The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-01-17

Mr.. Slater's pending amendment, prohibit
ing the railroads from charging more for
short than long haul.
Mr.. Ingalls, said 1t would be "trojan
horse" introduced into the bill In the case
of the freight charge from Chicago to New
York. he said IL there were one hundred
amendments that would permit the railroads
10 charge the same amount for a similar
cargo brought no further east from Chicago
than to Fort Wayne. Cleveland or Buffalo,
ii would enable road to charge as much for
3 run of 500 miles as for one OF q thousand
miles.
Mr.. Slater taid the roads were doing that
now. and a great many other wrong Things
besides. The amendment would prohibit
roads from charging more for q short haul
than for a long one, and would make first
step IN the work OF correcting the gross evils
OF which the people were complaining.
Mr.. Williams strongly opposed the rail
road practice of charging more for short
hauls than for longer ones. He favored a
Commission BILL bnt admitted that since
the first years operation OF the KENTUCKY
State Commission IL bad accomplished moth
ing, and was now mot worth cent"
Mr.. Van Wyck addressed question to the
Senator from Kansas (Ingalls). WAS il
right TO charge the same rate from Chicago
to Kansas City IS to Leavenworth2'
Mr.. Ingalls, made no reply, and the inquiry
was repeated, but without eliciting a re-
spouse.
Mr.. Van Wyck said, while the Senator from
Kansas was bordering over his reply he
would PROFOUND the same question to the
Senator from Iowa (Allison).
Mr.. Allison said he did not want to get
into a colloquy with his friend from
Mr.. Van wyck-No, IIthink not. Laugh
ter.
Mr.. Allison said the rates to both points
might be reasonable.
Mr.. Ingalls, thought the compensation of
the roads should be proportioned to the dis
lance
Mr.. George offered an amendment pro-
vidiDg that Slater's proposed amendment
shall not be construed to legalize charging
as much for shorter IS for a longer dis
lance 10 any case.
Mr.. Georges amendment was agreed to as
modifying the Slater amendment, the latter,
however, not being part OF the bill, but
still under debate.
Mr.. Platt favored commission and Mr..
Salisbury said he would vote for Slater's
amendment.
Mr.. Culom, who reported the bill, op.
posed the amendment. He thought Con-
gress lacked that de6niteness of information
that would justify 1t in passing law that
would cover every supposed condition of
affplrs, He thought when a commission
should have exhaustively examined the
subject under debate. Congress would be
necessary. Mr.. Cullom added that, in into
ducing the bill his purpose had bsen not to
bring In body detailed regulations against
railroads. without rhyme or reason. bat a
body of provisions that would do that which
was fair as between the companies and the
people.
Mt. Brown said at about the time when
the first railroad was established between
Manchester and Liverpool, England, q lot of
two and half acres of land on the site of
the present city of Atlanta was sold for q
horse and saddle and bride. That lot now
bore SIS, 600, 600 worth of property. The diff
ference In value, he said, had been created
by railroads. 1t was easy to excite people
against railroads, but he was addressing HIM
self to cool headed men, brave Senators who
represented the people. he asked no priv
ilege for railroads, 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 theques-
ton of railroad charges and management.
Consolidation, haeaid not competition, was
the solution OF the railroad question. The
legislation proposed would greatly discour-
age the building of railroads. There may be
enough of them in the North and West.
Those sections may have enough game in
the trap to be able 10 afford to pull the trig-
ger. 1t was not so with tbs South, which
! vet needed railroads. II the present bill
| passed the people who were now clamoring
| Tor lI5 passage WOulO SoOu Do IOuuu
/ claracring for its repeal. 1t would either
| drive railroads into bankruptcy or else
it would prohibit all interchange of COM
mmodities at greater distance than 500 or
| GOO miles, as statistics quoted by Mr.. Brown
| showed that freight could not possibly bear
the same proporti0nate rate for 1000 miles.
] 1t would not only destroy Interstate COM
merce, but by making long-distance freights
from the West to the Atlantic Coast so ex.
pensive as to prohibit shipment. 1t would
also destroy our foreign commerce.
Adjourned until tomorrow.