New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-07
RAILROAD POOLING DISCUSSED.
JUDGE DANIELS ARGUES AGAINST THE PROPOSED
BILL AND MIR REED ~ ITs FAVOR.

JUDGE DANIELS ARGUES AGAINST THE PROPOSED
BILL AND MIR REED IN ITS FAVOR
Washington Dec G-Spcakcr Crisp to-day an
nounced "A number OF committee removals ana az
sgngnonts made necessary by the changes which
have occurred In the membership OF the House. Ihe
most important OF them were the assignment OF
MI wheeler dem. Ala) 10 the Committee on Ways
and Means. in place Of Mr. breckenridge Dem.
Ark). appointed Minister to Russia; Mr.. S!oey
dem. PENN 10 the Committee on Appropriations.
In place o. Mr. Compton Dem. Md. appointed
Naya. Oilccr al Baltimore; Mr.. Hicks Giep.. PENN
to Public Buildings and Grounds; Mr. Tracey (DeTn..
y " TO Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
The pension and fortncations appropriation bills
for the year ending June 90 1895. were reported 70
the House with the notification that the former
would DE- called up next Wednesday and the latter
when tho railroad pooling iii IL disposed or
The debate tne bill to 50 amend the Interstate
Commerce law to permit OF pooling by the rail-
roads resumed and occupied the attention OF
the House until o'clock Mcssrs. Cooper (Dem..
FTaD and Daniels Ulep.. y. - spoke against the
bill. and Mr. Gresham dem. Texas. Mr.. Morse
Hcp. Mass) and Mr. Reed Rep.. Me) for 1t. Mr..
Daniels opposed the bill tending TO enable the
railroad companies manage their properties 10 the
dcrimcnt OF the interests o.. the public. There was
no necessity. hc urged for supersciIns or repeating
the presen; law the ground that It's provisions
cannot be carried INTO effect II that argument were
TO be allowed with respect to this law he said. 1t
could DE made prevail against any statute on the
books
After a colloquy In which Messrs Daniels. Morse.
Reed, scklcs ard Bryan took part. Mr. Reed
spoke Ia part follows:
Mr. spcAkcr. d!d not purpose when rose 10 dis,
the gentleman from New-York. and 1t seemed 10
me that he Was neglecting some OF the foundation
he was neslcctng one OF the fundamental condi-
ions OF Public 1as Ii ought , TO De the me ooSSS.
Try. and In order TO do that there ought 10 be a
mcations OF business. 1t is not enough to say that
II railroad Is "A 'souless corporation. and make an
owned by human beings who have Invested their
money In them and II IL OF az much advantage 70
have "A good mandatory or good street or any
other good thing Therefore. legislation on The
subject ought TO be conducted In rather broad
way. II ought not simply to say low irelshts gre
IA good thing Tor the people VINO use trhnsp2rh-
II you connnc the question 10 the advantage Of
those who use transportation. 1t Is lot
to bee considered II Is very desirable 10 have rail
roads and TO have them In good condition. Rail
transportation, and II you take away from them
their NE blood. as IT were you cannot expect them
What / wan, to point out Is that there are several
things 10 be- looked A. and that this ~ merely
n question be disposed OF simply by saying: Let
us have lower freight rates" Another question Is.
Are You preserving your lns,rumentaty for trans
portation in such shape that II VIII do your work
oiher waye Then again there Is another little point
not perhaps. very Important. but stll worth con
sderlng because al Justice Is worth considering:
tina, f. the question OF ights OF ne persons who
nlshed fundamentally which people want TO use.
and perhaps they ought 10 have II fair return from
their Investment; ! do not say that they ought to
have an unreasonable return. but "A reasonable re-
turn they ought TO have. All these things, II seems
to me- ough; to be taken into account Before the
Interstate Commerce las was passed two railroads
would compete until they came TO an agreement.
Whether Is desirable to revive that right or agree
ment or not Is question that ought to be looked at
In the limit of all the considerations have men
toned because competition ls not the whole story