

under all c~cumstunc.es the railroads are to be the judges of the propriety of charging a man as mu.ch for hauling a car-load four miles as they charge for four thousand. It is trne they have already that power 

and it is true that this bill does not attempt to deprive them of it. , . Under this bill they are not denied the power to charge as mu.ch for a short as for a longer distance, but the serrice being similar they can not charge more. Thus, as the first section requires equalicy of treatment as between individuals, this section at least limits the power of 

discrimination as between sections. Now, Mr. President, I make of 

this section an observation equal~y applicable to e>ery clause of this 

oill-it is born of the injustice and wrong visited upon helpless people 

whose position has made them dependent upon single lines of road. 

It is no secretin this body, norm this country, norindeed has it been 

denied before your committees that in numberless instances discriminations so harsh and so merciless have been visited upon local traffic 

that through freight,.,, where competition has effected reductions, have 

been carried for less than cost. 

:Mr. !)resident, what does this mean? I repeat, sir, what does this 

mean'? It means that in the handling of interstate commerce and imposing tru.iffs for its carriage in numberless instances one section by its helple s condition has been made to bear the burden of its own transportation and likewise that of the more favored locality. And to re- turn to the illustration offered by the Senator from Ohio [.M:r. SHER- 1UA.~]: Iffreightbecarriedfrom Chicago to New York at a given price, 

and from a point on the same line half the distance from New York a larger coJ,Upensation be charged, what is this buta tax<>n the intermediate shipment in the interest of the Chicago' shipper? But the Chicago 

shipper does not get the benefit of it in the end, because his wheat has 

already reached him from various intermediate. stations in all the sec- tions of country which feed his granaries and it h.as -already borne the 

exactiobs. Grnin in its very nature comes from the country stations: It can not escape somewhere the heavy hand of the local ~te, · and 

thus, while before it reaches the consumer it has been taxed all it will 

bear, it has itself.in the process of transportation been successively·the 

victim and the.beneficiary of local and ofthrough rates. But the most 

setions aspect of the whole question, to my mind, is the utter, helpless, hopeless dependence of this comm~ty of inter:3tate exchange 

upon the railroads for the exercise of a fnnction for which it has a right under the Constitution to look to Congress . . Who will deny, 

wl10 .can deny that in the absence of this section of the bill railroad 

tariffs may be so adjusted as to drive from a market a producer a hundred miles away, and surrender it in monopoly to another who is a thousand? 

W~o will deny that by the.discrimi.nations which this section at least 

in n. m~ure }:lroh.ibits the prodn< ts of one locality or of one State may 

be land~ in the market on the seashore at one tariff, and thooe of a.n-

(Jther three or ten times t,he distance away be brought there for a. third 

the amount. .Aild show me the geninswbo can devise 'a more effective 

method of controlling, ~crulating, making, or unmaking the interstate commerce of this country. . This, with t·he otller sections of this bill, 

is intended to divest the railroads of i.beir power over the interstate commerce of the country, and relegate them to the legitimat-e perform- ance of their functions as caniers fo1· reasonable compensation according to supply and demand. It is intended to deny to the.·railroads the 

right to say to one citizen· or one section, "I will build you up; 11 to 

another, 11 I will tear you down; 71 to one operator, ' ' You may mine 

coal and live;" and to another, ' 'You may mine ana tarve;" to one lumberman, "You may saw your logs arid·sh.ip the product and sell it 

and thrh·e;" and to another, ".Yon maysa.wyou.rs, anditshalllie and 

rot in your-yards." It is intended, .in a word, aml it undeliakes no p.1ore, to divest the corporations of the power to take bodily possession 

of the business of the country and adapt that business to their own pursuits. My colleague [Mr. CAlUDEN] in presenting his views of this 

feature of the bill to the Senate has employed the following vigo1·ous 

and practical language: 

There can be no more reason for a 1-ailroad cl,larging more for half ttte labor 

than for .twice the amount of labor than there would be for any other interest 

governed by t.he rules affected by machinery and labor, or than there would be for charging more for making one plow than for making two plows, or for a cart to charge more for carrying a. load half a mile than it would for a mile ovt>r the same road ; or for a hod-carrier to charge more to can-y brick to the first story 

of a house than he .would to carry the same brick to the second story m·er the same ladder by which he reached the first story. The cost of t-ransportation t-o a. railroad is measured by the wear and tear of the road and equipment and the 

expenses per mile for-fuel and labor in moying the .train·: and there is no theory that I have e-ver seen advanced that satisfies my mind that these physical con- ditions are varied to any great extent per I;llile·in proportion to the distance. I am, therefore , fully pe1·suaded that thiS is a wise provision. 

· The next section ·of the bill, Mr. President, is that which requires a 

schedule of rates to be posted open to general inspection and accessible 

to the public. The schedule is not allowed to be changed except upon 

five days' notice, with a pending proposition to allow it to be reduced 

at any time without notice. This suggestion is made to meet the ob-

-
1210 . OONGRES IONAL REOORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 3, 

jection that water lines might make sudden reductions, and the railroad, . obliged t.o give five days' notice of a change, might be in the mean time 

seriously affected by its more fortunate rival for the trade. No harm can come from the reduction withoutthe five days' notice otherwise provided for, but in :the interest of fairness the fact of the reduction should 

be duly posted. If the general theory of the b~ be defensible, this 

schedule is eminently so. It is simply the sentinel standing constant 

guard over the provisions and requirements _of the bill to point the finger 

of exposure to their violation. . · ! On the ~1bject of the carriage of passengers I do not know whetheJ" 

the motion has been voted on to strike out the provision or not. I intended to vote to strike it out, and I shall certainly do so now if I have 

the opportunity. It is no part of the ~riginal scheme and purpose of 

the bill to regulate the price of carrying a man, woman, or child, ~r one ounce or pound of freight. The only limitation in it is the limitation 

of the price of the shorter to the price of a longer distance, and that is not 

to regulate the amount, not to regulate the value, not to affect the price, 

but to affect the relationship as between ·similar services rendered for 

shorter distances as ~aainst longer ones. The provisions of the bill 

which I have- not discussed relate to penalties and the various featureS 

looking to remedies. 

Mr. MAXEY. Will the Senator allow me ? 

Mr. KENNA. Certainly. 

Mr. MAXEY. I wish to place on record somewhere the fact that the 

friends ·of the Reagan bill, without exception, voted against the clause 

fixing the r¥e of fare for the transportation of persons, and the provision was left 1lS it iS in the bill by the votes of the opponents of the bill. 

The PRESIDENT pr:o tempore. The Senator from Texas, the Chair 

thinks, can not allude to the votes of any other body. 

Mr: MAXEY. I am not alluding to anything except what took place 

in Committee of the Whole. 

The PRESIDENT pro ternpore. The Senator is quite in order then. 

Mr. MAXEY. I thotight I was. The Senator from Kentucky gave 

notice that he would call for a vote on that proposition when we got 

back into the Senate, so tha.t we shall still have an opportunity of proving our faith by our works, and all who have said recently they will 

vote to _strike that out can put their votes on record when we come back 

to the Senate. • Mr. BECK. I am not a very good parliamentarian, but I am afraid 

if the substitute offered by the Railroad Committee of the Senate is 

voted on in- place of the House bill, I shall never be able ·to get that 

amendment into the Sena~. I do not know how that is, ·but I am afraid that will be the way it will-work. Therefore I am going to 

endeavor to move to stiike out that part of it about the 3 cents a mile 

before the substitute comes to a vote. 

Mr. ALLISON. I wish to call the attention of the Senator from 

Kentucl.."J" to the fact that he embodied in his· amendment many more things than that clause relating to the charge per mile. 

Ur. BECK. I. did in the first instance, and therefore I give !totice now that I will again endeavor to test that three-cents-a-mile provision 

for fear I may not get a chance in the Senate. 

Mr. ALLISON. There will be no trouble about testing it. 

:Mr .. KENNA: I have no doubt;, apart from the fact that that provision of the Reagan bill is a departure from the original design of the 

bill itself, any gentleman will see the great injustice of the operation 

of it.· 

1\ir. BECK. Allow me one word. If the amendment that r offered 

had carried-and it was lost by one vote only-it would have left; the 

Reagan bill just as itwas presented by the Senator from West Virginia 

when he was in the House, or when he was supporting Judge RJ;AGAN 

in the presentation of it. They are both veryJamiliar with the whole 

subject. · Mr. KENNA. And this diversion brings me to mak~· an observation 

that I tlrink is due to the spirit of the O;CCaSion. It was never designed 

by Judge REAGAN, as I have said, that this bill should regulate rates, 

that it should take hold of the business of railroads and manage it. It 

was intended to be moderate, conservative, and reasonable. I know 

that great and good old man. I have known him for yea~. I know 

his great capacity, and I know his great honesty and his great sense of 

fairness and of justice. 

I know that there -is not a human being on this COJ?.tinent who would 

be more loath than he to do violence or injustice even to a great corporation. This ·bill" was never designed, I repeat, to~ the rates of 

the :rnilroads in the management of their business, but a;s a restoration 

to Congress of its own appropriate power conferred upon it by the Constitutionofthecountrytoregulatethe interstatecomme:reeof 50,000,000 

of freemen-that and no more. If any Senator will point out a manner by which the object can be better accomplished by other-words 

than those which are employed, I for one will cheerfully support it. 

I deny that it has been su~ted. 

What the Senator from Texas says about voting on the amendment 

of the Senator from Kentucky to strike out the 3-cent clause brings 

forcibly to mind the attitude of the Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] 

upon this subject. A half hour was spent by him ·discussing the '

1 anomalous'' prorision of that part of the bill wliich gives jurisdiction 

to the State courts covered by t~e two simple wol'ds " or State." "~ith 

the power on this floor which we have seen exhibited- ufficient at any 

moment to do with the bill as it pleases-it was easy at any time to 

strike out these two simple words and free the subject from all the em barrassment that an hour wus taken to exhibit. Not a motion wa 

made, not an effort to perfect or improve the measure, but a disposition all along the line, both actively and passively, to let it die the 

death. • .. 

Sir, it may die; I have no doubt it will die; I regard it as p1-actically 

dead now, but I have made these. observations upon it in order that I 

may be regarded as in at tpe funeral, and if I mistake not the temper 

of the American people on this great subject I shall be likewise in ali 

its resurrection. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question i on Bt:,OTeeing to the 

amendment proposed by the Senator from Kentucky [M:.r. BECK]. 

1\Ir. BECK. The yeas a.nd nays were called for, I think. If not, I 

call for them now. The yeas and nays were ordered. · 1\fr. HARRISON. I a k that the amendment be read again. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be read. 

The CmEF CLEBJr. In section 5, line 26, after the word "substituted,". it is proposed to insert: 

Prol1ided, That there ~ay be • reduction of rA-t prior to the po Ling of su<:h new schedule, but in such case the new schedule shall be posted as aforeeatd 

within five days alter such reduction shall be made, and said schedule shall also 

specify the date at which the reduction comp1enced. · 

Mr. BECK. The only purpose of this amendment is to obviate what 

the railroads complain of as a very seriotis difficulty in the Hotise bill, 

if it ~tands unamended-that is, that unless the amendment prevails 

they can not make a change of rates in less than five days. They say 

that they may be in competition with rnilroads which are not embraced 

in the pr()visions of this bill, that they may be in competition with wat~r ways not embraced in any bill, and that their competitors may 

reduce their rates and thereby take their business, whlle by an iron 

rule they would be unable to meet them for five day . I have offered this amendment so as to allow them, if that condition 

of things oceurs, to reduce their rates without notice, so "that they shall 

not be embarrassed by the action ·of any competitor-to reduoo them 

to everybody equaJly of course, to reduce them in accordance' with the 

other provisions of the bill. 

