Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-24
SPOKE FOR THE BILL.
CHAMBER or COMMERCE BEFORE
THE HOUSE ROADS COMMITTEE.
Mr.. y. Randolph Tucker. J., Makes IN
Earnest Address In Advocacy Of the
Kent Railroad Measure.

At tie meeting Of the Committee on
Roads Of the House yesterday morning
the Richmond Chamber Of Commerce pre-.
ssntcd its views in favor of the Kent rail-
road sill. There was present full attend
ance of tho committee, General James G.
Hill, the Railroad Commissioner, and from
the Chamber Mr.. &. w. Travers, chairman Of
the Inland Trade Committee, and Msssrs.
T. G. Icigh. Jr., II. b. Ts;isferro, F. II.
Deane, L. G. Younger. s. Dabney Cren-
shaw, John II. West, w. II. Urquhart.
James D. Crump. J. Randolph Tucker, Jr.,
and Others;
Mr.. Tucker. who IL a member of the
committee of the Chamber appointed 70
consider this subject, was selected rs
spokesman and fully presented the posi-
ton OF the Chamber IN fayoring the
measure. Mr.. Tucker began by. saying
that be was there by courtesy Of the CON-
mittee and as representative OF the
Chamber OF Commerce Of Richmond. a
resident and nonresident members, the
commercial class largely prevailing.
The Chamber of Commerce has Mt least
for two years had under consideration the
question of railroad transportation in this
State and cts. The standing Committee
on Inland Trade have had the transporta-
ton question under their special consider
ation. Grievances and complaints against
the railroads have been investigated by
them: and Just before the Legislature
was assembled. and during the first days
of its assembly, subcommittee of the
Inland Trade Committee was appointed
TO take into consideration the provisions
Of the Kent bill. After thorough exami-
nation of that bill the sub-committee con-
cluded to commend it for adoption by the
Legislature. This committee reported it,
conclusions TO the Board OF Directors Of
the Chamber, and its action was ratified
by the board. Subsequently the matter
was discussed at regular quarterly meeS
ing OF the Chamber, and the action of the
Board Of Directors and the Inland Trade
Committee was ratified.
COMPLAINTS FROM ALL sIDEs.
Mr. Tucker said that 1t could not be denied
thse grievances and complaints against the rail-
roads exist. We hear them from all sides and
In every direction: the farmers are almost
unanimous In favor OF railroad bill Ihreo
cities have been heard from. Two are In favor OF
the bill-Richmond and Danville-and one
against IL. Toe city of Roanoke Is naturally OPP
posed 10 the bin because much OF Its prosperity Is
due 10 the railroads. There seems to be sort oil
common or Joint ownership ia tho properties OF
that city existing between the railroad compa-
MES and the people.
sary to discuss the constitutonalty OF this bill,
but to remove any doubt In that respect from
the minds OF the committee he would refer
them 10 the cases OF Mum against Illinois, "a,
United States, ~, decided in 1875: Stone
againgt the Farmers Loan and Trust Company,
1l6. United States, 307. decided In 1855
Chicago, Milwaukee and st. Paul Railway Com
peny against Minnesota, 1874, United States,
Ais, decided In 1890, and the cases cited. Be
fore discussing the general policy and expedi-
sncy of the proposed law Mr.. Tucker desired TO
state that there Was misconception IN the
minds OF the railroad managers and other OPP
ponents OF the bill as to tho real object and the
practical effect OF ite provisions.
He wished 10 enter his emphatic denial that
either the object or practical effect OF the bill
was 10 reduce the average rate or tho revenues
OF the railroads. The members OF the Chamber
OF Commerce are not the enemies OF the rail-
roads; they recognize that there Is the relation
OF interdependence between the railroads OF
the State and the people of the state. The real
object and the practical effect OF the Dill Is 10
secure-hrst, uniformity and equality In the
rate-charge for freight and passengers; second,
reasonableness In the rate-charge; third, 10 pre-
vent and 10 punish unIus, discrimination
fourth correct all those evils, dlscomforts, ana
Inconvenience that arise from failure on the
part OF the railroads 10 perform sucn duties az
making proper connections, furnishing proper
accommodations and facilities Tor the transporta.
ton of freight and passengers The history OF
railroad legislation in other states demonstrates
that these are the objects OF the Dili the e1-
perience OF other States having similar laws,
more or less stringent than the Kent Bill,
demonstrates that the effect Of this bill will be
the same.
POLICY AND EyPEDIENCy OF THE LAW.
Tho policy or expediency OF a proposed law Is
best determined by inquring into the results of
similar laws in other and adjacent States or
communities, assuming the conditions TO be
generally or approximately the same. In the
matter OF railroad Developments, IL VIII be
hardly questioned that the great Northwest
States and the States south OF Virginia stand
upon the Same footing and are erviroDed by the
saIpe conditions and circumstances as virginia.