New-York tribune., 1882-02-22
RAILROAD INTERESTS.
VIZ. NACVEAG

Mr.. NACvEAGH on INTER-eTAT COMMERCE
| w AsHINGTON, Feb. 21.-The House Conn
rni'tee on Commerce met to-day hear arguments on
the Reagan BILL providing for the regulation Of inter
state commerce and the prohibition Of unjust dlscr nina
tiOns by carriers Several prominent railroad
men present Ex-Att0rney-,i eneral MorVeao, an
peared in behalf Of the Pennsylvania Railroad and snb
mitted argument in opposition o. the measure IN ba
rzunent Mr.. Macveagh said that the question under
consideration was one NJ vast importance and that tho
people he represented did desire ayoii discussion
of the subject but anxious that II shond be t,or.
ougily considered in all s aspects He questioned tho
constutonality Of the BILL and maintained that the hs.
tory Of the constitutional provision which authorizes
Congress TO regulate commerce between the States
showed that designed not 70 suoh legs.
lation as ths bill proposes but prevent from
making unjust discrimination favor OF commerce con.
fined within their own borders. Ho argued
that the railway problem had two distinct
aspects. In view tho railroads were
common carr a with we:ldenned duties to the public.
In other they were trustees for great number
OF persons who had invested OF money in them
commercial undertakings and that 10 these persons
the railroads had duties well defined and binding
as common carrier duties lie maintained that the fact
is notorious that the rates Interstate commerce are
continually diminishing and are In many instances
found low pay the actual cost OF transportation
He said that there classes of citizens who are
really suffering from the present condition OF railway
business expressed his doubts to the OF Con-
gress grant relief class he said. consists Of
the unhappy railroad stockholders and the other Of the
way shippers who are unfortunate enough 10 i've AZ
petitIve points. Few people, excepting railway
men, the speaker continued, have any idea OF how
rapidly the nOn-cOmpetfiye points are diminishing.
owing the rapd extension Of railroads In every dlrec
ton. Mr. MacVeagh criticised the bill because OF ts
attempt in part to the common law, when ne
said always unnecessary and, therefore, unwse ana
he did NOT consider that the common law could DC
strengi hened by recnactment.
In nregard TO the prohibition OF drawbacks which i EN-
bodcd in the second section Of the bll, Mr. MacVeag1
held that the bill proceed mistaken theory mas
much az took the ground that all such allowances were
wrong ~ said that there might he KIND OF dfaHback
ARRANGEMENT entered into between uniathfu railway
officers and individual shippers FOR purposes OF private
gam, which arrangement would undoubtedly be cFlm
inal in its nature. aui ought 10 be pro .ibl!ed ana
punished but that the state had already proVleh lor
the punishment OF such crimes, hence II was uncceh
iHtericre. There Is ano her ca,s OF
drawbacks equally fOrbldden BY the Reagan DiI' 20
said. which Is absolutely necessary, IN ofoer tla tie
several railroad may fair share o. through
rahc he agoed. referring To the proposed pr0nl.i-
on OF pooling ar.ang mens, mat u was caileu lh'4
effect would necessarily result la the consolidation ~
I'll the prncipa railroad uues, and place their control
IN fewer hands.
Mr. NacVeagh did not conclude HIS argument