It is well known that every shipper of goods has to ascertain, before 

he knows what he can )>ay the producer, what it will cost him to transport those goods to the place where he expects to find a market; and 

there ought to be some stability in that regard so that he will not, if 

he has purchased his goods and is ready to start them, find the schedule 

double Ql' treble or quadruple what the rates were when he made the 

nurchase, which would change his venture from a profit to a loss. 

But if the railroad fuids itself with a competitor cb.tting under it, it 

is allowed to :reduee its ra~ neither hurting the shipper nor the producer, but in fac$ ifl is a .benefit to both; and if it is a benefit to the 

railroads I desire to give the railroads that benefit. That is all there 

is in the amendment .. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. GARLllTD (when his name was called). I am paired wit.h the 

Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN]. Not knowing how he 

would vote on this amendment,· I withhold my vote. . 1\Ir. RANSOM (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Illinois [Mr. LoGAN]. If he were present, I should vote 

"yea." 

Mr. SAULSBURY {when his name was called). I am paired with 

the Senator from Colorado [Mr. HILL]. ·If he we-re here, I should vote 

. "yea." . · The roll-Call was concluded. 

Mr. KENNA., I was _Eaired with the Senator from MinnesOta [Mr. 

SABIN]. My colleague t.Mr. C1UIDEN] being absent, I b:a-nsfert;he pair 

to him and vote ''yea.'' . · 

Mr. GARLAND. Then I am at liberty to vote, and I vote "yea." 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin (a;ft.er havfug voted in the negative). 

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE] is absent from the city. 

I am paired with him for to-day. I was not aware when I voted thahe was absent. I withdraw my vote. . . Mr. PLUMB. I am paired with the Senator from Louisi3na [Mr. 

GIBSON]. 

The result was ~ounced-:-yeas 46, nays 7;·as follows~ 

Allison, 

Bayard, 

Book, 

Butler, 

Call, 

Cockrell, 

Coke, 

Colquitt, 

Conger, 

<Jullom, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, • 

YEAS-4.6. 

Fair, 

Frye, 

Garland, Groome, Hampton, 

HarrJ..S. 

Harrison, Hoar, 

Ingalls, 

.Jackson, 

Jonas, 

Jones of Florida, 

Jones of Nevada, 

Kenna., 

McMillan., 

McPherson, 

Mahone, 

Manderson, Maxey, 

Miller of Cal, 

Miller of N.Y., Morrill, 

Pendleton; Pike, 

Platt, Pugh, Sawyer, 

Sherman, 

Slater, 

Vance, Van 'Vyck, Vest, 

Voo:rhees, 

Williams. 
i885. OONGRESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. 1211 

Cha~. 

Hawley, 

NAY8-7. 

Lapham, Morgan, litchell, Sewell. 

ABSENT-28. 

Aldrich, Cameron of Wis., Hale, 

Blair, Dawes, Hill, 

Bowen, Farley, Lamar Brown, <norge, Logan: Camden, Gibson, · Palmer, Cameron of Pa., Gorman, Plumb, 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Wilson. 

Ransom. 

Riddle berger, Sabin, 

Saulsbury, Walker. 

Mr. BECK. I believe it is in order to go back to section 1. If so, I 

desire tomoveanamendment, after the word'' di.scrimination,'' in line 

27, to strike out down to and including the word "peiSOn," in line 31, 

being these words: · 

Nor shall any railroad company or its officers cbm-ge to or receive from any person who is to be conveyed from one State or Territory into another any sum 

exceeding 3 cents per mile for the distance to be traveled by such person. 

I desire to avoid that question if I can by moving to strike out those 

words. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MoRRILL in the chair). The question is on the amendment prop<>S'ed by the Senator from Kentucky, which 

will be read by the Secretary. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 27 of section 1, after the word "discrimination/' it is proposed to strike out all down to and including the 

word ' person," in line 31, ~ follows: 

Nor shall any railroad company or it,g officers charge to or receive from any person who is to be conveyed from one State or Territory into another any sum exceeding 3 cents per mile for the distance to be traveled by such person. 

Mr: BECK. I simply desire to• strike that clause out. It was no 

part of the original proposition of the friends of the bill; and there may 

be places such as the Saint Louis bridge where that limit would be re- garded as Wl'ong. And as the Senator fromAlabama [Mr. PuGH] and 

others seem to have some constitutional scruples in regard to our powe:r over that question, I do not care to have the House bill enc~bered. by 

anything that any one baa any doubt about. 

The amendment was ag~ to. 

Mr. INGALLS. Mr. President, in section 1 of the bill, in lines '24, 

25, 26, nnd Z7, I move to strike out all'after the word "color," in line 

24, down to and including the word "discrimination," in line 27, and on the motion to strike out I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are called for on the runendment of the Senator from Kansas, which Will be read. 

The CmEF CLERK. The words to be stricken out are, in section 1, 

after the word ''color,'' in line 24, to the word '' discrimination,'' in 

line 27, as follows_: "and that furnishing separate accommodations, with 

equal facilities and equal comfom, at the same charges, shall not be 

considered a discrimination.'' · . 

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. 

Mr·. CAMERO~, of Wisconsin {when his name was called). I am paired on this question with the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. 

GEORGE]. If he were present, I should vote "yea." 

Mr. GARLAND (when his name was called). I am paired with t.he 

Senator from West Virginia [Mr. C.llm~]. 

l\lr. PLUMB (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Louisiana [Mr. GIBSON]. . :Mr. RANSOM (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from illinois [Mr. LoGAN]. If he were here, I should vote 

''nay '' on this amendment. . Mr. SAULSBURY (when his name was called). I am paired With 

the Senator from ColoTado [Mr. HILL). If he were here, I should vote 

"nay." • The roll:..call was concluded. • Mr. BECK (after having voted in the affirmative). I intended to 

vote '' nay,'' but I am recorded ''yea'' by mistake. I am paired with 

the Senator from Maine [Mr. HALE] and his colle3ooue [Mr. FRYE] 

advised me that upo.n this question Mr. HALE would vote "yea;" and as I would vote "nay , .I withdraw my vote, being paired. 

1\fr. SAWYER. I am paired with the. Senator from Oregon [Ur. 

SLATER]. I do not know how he would vote, and therefore I withhold my vote. I should vote ''yea '' if he were here. 

The result was announced-yeas 34, nays 17; as follows: 

Aldrich, 

Allison, Blair, 

Bowen, 

Butler, 

Chace, 

Conger, Cullom, Dawes,_ 

BaJ·ard, 

Call. 

Cockrell, 

C'.oke, 

Groome, 

YEAS-34 . . 

Dolph, 

Edmund, 

Fair, 

Frye, 

Harrison, Hawley, Hoar. 

Jvgalls, 

Jackson, 

Jones of Nevada, 

Lapham, 

Mcl\Iillan, 

Mahone, 

~!anderson, 

1\ .. ler ofN. Y., 

:l\Iitchell, 

Morrill, 

Pike, 

NAYS-17. 

Hampton, 

Harris, 

Jonas, 

Jones ofFlorida, 

Kenna, 

McPherson, 

~ey. 

Morgan, 

Pendleton, 

Pugh, 

Platt, 

Sabin, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

VanWyck, 

Voorhees, 

Wilson. 

Vance, Vest. 

.ABSENT-25. 

Beck, Garland, Logan, 

Brown, <norge, :rtfiller of Cal., 

Oamde.il, Gibson, Palmer, 

Oa.meron ofPa., Gorman, Plumb, 

Cameron of Wis., Hale Ransom, 

Colquitt, Hill ' Riddlebe:rger, 

Farley, Lan:.ar, · Saulsbury, 

So the amendment was agreed to. 

Sawyer, 

Slater, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now is on the substitntion of the amendment proposed byt.he Senator from lllinois [Mr. CULLOM] for the House bill. 

Mr. WILSON. I desire to offer an amendment to be added to the 

amendment of the Senator from Kentucky which was adopted to the 

Honse bill. It is to come in at the end of the amendment adopted on his motion. His amendment applies to line 26 of section 5, on page 5. 

I move to add: 

An<! such reduction of rates shall be grante4 to all persons without discrimination prior to as well as after the posting of said schedule. 

I wish to say in explanation of the proposed amendment that under 

the operation of the amendment adopted on the motion of the Senator 

from Kentncky discriminations between shippers would be directly 

authorized, and in this way: Suppose that A should purchase a stock 

of goods in New York to be shipped to Lexington, Mo.. The rate is a dollar a hundred. To-morrow B purchases a like stock of goods to ship 

to the same point. Under the operation of the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky a rate of 50 cents per hundred may be given to B; 

and that discrimination in favor of B against A would be authorized 

by t.llat amendment unless the one I propose shall be added. to it. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment 

of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSO:s'] to the bill. .The amendment was agreed to. · 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment ofthe Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] as a substitute for the 

House bill.-

Mr.' CULLOM. I ask for the yeas and nays ~n that amendment. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. 

Mr. CAMERON, of Wisconsin (when his name was called). On this 

question I am paired with the Senator from Mississippi [!Ir. GEORGE]. 

If he were present, and I were at liberty to vote, I should vote ''yea.'' · Mr. PLUMB {when his name was called). On this question I am paired with the Senator from Louisiana· [Mr. GIBSOY}. 

Mr. RANSOM (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator fro~ Illinois' [Mr. LOGAY]. If he were here, I should vote 

"nay." 

Mr. SA. WYER(when his name was called). I am paire<l on tllisquestion with the Senator from Oregon [Mr. SL.ATEB]. · . The roll-call was concluded. 

.Mt. BECK (after having voted in the negative). I am paired, as I am reminded, with the Sena~ from ~Iaine [!h. HALE], and I withdraw my vot~. · 

~Ir. RIDDLEBERGER. I have been paired on the two bills with the • Senator from Arkansas [.Mr. WALKER)~ as has been beforeannoun~d. 

I agreed within the last hour to have that pair transfen-ed to the Sen- a~-or from Colorado [Mr. Bow~]. Therefore I vote "yea." ' 

1\Ir. CALL {after having voted in t.he negative). I had agreed to 

pair with the Senator from Georgia [Mr; BRowN]. I ask leave, therefore, to withdraw my vote. If he- were here, I should vote "yea" and 

he would vote "nay." · - The PRESIDENT pro ienipore. If there be no objection; the vote of 

the Senator from Florida will be withdrawn. 

Mr. KENNA. ~Iy colleague [Mr. CAMDEN] is paired· with the Sen- atoT from Arkansas [:~Ir. G.!RLA.ND]. · The !esnlt wa announced-yeas 34, nay 18; as follows: 

.Aldrich, 

Allison, 

Blah· . 

~. Colquilt, 

Cullom, 

Dawe. , Dolph, 

Frye, 

Bayard, 

Butler, 

Cockrell, Cok.e, 

Edmunds, 

Hampton, 

Harrison, 

Hawley, 

Hoar, 

Ingalls, 

Jackson, 

YE.As-&,l 

l\Ic1\'lillau, 

:\IcPhersou, 

2.\bhone 

Miller of Cal., 

Miller of N.Y., 

·Jonas, . • Jones of Nevada, 

Lapham, 

Mitchell, 

l\l(>rg&n, 

Mbrrill, 

Pike, 

XAY8-18. 

