Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1886-05-13

Mr. LOGAN. i do not so understand IL.
Mr.. CAMDEN. 1t applies to West Yir-
ginia and it applies to Illinois outsi1e OF
Chicago.
Mr.. LOGAN. If that is so, l certainly
do not understau he provisions of the bill.
| do not understand ii that way.
Mr.. CAMDEN. Ii it does not have that
effect. then my amendment will do no harm.
Mr.. LOGAN. | do not understand
it that way. / understand the prop
osition to be 1t if for instance this
commission is pointed, and | reside
50 miles FROM hicago, and some other
gentleman resides 200 miles farther
off. and we both ship our grain into Chica-
90. though l claim that mine should be
shipped for less than his, we ship at the
same price, and the reason is that there IS
no advantage to be taken of the two prOdu-
GERS. We get into Chicago at the same
price and therefore our wheat is at the same
profit: the mere question of distance does
not affect that at all. 1t is the purpose to
eaualize the commerce where it is exchang-
ed. Therefore the discrimination the Sen
ator speaks of by reducing the freights on
the wheat near Chicago and putting the
rate up on the freight farther away from
Chicago j. not to exist. When you put II
down at Chicago, if the advantage Is to the
man who is near, that is unfair. Is that
what the Senator means?
Mr. CAMDEN. | mean just this, that
by the bill itself a shipper 100 miles nearer
the market can be charged twice as much
as a shipper living 100 miles more distant
from the market; and the object of my
amendment is to see that the shipper VINO
is 100 miles nearer to market shall not pay
more in the aggregate than the shipper who
Is 100 miles farther distant from the mar
ket. That is the point of my amendment.
| will illustrate further to the Senator
from Illinois By this bill the rate per car
is limited to the same point OF departure
Therefore shippers at the same point OF de-
parture will have equal rights; but how Is
it after the shipment leaves the original
point of departure? Take Chicago for in
stance After it leaves Chicago and goes
into the State 100 miles distal t, the restrlc-
ton is removed. After leaving Chicago the
railroad can charge the shipper 100 miles
east of Chicago twice the amount that 1t
charges from Chicago. 1t can come into
the State of Ohio and it can charge any
shipper there twice the amount 1t charges
from Chicago 1t can in the State OF West
Virginia charge the shipper three times the
amount it has charged from the original
point of departure.
Mr.. LOGAN. Do you mean under this
bill?
Mr.. CAMDEN Under this bill. The
amendment is simply to remedy that, and
10 strike on the words "and from the same
original point of departure, and let the
bill have general application all over the
country.
Mr.. BECK. | want to see if l under
stand this Unless the amendment of the
Senator from West Virginia is adopted, |
understand that carload of wheat may 90
fir m Minneapolis TO Chicago, and that a
man living i'm Milwaukee, oue-half way be-
tween Minneapolis and Chicago, on the
same train NAV be charged twice rs much.
Mr. CAMDEN That is exactly IT..
That is what | seek to prevent That Is
lust the point that this amendment is in
tended TO remedy. The State of New York
has adopted the same principle, that the
railroad companies shall not charge more
for shorter haul than for longer haul,
under the rules established by the commits
sion of New York. 1t is the law regulating
the railroad in France and Belgium. As
brought out in the testimony of Mr..
Herman the rules adopted in France are
l. No more charge for less than for greater
distance.
That is the rule of the government.
.. No discrimination between persons under
similar circumstances.
No changes in rates except after speclilc
public notice and upon approval OF minister
of public works.
Mr. HOAR. | should like to ask the
Senator a question on that point Perhaps
the question has been put, but | have been
absent from the Chamber. Is it not true
that there are circumstances In which
railroad should be permitted to make
larger charge for a short haul than Tor a
long one, as, for instance, suppose the in
termediate point in the line be point to
which there is no returning full freight, so
that all the cars that 90 one way do not 60
back full, but 20 back empty, or the small
quantity of matter to be handled requires
an increased cost for handling at the sta
ton. and all those things which are tamil-
lar 20 every railroad man. or take the case
which has been discussed here so often,
where to the more distant point there Is
competition with a water way, where a rail-
road in order to take the freight must take
il at actual cost or even at a loss, II you
consider that point alone? Now if it be true
that there are cases to be conceded, cases
frequently existing in railroad management,
where that should be permitted then you
ought not to have an absolute provision In
the bill which prevents it in all cases but
unless it comes within some of those cases
which have supposed, why does not the
provision of the bill which authorizes the
putting a stop to all unreasonable dlscrlmi-
nation come in and cure the difficulty?
Mr.. CAMDEN. | answer in the first
place that you have not a full remedy here.
There are theories on this subject and there
are instances in which railroad experts
claim that this should be permitted, but |
say that those instances can not be sustained.
1t involves the principle that you can haul
a loaded car cheaper than you can hanl an
empty one. 1t involves the principle
that YOU can haul a loaded car
a greater distance for less mon
ey than you eau haul it a short distance.
Those things do not exist. You may claim
that a railroad can haul q car greater dis
lance for the same money, but no condition
of things exists under which you can say
that a railroad can haul a car a greater dis
lance for less than nothing, and 1t involves
that very principle. You must say that a
railroad can haul loaded car for less chan
Mr. HOAR. Take this simple case
Nr. CAMDEN. | have not answered the