St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-12-07
DISCUSSED POOLING,
House Spends the Day in Arguing
the New Railroad Bill.

House Spends the Day in Arguing
the New railroad Bill.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 6.-The entire
time of the house today was occupied in
the discussion of the railroad pooling
bill, to which there appears to be great
opposition. No action, however, was
taken on the bill today. Messrs. Cooper
(Fla.), Gresham (TeX.), Morse (Mass.)
and Daniels IN. ~ took part in the de-
bate. The former directed his OppOSi-
tiOn TO the section giving the railroads
the power to carry questions relating to
the revocation of pooling orders into tho
courts, and offered a substitute giving
the interstate commerce commission ab-
SOlute control over all pooling contracts.
MeSSrS. Gresham and Morse favored the
bill, while Mr.. Daniels attacked 1t on
the ground that it would Subvert the
objects of the interstate commerce law.
Mr.. Cooper dem, Fla.), a member of
the commerce committee, declared the
bill had four important features. 1t
authorized and legaliZed railroad pool
ing, and in doing so 1t gave new grant
of power to all the railroads of the cOun-
try; it provided amendments 10 the
procedure section of the present law
in prescribing rules of evidence "a good
feature); it changed wholly the Grim
inal liability for discriminating rates,
| and, lastly, it changed the remedies for
causes OF action. While he doubted the
adViSabiiity OF granting pooling powers
to railroads, he was willing to agree, if
such pooling should be allowed, it
should he under the direct control of a
responsible commission. He offered a
substitute to meet his objections to th8
bill.
Mr.. Cooper quoted from a speech
made by Col. w. +. Morrison, president
| OF the Interstate commerce commission,
| in which the latter opposed the pooling
| feature Of the bill. unless the commits
sion was allowed absolute control of the
| conditions Of pooling.
Mr.. Henderson (ReD., 1O.) asked
| if the fact that small shippers under a
pooling system would be able to
get the advantage of the low rates now
given big shippers would not justify
the passage Of law legaljzing pooling.
Mr.. Cooper replied that that was the
only consideration which could induce
him to vote to authorize pooling, but he
would not do so unless safeguards and
restrictions not contained in this bill
| were provided to prevent the abuse of
this proposed enlargement of the char
| tered powers of the railroads.
Mr.. Cooper concluded at the end of
two hours, and was followed by MIR.
Gresham Dem., Tex. who believed the
| bill should become law as framed,
with the clause giving appellate juris-
| diction 10 the courts incorporated in it.
| because as soon as move was made TO
| revoke a pooling order for alleged dis
| elimination il immediately became a
| judicial question which the courts
| should settle.
| The present law enabled the larger
| trunk roads to cut rates and squeeze
the smaller ones, and. if the present
| system continued, all railroads of the
| country would, at no distant time, be
| controlled by few great corporations.
Mr.. Morse (Rep., MaSs.) spoke in sup
| port of the bill. and Mr.. Daniels (Rep.,
| n. " followed in opposition. At the
| conclusion Of Mr.. Daniels argument
the house, at 4:55 p. H., adjourned till
| tomorrow.