Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1886-04-27

Would il not be making our State lines
more or less obstacles to free inter
courseg Wonld it not be converting
our State lines into something very near
~ akin to a frontierl What did onr
friend say who had been always So
anxious to claim that we were of right
one great family with free business in
tercourse between ourselves, and what
did our States Rights friends say to the
general government interfering and con
trolling their local institutions. 1t had
been said that the right TO regulate rail-
roads as carriers was peculiar in that the
corporation operating the railroad was a
creature Of the State. If there was any
thing in this argument it could not APP
ply here in Congress, as Congress had
nothing whatever TO do with creating
u corporation. Its existence was entire
ly by virtue OF State laws, ana had under
those laws the right only to operate
within the jurisdiction OF the State.
OF course he excepted the Pacific roads.
1t was pertinent to inquire into the wis
dom of this kind of leg station, assuming
that the authority for it existed. The
character Of railroad investments aa
cOihphftu WIN otucfss WAS sol iofiu ny
the fact that the States could and did
exercise the right of eminent domain in
order that railways might be construct
ed. The State could not exercise this
right for the benefit of railroads. 1t only
exercised it because the Investment was
Of that peculiarly beneficial character 60
the public that it might be said to be a
public good. The result was that more
than ever railway companies must pay
individuals deprived Of the control OF
their property under right Of eminent
domain whatever might be the value OF
that property. The State paid nothing.
Now il Investment in railroads was 90
beneficial to the public why should not
investors be permitted to reap the full
rewards Of the wisdom Of their invest
ments, their industry and their manage
ment, and the direction thereof as
though some capital, wisdom and indus
try had been employed in business,
Of less important interests to the State
and in whose behalf the State could no
II solicited exert the right Of eminent
domain. In discussing the question of
the right to regulate railway fares and
freights in manner which would nee
essarily impair the earnings and capacity
Of these roads, we should not forget that
the investments were made by individ
uaIs. II railways were so important to
public, surely these individual investors
ought not to be discouraged by appre- |
hension that the value OF their invest |
ments might be lessened by adverse leg
islation. Besides. inasmnch as labor en-.
tered very largely into the construction |
Of railways and continued in their opera |
ton, any attempt on the part of Congress
to fix the rates OF railway compensation |
was to fix the price of labor. Further,
in all these efforts to regulate, Mr. Stan
ford found no guarantee against impair
nent Of income. II legislation inter-
fered to decrease income, the value of
property was affected to the extent Of
the diminution OF the income. This was
taking property without compensation
1t was confscation, There never had
been bill introduced into any Legisla-
ture purporting to regulate railways
against which the owners of the roads |
did not find occasion to protest on the |!
ground that it diminished the income
producing quality of their property.
Legitimate and desirable as it was, estab- |
lished by the exercise of eminent do
main, not in behalf of the railway com
pany, for the State had no right |
to do that, but in behalf Of the |
people, and the State being sat- |
isfied in regarding the railroad as
public benefit. why should they after |
completion have less protection from
laws than other PROPERTY, or why should |
they be made the object of direct and |
injurious legislation. Railroads had no
legal monopoly of business, since they
had no exclusive privileges. Practically
this bill denied to various railway COM
panies the right of competition. 1t pre-
cluded shippers from reaping their right
to advantage of competition and causes
railway companies actual loss. If lower
rate for longer distance meant reduc-
tion for short carriers they must submit
to loss from the usual rates on shorter
distances or else abandon business at
competing points under the forced COM
petition. Carriers were often compelled
to take business over their roads long
distance at lower rate than they would
receive for shorter distances. No rail-
way company would do this If the rate
to be charged was a matter outside its
control. For this reason rates are
down below the average cost
of transportation, and freight
was often moved at less than average
cost rates if they paid anything above
direct expenses consequent upon move
ment, aided to sustain railways and bet
ter enable them to move the traffic at
non-competing points. Railway COM
panies could not ignore various circum.
stances that established competition,
much of which depended on the geo.
graphical condition Of the country. The
shipper for short distances was not
charged more, but the shipper for long
distances was charged less because the
carriers could not help themselves. No
legitimate enterprise should be discour-
aged, least of all those that added most
to the convenience and comfort of the
people, and to the wealth, strength and
dignity of the nation.
Mr.. Plumb, from the Appropriations
Committee, reported the Postoffice APP
preparation bill, with amendment. Ii
was placed on the calendar.
The questions of detail involved in
Mr.. Camden's pending amendment to
the Interstate Commerce bill, as TO
long and short haul, were then taken up
and discussed by Messrs. Camden, Har-
ris, Platt, Brown, of Iowa, and Cullom,
after which the Senate adjourned