The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-27

ought to be changed to express its true mean
ing. Instead of being called "A bill to regulate
commerce. it should be "A bill regulate car
riers." It it were bill to regulate shippers and
owners whose material the carrier moved,
the title would be moro appropriate. He
might be told, perhaps, that there were
judicial decisions to the effect that the
regulation of the carrier was the
regulation of commerce, but when legislation
was proposed IL was entirely legitimate TO dis
cnss the question as original matter, and to de-
termine it upon the principles which seemed to
ma sn.SSiivsd: There was great difference be-
tween the possession O. power and its exercise.
Of course. the Constitution plainly gave Con-
gress the right to regulate commerce between
the States but as the carrier had nothing to do
with the control of the shipment of goods. wares
and merchandise, or their ultimate disposal. or
destination, the regulating of him, or determin-
ing the price he should receive for his services
could have no relation to determining the COM
MERGE between the States AS a national ques-
ton, we should have different price fixed for
carrying freight across a non-phySlcal line be-
tween the States from what was charged
for the Same service on either side
of the line. Why would it not be making our
State lines more or less obstacles to free inter-
course Would it not be converting our State
line into something very nearly akin to a from
teri What did our friends ay who had been
always 80 anxious to claim that we were OF right
one great family, with free business intercourse
between ourselves and what did our State
rights friends say to the general government in
terfering and controlling their local institutional
1t had been said that the right to regulate the
railroad carrier was peculiar in .,, that
was the creature Of the State If there
was anything in this argument it could not ap-
ply here in Congress, as Congress had nothing
whatever to do with creating the corporation.
Its existence was entirely by virtue of State
law. and had under those laws had the right
only to operate within the jurisdiction of the
State. OF course, he excepted some Pacific
roads. 1t was pertinent to inquire into theewis-
dom Of this kind of legislation. assuming that
the authority for it existed. The right Of asso-
citation was natural one and it was the duty Of
the national and State legislatures to aid that
natural right; and that. he contended, the legis-
lation of the various States, In providing for the
incorporation Of railroad companies, had done.
The incorporation was made by individual
incorporators as much so as a partnership
between individuals was established by the part
ners themselves The character OF railroad in
vestments was compared with others, as set
forth by the fact that States could and did exer
else the right Of eminent domain in order that
railroads might be constructed. The State
could not exercise this right for the benefit Of
the railroads. II only exercised it because the
investment was of that peculiarly beneficial
character to the public that it might be said to
be a pubic good The rule was, moreover, that
the railroad companies must pay individuals de-
prived of the control of their property under the
right Of eminent domain, Whatever might be the
value of that property. The State paid nothing
Now, il the Investment In railroads was so
beneficial to the public, why should not the in
vesters be permitted to reap the same full re-
wards of the wisdom of their investment. their
industry and their management and direction
thereof, as though the same capital and industry
had been employed in a business less Important
to the interests Of the State and in whose behalf
the State could not, if solicited, exercise the
right of eminent domain In discussing the
fiNyr nf ffn vfnnf f<N 1lofa Fop0
and rates in a manner which would necessarily
impair the earning capacity of these roads, we
should not forget that the investments were
made by individuals. II the railroads so
important to the public, surely their individual
investors ought not to be discouraged by the APP
prehension that the value Of the investments
were to be lessened by adverse legislation Be
Sides inasmuch as labor enters very largely
into the construction Of railroads and continues
in their operation, any attempt on the part of
sress to fix the rates Of railroad companies
tended to nx the pr,vc Of iaDor Further, In AZ,
these efforts at regulation, Mr.. Stanford found
no protection to the railroad companies no guar
antee against impairment of income If legisla-
ton interfered to decrease income, the value of
the property was affected to the extent of the
diminution of the income. This was taking
property withoUtScompensatio 1t was confs-
cation. There never had been a bill introduced
into any legislature purporting to regulate rail
roads against which the owners of the roads did
IL.
it diminished the income producing quality of
their property. Now, the investment being a
legitimate and beneficial one, as was established
by the exercise of eminent domain, not in behalf
of the railroad company, for the State had no
the people, and the State being
justified in regarding railroads as public
benefits why should they after completion.
have less protection from the laws than other
property. or why should they be made the OBJ
iorf of n md ipi1 1arpist
tically this bill denies to the various railroads
the right of competition. 1t prevented shippers
from reaping the advantages of competition, and
caused to them and the railroad company ALSO
lutte loss. If the low rate for the longer dis
lance meant reduction for the shorter the CARR
ers must submit to loss from the usual rates
on the shorter distances, or else abandon the
business at the competing points Under the
force OF competition, carriers were often COM
PEELED to take business over their roads long
distances at a lower rate than they would receive
for shorter distances. No railroad company
would do this If the rate to be charged was a
matter under its control. For this reason rates
were often below the average cost of transporta-
ton, and freight of low value ia the market
was often moved at less than average cost. Low
rates, ii they pay anything above the
direct expense consequent upon movement,
did. it to sustain the railroads and better
enable them to move the traffic at non-competing
points. Railroad companies could not ignore
the various circumstances that established COM
petition, much of which depended upon the geo.
graphical condition Of the country. The ship
per for short distance was not charged
more. but the shipper for long distance was
charged less because the carriers could not help
themselves Nolegtimate enterprise should be
discouraged. 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.
MIR. Plumb, from the appropriations commit
tee reported the postofice appropriation bill,
with amendments 1t was placed on the calen-
dar
Questions Of detail involved in Mr.. Ca.nden's
pending amendment to the interstate commerce
bill, as to the long and short haul, were then
taken up and discussed by Messrs. Camden,
Harris. Platt, Brown, Wilson of Iowa, and Gull
lom. after which the Senate adjourned.
THE HOUSE.