Fair, 

Groome, 

F.:a.rris, 

Jones of Flol"ida, ~enna, 

Lamar, Manderson~ 

1\Iaxey, 

Pendleton, 

Vance, . 

ABSENT-2-!. 

Platt, 

Pugh, 

Riddleberger, 

Sabin, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

-w:us~n. · 

VanWyck, 

Vest, 

Voorhees. 

Beck, Cameron of "\Vis., Gorman, Ransom, Bowen, Conger, Hale, Saulsbury, 

Brown, Farley, HiU, Sawyer, 

Oall; Garland, J.ogan, Slater, 

Camden, George, Palmer, Wa.lker, 

Camerod of Pa., Gibson, Plumb, Williams. 

While the result of the vote was being announced, .l\fr. CoNGER .a .. dressed the Chair. · 
• 

1212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. FEBRUARY 3,." 

The result having been announced, . '.r!Ir. CONGER. I wish t() know if my name is recorded. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The name of the Senator·from Michigan is not recordeu. · · Mr. CONGER. I Yote 1 yea." . The PRESIDEN"r lJro tempore. The enator rose· before the Chair 

announced the result. '.fhe Chair will haYe his Yote recorded though 

the Chair has made the announcement. The yea. ·are 3.5 and the nays 

18. The amendment js agreed to. 

Mr. BOWEN. I wa requested by my colleague [Mr. Hu..L] to an- nounce his pa.ir with the Senator from Delaware [Mr. SAUL 'BURY], 

but I was not in at the time the vote was 'taken. 

1Y1r. SEWELL. I desire to offer an amendment., adtling a new ection: . The PH.ESIDENT pro lc1npore. The enator from New Jer~ey proposes an · amendment. Doe it apply to the original House bill or t~ 

the substitute adopted? 

'.rl1r. SEWELL. To the sub titute. 

The PRESIDENT pto tempo1·e. The autendment will be 1·eacl. . The Cm.EF .CLERIC It is proposed to add; as a new section: 

SEc. 15. That tile provisions of this bill shall be construed as applicable to Jill 

1·ailroad or tm.n portalion companies engaged in the carrying of ft·eight from 

points in the U~ited States through the Dominion of Canada to tide water, or tQ tide water or o~her J>Oinl within the United tates. · · . 

Mr. SEWELL. I nppose it is hardly neces ary to inake an explanation of the amendment. It is intended to cover transportation routes 

going through Canada for merchandise between points in the Uni.ted ·States. It may be ~hat the matter· is covered before, but it will nqt 

hurt to have this provision put in. 'Ve certainly ought to place Canadian li,nes on the same footing with our own. Mr. HOAR. I should like to ask the Senator if the language would 

not include transportation down the Saint Lawrepce River. 

MJ.·. SEWELL. H alludes to transportation that originate on the 

lakes, and is delivered to Portland, in 1\Iaine. · ·Mr. HOAR. And does not relate to excln.'!ively water transportation? 

·.ur. SEWELL. Ko. 

:Ur. HOA.R. · Then let it be read again. 

Mr. SEWELL. The tiill as it now stand~ regulate water transportation when in connection With railway transportation. · The PRESIDENT J»'O tempore. The luJ~endment will be read. 

The Chief Clerk read the amendment of Mr. SEW.ELL. 

l\1r. INGALLS. I ask the Senator from New Jersey how tha.t would 

affect a road like the .Grimd Trunk, which bas both its termini in the 

territory of the Unite,d States, Chicago being its western terminus, and 

Portland, Me., its eastern ? . · 1 · · 

Mr. SEWELL. I will say to the enator from K:mc:;:.lS that I drew 

the amendment with special reft~x·ence to uch l'Oad , o that they shall come·undei the provision of our law , and have .our laws applied to · 

them. • Mr. INGALLS. There ongbt to be ome limitation as to the tidewater points. If the termmns of a t·oad is a.t tide wa-ter in the United 

States, that is one t.lting; if it is in Ca.nadaor Nova Scotia it is another. 

:Mr. SEWELL. Why should we not apply the same rule to tltat 

conveyed ft·om iheir tide water that we do to our own? Mt.~. INGA.LU?.· How we can make a law of Congress operative in 

Canada is .really past my comprehension·. · Mr. ~EWELL. If' the point of shipment i in our territory why 

should we not apply our law to it? Th~ Grand '.frunk does business 

in this country by permission of an act of Congress. It could not do it 

possibly except for the special penuis ion in relation to the transfer of 

goods thro~1gh the tenitory of Canada. 

Mr. INGALLS. Very true; but this biJ.l not only ail"ects transportation between terminal points, but. it affect transportation between· local points. How you propose tq apply the provisions of this bill to a road like the Grand Trunk and compel it to contract under its provisions from Chicago to a point in Canada., or from Portland going west 

to a point in Ca:nada, I can not comprehend. 

Mr. SEWELL. There is no intention to apply it to any local point. 

It will apply to freight carried from points in the United States to their 

tide water. It doe aot ;1pply to local points at all: 

:rtlr. CONGER. If this provision relates to water. transportation on the lakes of freight that goes by rail to Ch1cago or Milwaukee or Detroit, whether the terminus of the water transportation is Buffalo or Erie or Cleveland or through the Weiland Can,al to Oswego or ~~de~sbmg or to the inouth of the Saint Lawrence, we might as well give 

up all pro~ction to lake transportation by watei·. No such provisions 

as would a:pply to railroads can by any possibility be applied to water 

transportation on our great lakes without de troying the whole water 

transportation. 

J\.Ir. SEVtTELL. The Senator will permit me to ask if he does not 

under tand that the bill applies to water transportation'? 

1\-ll.·. CONGER. I understand it; but there are pending am~dments 

which I offered to strike out, iu sections 12 and 131 whatever refers to 

water transportation. No one should vote hastily on this. He should 

consider how the pa sage of thi bill, as applied to water xoutes on the 

grea'b lake ' will de troy all water transportation and water communi-' 

cation and vessel property. No boatgoingnponthe great lakes, .on the common highway of the world, can be subject to the provbions of this 

bill as to freights being a carrier in common with railroads of frei..,.hts 

from the Northwe terri States to Duluth, and from there down thel:kes or to Chicago or any other place. It is impos ible to apply these rules 

and hold the carrier by water ~ubject to these provisions without destroying the entire water transportation of the lakes and mal.'i.ng tho e great expan e of the North a perfect wildernes o far as fleets are con- cerned. 

I think it would be well for tho e who represent the carrying inter t 

of products.all amunll the lakes to pause before they vote fo1· a proposition of this kintJ. There is pending, I believe, a motion to amend in 

two of the places, and the only two where water routes are mentioned 

in the bill, sections 12 and 13, if I haYe the numbers right, lJy striking 

out the t·eterence to lake and water transportation. 

:Mr. SEWELL. Uy amendment'can be adopted and then the Senator from Michigan can te t the sense of the Senate on his amendment. 

l\lr. COXGER. So far as I am concerned, coming from the region of 

the great lakes, and repre en~g a flu as I may the vasfinterests con- nected with water tran porta.tion, which is the only security that can erist and does exist against excessive railroad charges, I am ·opposed 

to extending the terms of this bill to water transportation. When at t~e trait~ of A1ackinawthe passage is dammed up, there is atoncean 

increase of from 15 to 4U per cent. in the .co t of tmnsporting the productiuns of the We t, and so it remairu! until the summer's sun removes the obstacle. Now it is proposed to put each m~n th'llt rtu;1s his barge or hi boat, if he carries products which have come from inland,. under 

the force of this law; to make eve1·y' caiTier on the lakes subject to the same provisions; and I say, without fear' of contradiction, that it will 

destroy the commerce upon the lakes, and make vessel property, which 

has now been reduced in value to the lowest poiBt where it can be run 

and pay expenses, utterly worthless, and it will put the whole North- we t at the mercy of the railroad companies. I can not vote for it upon 

any possible supposition that it may hereafter be changed witl1out 

voting in direct disregard of the interests of my people. 

?llr. INGALLS. I move to amend the amendment by strikiu<Y out 

after the word '' Canada '' the words '' to tide water or.'' . · l\Ir. CA.liERON, of Wisconsin. How will it then read? 

l\Ir. INGALLS. 1\Iy amendment is to strike out the-words 1 to tide 

wate1· or " after " Canada." 

The PRESIDENT p;·o tempore. The Senator from Kansas proposes 

to amend the amendment of the Senator from New; Jersey as will now be stated. . 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 4 of the amendment it is propo ed to 

sti·ike ont the words "to tide water or;" so as to read: 

That the proviSions of this bill shall be con trued a applicable tQ all railroad or t.ransportation companies engaged in the carrying of freight. from points in 

the lJnited States through tile Dominion of Canada to tide water or other points within the United States. · 

.Ur. SEWELL: The effect of tha.t amendment would be to secure a · iransportation line to ~ide water in Canada) in compet.it.ion with all the 

lines in the United States, withou.t coming under the provisions of this 

act, although the freight originated in the territory of the United States. 

You would give a free-lance in transportation to Canadian lines, and bind ours up. -. 

Mr. CO~GER. Th~ railroad_companies who have connecting lines 

running thmugh Canada or across Canada west fr-om Buffalo, and the 

Falls, are not Canadian companies, neither east nor west of the lakes 

or. in Canada.. The Grand Tr.uuk company from Chicago to Port Hu- ron is an o1·ganization chartered .within "the United State . It bas a · nmning connection with the Grand Trunk company of Canada. The 

company ru.Pmin~ from Portland to Island Pond in conm!ction with 

the Grand Trunk" has its own separate organization and name i u Uaine, 

New Hampshire, and Vermont; nota Canadian COml,)anyat all, in charter or in control, though that it may be leased by or have running con- nection with the Grand Tnmk of Canada. So far as the bill will apply as .;1law to· railroads in tlie United States, it wm apply 'to t.bese ·companies as much -as to any others. . · . Now, if it is claimed that by any process whatever we can exercise 

jurisdiction on any of the Canadian roads proper inside the Canadian 

territorial jurisdiction, I ha.ve yet to hear it claimed. I think no one will be foolish enough to assert that. 

Mr. SEWELL. The Senator fr·om Iichigan will allow me to .,ay 

that if it was not for an act of CongTess or for certain 1·egulations under ~n act of Congress allowing goods- to ~transported from the United 

States through Canada without having the cars unlocked, without having every pac"trage opened and e~amined the roads in Canada would no 

be carrying American freights. 

