St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-03-30
And Argues That His Bill Best
Meets the Demands Of the
Citizens.
There Are too Many Loop
holes for the Railroads in
the Searle Bill.

approached yesterday afternoon at the
Clifton hotel, and he readily acquiesced
in the request to explain in what way
he had amended the 10 famous House
File IS. Mr.. Currier proceeded:
The original bill. known as House
File No. 6S, relating to common carriers,
was practically the present railroad law
of Iowa, section ) of which reads as fol
lows: That it shall be unlawful for
any common carrier, subject TO the pro-
visions Of this act, to charge or re-
ceive any greater compensation in
the aggregate for the t%ransporta-
ton of passengers, or of a like
kind of property, for a shorter
than for Il longer distance over
its railroad, all or any portion of
the shorter haul being included
within the longer. And said common
carrier shall charge no more for trans
porting freight to or from any point on
its railroad than a fair and just rate, as
compared with the price it charges for
the same kind of freight transportation
to or from any other point" And
again, in section %, it reads: NO com
mon carrier shall charge, collect or re-
ceive at any point upon its railroad
Il higher rate of toll or compensation for
receiving, handling Or delivering freight
of the same class and quantity than it
shall at the same time charge, collect or
receive at any other point upon the same
railroad; nor shall it charge, collect OF
receive for the transportation of any
passenger or freight of n description
over its railroad Il greater amount as
Toll or Compensation
than shall at the same time be charged,
collected or received by it for the trans
p%Ortation of any passenger or like guam
tity OF freight of the same class being
transported in the same direction over
any portion of the same railroad of
equal distance"
Our present law. which neither Mr..
Searle nor myself propose to change,
reads as follows. iii section 6: THAT it
shall be unlawful for any common car
rier, subject to the provisions of this
act. to charge or receive any greater
compensation for the transportation of
passengers, or of like kind or class and
quantity of property, for a shorter
than for a longer distance over
the same line. the shorter
being included within the longer
distance; but this shall not be con-
strued as authorizing any common
carrier, subject to the provisions of this
act, to charge or receive as great COM
DClSQliOil " ii SlOllCl DIS lOl Il OlSCI
distance, provided, however, that
upon application to the commission
appointed under the provisions of this
act, such common carrier may
in special eases. after investigation
by the commissioners, be authorized to
charge less for longer than for shorter
distances. for the transportation of pas
sengers or property; and the commits
sion may from time to time prescribe
the extent to which such designated
common carrier may be relieved from
the operation of tins section of this
act"
/ wished to strike out this proviso at
the end of Section 6 of our present law,
and made a haru fight 10 that end in our
railroad committee room, but the oppo-
SitfOn
Outyoted Me.
l was compelled toeliminate that feat
ure from my substitute bill. House
File No. IS compelled the commission to
make for all the different railroads in
the state within sixty days, schedules
of rates and ciasSifications for all kinds
of freight, etc, said schedules were to
be prima facie evidence in ali the courts;
it also required the commission to make
joint through rates for all the different
railroads. and this feature met great Op-
DOSillOH HUH III NlCdt NOIliltlU anu
some other roads: my first bill made it
a criminal otfense for any officer or
servant of a common carrier to
make any unjust determinations be-
tween individuals or places, which was
another diSagreeable provision to vari-
Gus heightened railway magnates.
Yes, | have read the interview in the
GLoJsE with Mr.. Searle, and think he
has defended his position as we'll as any
man could who had such a poor fouuda-
ton upon which to base an argument.
The substitute bill for Ii. F. 6S that |
have introduced is materially different
from the Searles' substitute in many
respects; in
the First Place
while not prohibiting common carriers
from issuing free passes in express Ian
guage, it does strike out the words in
section l of chapter 10, of our present
law, which authorizes railway COM
panies to give passes to other than
certain specified individuals. The anti
tree-pass bill that failed to pass the
house was obnoxious to many members,
for the reason that some of the penalties
and provisions were extremely radical.
and several members, TO my personal
knowledge, VINO did not support it:
would vote for what they consider a
reasonable measure of that kind. Mr..
Searle claims that our present law per-
mits the commissioners to make the sys-
TEN of rates for which l contend; this
the GLOBE and Pioneer Press
he gives himself away by using
the following language: "MF. Curriers'
substitute does not change this section
except TO add this sentence: ''Such
schedules shall also contain copies of
any and all terminal and community
tariffs in force upon the lines of such
railroads within the state, which tariffs
shall conform TO the distance tariffs in
use on the lines Of said railroad"
This distance tariff feature, while a
comparatively new idea in Minnesota, is
and has been the law in Illinois for fif-
teen years; under the operation of that
law the interior JOWnS aud cities of that
state have built up hourishing manu-
featuring enterprises ald are thriving
communities, Notwithstanding the fact
that Chicago during that time has adj
yanced to the second place among
Our Great Cities.
Our sister state on the south. Iowa,
has, after a long, hard fight, implanted
this principle in her law. and the peo-
pie of that state are we'll satisfied with
the operation of it. certain newspapers
TO the contrary Notwithstanding South
Carolina and some other states also are
working upon this plan, and it does not
follow by any mean that the revenues
of the railroads are reduced thereby for
they naturally share in the pros
perity of the whole common
wealth. What we claim is simply
this. that as the prosperity of any town
or city in the state, depends very large
Iy upon its freight rates, public policy
as we'll as private interests demand
that every town should have the same
relative advantages of making its
shipments to or from terminals that