The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1894-05-11
Mr.. BISHOP AND TIE RAILROADS.

cannot find sentence from his pen
indicating that he is opposed to rail-
road commission. If we had been SO
impressed we would not have been so
severely panied, but unfortunately
that was not orr construction of his
letter, and we have read it and re-
read Ii and can find not a single sem
tence nor syllable in it that can be con-
strued into an expression favorable to
the establishment of the commits
sion, and there is an old saying that
.who is not for us is against u.s."
There is unfortunately an assumption
running through his letter that those
who do favor the establishment OF
the commission are Performers" 1.-THE
word is used with kind of cynical
sneer) and are necessarily animated
by desire to ''oppress" the railroads.
For instance, we find such sentences
as the following:
"A dark day will come TO the people of this
state if we are ever cursed with railroad COM
mission animated by disposition to Cypress the
railroads"
What bigger tub to whale would
you want than that?
And again:
sThose Of us who lived in Florida from fifteen
to twenty years ago can remember great deal
about losses incurred because Of the poverty OF
transportation companies, and we desire no re-
turn of such experiences
Does it not look like Mr. Bishop en-
tertains a suspicion at least thata COM
mission might lead to return of those
experiences?
You are personally aware, Mr.. Editor, how
earnestly deprecated the repeal Of the COM
mission law. My feelings were so strong that l
charged the leading champions of that measure
with being the paid attorneys OF the railroad
companies. whether did them injustice or not
it is proper for me to say that the evil conse-
quenees which / apprehended have not been re-
allied In this locality, at all events, no advan-
tage was taken of the deliverance of the compa-
mics from all restraints. The rates established
by order of the commission are in force to-day,
and have some reasons for anticipating that
they will be still further reduced the traffic be-
comes more remunerative through increased
production.
Isn't this patting the railroads on
the back and saying, "dear, good,
honest fellowsm
But more than this. Mr.. Bishop
says:
''our principal causes Of complaint lie beyond
the reach Of the leg tsature of Florida
Isn't this discouraging to those who
are endeavoring to create public SEN
timent favorable to the establishment
of the commission? Suppose the ire
formers had incorporated such SEN
fences in their "appeal to the people"
think you it would have stirred UP
much enthusiasm in the direction
aimed at? The people would have
thought as Mr.. Bishop did few years
ago that these champions were the
''paid attorneys of the railroad COM
panies."
So pleased was the railroad organ in
which Mr.. Bishops letter appeared
that portion of it was put in italics
by the editor and in his efforts to beat
back the growing sentiment favorable
to a commission the ItaIicised portion
is being constantly kept in type. That
is the use the letter is being put to.
II don't want TO see a commission which would
act as the senile instrument of a Senator's ami
mosities'
Well, who else does? Does Mr..
Bishop for moment believe that the
so-called Performers" are animated by
any such purpose? General Bullock
Zone of the ''reformersn) in speech
delivered in Ocala some time after the
famous address was delivered said that
he would have the commission SO fair
to the railroads that he would place
upon it an experienced railroad man,
and no individual in the state, so faras
we have seen, has expressed contrary
opinion. Mr.. Clark's objection to
the former railroad commission was
based on the fact that in allowing the
railroads a reasonable profit on their
investment the board allowed the
companies $4,000 per mile for each
mile of road operated when it was
known that the building of the roads
cost no such amount; and, even if it
had, this amount was offset by the
donation of lands to the amount of
20, 900 acres per mile. Is this objection
not reasonable one?
And does not Mr.. Bishop go out of
his way to make dig at Senator Call?
His name does not appear among the
names of the PERFORMERS" and has not
entered into the controversy.
And we are told that our allusion to
the Orlando convention is seen to be
unfortunate when it is remembered
how summarily that body squelehed a
resolution in favor of railroad COM
mission. For one who favors the res
toration of the commission Mr.. Bishop
refers most apprOvingly to the squelch-
ing of this resolution COR at least that
is the way it seems to u.s. but the reso-
luton was not squelched, and the of
fetal proceedings will bear us out in
what we say, and the spectator must
have been both blind and deaf not to
have observed that the pulse of that
convention beat Enthusiastically in
favor of the restoration of the COM
mission.
Mr.. Bishop is patient enough to in
form us that state legislature, acting
either by itself or through a commits
sion, cannot intermeddle with inter-
state commerce, because the constitu-
ton vests in Congress exclusively all
authority to regulate commerce be-
tween the states. Of course this is
very valuable information. Mr.. Bish-
On il pafiapf apauol, a1S,N 70 u, f~.,~, -.