Mr. CONGER. We allow goods to pass in bond across our territory 

from China. Goods pass clear through the United States to England 

in bond; not examined, no · duties paid. From New York goods pass through Canada into l\lichigan, then they pass by rail through Indiana 

and illinois int() Minnesota, and tluough Uinnesota. to Eme:rseu and . Saint Vincent on their way to Manitoba; and in the same way through 

the United States, through Canada, through the Northwestt>rn States. 
. ' 

1885. CONGRESSIONAL· RECORD-SENATE. 1213 

ana into Canada again. If the Senator thinkS that by any custo~ 

regulations we are to prevent the passage of products of the Northwest 

by the shortsst and best route for New York and New England, tha~ 

we are to legislate against the producers of every Northwestern State, as well as of every Eastern State, I am not with him in that class oflegislation; and I do :not -wonder that those who are in the interest of the 

Southern routes should do, as was attempted in the House some years 

ago1 bring in adverse legislation to the cheapest and most convenient 

routes of the producers of Michigan, Northern Indiana, Nm·thern Illinois, all of Wisconsin, all of Minne.c:;ota., the northern part of Iowa, and a portion of Kansas. · It was attempted to do that by adverse legislation tQ the use of roads passing through Canada. It met with opposition from every board of trade from away down East to Saint Paul, and 

all around the lakes; and this is another attempt in the same direction. . Mr. President, I had, as I snppo ed, pending on the Senate bill an amendment which I have marked here, to strike out in section 12 in 

the third line the words '' and water '' where it says: 

That the route of any transportation company engaged in interstate commerce 11hall include all the railroad and water routes in use by such company. 

I understand that to be pend.ing, and before the last vote was taken 

I was rolled out for a moment, and had only time to get in and secure my vote by extm exertion. I .had also pending another amendment 

in line 12 of section 12, to strike out the words '' and partly by vessel'' 

after the words "or partly by rail;" also in section 13, line 5, to strike 

out' " or any vessel or vessels, in whole or in part;" in line 7 of section 

13 to strike out ' ' or any vessel or Yessels '' and in line 11 to strike 

out '~and partly by water. ' ' . The PRESIDENT pro temp()u. The Chair will state that rmder the 

1·ules and practice of the Senate no amendment is pendin_g except that 

which is offered in order; and of course the. Senator understa~ds that 

there can be only two amendments pending at a time. · .• HI' amendmenta that are given notice of by Senators have to be offered when the 

opportunity arises for proposing them. The Chair therefore thinks 

that the amendment proposed by the Senator from illinois [1\'Ir.· CuLLOM] was proper to be voted upon because no further amendment to 

that amendment had been offered. · . Mr. CONGER. But these amendments of mine-were offered-! say 

it with all due submission-:-to the bill, and were pending at the time 

the motion was made to substitute. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npore. The. Chair thinks there was a notice 

of an intention to propose the!D. That. was in accordance with the 

practice of the Senate. They could not be oftered. and pendil:lg because 

only one · amendment a:Qd an amendment to that amendment can be 

pending at the same time. 

Mr. FRYE. There is nothing to prevent the Senator from offering 

them in the proper time now after this amendment .is disposed of. 

The PRESIDENT pro mpor . That. depends on the question 

whether it is a motion to strike ont what the Senate in Committee of 

the Whole has agreed to. If it is a motion to strikeout w bat has been 

agreed to, it would not be in order until the bill comes into the Senate. 

?i:lr. FRYE. He can do it then. 

l\Ir. CONGER. There will be an opportunity in the Senate, as I 

understand. 

The PRESIDENT pro te1npore. When the bill shall be reported to 

the Senate the bill will be again at large, and every amendment the 

Senator from Michigan deshes can then be offered. . Mr. CONGER. Then I make this statement to show the Senator 

from :!Sew Jersey that the pro,visions which are already in the bill may 

or may not be advisable. Is there any amendment pending, Jri.t. Presidentr--I mea,n any amendment in the second degree; any amendment 

to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey? 

The PRESIDENT pro, tempO"re. There is one amendment to the 

amendment of tlie Senator from New Jersey pending, that offered by 

theScnatorfromKansas[:rt:lr. INGALLS]. Theqnestionisontheamendment proposed by the Senator from Kansas to ·the amendment of. the 

Senator from New Jersey. · · l\Ir. PLUMB. I wish to suggest an amendment which, while not now strictly in order, I am in hopes my colleague :will accept in lieu 

of his. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. TheSena.tor from Kansas [ M.r. PL UM.B] 

asks to have read an amendment which he desires his colleague [Mr. !~GALLS] to accept. If there be no objection, the proposed amendment will be read. 

The CHIEF CLERK. In line 3 of the amendment of 1\Ir. SEWELL, 

after the word ''freight, ' ' it is proposed to insert: 

From any place in the United States through any foreign territory to any other place in the United States, or from any place in the United Slates to any 

place outside the United States. • 

Mr. PL U:MB. I t'bink the 'lOrds of limitation which the Senator 

from New Jersey has in his ·amendment referring to tide water as the 

objective point would pre~ent the realization of the expectation which 

he has in view. 

Mr. SEWELL. I will say that I have no objection to the amendment the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB] suggests. If the other 

Senator from Kansas [Ur. IsGALLS] will accept it I shall agree to it. 

Mr. PLUUB. Montreal is the place of shipment for wheat, pork, 

and other articles coming from the West, and that is above tidewater, 

and the point in Canada. o~posite Port Huron .at which the Grand Trunk 

IWlway terminates is also away from tide water. M:y amendment 

would also cover shipments into Mexico, and all tmnsactionsof any kind 

originating in the United Stat.es should be railroad transportation within 

the limits of the United States, which we have a perfect right to regulate under our power to control and regulate foreign and interstate com- merce. So whether the shipments are madefromapointin the United 

States to a point in Cana.da, or from the United States to a point in 

Mexico, or from a point in the United Statffi through the Dominion of 

Canadf.\ to Chicago or Port Huron, or any point in the United States 

beyond the Dominion of Canada, this provision would cover it. 

Mr. INGALLS. Permit me to ask my collellocrue if this langnage 

woul,d not also cover water transportation from this country to Eng- · land by oce.an? · · · · · 

1\Ir. PLUUB. It would if this bill is designed to COYer water transportation. 

Mr. INGALI.JS. But the language of the amendment ofieretl by the 

Senator from New Jersey is: 

That the provisions of this bill shall be construed as applicable to all mil road or transportation companie . · 

That, of course, is the most coru.prehen'3ive Ianguage that could be 

employed. It does cover water transportation, and th~refore the Ian-. guage that my colleague employs, it appears to me, wonlcl cover ocean transportation. · · · 

Mr. PLUMB. Very well; that can easily be obviated by providing 

thatit shall not apply to transportation wholly by water. · :Mr. INGALLS. I think. the differences of opinion on this question 

show the necessity of a commission more than we • have ever known 

before.' I withdraw my amendment and will accept the suggestion 

offered by my colleague. I am convin·ced that the one I offered will 

not carry out the design that I desired to accomplish. 

The PRESIDENT pro t.e1npore. The .Senator from Kansas on the 

left of· the Chair [Mr. INGALLS] withdraws l1is amendment. The Senator foom Kansas in front of th& Chair [Mr. PLU MBJ ofters an amend- merit, which will be again. read. · The CHIEF CLERK. After the word '.'freight., " in line 3 of thtt 

amendment of .Jrfr. SEWE~L, it is proposed to strike out the following 

words: 

From points in the United States through the Dominion of Canada to tide 

water, or to tide W{lter or other point!! within the United States. 

And insert in lieu thereof: 

From 'any place iu the United States through any foreign t-erritory to any other place in the United States, or from any place in the United States to any 

place outside the United States. 

So that 'the proposed secti6n will read: 

That the provisions of this bill shall be c6nstrned as a-pplicable to allraihoad or transportation companies engaged in the carrying of freight from any place in the United States through any foreign territory to any other place in the 

United States, or from any place in the United States to any place ontE.ide the · United.State . , 

The PRESIDENT_pro temp. ore. The question is on agreeing to this 

amendment to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. 

Mr. PLUMB. If this is to be opposed on the ground that it covers ocean transportation, about which I expre8s no opinion, be1ie-ving myself th.at the scope of tbis bill relates entirely to railroad transportation, 

I will ask unanimous consent to add that it shall not apply to transportation wholly by water. That will obviate the objection. . The PRESIDENT pro temJJore. The Senator ffom Kansas has the 

1ight to modify his amendment, t~e yeas and nays not having been 

ordered. · 

1\Ir. SEWELL. i shall object to the moilifi.cation. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kansas has the 

1ight to modify it. 

Mr. PLUMB. I modify it l?Y adding: 

Pro t:ided, That this shall not apply to h·anspOrlatiou wholly ·oy water. • 

Mr. C'O.NGER. I suggest to the gentleman tp strike out the words 

"or transportation." · 1\Ir, PLUMB. . That can be settled afterward. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The modification made by t~e Senator from KanSas will be read. The amendment as modified will be 

read. 

The CHIEF OLERK. The amendment as propo~ed to be amended 

would read: 

That the proYisions of this bill shall be construed as applicable to all railroad or transportation companies engaged in the carrying of freight from any place in the United States through any foreign territory to any other place in the 

United States, or from any place in the United States to any place outside the 

United States: Provided, That this shall not apply to transportation wholly by water. • _ 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment 

to the amendment, as modified. 

~Ir. SEWELL. I .hope that last clause Will not be adopted. 

1\Ir. CON(}ER. Mr. President, one proposition will meet all theobjeetions that could be made to including ocean transportation or lake 

transportation, by striking out the words " or transportation " after 
,, 

1214 CONGRESSIONAL REOORD-. SENATE. FEBRUARY 3, 

·'' milroad, '' thus cori:fining the ection to railroad companies. This proviso leaves it still uncertain, because it may be ~onstrued to be where 

the freight goes partly by water and partly by rail; and, therefore, it 

will take all the lake transportation if it luts railroad transportatio~ 

'connected. with it. The· Saint Lawrence i on tide water; the docks of 

Montreal are on tide water; therefore, if freight is carried on the Saint 

Lawrence and across the ocean to England or any\V here in Europe, if 

that construction was held, that, because the transportation was partly 

by rail, say from Omaha to Chicago and thence by water down the lakes 

through the W6lland Canal and the aint LaWI"ence, it could go to Europe, and the bill would apply to ()cean and lake transportation. 

The object the Senator ha in view can be a tt.ained by striking o" t the 

words '' or transportation'' before ''companies'' and after '' 1-ai.lroad. '' 

That would meet the whole case and confine it to railroads. I ask him 

'to make that modification instead of adding the proviso. . 1 Mr. PLUMB. I do not see why we should not regulate transportation that is partly by water and partly by rail. I can see a great many reasons why we should not regulate transportation by water alone, be- cause transportation by water is free to all to engage in. Every man can put his boat on the Mississippi River or Lake Erie or Lake ~fichigan; but when we come to deal with transportation partly by rail and 

partly by water we nh'tY find that, for the purpose of protecting the interests of those companies who~ ~ansporta.tion is wholly by rail and of 

shippers whose freight c.c~n be transported onlywhollybyrail,weought 

to put onr hands for the pnrpose of regulation on this mixed trans~rtation. If a. through bill ·of lading is made from New York to Port 

Huron, in Michigan, would the Senator say that because the freight crosses the wat~r between an opposite point in Canada and Port Huron 

it ought to be exempted, or would he say that if it went from New 

York to Bnffalo by rail and from thence by water to Saginaw it ought 

to be exempted from the provisions of this bill? If .he would, then I 

should differ with my friend re pectfully. It seems to me that in a. case of that kind it would be interstate commerce, and not only interstate commerce, but interstate commerce of a kind that might n~ed, 

and that prima fac.ie would need, regulation and the oversight of the 

Government as much as any other class of transportation that we are to provide for. · l\Ir. CONGER. Mr. President-- . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If the enator from Michigan will 

suspend for a moment, the Chair begs to call the attention of the Senate 

to section 2 of the ame:t;1dment proposed by the Senator from Illinois, 

whieh was intended, as the Chair understand , to be. the Senate bill. 

