The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1892-12-15
They Want the Interstate-C Commerce Law
Changed sos to Permit Pooling. Which. They
Say, Will Be Beneficial to the Public.
M~cGarrahan's Vetoed Claim Meets with
Objection from Senator Sanders.
Option Dealing in Cotton Denounced by Mr..
GeOrge-Military Appropriation Bill Hur-
riedly Passed by the Lower House.
WANT THE Law AMENDED.

Three Railway Presidents Argue In Favor of
Permitting Traffic Pools.
WASHINGTON, Dec. IA number Of
prominent railroad men, including Chaun-
cey NJ. Depew and President Roberts, Of
the Pennsylvania system, were before the
Senate committee on interstate commerce
this morning to advocate the passage of
the amendment to the interstate-c0mmerce
law introduced by request by Mr.. Cullom
to modify the existing law SO as TO author
ize railroad companies to form pools under
the supervision Of the lnterstate-commerce
Commission. to wipe out tho penal clause
of the punishment prescribed, etc. The
full committee was present. and speeches
were made by Mr.. Depew. Mr.. Roberts.
Mr.. Walker and Mr. ingalls,, these gentle
men urging that the great majority of the
railroads of the country were in favor of
the prop ,sed amendment.
President Roberts. of the Pennsylvania
road. said that in his judgment the inter-
state-commerce law had not operated for
the benefit of the public in the matter of
preventing discrimination. He said, in the
course of his remarks, that he wanted to
impress on the committee the fact that the
law. as now drawn. p%recluding railroad
companies from making arran Remente IN
reference to traffic agreements, induces
radical violations of the law by the cOm-
panies and the shippers as we'll. The CON-
panies were not violating the fifth section
OF the law THAT preventing poollng), but
in observing it's provisions they were vio-
lating some other sections. Mr. Roberts
did not think the commission should be
allowed TO regulate rates, because 1t was
not in the interest of the public that 1t
shonId do so. Nor was the pooling system
the best. but it was better for the public
than the practice now existing. Mr.. Rob-
erts was of the OPINION that il was of as
much Importance to the public at large
that the railroad companies should not be
allowed to charge too low rates as IL was
that they should not be permitted to
charge rates that were too high. Pooling
might be authorized by Congress, subject
to cancellation by tho commission If found
TO be unjust.
Mr.. Depew. president of the New York
Central. said that the acknowledgements
law had been established tn prevent dis
elimination; but its effect had been to pro-
mote trusts beyond anything that had
ever been dreamed of. There were eight
roads between New York and Chicago, but
was but one. If an Iron-clad rule of equal
rates under equal conditions OF time was
established the New York Central and the
Pennsylvania would do eight-tenths of the
business. The other roads would go into
WitA Ia Vho "
bankruptcy. In this way the law prevent-
ing pooling was creating trusts. If this
law continued In force five years longer,
Mr.. Depew thought. there would not be an
large cities of the United States. 1t was
creating trusts, and this condition of af-
fairs va being brought about by the miser-
able operations of a law intended to pre-
vent them.
DEPEw's REMEDY.
In response to the query of Mr.. Cullom
as to how the evil was to be cured MIR. De.
pew said that under the proposed amend
ment the roads would be authorized to
make contracts upon q business basis, and
could agree upon rates which would be al
way the same to the public. The law
would empower the companies to enforce
their agreements. and the public would be
protected by putting the matter under the
control of the commission. In discussing
the existing conditions Mr.. Depew said
that it would soon be impossible for manu-
facturers to exist, except at terminal points
"a statement which caused Mr.. BrIce to
ask If he was to be understood as meaning
that New York and other cities of like
ment of such places as Lima, Newark
and other places In Ohio which the Senator
named. To this Mr.. Depew replied that,
under the operation of the present law.
6uCn Yt0CO "Ooi0 CC0oO w CAIcO OACCp NO
the summer residences of United States
Sena tors.
MI. Ingalls,. president of the Big Four
and the Chesapeake u Ohio roads. said
that two situations confronted the rail
roads of the country. If they went into
competition, under the law, the railroads
would become bankrupt. or. IL the end, be
forced to make q combination which would
put them all under one control, and then
the power to regulate them would slip from
the grasp of the legislators. The general
public now paid the full rate. while the big
dealers were the ones who got the adj
VANTAGE of the rebate. Under the existing
law, Mr.. Ingalls, said. the small dealers
were being driven out of business. to
the great detriment of the whole coun-
try. It was for the interest of the whole
country that the railroads should prosper.
A million of men were employed in the
business, and twice that number were en-
gagged In manufactures that furnished rail-
road supplies. IL was to the interest of
the railroads to enforce the law; and II the
law. as the companies were now seeking to
have 1t amended. had been enforced. the
principal competitor of the Chesapeake q
Ohio would have been bankrupt, so many
cases of violation had they made against
it In concludirg. Mr.. Ingalls, said that it
had come to the point where the roads
were compelled TO get under the shadow of
the law to keep their business. If the
amendment sought passed. it would not re-
suit In an increase OF rates, but IN equal
rates, and IN many cases in reduced rates.
Many of the railroads had 0one all they
could 30 break down the interstate.com-
merce law; but they had become educated.
and were now in favor of it.
Mr.. Walker. of the trunk lines. spoke
briefly, and said the object of the bill was
to suppress unhealthy competition; not
healthy competition. The committee will
probably hold another meeting next
Wednesday.
Another turn was taken at the Interstate
law to-day In q bill INTRODUCED
i'm the Senate by Mr.. Mcmillan, of Michi-
lgan. in which it is sought to amend the
law by making it unlawful for any COM
mon carrier, subject to the provisions Of
the existing law, to enter into any contract,
agreement. etc., with any other carrier. for
the division of the freight of the different
competing roads. or to divide between them
the aggregate or net proceeds of the earn
ings. except as provided in the bill. Each
day of the continuance of such agreement
is deemed q separate offense. Agreements
such as are prohibited above may be made.
provided they are in writing. duly execut-
ed. and shall not conflict with any other
provision of the law. They may become
operative only after having been filed with
the lnterstate-commerce Commission, and
approved by them. After such approval
each party Is required to deposit sufficient
security to guarantee that the agreements
Z will be carried out. Other sections of the
bill deal with details of method. con-
victione and punishment.