Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1882-12-22
GLOBE MORNING. DECEMBER e. 1882


urge this as reason why we should dis
pose of the compensation which should be
paid them for carrying government prop
erty.
Mr.. Butterworth-Does the gentleman
insist that congress has power to require
the roads to transport troops for nothing?
Mr.. Hlscock-Under an amendment to
the charters in the act of 1864, under
which these railroads took valuable prop
erty, we have right to repeal it abso-
lutely, but claiming that that is law do
not advocate that we should do it.
Mr.. Butterworth- gentleman thinks
congress has that power.
Mr.. Hiscock-Yes.
Mr.. Butterworth-Under the right to re-
peal that charter does he insist that con-
gress has the right to repeal charters with
out reserving the rights of those who took
an interest under the grant?
Mr.. Hiscock-Doubtless I should re-
serve their rights. Does the gentleman
deny that congress has power to establish
reasonable, just and right compensation;
Mr.. Butterworth-I agree that congress
is able to determine what reasonable and
just compensation is. It has the power to
do it, but deny the power of congress to
determine arbitrarily what reasonable and
just is. That, is, to have grant with the
granter only fixing terms. I am in favor
of dealing closely and carefully with these
corporations, and not paying them one
scruple more than they are entitled to, but
l am in favor of preserving the public
faith to corporations as to individuals.
Mr.. Hiscock asserted that congress was
justified in determining what was reason
able, and there was no appeal from its de-
clsion. Railroads were charging exhorbi-
tant rates, and he believed, that was ques-
tien over which congress had jurisdiction.
and that having that Jurisdiction it was its
duty to establish schedule of prices rath-
er than remit it to the future to be deter
mined by litigation between the govern
ment and corporations.
Mr.. Hooker, of Mississippi, opposed the
provisions of the bill. Would the gentle
man undertake to assert that the govern
ment in view either of grants of land or
subsidies. has the right to take these rail-
roads and tear up the track from Omaha
to San Francisco? Did they want to re
store the grant of the immense tract to its
pristine severaity? If congress had power
to fix the compensation at so per cent, it
had the power to say it would give moth
ing. The government had been generous
and liberal to these Pacific companies but
it could have afforded to have
given 10000 times more than it had
to effect the union of the two great oceans
which Tapped the continent.
Mr.. Reagan. Of Texas, regarded the pro-
vision as a curious one, looking at it in the
light in which it would be considered by
the courts. Because rates were exorbitant
IT v,rnnncod 70 %ho
would only pay half rates. It did not pro-
present rates, but to one-half 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
government 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 the
spirit of justice, in the spirit which looked
to the cutting down of arbitrary corpora
ton power and local freight discrimina-
tions.
Mr.. Robson, of New Jersey, in support
ing 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 cost. He did not
believe the highest judicial tribunal of the
land would render decision that left all
transportation of the government at the
mercy of the railroad companies. Con-
gress would then see whether it was bound
hand and foot or whether there was in the
constitution power enough to set the gov
eminent and the country free.
Mr.. Ranney, of Observation-Disclosures
you pass an unjust law?
Mr.. Robeson,-No would not pass an I'M
just act, but:: Il say it is reasonable they
should convey United States troops at
half the price they are now exacting from
the producer, who has no remedy against
them.
Mr.. Robinson, of Massachusetts, said
that on hasty examination he found what
the gentleman from New Jersey read ap-
piled only to the Oregon line.
Mr.. Robson replied that even if that
we're SO it would interpret the meaning of
reasonable" in the other acts.
Mr.. Holman, of Indiana, supported the
provision, denying that it would in
wade the rights of private property.
Mr.. Robinson said the gentleman from
New Jersey had quoted the statute stating
the government could require the trans
portation of its property for nothing, and
had logically deducted from that that
it could fix the compensation at so per
cent. of present rates. The answer to that
was that the statute had no reference to
the road except one from Marysville, Cali
fornia, to Portland, Oregon. and he was in
formed that the road had never been con-
structed. There was something RADICAL y
wrong about those citations from acts and
court decisions. There was somewhere
in every man an impulse that told him,
that IN dealing with other people
he wanted to deal squarely.
Somehow every man wanted to feel up to
the dignity of living up to a bargain,
whatever it was, and he (Robinson) knew
it would be the temper and discretion of
the house to put its foot on any power of
readjustment that should amount to repu-
diation. [Applause]. This was a great
government, but it would be weak beyond
description when it ceased to do right and
just things.
The general debate then closed, but
without further action the committee rose,
and after granting twenty-five leaYes of
absence, the house adjourned.
Refusing to Perform a Funeral Service.
Especial Telegram to the Globe.