New-York tribune., 1884-01-27
POOL COMMISSIONER FINK's VIEWS.
HIS TESTIMONY IL OPPOSITION TO INTERSTATE
COMMERCE BILLS.

Ills TESTIMONY ~ OPPOSITION TO NIER-sIAIL
COMMERCE BILLS.
WASHINGTON. Jan. 2G.-The House Commit
tee on Commerce to-day gave hearing to Pool OoihnS
sioncr Fink on the subject Of interstate commerce o
asserted that the subject too extensive To De caro-
fully considered during session OF Congress- anu o"
mended that the committee continue ls IhN'sts~ion
during the recess or that permanent commission DO dP
po,nted 10 make thorough examination OF the question
and report to Congress. The bill introduced Dy MT hoI
of Michigan providing for the establishment OF Ooau
Of commissioners OF interstate commerce as bureau o
the Interior Department. the only practlcaDe meas
ure 10 be adopted at this tme AMI its enactment wouu
be satisfactory to the railroad interests and would meet
the approval Of all conservative people,
Proceeding TO discussion of the general su1ect MT
Fink addressed himself more especially to the question as
70 whether the charges for transportation were rca-
sopable 1t seems to be taken for grantcd lha1
railroad companies had been guilty OF extoron' anu
tbe most extravagant statements had been made
TO prove assertions TO that effect The people hsd re-
ceived Transportation at low rate and at tte pronI W
the roads and no extortion had been practlsed THIS
could be shown from the fact that in 1882, while the
capal invested in railroads thousand million
dollars the net earnings were only three hundied m
lions The bondhoiers thus received about per
cent and the stockholders about per cent III hlSht
be said that of this capital was watered STOCK pt
even were half of watered the interest received on e
was not an excessive interest The charge for railroad
TRANSFORMATION was very small and much sa er than the
profits charged by the mddlemen, who dealt IN tho ar
ces transported Take for example SUIT OF clo'heS
worth from $40 to $50; the transportation charge rom
Chicago TO New-York 7lo cents-an inap-
prac,able omonnt So on other articles Of cOnsump
tion tle cost OF transportation no item. The
committee had no complaints from consumers Inc
complaints came from middlemcn. They did not now
ever represent the people, and the committee must
not put much faith in what they said congress ought
not TO allow itself TO made tool of by this class OF
men, Charges were regulated by so many condluohS
such as water competitions that there was no danger 'na
railroads would charge unreasonable rates.
The demand that transportation charges should DC just
and equitable was right principle but would he In
iOns public interest to accede TO IL IN any general
law The treatment should be adapted to each particular
case according to the peculiar circumstances OF each
Before railroads built, Mr. Fink sald the interior
towns paid high rates for transportation by wagons no"
they paid ess-athough greater sum than places nav
inr the advantages of competition. Rates arc based he
said on the advantages and value Of service rendered
Speaking Of what is called the pooling system Mr. FINK
said it was more proper to call It system by which the
same rates were secured all persons II did not regu
late the rates explained the working OF the pool OF
which he is Commissioner, and said II az nrSt met WIN
great oposon but complete reversal nad tSeh 5 pc
in public opinion during the last five years He qloted
from commercial paper statements showing lhat II da
moi prevent competition between railroads, but secured
uniform system Of rates, preventing huctuaon without
combination the rates would Dc constantly chdnsihg hu
thus entailing great loss 10 business Inel, pcsCS
creating disrst The pool system does not now exist,
but had formerly existed, in England for twenty years
Mr. Gladstone acting rs commissioner l0r thte I9ius IN
1856. The Union Pacific Government directors had them
selves entered into pooling arrangemen toGe9cT & VIII
the other directors OF the company ne was III l'V 1
the Governments compelling railroads TO publish their
M r1Gt To- fl those rates however With justice TO the
railroads this could be done by the Governments Inr-
ought not 10 be done. and could not be done
In opposing the section establishing commission TO
roads tariff rates were concerned ana no hIee or
nine could provide an equitable rate Tor all these these
should be, be admitted, some central control
A. as e duty Of station agents TO report ali complaints
OF shippers The General FREIGHT Agent who thus knew
the wants of the people whom he served No such com,
mission as that proposed by tho Reagan BIZ! would come
in contact with The shippers and hence c9ud NOT Know
their wants The Interstate Commerce bills sought TO pre-
vent unreasonable and unjust rates, but the sccIoh-
proposing do this IN themselves unjust II Con-
Tersate them therefor IT had the hight to regulate
railroad property bnt not the rght to c9nlSc9te
In concluding his argument he renewed MS lecohmeh-
daon OF the IIOrr bill which provides fo the appoint
Information on tins subject to be reported to Congress
He Thought the report OF the commission would sustain
him in his views Oh the subject
POINTS MADE BY EX-GOVERNOR BE0WN
This afternoon Ex-Governor Brown appeared on behalf
of the Missouri Pacific Company opposition to the vari
ous measures proposed for the regulation OF Interstate
commerce by Congress. lie argued the case as TO It's
equities and to the constitutional authority oil Con-
CTrss in the premises Directing the attention OF luc
Committee principally to the Reagan bl he said that 1t
proposed an unjust discrimination against rdr0a Is a.
between rail and water transportation rOutcS IranNPo
tatiOn on the waterways the public highway acquired
by the Government for hich the public was taXei was
not he said De ncrcred WITH but transportation over
railroad, built 10y private capital was 10 feel The mailed
hand OF power The railroads were, he said to be
placed at disadvantage with the water
ways in competition to the carrying business OF the
country. -,
He dwelt at length the services rendered IN the
progress of United States by railroads in bringing The
roduccT nearer markets and then pointed Out the
manner i'm which the Reagan bill would IN his Judgments
hamper railroad tran pOratiOn service by restrictions
and conditions and sarly severe penalties.
Coming 10 the question Of thc constitutional authority
of Congress he denied that empowered by the Con
stituti0n to control traffic upon tho railroads. or fix or
limit the rates be charged sdc traffic. and review
g the decisions of the Court cited by the friends
of the bill as evidence that the Court acknowledged such
constitutional authority lie said the Supreme Court had
never had the issue directly presented To H.