Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-04-17

cient TO convince me That II is open TO oplec-
tons
Perhaps it would be well for me to say that
my firm whittier Fuller CO.., is not, nor has
it ever been, under contract to ship any or all
its goods by rail. We conduct our business IN
our own way, shipping such goods by rail as it
seems 10 be 10 our interest to ship in that way,
and choosing any other route ut pleasure.
Generally speaking, with regard to legisla-
ton on railroads, It seems TO me that all dis
examinations between persons and places which
have for their object, or are likely to produce,
the effect of fayoritism by the carrier. TO create
conditions which do not now exist, such as con-
centrating their business i'll the hands of one or
Il few persons, as against the rest OF the commU-
nifty, diVerting the trade from one point to
another point viewed with more favor by the
persons operating railroads-should be prohib-
tied and the carriers so restrained as to make il
impossible.
ION the other hand, il is the result of my own
experience III business that determinations per
sc, are not always unjust The laws of trade re-
cogniZe this Indeed, might say that discrimi-
nation may be regarded second only to COM
petition in Its contribution to the life of trade.
! IL should be recognized, too, that there are
natural conditions which give one place on ac-
count OF its location, the advantage over an
other place. and it is also true that there are per-
sons-merchants and producers-who. by their
TACT industry and application, do possess adj
vantages over their neighbors Common car
riers, while restrained from creating such CON
| ditions, should, it seems to me, not be allowed
| to destroy them.
My conclusions might, perhaps be summed
| up i'll this: That, having provided such legisla-
ton as will prevent or punish unjust discrmina-
ton in favor of persons or places, there should
remain the greatest possible freedom to both
carrier and shipper Tor the purpose of the de-
! velopment and extension of trade
| - Ii seems TO me that the first section of the
Barry bill is vague and indefinite to the extent
| that it is likely TO be mischievous. We have
been large shippers for years over, perhaps, all
the transportation lines in this State and have
| never yet experienced Partially, diScrmina-
| ton, preference or favor in the matter of dis
PATCH speed or accommodation, or price nor
| have we ever had occasion to complain of these
| things being done against in favor of others.
| | don't know that the section referred to goes
any further in restraining these acts ON the part
of carriers than the Constitution. | doubt it,
materially.
Il note a provision that all freight shall be
dispatched and forwarded in the order in which
it is received, or rendered for transportation. So
far as our firm is concerned, we have never eX-
perenced the necessity for any such legislation.
l can see however, how it might be made an eX-
cuse by the carriers for putting the shipping
public to a very great deal of inconvenience. In
many cases it could concentrate the business of
the State in the hands of few for time, at
least. | doubt very much If the interest of the
carriers-conceding that they proceed from a
not altogether enlightened spirit of selfshness-
would permit them to discriminate in the matter
of forwarding freight.
on the other hand, can see where an iron
clad rule of the nature provided in this section
would not only be u cause of inconvenience to
the public, but the source of much litigation,
No rule should be established that would permit
me, with large tonnage to be moved to engage
the facilities of carrier for my exclusive bene-
| fit, for even short period. There are shippers
| who can and often have tonnage amounting to
! thousands of tons that sometimes can be thrown
upon the carrier, monopOiZing its facilities for
time, long or short, to the exclusion of others.
The interests of the carrier are such to prompt
/ il to prevent this as much as possible. Under
| the law, as proposed, the carrier would have no
| option in the matter. / think the bill would be
improved by eliminating the provision alto
! gether.
"As TO section two, question very much the
| eXpediency of lorbidding all discounts rebates,
| special contracts, special rates or other devices
| for charging more or less than the published
! rates. 1t seems 10 me that prohibition of I'M
just determinations preferences or favors in the
| interest of certain persons or places would be
| sufficient.
| "In the matter of special contracts, as l have
| said before, my firm has not been under con
| tract with any of the railroad companies in the
| State ! know that the contract plan enforced
| on through business has been the subject of a
| great deal of criticism. 1t has not been handled
| by the railroad company as, perhaps | would
| have handled it. At the same time perhaps,
| every one of my fellOwmerchants would sug-
! geSt plan, as different from mine, as mine
/ would be from that of the railroad companies.
