National Republican., 1882-12-22


take up this question and settle It fairly
and literally. He admitted that
the companies were corporations, and were
not technically trustees Of government prop
Cry. He would deprive them of no rights
which they had, but the evidence before the
committee was that the property they had
possession of had been absolutely donated TO
them by the general government, and chat
they were not proprictors Of a single cent
Mr. Hewitt. Does the government own ii?
Mr.. lIiscock. | am speaking of corrorniOns as
corporations ! am not speaking of individual
stOckhOldCrs. ] have 10 doubt that their rights
Will always and ever be protected. Again repeat
that the properly has been donated TO them, every
dollar OF It, by the general government, and nrse
this as n reason why we should dispose of the
compensation which should be paid to them for
carrying government property. occupying this
position before the constituency my colleague
has accurately described, / have no fear of re-
ceving their condemnation.
Mr.. Butterworth. Does the gentleman insist that
congress ha. power to require the roads to trans.
port troops for nOthing2
Mr. liiScock. Uuder the am endment TO the char
tiers on the act of 1864 under which these railways
took valuable property, we have the right to re-
peal it absolutely; but, claiming that that Is the
lay. do not advocate that we should do il.
Mr.. ButtcTworfh. The gentleman thinks that
congress has that power?
Mr.. HiscOck. Yes.
Mr.. Butterwor,h Under the right to repeal that
charter does lie insist that congress has the right
to repeal the charter without reserving tho right
of those who took Interest under the grant
Mr.. Hiscock. Doubtless i should reserve their
rights. Does the gentleman deny that congress
has the power to establish reasonable, just, aud
right compensation.
Mr.. Bntierworth. agree that congress is able
To determine what reasonable and just compen-
sation Is 1t has tho power to do 1t; but deny
Tue power Of congress to determine arbitrarily
what reasonable and just is-that is, TO have =
grant with the granter only fixing the terms. |
am in faver of dealing closely aud carefully with
these corporations and not paying them one
,cruple mnrr than they arc entitled to. but am
as to individuals.
Mr.. HiscOck asserted that Congress was
justified in determining what was reasonable,
and that there was no appeal from its dccis-
ion. The railways were charging exorbitant
rates, and he belived that that was question
over which congress had jurisdiction, and
that, having that jurisdiction, it was its duty
to establish u schedule of prices rather than
to remit it to the future, to be determined by
Il litigation between the government and the
corporations
Mr.. Hooker opposed the provision of the
bill-would gentlemen undertake to assert
that the government, in view of either grants
of lands or subsidies, has the right to take
these railways and tear up the track from
San Francisco to Omaha? Did they want to
restore the grant of an immense tract of land
to its pristine severalty? If congress had the
power to fix the compensation at 80 per cent,
1T had the power to say that it would give
nothing. The government had been generous
and liberal to these Pacific companies, hut it
could have afforded to have given ten thous-
and times more than it had to effect the union
of the two great oceans which Tapped the con-
tinent.
Mr.. Hiscock referred to Mr.. Hewitt as
holding up all sorts of imaginary scarecrows
in stating that he (AIr. Hiscock) was attempt
ing to invade private rights and the sanctity
of contracts, and in declaring that he was a
repudiator. He did not feel himself forced to
take that position, and he did not take it. If
there was any doubt that this legislation was
perfect, the companies could go into the court
of claims to have the question settled. If
congress were right in its construction of the
law, then this provision would stand; if
wrong, then some reasonable rate, as between
the government and the companies, would be
determined upon.
Mr.. Reagan regarded the provision as
curious one, looking at it in the light in
which it would be considered by the courts.
Because the rates were exorbitant, it was
proposed to say that the government would
only pay half rates. 1t did not propose to
limit charges to one half the present rates,
but to one half of reasonable rates. Congress
must first declare what reasonable rates were
for transportation, and then the government,
like other people, would be compelled to pay
them. He did not think that the govern
ment could exact the performance of service
for one half of reasonable rates He believed
it of the highest importance that congress
should assume the regulation of rates, but he
wanted it done in spirit of justice in n
spirit which looked to the cutting down of
arbitrary corporation power and local freight
discrimination.
Mr.. Robson, in supporting the provision,
quoted from the act of 1866, to the effect that
the government if necessary, could require
the transportation of its property free of
charge. The compensation for the transpor-
tation of government supplies should not eX-
ceed that paid by private parties, but there
was no limit to the reduction which might be
made. Congress came to settle this question
by saying that what was paid under the de-
mands of the railways under their pooling
system and their combinations was higher
than the government in its power meant to
pay. If the companies wished to dispute
whether the compensation was reasonable
they could go into the court of claims, with
an appeal to the supreme court, but he did
not believe that the highest judicial tribunal
of the land would render decision that left
all the transportation of the government al
the mercy of the railway companies. Con
gress would then see whether it was bound
hand and feet, or whether there was In the
constitution power enough to set the govern
ment and the country free.
Mr. Ranney. Would you pass an unjust actF
but say that II is reasonable that they should
carry United States troops at half the price tina
they are now e1ncting from the producer who ha
no remedy against them.
Mr. Robinson said that on a hasty examina
tion he had found that the statute which thu
gentleman from New Jersey read applie'
only to the Oregon line.
Mr.. Robeson replied that even if that wer
So it would interpret the meaning of rea
sonable" in the other acts
Mr.. Holman supported the provision deny
ing that it would invade the rights of privat
property.
MIR. Robinson said that the gentleman iron
| New Jersey had quoted statute stating tina
| the government could require the transporta
ton of its property for nothing, and had logi
| cally dcduced from that that it could fix tn
! compensation at 80 per cent. of the presen
rates. Tho answer to that was that tn
| statute had no reference to any road eXcep
one from Marysville, Cal, to Portland
Oregon, and he was informed that that roa
| had never been constructed. There wa
something radically wrong about these cita
tions from acts and court decisions. Their
was somewhere in every man an impulse tina
told him that in dealing with other people Ii
wanted to deal squarely. Somehow ever
man wanted to feel up to the dignity of liV
ing up to a bargain whatever it was, and h
(NTr. Robinson) knew that it would be tn
temper and discretion of the house to put il
feet on any form of readiustmentw which sh0ul
amount to reputation. Applause Thi
was a great government, but il would be wea
beyond description when IL ceased to do th
right and just thing.
The general debate then closed, but withpL
further action the committee rose, and aft,
granting twenty-five leaves of absence, I'll
house, at i;30 adjourned.