National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-01-25
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
Arguments OF the Corporate Opponents OF
the Reagan Bill.

Captain j. p. Green, vice president of the
Pennsylvania railway company, and Mr.. David
w. Sellers, representing the Philadelphia,
Wilmington, and Baltimore company, made
arguments yesterday before the house COM
mttee on commerce upon the thirteen inter
state commerce bills before that committee.
Capt. Green referred to the fact that the bills
covered two entirely distinct classes Of legis-
lation, one providing for commissions with
more or less power. and the other
for the direct regulation of rates, the
prevention of drawbacks and pools, and the
posting of schedules of rates of freight, which
cannot be changed except on from five to
thirty days notice. lie took the ground that
the experience Of all American railroad people
confirmed that Of England and other foreign
countries where this question had been inves.
tigatod that IL was impracticable, or, if prac-
ticable, impolitic to attempt to regulate the
question of rates upon railways or to prohibit
the pooling arrangements, under which equal
rates were now secured to shippers.
All that any shipper could reasonably de-
mand was like rates under like circumstances,
and no ironclad rule could DO laid down
which would cover the thousands of cases ex-
perienccd upon each road.
He referred to the Reagan bill of the last
congress as unjust and damaging to the busi-
ness interests Of the country.
Mr.. Sellers took tho broad ground that
there was no power in congress to regulate
railroad interstate commerce in tho sense
proposed in the bills before the committee.
He referred to numerous decisions of the
supreme court in support of his argument
that tho power of congress is confined
to the regulation Of commerce passing over
navigablo waters between states. He
asserted that there is no such thing as
commerce between states by rail in the con-
stitutional sense of the word. He argued
that the roads arc chartered by tho states,
are under state control, have their rates reg
ulated by tho states, and that 1t is only
through agreements between the railroad
companies terminating at the state lines that
interstate commerce is now carried on. He
said that several states notably Now Jersey
have tho power to repossess themselves of the
railroads under their own sovereign power,
and that u state having exercised this power,
it would not DO claimed that congress could
prescribe what rates the state should charge
over its own roads.
The roads, he said, were merely perform
ing duty devolving upon the state in fur
nishing q highway and in charging tolls
upon traffic. In many states the original
charter confined the railroads to this charac-
ter of business, and it was only within recent
years that the roads assumed the private
functions of common carriers. The two func-
tons were, he said, entirely distinct. If a road
violated its franchise from tho state, the state
had the power to punish the violation. where
rs II the road failed in its duty of common
carrier the courts would step in and protect
the rights OF tho shipper.
Mr.. Sellers continues his argument to-day,
and will be followed by Mr.. Chauncey Depew
for the New York Central Railroad company