Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-05-08
INTERSTATE COMMERCE.
FULL TEXT OF SENATOR STAN.
F0RD'S SPEECH.
Regulation OF Commerce and Carri-
ers-Price of Labor Affected
Barring Right of Competition.

furnishes US the full text of Senator Stan
ford's speech in the United States Senate
delivered pending the consideration of the
interstate commerce bill, on April 26th. 1t
is as follows:
Mr.. President, desire to occupy the at
tention of the Senate briefly in explanation
of what | believe TO be the principles in
yolved in the bill under consideration.
This bill purports to be an Act to regulate
commerce between the different States.
have read 1t with good deal of care. and |
do not find anything in it that regulates
commerce. Everything in it is as to the
carrier only. The word commerce has a
well-defined meaning. 1t means trade
barter, interchange of commodities, with
which the carrier in the transaction of his
legitimate business has no concern what
ever. therefore think the title of the bill
ought to be changed to express its true
meaning, and, instead of reading A bill to
regulate commerce. it should be " bill
to regulate carriers"
If it were bill to regulate shippers and
owners, whose material the carrier moves,
the title would be more appropriate |
may be told perhaps that there are judicial
decisions that the regulation of the carrier
is the regulation of commerce, but here
when we propose legislation it is entirely
legitimate to discuss the question as to the
original matter and TO determine il upon
the principles which seem to be involved
There is great difference between
THE POSSESSION ORA POWER AND ITS EXERCISE.
OF course the Constitution plainly gives
Congress the right to regulate commerce be-
tween the States. But as the carrier has
nothing to do with the control of the ship
ment OF goods, wares and merchandise,
with their ultimate disposal or destination,
therefore regulating him or determining the
price he may receive for his services can
have no relation in determining the COM
merce between States. As national ques-
ton why should the price fixed for carry
ing freight across non-physical line be-
tween the States be different from what is
charged for the same service on either side
of that line? Would it not be making of
our State lines more or less obstacles to free
intercourse2 Would it not be converting
every State line into something very near
akin to frontier? What do my friends
say who have been always SO anxious to
claim that we are of right one great family
with free business intercourse between our
selves; and what do my State rights friends
say to the general Government interfering
and controlling their local institutions? 1t
has been said that
RIER
Is peculiar in that the corporation operat-
ing the railroad is the creature of the State.
Ii there is anything in this argument it can
not apply here III Congress, as Congress has
had nothing whatever 10 do with creating
the corporation. Its existence is entirely
by virtue of State laws, and has under those
laws the right only 10 operate within the
jurisdiction OF the State. OF course ex-
cept some Pacific roads. II is pertinent for
us to inquire into the wisdom of this kind
OF legislation, assuming that the authority
Tor 1t exists. The right of association IS
natural one, and it is the duty of the ma
tional and State Legislatures to aid that
natural right, and that l contend is what
legislation by the various States providing
Tor the incorporation of railroad companies
has done. The incorporation is made by
individual incorporators as much as a part
nership between individuals is established
by the partners themselves. The character
OF railroad Investment as compared with
others IS set forth by the fact that States
can and do exercise
THE RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
In order that railroads may be constructed.
The State cannot exercise this right for the
benefit of the railroads 1t only exercises
It because the investment is of that pecu-
harly beneficial character to the public that
1t mas be said to be public good. The
rule Is, moreover, that the railroad compa-
MES must pay individuals deprived of the
control of their property under the right of
eminent domain whatever be the value of
that property. The State pays nothing.
Now, then, if the investment in railroads
Is so beneficial to the public, why should
not the investors be permitted to reap the
same full rewards of the wisdom of their
investment and of their industry and the
management and direction thereof though
the same capital, the same wis dom and
the same industry had been employed in a
business so much less important to the in
terests of the State that the State could not
II solicited, exercise the right of eminent
domain in its behalf?
In discussing this question of the right to
regulate railroad fares and freights in
manner which will necessarily impair the
earning capacity of these roads we should
not forget that the investments were made
by individuals. If the railroads are so i'm
portant to the public, surely these individ.
ual investors ought not to be discour-
aged by the apprehension that the value of
their investment may be lessened by adj
verse legislation.
THE PRICE OF LABOR INVOLVED.
Furthermore, inasmuch as labor enters
very largely IN the construction of railroads
ana continues in their operation, any at
tempt on the part of Congress to fix the
rates of railroad companies tends to fix the
price OF labor. Further, in all these efforts
at regulation | find no protection to the
railroad companies, no guarantee against
impairment of income. Therefore if legis-
lation interferes to decrease income surely
the value of the property is affected to the
extent of the diminution of the income.
This is taking property without compensa-
ton. 1t is confiscation. | think there
never has been bill introduced into any
Legislature purporting TO regulate railroads
against which the owners of the roads did
not lind occasion To protest on the ground
that it diminished the income-producing
quality of their property.
Now, then, the investment being legiti-
mate, and desirable one, as is established
by the exercise Of eminent domain not in
behalf OF the railroad company, for the
State has no right to do that, but in behalf
of the people, and the State being justified
IN regarding railroads as public benefits,
why should they after their completion
have less protection from the laws than
other property, or why should they be
made the objects of direct and injurious
legislation? And in this connection
think 1t proper to remark that railroads
nave no regal monopoly OF business, since
they have no exclusive privileges
RIGHT OF COMPETITION DENIED.
Practically this bill denies to the various
railroad companies the right of competi-
ton. 1t precludes the shippers from reap
ing their rightful advantage of competition.
and causes to them and to the railroad com
panies absolute loss. If the low rates for
the long distance means reduction for the
shorter, the carrier must submit to loss
from the usual rates on the shorter dis
lance, or else abandon the business at the
competing points. Under the force of COM
petition the carriers are often compelled to
take business over their roads long dis
tances at lower rate than they receive for
shorter distances. No railroad would do
this If the rate to be charged was a matter
under its control. For this reason rates are
oitentlmes below the average cost of trans
portation, and freight of low value in the
market IS often moved at less than average
cost Low rates, if they pay anything
above the direct expenses consequent upon
movement, aid to sustain the railroads and
the better enable them to move the traffic
al contemplating points. Railroad com
panies can not ignore the various circun-
stances that establish competition, much of
which depends on the geographical cona;-
ton OF the country. The shipper for a
short distance is not charged more. but the
skipper for long distance is charged less
because the carriers can not helm them