The daily state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 188?-1891, 1891-02-11

|
that under the charters this was a mat
ter OF contract between them and the
State. Mr.. PEBBLES asked Mr. Pritchard
to maine single one 10 which the Su
preme court haI decided this point di-
rectIy, as he did not wish the conclusion
arrived at merely by reasoning from
anoiogy. Mr Pritchard went on to con-
tend that railway commission checked
the building 0! Toa,is. He was glad 10 see
a provision OF the bill that no mem Der of
the LegiS ature should be on the com
mission.
Mr Jones expressed belief that Mr.
Pritchsrd hfo Introduced some cheap |
demsgogu ~ i9Io MS speech, and his IL
tlmatlCD taaJ ghi5 Legislature did not |
represent Jle people War6 without basis. |
tie said that every reasonable man would |
consider the cost O. rail ways &; Ia the |
matter Of ;te rigbJ 10 charge maximum |
sates II the case OF State Us. Green, from |
Mississippi, is conclusive. NJ ons, save
Mr. Pll charG, has ever claimed that he
North Carolina railway Lad rights Of this
kind. Inc attorney Of the Wilmington
u "eldon road has admitted that i did
not have the right. be people have
said, clearly and conclusivaly, that tney
desire a commission Members who two
years ago opposed commission are not
naw here; their places kLow them 10
more. The creation OF D co nmission does
not check railway building What cap
1.aliStS who t:eslrs TO build railway ASK
| s,wlll it pay fdat IS SO all over the land.
s.! He had no desire to abuse the RAILWAYS,
but gil know how great is the power of
! n t,y.-r H.
the cjtiz8n. This bill will eQualze this
by iengthening the arm Of the individ-
uai and shortening that Of the railway
corporation. The committee had con
| sidered every question before it. 1t had
adopted many suggestions made by rail
| way attorneys. sna substitute Of Mr..
Pritchard he thought fiimsy affair, not
Of /. character TO meet the demands Of
the people, who have SO plainly said they
desire q rate making commission.
Mr. Skinner said his views we're de-
cided on this measure. He bel;aya7
as full 2 restraint of corporations as was
consistent with their chartered rights,
but he believed that such rights, where
existing, should be held inviolate. It is
our duty 10 protect the rights Of corpo-
ration and of Individual. The railways,
be declared, bad been sinned against as
much as they have sinned lie appfe-
ciated the work and the efforts of rail
wsys ia North Carolina The railways
had cheaper ed rates 1T points with water
facilities, while they had most
grossly Disseminated against The
Interior towns, and it is to this latter
; discrimination tha5 much of the clamoI
: and prejudice agsi1 st railways is due
There has grown Gp il the State an cs-
arrangement between the railways and
: the people. The latter believe they need
. al arblter to settle al matters 10 dispute
between them ana tins railways. They
9 want protection against the encroach
mants and the powers Of the corporations
Ualess g commission has actlve power.
1t is useless He reviewed fully tue his
! tory Of the bill, as prepared, amended
! and passed By tie Senate, and pad th'
special joint committee which had givel
. Il such care a very nigh compliment 70
:. its earnestness AID its desire TO ICok II
. the question FROM every point of view
!, The Dem cratic caucus had endorsed th
, bill. He declared against any and al
. smendments to the bill, and said sue
. would be daggers in the hands Of it5 en
- emies. He opposed the amendments Q
made by the Senate making the saIar
y tie Commissioners two thousand dollar:
Ia The success Of the commission de
J. pended upon the men who were mad
a commissioners. There was objection
a the amendment barring from the of1ic
10 members of the Legislature. He Wa
t. unwilling to put such a proscriptlo
of upon his fellow -mtmhors He had nl
te heard of a sngie member VINO WAS
to candidate for tue Office.
Mr.. PEBBLES said he desirad to than
an Mr.. Pritnhard for his Information r'
ad gard!ng the Supreme CourE decisions
tie to the r!glJ to change maximum rate
n. He had looked into the cases cited au
~ found they did not refer to the matt
oi. in question az all. He did not belieN
he that the courts would ever carry Il
Dartmouth College q cision to any SUI
To length. lie read reports showing til
ha il Kentucky, with Il commission, IA
ways have grown, and declared his Tos
ID tive belief that railway interests wou
,rs prosper in North Carolina under 8 cor
mission. 1t will stop the sobbing
no little roads by big ones. He earnest
,rn favored the bill.
he Mr. Jones moved the previous questi
upon Mr.. Piitchard'5 substitute. I
he ayes AID noes we're ordered. The Sc
,ill stitute failed ayes Is; noes 81.
de The following was the vote
Ayes-Messrs. Anderson, of Heud
son; Banner, Bryan, of Wilkes; Cor
Hedrick, Hendricks, Newsom, Phlllll
lad of Watauga; Phipps, Pritchard, one
Oil Thompson, Vestal, Watson, OF Van
vas Zachary. Ayes, 15.
ioi Noes -Messrs. Adams, Alexander,
e. ston, Bass, Beck, Bond, Brake, Bridge
iod ioa Brnson, Bryan, of Wayne; Cailow
aeu Chears, Coffield, Cole, Cowan, Curl
esS Davis, Dickson, Earnhardt, Edmul
''o, son, Foust, Franck, Gill, Gi:mar, Cow
atu Grier, Hail. of Halifax; Hall, OF Oran
h.s ms Ham, aenry, Hickman, Hill, Holm
10 na' Hood, Hopkins, Hudson, johnson, Jor
.as ..ad Kerr. Kirby. Long, Of Columbus; Lo
,seu ,e. of Warren; Lovery, Mays, Mcclure
ous S Gill, Middleton, Morton, Murdoch, Na
ue9 Oliver, PEBBLES, Perry, Phillips, OF Ma
M lau Pickett, Pigford, Prince, Ray, Sc
ss Skinner, Sorrell, Stancill, stroup,
ne ton, Tatoul, Taylor, Upchurch, Waist
'eon Watkins, White, Whitfield, Wiley,