In the print of this amendment an error has been made, difteringfrom 

the Benate bill in· line 5. After the word ''and,'' in line 5 in the Senate bill, was the word "to," and after the· word "and," where it sec- ondly occnrs in line 5, was also the word "to." If the amendment 

agreed to by the Senate, proposed by the Senator from Illinois, were precisely,like the Senate bill as it stood and as it was supposed to be 

intended, after the word "and" in both instances in line 5 of section 

2, the. word "to" should be inserted, so as to read: 

' .All tran portation companies engaged in intersbte commel'ce, and to take into 

consideration and to thoroughly investigate. · 

If there be no objection those errors in the reprint of the amendment 

from the Senate bill will be corrected and the corrections stand as a part of the amendment. I& there objec~on? The Chair hears none. . 1\Ir. CULLOM. I desire to S.'\Y tha,t section 2 as it stands in the bill was substantially the amendmentoffered.by the Senator from Alabama, 

and I have no doubt that the words the President of the Senate ha in- dicated should be there. . The PRESIPENT p1·o tentpbre. .An exa.min.ation has been made, 'and 

it has been fonnd that that. error has been made in the reprint. If 

there be no objection those two words will be inserted and stand as part of the amendment agreed to. The Chair hears no objection. 

1\Ir. CONGER. Section 13 defines what shall be deemed transportation companies as· provided for in this ad; and if it remains as it is • it controls every vessel rnnning in connection with a railroad; and by 

the proposition here every vessel and every line of vessels on the lakes 

that carries any freight starting from beyond the water in the West or in the East will come under this bill.. This says: 

• That the term "transportation company engaged in interstate commerce," as used in this act, shall be .deemed and taken to mean any corporation, company, or individual now owning, operating, or using any railroad or raili:oads, or any "easel or vessels. · 

'With -the construction that is given to this bill in this section and in 

the next and in foi:mer sections, any freight which shall be taken by a railroad or by any intermediate transportation company or vessel or line 

of vessels comes under the absolute control of this legislation. It affects · 

the prices to be paid every vessel that take8. wheat from Iowa or Minnesota, at Chicago, having come there by rail, to any'pOint in theEast. 

I say it would be destructive of' all vessel interests to establish these 

rules and these laws ov& vessels and their competitors that run upon 

the great lakes. . Mr. BLAIR. . Will the Senator befQre he takes his seat elucidate 

that point a litt1e? I do not understand it. This billprQvides for the 

regulation of interstate commerce, and perhaps by the terms of it all 

commerce, by prohibiting extortion and discrimination, and it establishes a commission to prevent by it action this extortion and disctimination. It is only in that way that it undertakes to interfere with ot 

to regulate commeYce, whether foreign or domestic. Now I do not 

comprehend how it is that if the bill aims only at those two crimes, 

extortion and discrimination, whic.h are practicallt made crimes, b~ 

cause they are attended with all those public evils that do attend crime_ 

it is open·to the objections that the Senator ft·om Michigan urges simply 

because it .embra<:es water transportation as well as railroad or la.ll.d 

transportation. I do not comprehend that the .American public are to 

be subjected to extortion when perpetrated by owners of single vessels or lines of water communication any more than when those same evils are perpetrated by comJl<'l.nies that operate only upon land; and that 

they may accomplish the same great injury we all know to be a d~monsb.'ated fa.ct. We know it in the case of the Oregon Navigation Company, of which we have heard so much for many yeai'S as to its mo- nopoly of the trnnsportation upon the Columbia River, and in the case of lines that own ·the water- commnnication alo1,1g the Mississippi River 

and control commerce in connection with great ra.ilroad companies, transcontinental railroad companies. They are a practical continuation of 

those same lines of commnnication to the eastern continent. They are all owned by the same capital. They are ·continuous lin . The evil 

can be perpetrated upon water a well as. upon land; and if we are to 

nndertake to prevent discrimination and extortions by land companies, 

why on earth should we not extend the sanie regulation and exert the same sovereign J?OWel·whlch we po ess with reference to the other that we do with reference to the one? I do not rmderstand the Senator's 

zeal ons denunciation of the provisions of this bill w ben they reach evils 

perpetrated by water transportation companies, when at the same time 

he is perfectly willing that those evils hall ue regulated and prevented 

if pei pcn~ated by railroads. 

l\Ir. BECK. Will the Senator from :Michigan allow me to say a word 

here? · 

Mr. CONGER. Ye , sir. 

Mr. BECK. A good deal of importance ha been given to the te timony of l\Ir. Albert Fink, who is a very able man. In the volume 

furnished to the Senate entitled "Relations between Labor and Capital," volnme 2, part 1, page 496, the Senator from New Hal:t;lpshire, a 

chairman oft~e Committee on Education and Labo1·, was investigating 

in his examination of ~1r, Fink the question as to whether water ways o~ght to be regulated because of the dangers of combination, and he 

put this question: · · 

The water ways among themselves are unable to combine? 

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BLAm] p~1t that que tion; 

and to it Mr. Fink answered: 

.A. There is no inducement for water walC to com bin e. They are never com- petitors in the sense in which railroads are. For example, the ·Erie Canal is not a competitor with the 1\Ilssissippi River; that is to say, not an immediate 

competitor. They are competitors in a ce1-tain sense-as for the export busi- ness; but tl1ey do not come into direct competition with ea-ch other. For exam- ple, the Hudson River runs tl}rough a certain section of country. There are only certR.in people that can be furnished with accommodations by the Hudson 

River. But with the railroads it is dift'erent; the railroads cross each other in 

every direction. The rh-ers do not. The net-work of railroads makes compe- tition very active; one road competes with many others. There is no competi- tion between the several water ways; there is only competition be~ ween the 

boats on ea-ch water way'; but the railways compete with each other all ovel' 

the country and in every direction. This makes mil road competition so much more widespread, leading to so many complications that it makes it difficult to prevent competition from becoming ruinous. 

And in the course of that gentleman's examination·he insisted that 

there was no necessity for any combination or any such organization aa · to water transportation as he was· at the head of, because even on the 

Erie Canal, he testified, eaeh individual boatman wasworkingforhimself and was competing with every other boatman; and, indeed, the laws 

ofNewYm·k prohibit and the supreme conrt of NewYorkhad .decided 

that any attempt on the part of the men on that canal to make a pool was ill~ooal, and they were therefore always <fOmpeting with each other. 

He went on further to say in the course of this testiniony-I do not care to rP2d it all-that the water ways were the great agents in bringing 

down freights and that the railroads had to accommodate themselves 

to the prices charged by the water ways. That was illustrated when we made the Eadsjetties at the month of the Mississippi River and en- abled boats to go to Europe and go all over the world by passing out of 

what had formerly been a shallow pass with only seven feet of water. 

We enabled men to put their barges on that great river and take them 

out; and in. that way we did more to reduee the railroad rate and to prevent the possibility of high charges than could have been done in any 

other possible way. He acknowledged that all the railroads in all their 

systems had to work against the free water ways of the country. 

I believe he added-if he did not it is true-that on a water way 

any man can put a boat or a barge anywhere and take his own products from his own landing to any other place and land them at any 

landing and ask nobody any odds,~hereas on railways he can not put 

his'own car with his own hogs, his own eattle, hls own sheep, his own grain, his own products, or anything else, because the men who are managing that railway have the exelusi Ye right to control all traffic on it. Hut the competitipn is so great between the water ways and the 

railways that the great interest of the public is to ·encourage water 

ways, make them as cheap as possible; for the very purpose of keeping 

down exorbitant · charges by the railroads, which have a monopoly of 

their lines. 
• 

1885. OONGRE~.SIO_._ AL .RECORD-SENATE. 1215 

I think the Senator from Michigan is right in ~deavoring t~ make 

the water ways as free as possible, and we should not subject them to 

t4e same surveillance that we do their competitors, whose interest is to 

keep everything high, while the- United States in every river and harbor bill is endeavoring to give them as little power as possible by having a -wat.er competition. 

1\lr. SE"WELL. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me? 

Mr. CONGER I do not yield the floor further. 

1\lr. BECK. I beg pardon. · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from :Michigan 

yield.? _ l\1r. CONGER. I yielded to the Senator from Kentucky. 

Mr. BECK. Allow me to express my obligation to the Senator from 

Michigan. I desired to say that much, because I said to him the other 

day that upon this question I thought lie was clearly right. 

Mr. SE"WELL. Will the Senator from Michigan allow me to ask a question of the Senator from Kentucky? 

lli. CONGER. Yes; ifthe debate does not· run on till morning. 

Mr. SEWELL. I simply want to ask the Senator from Kentucky 

how he would do in this case: Suppose the railroad companies should 

become transportation companies by water, as they are to a large ex- tent, would he·not want to· regulate them ? 

Mr. BECK. In a great question like this I would deal -very cau- tiously, and I would deal with one thing at a time. If I found hereafter that they were controlling those water ways in ~ny manner prejudicial to the interests of the great masses of the people of this country 

I would then interfere with them. 

1\lr. SEWELL. They are doing it now; ·sixty trnnsportation com- panies are, partly by land and partly by water. . Mr. BECK. But at the same time the water way is free to every 

citizen, ·is it not? The railway is not free to every· citizen. There is 

no public water way in the United States that the Sen~tor from New 

Jersey or myself could not float our produce down if we felt that it was profitable to do so in competition with anybody else, and the're is no 

railway of the United Stateswherewecanpntourcarwith our produce 

in competition with the railroad managers although ruin might stare us in the face unless we got it to market. 

Mr. ALLISON. Will the Senator from Michigan yield to me to a-sk 

him a question and also make a suggestion? 

Mr. CONGER. Yes, sir: 

1\Ir. ALLISON. As I understand this bill to regulate interstate com- merce, the definition of which is found in section 13, the bill does not 

apply to water t1"8nsportation unless it is connected d~rectly with railway transportation. 

M:r. "LAPHAM. Unless it !a partofit. 

~lr. ALLISON. Unless it is part of it; as, for example, the Erie Railway, which has a line to Buffalo and to Dunkirk, puts at those pointS, 

o1· either of them, a line of steamships to run from there to Duluth, and 

makes contra-cts for freights to Portland, Oreg., by way of Duluth. A 

part of that line, of cou,rse, is by rail and a part by water, and yet it is a part of the railway system. Now, it does seem to me that if we un- dertake to regulate railways in the interior of our country, such as the 

Pittsburgh, Fort Wa.yneand Chicago, and other lines which run wholly 

through the interior, we should also ~e some jurisdiction to 1"egulate 

those lines that run in. a more ~ortherly direction, and utilize the great 

lakes and the rivers, if you please, as a part .of their system. It .seems to me o. I may be mistaken. Of course I would not be willing, for 

one, to undertake in this bill to regulate those vessels that come into 

Chicago either from Montreal or fro~ any point on the lower or the 

upper lakes. I do not think it is so intended; but where vessels are a part of a railway system I see no objection to including them within 

the provisions of the bill, and it seems to me that is all that this bill 

does. That is what I wished to suggest. · lli. CONGER. I ask the Senator to look at section 13 while I am talking. 

Mr. ALLISON. I have looked at it. 

