Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-06
THE DEBATE GOES ON.
TALK ABOUT RAILROADING,
speech or speaker stuart In the honse Yes
tordaS on His Substitute for the 18Th sec
tion- No Vote Reached. &e.

uon-N No Vote Reached, Se.
At 1890 yesterday the House Of
Delegates lMr. Darst in the chair,) re-
sumed the consideration Of the bill
proposing to establish a board Of rail-
road commissioners.
Mr.. Martin (Republican), OF Norfolk
county, was entitled TO the floor. ile
was the Readjuster incumbent of the
Office of Railroad Commissioner, aud he
said that the views he entertained four
years ago were his to-day. He tried
then to defeat bill similar to this. In
proceeding to state his objections Mr..
Martin took glance ct ancient history
and referred to the measures taken in
by.gone days to suppress piracy and
encourage commerce; alluded to the
wagOn-tIains Of later days, and gradual.
ly approached the railroad era. Said
he; Some gentlemen tell me that the
railroads are not amenable to public
opinion. Why, sir, they are as senSi.
tive to public opinion as is the chastity
Of .emale.n
Referring to the celebrated Illinois
con- icners' bill, Mr.. Martin assert
ed thst " there i no State where the
loca, traffic pays except in Illinois. it
is true that II comes very near TO it in
Penpsy ylyania, but it is not quite up to
the marx" and so he contended that
States that have followed the example
of the Illinois Legislature have made
themselves ridiculous. Several such
States have already re,raced their steps.
Georgia, he believed. had suffered very
much from her ill-ad,ised efforts in this
direction. and while there was great
activity in railroad enterprise there
when this law was passed, now, he un-
delstood, there was not mile Of rail-
road under construction in Georgia.
Mr.. Munford asked the gentleman
where he got that information.
Mr.. Martin replied that it was very
hard for him to prove negative, but that
If his statement was not correct, the
aStutc gentlemen who were to follow him
would no doubt be able to show il.
Furtheron Mr.. Martin referred to Colo
mel Carter, our first Railroad CommiS-
sioncr. as "the Charles Francis Adams
Of Virginia " and he said, also, " Mr..
Mohett is making good Commissioner
are you going to abridge his term will
the courts p rmit that" " Of the bill
under consideration Mr.. Martin de-
clarcd that it was almost identical with
the present law, and as for the proposed
addition, q" it would stab the railroads
to the heart stab the commercial pros
perity Of Virginia to the death"
VIEWS OF SPEAKER STUART.
Mr.. Stuart said / am placed in a
position somewhat anomalous-that OF
Offering q substitute for the 18th sec
ton and yet Of being compelled to
vote both against my own substitute
ard the amendment proposed by Mr..
MunlCrd-ihe 18th section. ] do so
because at a meeting Of my cOnsttu-
cnt> | was requested to vote against the
18th section. and that request, in
yolying no matter of conscience, but
one purely Of judgment, feel bound to
respect in casting my vote. While .
recognize their night to control lmy vote
upon this subject, ! must exercise my
owR Judgment II speaking upon this
subject. Time will demonstrate .
whether they are right or upon this
question; and, as | remember the .
clamor Of a few years ago because .
Of discrimination against AleXan- .
dria. | believe it will demon .
strate the wisdom Of my amendment. .
The substitute proposed i simple in
its nature; it is the 18th section Of the
Munford bill, with two amendments.
The first prohibits discrimination ex-
cept at competing points. 1t is emf
nently proper that at points where rail-
roads come into competition with each
other, or with water transportation,
that they should be allowed to fix such
rates as will enable the mineral, lum.
Der, and other wealth Of Virginia to be {
brought into competition with the mar
kets Of the world. Such discrimination
is beneficial, just, and in strict accord /
with the laws of trade. Bat where the
point is not a competing point 1t IS
gross injustice to allow any company to
discriminate in It's rates. Such dlScrimi-
nation builds up communities at the cX-
pense Of the people and Of other COM
munites. 1t Is neither right nor just
to discriminate IN local rates. The /
bill simply allows rates to be fixed .
where unjust discrimination exists az
other than competing points. If the
discrimination be not unjust, then the
commissioners are pOwerless if It
be unjust, then the remedy should be
applied and the wrong be redressed.
No company can reasonably object to
this. The second amendment prohibits
rebates and drawbacks to individuals
not granted to the whole community.
No railroad company should have the
power to build up one individual and
pull down another. And such apower
does exist unless such an amendment Is
put upon the bill. The man who
offers twenty carloads of freight
should have no lower rates than he
who offers one load. To recognize any
other principle enables these companies
to crush out the small dealer and build
up the larger. The question now is
one Of policy, for the constitutional
question has passed out Of the realm Of
debate and become one Of settled Law
silce the repeated decisions Of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Is it policy to pass this bill? The plat
forms of both parties declare for it; the
people demand it. 1t is opposed by
the railroads. They do not want the
principle recognized that the State may
regulate their rates. If their dealings
with the people of this State be fair,
then they need fear nothing If
unfair. then the strong hand o. the
law should intervene and corre;t N.Jngs
perpetrated by its own creature. lt
is said the Law will drive capita from
the State. No reasonable man ca 1 be-
lieye this. If our ores. lumber &C..
are better. and our lands caeGper,
capital will ccme here. The expe-
rieuce of Georgia shows that under a
more repressiSe measure 1t has pro-
gressed as never before, and, with tinln-