Il cannot see that these special contracts
! have been detrimental to the interests of the
! State If they have worked hardship in any
| sense, il has been against the interests of the
merchants of San Francisco, i'll that it has given
| interior merchants the facilities and advantages
which were, before the opening of the railroad,
/ enjoyed wholly and exclusively by the mer-
| chants of San Francisco, by reason of its sea
| port. There is no question but that it has had a
! tendency TO reduce lreights. There is no doubt
! in my mind but that, if the railroad companies
/ had been able to offer me rates which could
| see were, upon the whole, equal TO those my
| firm enjoys by the Use OF all three routes,
! should have been glad to have made contract.
- | should like TO see the wholesale principle
recognized by the carriers, as it is recognized by
| the merchants and traders in their dealings
! with each other. 1t strikes Inc that principle
! so universally recognized in trade ought 10 be
! observed in the conduct of such a potential
factor in trade the transportation interest has
become. All the rates, privileges and facilities
offered by a carrier ought to be open to all per
! sons upon the same terms but it strikes me that
! the carrier IS precisely in my position. Ii has
! transportation to sell, while l sell paints and
! oils. 4 customer who buys an invoice running
up into the thousands viii certainly receive II
! discount from me, and from all my competitors,
! from the rates for which would sell to the pur-
! chaser of an invoice OF $780,.
. | am not prepared to say that II is practi-
! cable, and do not know that your honorable
committee will regard it as eXpedient, from
the standpoint Of public policy, but
| not be allOwed-or rather. why it should not be
/ obliged-to pursue the same principle for Ger
| tainly il afford to do 50. In other words, it
| appears to me that Just as ! can handle my
] go
! lower price, and make the same percentage OF
profit as in smaller lots at IL higher price-so the
carrier can handle large lots of goods for enc in
/ dlvldual at II lower rate, and yet make the same
! percentage of profit as by handling al equal
amount in smaller lots for different persons at a
/ higher price.
- ! don't know that the special contract system
has ever been put III practice by any carrier in
! its local business in California. 1t seems to me
! that there might be cases where special con-
! tract-that IS not a contract which shall be i'll
int gfS,F ~ to-
as against some other individual, or some other
community, but which shall be special in
the sense that it shall be different from the usual
and ordinary terms of carriage by railroads
would be necessary III order TO enable the carrier
to properly serve the public. Our State is young.
our agricultural, horticultural and manufactur
ing interests have still great room for growth
| and development. They may be, in large sense,
dependent upon facilities for transportation for
their success. and the carrier should not be for
hidden to make terms and conditions essential
to their success, provided such terms and condi-
tons shall be equally available to all the public
under similar circumstances
with respect to Section 3, have nothing to
say. Section strikes me as being Il very unwiSe
provision. We need railroads We should be
in the attitude of welcome, continually, and in
stead of making laws which might be construed
whether justly or not-as hostile toward such
enterprises, we should avoid even the appear
mce of discOuraging them. can see no good
end to be served by cnacting that section into Il
law, while ! can see that IT might be the means
of preventing the extension of railroads now
touching our borders, which are incorporated
under the laws of other States.
"On Sections and my advice would not be
of value to the committee. With respect to Sec
ton Z | will say that, as Il matter Of opinion. it
seems to me that provision that will forfeit the
charter of corporation for the illegal act of an
cmploye, or agent-which act may have origin
ated in malice toward the corporation, or
through ignorance or carelessness-is unneces-
sarily severe. Laws should be enforced. Cor
pOratiOnS, as well as individuals, should be
made to respect and obey the law, but need
lessly severe penalty otener works to defeat the
end of the law than to secure it. II seems to me
that this section can be amended so as To secure
obedience to the law and that, too, by modify
ing the penalty, instead OF enactlng II as II
stands in this bill.
=. would have been pleased to meet your
committee, and be questioned us to my views on
the bill, If it possible. Regard for my duty
a. citizen has impelled me to give you, hastily,
these criticisms. which hope Will be received
in the kindly spirit in which they are rendered.
Yours, very respectfully, W. +. WHITTIER"
4 long letter was read from John T. Doyle,
who was unable to be present, i'll which he de
Tended the bill in reference to some of the objec
tons urged against it, and then proceeded to
make an anti-railroad argument embodying his
well-known views on the subject, and which are
too familiar to require reproduction.
The following letter was then read from John
F. kidder, President and General Manager of
the Nevada County Narrow-gau Railroad
'GRAsS VALLEY, April Il, 1854.
" Hon. C. ", CroSs-DEAR SIR As cannot APP
pear in person before the Judiciary Committee
of the Senate in reference to the proposed legis-
lation regarding the railroads of California and
as the Barry bill has been so thoroughly yenti-