Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1889-08-09
WHOLE NUMBER 1878.
whether or not we should have Board
of Railroad Commissioners.

whether or not we should have Board
of Railroad COMMISSIONERS.
The minority report, which leaves
the whole matter to the legislature, he
regarded as a glittering generality and
is OF no purpose whatever. He held
that the members of the Board should
be elected, not appointed. He thought
it required some amendment and one is
to give the legislature power to abolish
the Commissioners.
Weisenburger called attention to
the fact that twenty-one States have
Boards of Railroad Commissioners,
Massachusetts, having had Board for
% years, and none have been abolished
as they are deemed indispensable.
! Warner advocated the section for
the reason that it was step in the
right direction, as the abuses of rail-
roads are well-known and sore1y felt.
E. II. Sullivan had two objections to
section 81, one of which is the estab-
lishment of permanent Board of
Commissioners and he don't want it
possible for two Commissioners to act
but the three should be required in all
cases. Corporations, he maintained,
were no worse than individuals. His
second objection was that the legisla-
ture may refuse to pay the Commits
sioners and it may take the regulation
of freight and fares into its own hands.
He therefore preferred to leave it all to
the legislature.
Comegys wanted Board of Rail
road Commissioners appointed and
regulated by law.
J. M. Reed said the only question
is, Shall we have Board of Railroad
Commissioners? There is urgent need
OF them to protect the farmers. 1t is
not for the purpose of discouraging
railroads, nor would it have that effect,
but it will benefit the whole country
including the railroads.
Eshelman was emphatically in favor
of section Il, but wanted it amended
somewhat.
| Henry said that under the decision
of the Supreme Court, the railroads
were declared to be common carriers
and subject to law. He was unequivo-
cally opposed to any Board OF Railroad
Commissioners, as he declared himself
in favor of railroads and their encour-
agement. They are built on business
principles and he was for leaving the
doors open and free for them. He had
talked with railroad men and they are
not in favor of a Board of Railroad
Commissioners. Competition is the
only remedy for any evils that may
spring up.
Stiles was opposed to putting any
thing in the Constitution on this sub
ject. He said that in Iowa such Board
had blighting influence. Men COM
ing from Iowa say that they could not
stay for two reasons; one is its having
a Board of Railroad Commissioners
and the other is Prohibition. He was
opposed to a Board or the legislature
fixing the rates of freights and fares.
4 Buchanan was in favor of the sec
ton and cited statistics showing how
well it works in California.
Il Power was in favor of providing q
Board of Commissioners in the Consti.
tuition, remarking, If we leave it to
the legislature we will find that" while
| tuC SAhoc SIOWo tlC uOIsc WILL StAINc.
Turner made an eloquent and
lengthy speech in support of section
81, and said that the argument that il
should be left to the legislature would
apply with equal force to the articles
in the Constitution establishing Courts
and other offices of the Government
In order to show the necessity for such
Board he cited the case of Yakima
and depicted, in glowing language, the
destruction of that thriving town by
the railroad company.
J. q. Moore was opposed to electine
Commissioners, as it would throw {
corrupting influence into politics.
At this stage, the Committe of the
Whole rose and the President pro TEN
resumed the chair, whereupon the
subject was made the special order fol
Monday at 2 P. NJ. and the Convention
took recess until 2 O'Clock.