The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-12-10

the other, only the echo of threat as empty
as the dungeon of a medieval castle. II we
are TO put the railroads under restraint
against unjust discrimination and undue
preferences, as think we should, / want il
to be restraint that means something and
that Is constantly in operation. Such would
certainly not be the result II we merely
passed penal statute and left it to execute
itself in rare spasms."
Discussing the short haul" pro-
vision, which forbids larger charge
for shorter than for longer haul for
a similar amount and kind of property
in one continuous carriage, Governor
Long said:
81 For one, am not inclined to deny the
abstract correctness of the principle here
stated, but, like all abstract principles, its
application depends upon the circumstances
of each case. A similar provision is in the
statutes of Massachusetts,, though there
limited to cases where the comparative
hauls are in the same direction Last
winter 1t passed the Connecticut house of
representatives and was defeated in the
senate. 1t is better adapted, perhaps, to
the narrow limits of q state than to the
whole country, in which its too rigid en-
forcement might operate very severely
against the great grain and meat-producing
regions of the West. If through rate
must never, under any possible circum-
stances, exceed less than through rate,
then the West must give up the present
marvelously cheap transportation of its pro-
ducts, and the people of the East must pay
the increased freight cost of their provisions.
This question becomes by no means a sim
pie one when this broader view of the con-
sequences to the whole country are con-
sidered If we were to have no interstate
commission, there would be more reason
for this provision but with that to investi-
gate, sift and correct every instance of un-
reasonable disproportion, the provision is,
in the Judgment of your committee, not
desirable. 1t exists, as / have said, in
Massachusetts, and perhaps in some other
states. But there as would be the case in
the federal statutes, it is, / believe, prac-
tically dead letter. l do not recall an
instance where, in my own state, any in
jured party has reported to the courts of
law, though such may have occurred Nor
is this requirement altogether free from
difficulties. Take some instances: The st.
Louis bridge cost $12,000,000. Ought no
more to be charged, either as practical or
an abstract proposition, for haul over it a
distance OF one or two miles than over a
dozen miles of the continuous road to
Chicago or Kansas City, which cost, say one
two-hundredths as much per mile? Is it
unjust to charge more for haul OF FIVE
miles through the Hoosac Tunnel which
cost, say 81 100000 mile, than for a haul Of
ten miles over another part of the same
road that cost hundred times less per
mile? Take a more ordinary and appro-
pirate illustration: By river from Memphis
to New Orleans bale OF cotton Is carried
for, say ST. Meantime a railroad is built
from New Orleans to Winona, in Mississippi.
1t is great public benefaction. 1t makes
an outlet for Mississippi cotton and takes it
from Winona to New Orleans for, say 80
a bale, great reduction on former charges.
Everybody is happy. An increasing spirit
OF enterprise extends the railroad to Mem
, pills. and Winona has now two arms. But
10! discomfort and unhappness! For, as
the river freight from Memphis to New
Orleans is s. bale, the railroad, if it would
get any through carrying business, must also
take it for 81 a bale What follows if you
enforce this proposed provision of law?
This: If the railroad charges 81 from Mem
phis to New Orleans, then it must charge
less than 81 from Winona to New Orleans.
} But it cannot do business at that rate. 1t
, must therefore stop running, or else it must
keep up its former local rates and increase
its through rates from Memphis to New
Orleans to perhaps So or 81. But if it does
, that, the competition and cheap rates of the
steamboats, leave it no through business to
do at all 1t at first seems, of course, unjust
that 1t should charge more from Winona to
! New Orleans than from Memphis to New
Orleans, the longer distance. But Winona
made no complaint, and was happy so
long as the railroad ran only to her thresh-
old. In other words, as long as she had
only half her present facilities, the through
line having its track and equipment, can, if
it maintains its local rates. afford to take
through freight at very low figure, at a
mere fraction above cost Competition is
in that way promoted in the interest of the
general public If not of Winona, and all
transportation is cheapened. But this pro-
posed provision of law would forbid all this,
= because of the special wrong to Winona.
But stop. What wrongs Winona? Is it the
railroad? No; for without it she would be
at her original disadvantage. What wrongs
her is not the railroad, but the river-the
natural advantage which Memphis has OF
water communication. As / say, / don't
undertake to go into the right or wrong OF
= each case. You can multiply instances of
all sorts Of wrongs in this matter. The very
infnity and variety show at once the i'm
possibility of a single statute that will meet
them all and the absolute necessity of a
general, constant, automatic supervisor. i
t do not pretend that any one illustration
covers even fraction of the ground. There
are cases where gross, rank, outrageous in
, justice is done by the railroads in charging
more for short haul than for long one,
such as Judge Regain referred to in opening
this debate. They ought to be brought up
with round turn, and commission would
bring them up. There are other cases
where they must charge less for a long haul
than for short local one, or else give up all
through competition, which is the very life
2 and safety OF the people, the great body of
, consumers who must have every aid to
cheap transportation. w nat tnen! snail
= we permit the outrages? No. Shall we
forbid the benefit? No. The ends of our
noses are too convenient to justify us in
) cutting them off. We will regulate. We
will leave the matter as part of that reason
, able freight charge, provided for in our first
Y section, to the interstate commission, who
will have full power to act and to do justice
in each case. Here is just one of those
cases where the iron-clad law would only
work mischief, and where commission
with elastic power can do justice and con-
, serve all interests. For one am satisfied
that the Reagan BILL as offered by its author,
isn't sufficient and would be Intellectual, de-
feating itself. The committees bill is by
no means perfect We offer it as the best
: practical step that can be taken at this
Z time. We, too, would control the railroads
, and stop their exactions, but not, on the
4 other hand, cripple their usefulness by re-
, strictions that would injure them less than
/ they would the public. We have no pride
, of opinions. We have adopted all the re-
! medal clauses of Mr.. Reagans bill that did
/ not seem positively impracticable. We
/ have annexed to them the system of COM
mission with full powers. We want to make
the railroads the agents of the law, not as
\ violators, the servants of the people, not
their defiant adversary We have meant
business. Our single purpose has been to
consummate the passage OF an act and not
to have another session Of congress go by
\ with no other result than the report of a