The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-01-17

from Kansas was bordering over his reply he
would PROFOUND the same question to the sena-
tor from Iowa (Mr. Allison)
Mr. Allison said he did not want to get into q
colloquy with his friend from Nebraska.
Mr. Van Wyck-No, should think not
Mr.. Allison said the rates to both points might
be reasonable.
Mr. Ingalls, thought tho compensation of the
roads should be proportional to the distance.
Mr. George offered amendment providing
that Mr.. Skaters proposed amendment shall
not be construed to legalize the charging of as
much for shorter as for a longer distance in
any case"
Mr. Georges amendment was agreed to az
modifying the Slater amendment the latter
however, not being part of the bill, but still
under debate.
Mr. Platt favored a commission, and Mr.
Salisbury said he would vote for MIR. Skaters
amendment
Mr. Cullom, who reported the BILL opposed the
amendment. He thought Congress lacked that
dehnlteness of information that would justify it
In passing law that would cover every sup
posed condition of affairs He thought, when a
commission should have exhaustively examined
the subject under debate, Congress would be
better able to judge what legislation was neces-
sary. Mr. Cullom added that in introducing
the bill, his purpose had been, not to bring in
body of detailed regulations against railroads,
without rhyme or reason but a body of provis-
ions that would do that which was fair as be-
tween the companies and the people.
Mr. Brown said that about the time when the
first railroad was established, between Manches-
ter and Liverpool England, a lot of two and a
hail acres of land the site of the present
city of Atlanta was sold for a horse
a saddle and bride. That lot now bore
more than $4,000, 900 worth of property The
difference in value, he said had been created by
railroads. 1t was easy to excite people against
the railroads, but he was addressing himself to
cool headed men, brave senators, who repre-
sented the people. He asked privileges for
raiIrods, but asked that something like justice
be done them. They should have fair play.
Mr.. Brown then entered upon an elaborate
analysis and discussion of the question of rail
road charges and management. Consolidation,
he said, not competition. was the solution of the
railroad question. The legislation proposed
would greatly discourage the building of rail-
roads. There may be enough of them in the
North and West and those sections may have
enough game in the trap to be able to afford
to pull the trigger. 1t was not so
with the South which yet needed
railroads If the present bill passed, the people
who were now clamoring for its passage would
soon be found clamoring for its repeal 1t would
either drive the railroads into bankruptcy, or
else it would prohibit all interchange of COM
modities at greater distances than 500 or 600
miles. AS the statistics quoted by Mr. Brown
showed that freight could not possibly bear the
same proportionate rate for 600 miles, it would
not only destroy interstate commerce, but, by
making long distance freights from the West to
the Atlantic coast so expensive as to prohibit
shipment, it would also destroy our foreign
commerce.
Adjourned until tomorrow