::hlr. OON?ER. " The term 'transportation company,' " which is 

in the clause about which I was commenting, is in this bill definedThat the term "transportation company engaged in interstat~ commel'ce," as used in this act, shall be deemed and taken to meanWhat? 

an~· corporation-

~lr. ALLISON. Go right on. 

l\1r. CONGER. 

any corporation, company, or individual, now owning, operating, or using any railroad or railroads, or any vessel or vessels, in whole or in part, or that may have the right, license, or permission to operate, use, or control anyl'ailroad or railroads, or any vessel or vesseLs, in whole or in part--

1\Ir. ALLISON. Read right on, the proviso. 

1\Ir. cqNGER. . 

ProYided said corporation, company, or individual is engaged in the business 

of transporting freights or property of any description by railroadMr. ALLISON. Tha.t isJ wholly by railroad. 

Mr. CONGER. . 

orpartlybyrailroadandpl\rtlybywl\ter,fromoneSt&teintoanotherState.orTerritory of the United States, or from any Territory into any'State or any other Territory; and the provisions of this act shall apply to all persons, firms, and companies, e.nd to all associations of persons or companies, whether incorporated or not, and to all associations of corporations engaged in thus transpCTting freights or property of ·any description, m the manner above set forth, from one State 

into any othet State or Territory, or fi·om any Territory into any State or any other Territory. 

lli. ALLISON. The Senator will see that that would not apply to 

a line of vessels "transporting property between Chicago and Buffalo, 

for example, or between Chi"cago and Detroit, for example. 

:llfr. CONGER. It would if they ran in connection with any railroad. 

Mr. ALLISON. It would if the line was partly by rail and partly 

by water; otherwise not. 

:Mr. COJGER. It has been argued all through the disc~on that 

the object of this bill was to include these products as freights from be 

starting point, in whatever Territory or State, clear through to the destination and to make the lines continuous in effect. That is the object 

of the bill as to railroad lines. It is also provided t.hat if goods go to 

Chicago and Milwaukee by rail, and then some captain with his propeller oi his barge takes them ~o Buffalo on his own private undertaking, because the product c.'l.me by rail and is going on by rail from 

Buffalo, tbat·vessel slinJ.l be included under the bill. 

1\ir. CULLOM. Not as the bill is. 

Mr. CONGER. Y cs, as the bill is, and it shall be governed by this law. 

It seems to me that thoseofus who are interested in w~ter transportation East or West, North or South· should stop and look at this question and see what its effect will be. We are expending at the rate of 

from three to ten million dollars a year to improve our water ways. 

What for? To make them parts of railroad companies, to make them a. part of the great railroad system of transport-ation by some possible 

connection of freight or productions that pass over them? No, sir. 

We are spending these millions and hundreds of millions of dollars-for 

it amounts to that up to the present time since the formation of the Government-to. make a highway for every citizen of the United States to 

take his boat, his ark; his batteau, his vessel, his steamboat, whatever 

he has that can carry freigh.t, to make a highway upon which he may 

float ltis craft ;~tnd carry his own produce or such as be can procuie. 

Are we building light-houses for the benefit of railways? Are we putting up beacon-lights on the Mississippi and light-houses on the lakes 

which tend to make those waters free to individual effort, to individual 

use, to bring them in subjection, becailse railroads should be subject to 

laws which may very well be applied to railroads, but which, in my 

judgment, would rnin the water commnnicntions if applied to them? 

They can not live under these laws. They must be permitted to change 

theh- freights and their rateS of freight. Freights from Chicago to Buffalo change every hour. Charter-parties are different in the afternoon 

from what they were in the morning. If circumstances make it neces- sary for Yessels, if they would be in business at all, to come down in 

their freights even below a living p1ice they do it; but under this rule 

the steamboats must have schedules, the barges must have their schedules, t-hat they cannot alter without five days' notice. Why, sir, you 

would tie up the vessels at the docks and keep them there till piecemeal they rot into the waters of the lakes and the !'ive:rs. 

lli. HARRISON. The Senator from Michigan must see tllat thet-e 

is no such regulation of freights, no su.ch provision. 

1\ir. CONGER. Who would have dreamed that such a proposition 

could be offered to be put in this bill as the Senator from New Jersey 

has offered? Who would have dreamed that a quarter of an hour ago, 

and who can tell wbc'lt will be put in this bill? We piUst meet these 

things where we find them and attack them whenever a bead appears 

above water. . That is the way I fight for the interests of the people I 

represent and the interests of the people who dwell along the great :wate1 courses of our country which have been made navigable for the benefit 

of the people and the whole people by an immense expenditure of money, 

whichisto be increa.sedandincreased until thewaterwaysofthe United 

States shall be the great competing routes to keep down better than all 

law, better than all prescription, better than all oratory, the exorbitant 

charges of railroads in the land. They control them now better than 

any legislation which we can have. All up and down the current of 

these waters, from the remote ports, they control the prices and the 

monopolies of tailroads. The main reason for paying the $10,000,00Q a year to improve these water couraes is that we may have something 

that shall compete with th~ gfant monopolies of the land and hold 

them within control. 

1\ir. BLAIR. Ml·. President, I am still as much in the dark a-s at 

the ~oi:nning, after listening to the explanations of the Senator .from 

Kentucky through his new and favorite witness :Mr. Albert Fmk, 

against whose tbeorie.t he has been combating duringthe entire debat-e on the bill, and whom be now quotes a& the principal supporter of his 

theories, and also after listening to the eloquence of our friend the Senator from :Michigan. 

The bill does not undertake to interfere with prop~;~1· practices on the 

part of land and water transportation companies. . No authority vested 

1:n the commission, no authority emanating by virtue of the enactment 

of this bill into law, if it should become a law, authorizes anybody to 

intermeddle with ·any transportation company: that is discharging. its 

duty to the public, ijla.t is simply taking an honest and fair requital 

for the services it renders. The bill only undertakes to prohibit and 

to prevent certain public evils, extortion and unjust discriminatiol).: 

When extortion and unjust discrimination are prac~ced by a water· 
1216 OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-. SENATE. FEBRU~Y 3, 

--------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------

transportation company, even although its entire sphere of operations 

is confined to the water, if it has to do with intex;state co~merce, why 

it is that such practices on the part of a. water-transportation company are to be permitted, and are yet to be prohibited when theyare undertaken by land companies, I am still unable to perceive. The Senator · sa.ys that private individuals may _place their vehicles of communication andoftransportation on the water routes of the country. There 

is that distinction, and that distinction only, between a. water route and a land route. There is no right of eminent domain attaching to the 

water routes of the country. They are open, they are free like the air, 

and who_ever has the capital, whoever can establish a route of water 

tnmsportation, is, tQ be sure, not subject to regnlation so far as that 

right of regulation comes from the sovereign by nrtue of his power of eminen~domain, which he hasparted.withfor thebenefitoftheprivate· individual, ortheprivatecorporattonin the case ofthe railroad. 

But, nevertheless, we all 1..'"1low it to be a fact that the productions of the earth, the valuable things that ~re achieved by way of production, are divided among the various individuals and agendes which con- tribute to that production, and that associated eapital ancl associated 

wealth always work to an advantage .as against the individual or as against capital invested in small masses. The result is that when cor- porations or individuals are able to command grea,t capital they are able to transact a particular busineas in which they engage at vast1y 

reduced rates as "against the individual who has smaller facilities, smaller 

capital, and consequently a lesser degree of efficiency; the practical re:. suit of which is that ca.pit.al is invested in large masses in water trall8-

portation precisely as it is in land transportation, and so capital is invested in large masses ill the shipping business proper. 

So in the agricultural or producing classes, tl;lose classes which pl·odu.ce direct.ly from the earth. So with the manufacturers. Vast masses of capital are thus combined in these various pmsuits, and, as it were, 

they play against each other,·and they are able to extinguish anything 

like competition which arises on the pa~t of individual or smaller 

amounts of capit:'\.L ~ 

Therefore it is that the water-tran portation route from Saint Louis 

to New Orleans by steamship, owned as it is by a few individuals-it 

may .be almost wholly by one individual-can easily expel as a matter 

of practical business auangement any private individual, any single 

man, any agriculturist or a-ny manufacturer who is engaged with his 

farm -or with his mill, and it is utterly imp.o <~ible for him to get upon 

the water as a matter of fact. 

Everybody knows that the water-trau p{lrtation oo.~pnnies of this 

country have practiced extortion and unjustdiscr.iminationjustas much as the land-tran portation companies of the country have done. We 

know that they have as much to do with the .evilsofintemal or interstate commerce as have the land companies themselves. They are there 

wit}) capacity to practice unjust discrimination and extortion, and they 

<lo practice tbose great evils. They inflict those evils upon the com- munity; and are we to leave them without i·egulation, to create those 

evils, by virtue of the power which they hava, a.nd su~ject the com- munity as a whole to the extortion and the unjust discriminations 

in the way of rates to which they.do u~ject the community, when by so doing they are able to maintain themselves and to also maintain a ruin- ous competition against any honest indiddual or any honest company 

that may undertake to establish itself? 

Si.nce the bill only aims at these two real crimes, defining these eviL~ 

as publiccrimes, and undertakes to prohibit them, I do not understand 

where the objection comes in from any source whatevet: to the provision -of the bill wl1ich does unquestionably to my mind include watertransportation x-oute.s as well a~ land-transportation _routes. If I could ee any rea on why a bill which undertakes to deal with interstate commerce and with foreign comme1·ce both (for I think it eovers both) 

should be made partial in its operation and lea"\""e the evils which exist 

with reference to water as well as land transportation unregulated in one case while it undertakes to prohibit those evils in the other case, 

I should be very glad to vote for the proposed amendment. 

Nor can I understand the sensitiveness of the Senator from Michigan, 

who talks of the Northwestandoftheimprovements tperemade along 

the watet; lines of transportation in the way of repai-r, the removal of 

snags, the dee~ing of channels, and tb"e removal of ledges, and all 

that sort of thing, which enters into the public expense and is for the 

general public good, and so far as it goes is a general contribution to th~ capital invested in interstate commerce. I do not understand, I 

say, from whence and for what reason there is this sensitiveness against 

the prohibition of the crimes which we are de.tining and establishing in. the bill when committM by water-transportation companies. 

With reference-to the testimony of Mr. Fink, it stands for what it is 

worth. It stands by itself. It is the testUnony probably of the best 

educated student, the man oestinfonned witl;l.reference to the great subject of interstate commerce and foreign commerce as well. He is the 

best informed man, so far as I know, that there is in our own country; but ·nevertheless we know that Mr. Fink has his prejudices, he has his 

affiliations; and·I would not consider" the opinion of Mr. Fink one safe 

for the Legislature of the United States tQ follow without question. 

If the Senator from li:entucky will examine the testimo11y from . •iich be quotes he will find that there is testimony from other and 

eminent witnesses who take a. difterent view. upon some of these great 

points from lli. Fink. At all events, I do not see why. he should rise 

here and quote M1-. Fink as a reliable witues in one case when he discards and discountenances and denounces his testimony i.J:t everything e.lse. 

1\Ir. President, I had no iuca, of saying anything upon the bill. I 

simply asked a question. I have understood from the beginning. that 

it is a measure ample and comprehensive in its scope, which covers the 

whole subject, and I look upon it as a futile attempt to do good to the 

public unlel)S we do so legislate as to cure and regulate the entire evil 

if we undertake to do anything about it at all. 

