The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-28
RAILWAY POOLS.


The System Defended by Commissioner Fink
Before the Commerce Committee.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26.-Commissioner Albert
Fink appeared before the House committee on
commerce and made an argument in defense Of
the railroad pooling system. He asserted that
the people received railroad transportation at a
low rate and little profit to the roads. No extor
tion had been practiced. In 1882 while the cap
ital of the railroads $1,000, 600 O0O the net
earnings were only $500, 600.
The bondholders thus received about per
cent. and the stockholders about per cent.
1t might be said that much of this capital was
watered stock, but, even were half of it wa
tered, the interest received on the legitimate
stock would only amount to per cent. which
was not excessive interest The charge for rail
road transportation is very small-much smaller
than the profits charged by middle men who
dealt in the articles to be transported Congress
ought not to allow itself to be made the tool
of the middlemen. The bill introduced bv
Mr. HOrr, providing for the establish
ment of board of commissioners
on interstate commerce as a bureau of the In
terror Department was the only practical
measure that could be adopted at this time, and
its enactment would be satisfactory to railroad
interests and meet the approval of all conserva-
tive people No such commission as that pro-
posed by the Reagan bill would come in contact
with the shippers, hence it could not know their
wants. The interstate commerce bill sought
to prevent unreasonable and unjust rates but
the sections proposing to do this were in them
selves unjust If Congress compelled the roads
to run at a loss it should compensate them there
for. 1t had the right to regulate railroad prop
erty, but not the right to cOnfiscate it.
Ex-Governor Brown appeared in behalf of the
Missouri Pacific Company in opposition to the
interstate commerce bill He said that by the
Reagan bill the railroads would be placed at a
disadvantage with the waterways in compe-
ton for the carrying business of the
country. He dwelt on the services rendered in
the progress of the United States by the rail
roads bringing the producer nearer the markets,
and pointed out the manner in which the Reagan
bill would, in his Judgment hamper the railroad
transportation service by restrictions, conditions
and unnecessarily y-severe penalties Coming to
the question of the constitutional authority of
Congress, he denied that it was empowered bv
the Constitution to control traffic upon the rali
roads, or fix or limit the rates to be charged on
such traffic, and reviewing the decisions of the
Supreme Court cited by the friends of the bill
as evidence that the court acknowledged such
preme Court never had the issue directly pre-
sented to it. Some justices, in delivering an
opinion in the Supreme Court had admitted
that such authority had been vested in Congress-,
but the question has never yet been presented to-
the court for a decision. He believed one effect
of the Reagan bill would be to compel the roads
now forming part Of the connecting system to
abandon the system of through rates and give
only local bills of lading So far as the Gould
system, with which he (Brown) was connected,
was concerned there We're very few complaints
The speaker was asked as to the financial con-
dition and profits of the roads in Texas and
Arkansas, and replied that the business was not
profitable.
Judge Reagan bore testimony to the integrity
and fairness of the leading officers of the Gould
system, including Governor Brown, and con-
tended that his bill would work no mi usiice to
tho roads