The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-12-08

OF the railroad pooling bill under an
agreement to take up the bill under the
five minute rule tomorrow.
Mr.. Bartlett Dem, n. Y, addressed
the house IN favor OF the measure. argu-
ing in support Of legitimate aud legal
pooling.
He urged that the granting OF pooling
privileges would not be an enlargement
OF the powers OF the railways. II
would simply be the restoration OF that
freedom OF contract to which they were.
entitled by common law before the in
terstate commerce act robbed them.
The railroad companies were entitled
to conduct their properties at fair
profit.
Mr. Ryan (Dem., Nebraska) opposed
that section OF the bill which allowed
the railroads to appeal from the deci-
sions OF the commission reyoking pool
ing orders. The commission should
have absolute control II the pooling
privileges were TO be permitted, but he
opposed any bill authorizing pooling.
He believed the time had come when
railroad rates should be reasonable and
he offered an amendment with which
he wanted to test the sense Of the
house. Unless one principle was TO
exist for other corporations and one for
railroads, railroad rates should be calcu-
lated on the present actual value Of
railroad.
Mr.. Bryan was applauded when he
finished.
Mr.. Wise, Dem, VirginiR), chairman
OF the interstate commerce committee,
supported the bill. lie said il had re.
ceived from his committee more interest
and more careful consideration than
any bill on the calendar. Then Mr..
Cochran, OF New York, was recognized.
COCHRAN SPEAKS.
II had not intended to intervene in
this debate" said Mr.. Cochran, until
the remarkable speech OF the gentleman
from Nebraska, Mr.. Bryan, on the rela-
tions Of railroads to the committee in
duced me to make contribution to the
discussion. He told US that 1t was i'm.
possible to have competition between
railroads, and from that he proceeds to
argue that it was unjust, nndemo-
cratic and unpatriotic to interfere with
competition between railroads. Laugh
ter. He promises an amendment es-
tablishing rule by which the inter-
state commerce commission can ascer-
tain, In an infallible manner, just
what reasonable rates should be,
and he tells US that he intends
to get q legislative mandate to that
tribunal, that they shall always fix the
rates according to tho cost OF the plant
at the time when the tariffs are to be
imposed. It is obvious that the plan
would work this way: II Q railroad
company should run at loss oil, say,
$300,000 in 1898, then under this novel
method, it could not pay its debts out
OF its earnings in 1894, because il the
rates of 1894 are to be in proportion to
the cost Of the plant in '94, it would be
unpatriotic, undemocratic and num-
ber OF other things to allow the com.
pauy to make good its losses in 1898,
which could not possibly form any part
OF the cost OF the plant in 1894.
y Competition amongst railroads car
ried to the extent which we have wit
messed in this country is not competi-
tion, but it is war. war destructive aud
relentless, war having for its object the
levy OF tribute upon tho people. This
ia shown by the history OF every one OF
those rate wars. Have they. sprung
from the desire to reduce them? No,
but from the attempt to raise them.
THE Erie railroad suffers to-day the
loss OF its trade, Its bonds are in de.
fault. It is in the hands Of receiver.
1t seeks to increase the tonnage be-
tween New York and Chicago. Assum.
ing that tonnage to-day TO be 25c, 1t
seeks to raise it to 30c. The Pennsyl-
vania Railroad Company, = well man
aged and honest corporation, paying its
dividends under existing conditions.
decliues to yield to the demand that
these rates should be increased. There
upon the Erie railroad goes into the
hands of receiver. Not bound to pay
interest upon any obligations, relieved
from the necessity Of paying interest
ON any OF its debts, holding out the
sheriff through the protection OF the
United States courts, 1t proceeds to
cut that rate to 15c and 12c aud l0c.
When finally Il has brought its compet-
itors to terms, the loss upon that traffic
is made good by q general increase
along the line and by further exaction
from the public. And this must inevi-
tably be the case when the competition
is limited to one, two, three or four
competitors. The refusal TO allow these
companies to do that which is necessary
for their preservation is nothing more
than an attempt to compel them to con-
solidate."