1\Ir. CALL. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate a statement made in the arguments a,ud statements before the Committee on Commerce of the House in 1882. 1\Ir. Thurber, in his testimony on this subject, -says: 

This speech of :Mr. Daggett showed that the original investment of Stanf01·d, 

lluntington, and another in the Central Pacific Railroad was J.2,500; and in 

fourteen years the whole properLy had increased to 3184,000,000. The result was that they got so much money that they went to work and bought up the Pacific 

Mail Steamship Company, and now t-hey are payiQg .that com~anySOO,OOO a month subsidy in order to keep the rates up, instead of the pubhc getting the 

benefits of the competition to which it 15 properly entitled. 

I do not know any reason why that line of water transportation should 

not be subjected to the provisions of this bill, if they are to be of any 

force or effect at all. I do not know why the people of the Pacific coast 

should not be protected if the bill is to be a protection to anybody. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (.Mr. BUTLER in the chair). The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from-Kansas 

[Mr. PLmm] to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey [Jr!r. 

SE'WELL]. . 

1\Ir. CONGER. Let it be reported. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER~ The amendment to the amendment 

will be read. · • . . 

The CmEF CLERK. In line 3 of the proposed new ection, after the 

word "freight," it is moved to strike out the words: . 

From points in the United State through the I;>ominion -of Canada to tide 

water, or to tide ""ater or other points within the United tatcs. 

And insert: . · · 

From any place in the United State th~ugh any foreign territ01;y to any other place in the United States, or fwm any place in the United States to any place outside the United States: Provided, That this shall not apply to transpor- tation wholly by water. 

1\Ir. CO:NGER. I move to strike out the words " or transportation. ' 

1\[r. EDMUND . That is not in order. The pending question is 

an amendment ip the second degree, and ... no fnrther amendment. is in 

m·der. . 

· The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the . ·nator from V crmont make 

the point of order? 

kir. EDMUNDS. ·No, I do not make m:~y point of order. I only 

suggest to my fi·iend f1·om Michigan that it is not iri order. 

Mi. CONGER. I hall withhold the amendment for the present. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The questiop. is on agreeing to the 

amendment-of the Senator from Kan...c;;as to the amendment t>fthe , 'en- ator from New Jersey. · 

The amendment to the amendment wa agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The que tion now is on agreeing to 

the amendment as amended. 

~Ir. CO~GER. In line 2 of the proposed 11ew ection I move to 

strike out the words "or transportation," after "' railroad;' ~ o as to 

read: 

That the provisions oft his bill shall be con trued as a.pplicable to a 11 rai ll'oac.l 

companies engaged in the carrying of freight from any place in ihe United 

States, &c. 

The PRESIDING .OFFICER. The question i on agreeing to the 

amendment of the Senator fro~ Michigan to the amendment of tlle 

Senator from New Jersey as amended. 

1\Ir. SEWELL. I trust that the amendment to the amendment will 

not be adopted. It would desh·oy the character of the amendment as propo ed by me. I wish to reach the joint raill'Oad and transportation 

companies competing with the great trunk Jines of this country and 

running through Canada. If the words proposed are stricken out-, the 

road .that I wish to reach might do all the business in competition with our lines by just putting in part water. 

The amendment to the amendment was rejected. . The PRESIDING OFFICER (M.r. HAWLEY in the chair). ThEl 

amendment offered by the Senator from New Jersey as amended is now before the Senate. Is the Senate ready for the question? [IL.'tvingput 

the question.] The ayes appear to have it. 

Mr. CONGER. I ask for a division. 

Air. HARRISON and others. Oh, no; that will result in a yea-andnay vote. 

l\1r. CONGER. It may result in forcing the bill ovet·, but in the 

absence of two-thirds of the. Senators it is not consistent with my feelings to let such amendments as this get into the bill when I think with a full hearing they can be kept out. 

1\Ir. SEWELL. The Senator has a 1·emedy. He can move to strike 

out and insert after the bill is reported to the enate; but lflt "llll now make some progre.. with the bill . 

• 
1885. OONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1217 

M.r. CONGER. Possession is nine point:B of the Jaw, he was obliged to be absent this evening, and asked me to pair with 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will put the question him on the bill and the amendments. 

-againJ with the consent of the Se~te. The question is on agreeing to The roll-call was concluded, 43 Senators having answered to their 

the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey as amended. [Hav- mimes. · ing put the question.] The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The roll-~ shows that 43 Senait, and the amendment is agreed to. tors are. present, being a quorum. The question recurs on agreeing to 

Mr. SEWELL. · I ask unanimous consent to correct the amendment ·the amendment proposed by the· Senator from Virginia [.Ur. MAin line 1 by snstituting the word "act " for the word "bill." · HONE]. • . . . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no objection that verbal The amendment was rejected. J 

correction will be made. Mr. JACKSON. I wish to call the attention of the Senator fromilliMr. ·M.A.HOl\TE. At the end of the twelfth section of the "bill I move nois to the fact that the fourteenth section will have to be amended. 

to insert. Inasmuch as he hns provided for nine commissioners at $7,500 eaeh, the 

And it shall not be lawful for any transportation company to engage in such amount approp!iated in the fourteenth section will not be sufficient. 

transportation of passengers or freights with any other such company unless it That section will require an amendment. 

ndmits and c::on~acts ~th any an_d nil otl;ter ~nsporta~on comi_Janies desiring · ?Yir. CULLOM. If it is in order I desire to ask the Senate to amend 

to engage w1th 1t and 1ts connectmg earners m the bu&mess of mterst-ate com- th t ti b trikin· t " · ty, d insertin. " · ty" her. th merce upon the same terms of association as those agreed upon between it and a sec on Y S gou: SIX an g rune 10re e such other company. And the rate of transportation over all lines engaged in word 1 1 thousand.'' 

such business shall be computed and ·charged u~~n the following basis, th~t is The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That motion is not now in order. 

toso.y: Forpassengersofthesamecla.ssthecomomedcharl?eofallthecarriers, Mr CULLOM I th ht to be diYided as they may agree shall nevertheless, for all dist3Jlces, be pro rata · · SO oug · per mile. For freights of the sa.'me class and of like units, taking the car-load The PRESIDENT pro te-mpore. The section as it stands has been as the m~um, the total charge from ~e station of shipment~ the station of agreed to. 

final delivery shall be composed of two Items-the charges for . fixed expenses ,"'. CULLOM I ·ll· · · and the charge for any transfer where a break of gauge or a trn-~Wpment,from · lU.r. . · Wl. ask unan~mo~ co~nt to move that amend- mil to vessel, or fJire 11ersa, or a n_ecessa.ry .J?Orlera_ge may be' lJ!lpose~, such ment. I think there will be no obJectlQn to 1t, perhaps. 

proper charges for eac? class of freight and hke uruts below and mclu<!ing the The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois asks unan- car-load to be ascertamed and agreed by the transportation comparues con- . h · · · · · · · cemed subjecttotheapprovalofthe said board of commissioners. Thecharge unous consent t at sect10n 14 be amended, m line 1, by striking out 

for tra~sportation of freights of the sa.me class and unit below and including the " sixty" and inserting " ninety" before the word " thoUSc'\Ild;" so as car-load shall be, as to the srune carrier composing part of the route traversed, to readfor all distances, pro rata per mile, to be divided between the carriers-directly . performing tlfe service as they may agree. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia. . Mr. MAXEY. The amendment offered by the Senator fr~m Virginia 

is a very important one. It is now within a few minutes of 7 o'clock. 

We can not understand that amendment and. vote intelligently upon it 

now, and I move that the Senate adjourn. . 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas moves that 

the Senate adjourn. · 

Mr. HOAR. On that question I call for the yeas and nays. . 

The yeas and nays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call 

the roll. · Mr. KENNA (when his name was called). I am paired with the 

Senator from Minnesota [Mr. SABIN]. My colleague [Mr. CAMDEN] 

is paired wfth the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. GARLAND]. . Mr. PLUMB (when his name was called). I am paired with. the 

Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Gmso~]. 

The roll-call was concluded. 

Mr. WILSOI'f. The Senator from Vemiont [Mr. MORRILL} is 

paired. 

Ur. BUTLER. I am ·paired with the Senator from Rhode Island 

(Mr . .ALDRICH]. . If he were present, I should vote "yea." 

1t!r. RANSOM. I was requested to state that. my colleague [Mr. 

VANCE] is paired with the Senator from New York [?rir. LAPHAM]. 

The result was announced-!eas 13, nays ~4; as follows: 

Beck, 

CaU, 

Coke, 

Hampton, 

Alliron", Blair, 

Bowen, 

Chace, 

Conger, 

Cullom, 

YEAS-13. 

Harris, Mahone, Jackson, Maxey, Jones of Florida, Morgan, Lru:nsr, Ransom, 

Dawes, 

Dolph, 

Edmunds, 

Frye, 

Hw:rison, 

~wley, 

NAYs-24. 

Hoar, 

Jonas, 

Jones of Nevada, McMillan, 

Miller of Cal, Pike-, 

ABSENT--3l1. 

Aldrich, Farley, Lapham, Bayard, Garland, Logan, Bro,vn, George, McPherson, Butler, Gibson, Manderson, Camden, Gorman, Miller of N.Y., Cameron of Pa., Groome, Mitchell, Cameron of Wis., Hale, Morrill, Cockrell, Hill Palmer, Colquitt, In~l,a., Pendleton, 

Fair, Kennlf, ·Platt, 

Vest. 

Pugh, Riddleberger, 

Sawyer, 

Sewell, 

Sherman, 

Wilson.. 

Plumb, 

Sabin, 

Saulsbury, 

Slater, 

Vance, 

VanWyck, 

Voorhees, 

Walker, 

Williams. 

The PREsiDING OFFICER. No quorum has voted. 

1\Ir. EDMUNDS. The rule requires that the roll shall be called. 

1\Ir. CONGER. I think before the announcement that no quorum is 

present the decision of the Senat-e on the motion should be statedJ as 

the rules do not require that a quorum shall be prese~t to adjourn. 

Mr. EDMUNDS. Less than a quorum may refuse to adjourn, but 

nothing can be done until the' presence of a quorum is secured. 

'i'he PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair should have stated that 

the noes have it on the mqtion to adjourn. The laclr of a quorum being disclosed, the next thing in order is the call of the Senate. The 

Secretary will call the.roll. 

The Secretary proceeded to call the"roll. 

Mr. ALLISON (when Ur. BAYARD's name was called). I ought to 

say that the Senator from Delawnre-(Mr. BAYARD] stated to me that 

XVI-77 

That the sum oC$90,000is hereby appropriated, &c • 

Is there objection to this amendment? ·The Chair hears none, and 

it is agreed to. 

Mr. CALL. I have a number of amendments that were left with me 

by the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE]." He is very anxious 

that they shall be presented for consideration before the bill.is disposed 

of, and inasmuch as he has been compe1led to go to New York and desires to be here himself to offer them, I will move that the senate do now adjourn. · . 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida moves tha.t 

the Senate do now adjourn. 

The motion was not agreed to. · Mr. CALL. · Then I offer an amendment to the bill on behalf of the 

Senator froni :M:is$issi-ppi. At the ~nd of section 4 I move to add: 

And proof that any trnnsportation company has made a greater charge for 

hauling any such freight for a shorter distance t-han it charges for hauling in a contemporaneous service a like quantity of similar freight for a greater distance, shall be prima facie evidence of unjust discrimination. 

The PRES_IDENT pro tempore.. The question is on· agreeing to the . 

amendment of the Senator from Florida. · 

1\Ir. HOAR. I desire to inquirewhatis the parliamentary condition 

of the bill? Is it not that the Senate have adopted a substitute for the 

pending bill? · -

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate as-in Committee of the 

Whole has agreed to strike out all after the enacting clause of the bill 

and to insert what the Senate has agreed to. ~~r. HQAR. Then I rise to the question of order, that it is not in 

order to amend by inserting new matter between two seetions which 

are part·or one text~ the substitute already agreed on. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair thinks it is in order to 

move additions, Jmt not to strike out. 

.Mr. HOAR. The Chair will pardon me, I had not concluded my 

statement. My proposition is that those additions can only come in at 

the end of the bill. The fact that a particular text is divided into sec- tions does not make it any the less one text when it is ad~pted as a 

unit as a substitute; and when it is one text it can not be amended, 

after having been adopted as an amendment by a vote, at the same stage 

of the bill. It would be in order to add a new section at the end of the 

matter which bas been adopted, but you can not put in between the line~ in a section or between any two lines of the substitute anywher~ 

an amendment, I respectfully submit. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair overrules the point of 

order. It has been, the Chair thinks; the constant practice of the Senate to admit affirmative amendments of additional words in any part of an amendment that has been agreed to. The question is on agreeing 

to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Florida. 

Mr. HOAR. I shall not take an appeal from the decision of the 

Chair, of course, but I do not remember to have been present in my 

brief service in the Senate on any single occasion when the Senate has 

acted upon the practice to which the Chair refers. Having taken soru.e 

little pains to master the parliamentary law, I had supposed that to be 

the settled. parliamentary law. . However, I defer to the decision of the 

Chair, which, of course, is founded upon a larger experience and upon 

profou.nder learning than my own. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair can not remember any 

precise instance, but the Chair is confident that it has been the practice of the Senate ever since the present occupant of the ch~P has been 

in the Senate to admit without question or dispute any affirmative additional words to an amendment tbat had been agreed to in any part 
1218 CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD-HOUSE. FEBRUARY 3, 

of the amendment. The Chair may be in error, but that is the opinion 

of the Chair .at this moment. · 1\Ir. RANSOM. I should like to ask the Chair if the rule suggested 

by the Senator from l'tfassachusetts that the substitute can not be 

amended would apply to the bill after it is reported to the Senate? 

TbePRES!DENTprotetnpore Itwillthenbeentirelyoptm to amendment. . Mr. RANSO~f. I simply made the inquiry so as to suggest to my 

friend from Florida that he would havQ no difficulty whatever with his 

amendments when the bill is reported to the Senate. · The PRESIDENT pro tempm·e. The Chair thinks that the present 

amendment of the Senator from Florida is in order. 

Mr. HOAR. · The Chair will pardon me, the suggestion I distinctly 

made was as to the right to amend at the same stage. 

Mr. BUTLER. If the Senator from Illinois who has charge of the 

bill will permit me to make a suggestion to him, l ask him if it would 

not suit his convenience, ifhecangetunanimousconsent, to agree upon some hour to-morrow at which we shall take a vote upon the bill? It 

seems to me almo t impossible to get through with the bill to-night 

with the number of amendments of which notice has been given. . I 

should like to have the Senat{)r from ~linois express his opinion upon 

that subject. · 

1\Ir. CULLOM:. If I were to yield to the suggestion of. the .Senator 

from South Carolina it would be a_ very great convenience tome. I am not staying here as a matter of convenience, but I have felt that it is 

my duty to insist upon theconsiderationofthe bill untilitis concluded; 

because I have felt very greatly embarrassed at its continuing before 

the Senate so long obstructing other public business of importance. I 

gave notice yesterday that I should ask the Senate to·remain here today until the bill was :finished. If the Senate would agree to vote at 

3 o'clock to morrow on the bill so as to give a few minutes' time for offering amendments and :five-minute talks in explanation of them, so far as I am personally concerned I would not.object to the Senate adjourning with the uuderstanding that the :final vote shall be taken to- morrow at 3 o'clock. · · 

~fr. BUTLER. . Then I ask unanimous consent that the vote be 

taken at 3 o'clock to-morrow, in accordance with the suggestion of the 

Senator from Illinois. 

1\lr. CALL. I suggest to the Senator from Illinois and the Senator 

froJll South Carolina to :fix the hour at 4 o'clock to-morrow. The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. GEORGE], who is com:Pelled to be absent 

to-day, desires to be heard upon tbe bill. Th-e amendments which I am offering are. his, and I offer them under a promise to him that they 

should be offered to the bill. He desires to be here, and I ask that the 

hour be :fixed at 4 o'clock to-m~m.>w, so as to give him an opportunity 

to be heard on the bill. 

1\Ir. CULLOM. I shall ask the Senate to take up the. bill immediately after the morning business proper is concluded to-morrow, which 

will give a considerable time for discussion and amendment, and I think 

there Vlill be time enough between that and 3 o'clock. I hope there will 

be no objection to that arrangement. I ask the Senator from Florida 

to allow the bill to go along to-night so far as to get it into the Senate, 

after which he will have an opportunity to offer his amendments, and 

they will not be repeated by being twice offered. 

1\Ir. CALL. I shall not object to the arrangement proposed, but I 

think 4 o'clock will be the better hour, ifthe Senator will allow me to 

suggest it. 

1\Ir. CULLOM. I think 3 o'clock would be better., . The .PRESIDENT pro ternpore. Does the Senator from Florida withdrnw his amendment for the time being? 

l\Ir. CALL. I will do so. The P~ESIDENT pi'O tempore. The amendment is witl:ulr:Wm. The 

Senator from South Carolina asks unanimous consent that it be understood that the bill be taken up immediately after the morning business 

to-morrow, and that the :final vote upon the bill and all amendments 

offered and to be offered shall be taken, without further debate, after_ 3 

b'clock. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. That is the un- derstanding. The Chair understands that these agreements do not go . on the .T ournaJ. . 1\Ir. CULLOM. I ask that the bill be reported to the Senate tonight. Th.e Senator from Fl6rida can offer his amendments after t,he 

bill is repQrled. ·· . · 

The PRESIDENT pro tempQTe. If no further amendments be proposed the bill will be reported to the Senate. 

The. bill was reported to 'the--Senate as amended. 

The PRESIDENT pro tempQTe. The question is on concurring in the 

amendment made as in Committee of the Whole. . 1\Ir. BUTLER. I move that the Senate adjourn. . 

Mr. BOWEN. I ask the Senator to allow me to offer an amendment. 

Mr. BUTLER. I withdz-aw the motion. · 

AME D~ENT TO INDIAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 

Mr. BOWEN submitted an amendment iritended to'be proposed by 

him to the Indian appropriation bill; which was referred to the Committee on•Appropriations, and ordered to be printed. · 

COl\Il\IITTEE SERVICE. 

The PRESIDENT p1·o tempore. Pursuant to the authority of the 

Senate the Chaj.r appoints, to :fill the vaeancies occasioned by the ex- piration of. the t.erlll of Senator Sheffield, of Rhod.e Island: 

On the Committee on Claims, Mr. CHAOE. 

On the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, Mr. CHACE. _ On the Committee on ~lines and Mining, Ur. CHACE. 

On the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, Mr. CHAcE. 

Mr. BUTLER. I move that the Senate adjourn. 

The·motion was 3.oareed to; and (at 7 d'clock and 11 minutes p.m.) 

the Senate adjonrne4. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

TUESDAY, Febrtw,ry 3, 1885. 

The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev . .T OHN 

S. LINDS4Y, D. D. 

. Mr. LORE. I ask that so much of the .Journal as relates to the formal 

introduction of bills and joint resolutions be omitted in the reading. 

There was no objection, and it. was ordered MCOrdingly. 

Mr. WILSON, of Iowa: I move also that so much of the .Journal 

as relates to the filibustering proceedings last night be omitted in the 

reading. · 

Mr. RANDALL. I object. 

The .T ournal was then read and' approved. 

PRINTING S~UTHSONIAN REPORTs. 

On motion of Mr. ·siNGLETON, by unanimous consent the joint 

resolution (S. R. 114) in regard to the printing of the reports of the · Smithso:irlan Institution was taken "from the Speaker's table, read a first 

and second time, referred to the Committee on Printing, and ordered to 

be printed .. 

PRINTING OF EULOGIES ON LATE JOHN H. EVINS. 

Mr. BRATTON, by ~o~ consent, submitted the following res· olution: · . . 

Resolved, That there be printed of the eulogies on the late John H. Evins, late a RepresentatiYe of the Forty-eigh.th Congress from the State of South Carolina, 12,500 copies, of which 7,300 copies sbn.ll be for the use of the Senate, and 9,500 

copies for· the use of the House of Representatives; and tbat the Sooretarr of the 

Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to have printed a portrait of the satdJob.n 

H. Evins to a«llmpany such eulogies, and for t~e purpose of engraving and print- ing said portrait the sum of $500, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is 

hereby appYopriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated. · . • 

The SPEAKER pro te-mpore. The proper form would be to make it 

a joint resolution of the two Houses. · Does the gentleman desire that 

it shall be put in the form of a joint resolution? 

Mr. BRATTON. I do: . .T oint resolution (H. Res. 327) providing for the printing of eulogies 

delivered in Congress upon .T ohn H. Evins, late a Representative of the 

Forty-eighth Congress from the State of South Carolina, was received, 

read a :first and second time, and ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly real;\ the third time, 

and passed. • ~Ir. BRATTON moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be 

laid on the table. 

The .latter motion was agreed to. 

REPRINTING OF A REPORT. • 

Mr. BLANCHARD. I demand the regular order of business. ~Ir. BLAND. I rise to submit a privileged report. 

_Mr. TOWNSHEND. I ask to have reprinted the report of the Committee on Appropriations accompanying the Post-Office appropriation 

bill.. 

There was no objection, and it was ordeTed accordingly. 

~fr. COX, of New York. I rise to make a privileged report. 

The SPEAKER pro tmnpore. The gentleman from Missouri addressed 

the Chair sonie time ago to make a prirueged report. 

SILVER DOLLAR. 

~.BLAND, from theCommitteeon Coinage, Weights, andl\Ieasures, 

submitted the following report. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, requested to ipform. ~his House whether the Clearing House Association at New York. or any national bank thereof, refuses to 1·eceive silver dollars or silver certificates in the 

.settlement of their balances, or refuses to receive silver dollars or silver certifi- cates from tlie Government in payment of balances due from the Government to said association, and whether any official or officials of the Government accede to or recognize such rule or practice. · Alsb, what amount of gold came into the Treasury of the United States in ex- change at par for silver dollars and silver certificates during ~he month of January,l885. · Also, whether any national bank, or associlltion of national banks, refuse to receive or pay out silver dollars or silver certificates contrary to law, or have 

adopted any rule or practice in that regard for the purpose of discrediting uch 

money, or the effect of which is to depreciate the same. Also, what amount of silver coin was in the Treasury of the United States on the·lst day of January,1879, and of each year thereafter, not held for the red em p- tion of silver certificates, and what proportion the said coin bore on each of tho e dates to the neb cash in the Treasury at those several dates. 

Also, what amount of the cuatoms and internal1-evenues and other receipts of