Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1897-04-01

Speech OF Hon. w. F. Brown of Pratt
county, in the house Of representatives
against the adoption Of the Harris
Railroad Bill, as a substitute for the
maximum freight rate bill that was
drafted by the house committee on
railroads, of which he (Ir. Brown was
chairman.
Mr.. chairman and gentlemen of this
house:
We have come to a point, we have
come to a time when we are to con-
slider the most vital question, the most
important question that can or will
come before this legislature.
appreciate the fact, Mr.. Chairman,
that it is useless for me TO appeal for
anything from the men sitting on the
opposite side Of this chamber. 1
realize and recognize the fact that they
are sitting there the servile servants Of
corporations realize and recognize
the fact, Mr.. Chairman, that for thirty
odd years the people of this state have
been ground beneath the axles Of rail-
road corporations, that for thirty years
the party in power in the state of Kan
sas refused to give one bit of relief
But in 1890 a great wave of reform
swept over the state, the fires of liber-
were lighted in the school houses and
equal rights were demanded by our
people, and out Of that demand sprang
up the peoples party, their earnest
hope was that we should give the peo-
pie legislation that would control the
railroad corporations.
You know, Mr.. Chairman, that in
1891, our party did all it could under
the circumstances here in this very
hall. 1t passed a railroad bill that
met the approval of the people of the
state, and in 1899 the people approved
their action, Mr.. Chairman, and we
went before the people of Kansas and
won the fight, but by reason of trick
cry and chlcanery the people Of this
state were deprived Of the house Of
representatives and the action was sus'
tanned by the courts and the people
were again defeated in their desire fol-
relief, want to call your attention to
the fact that the bill which was passed
in 1891 was passed again in 1893, and
passed without single dissenting vote
by the Dunsmore house sitting down in
the basement of the state house. In
1895 our party met in convention, and
want to say to you that the members
OF our party approved our action in
this matter. We went out and made
our fight along this line, and the sen
ate, which was then populist, passed
the maximum freight bill, our party
\ has been radically in favor of this
: measure from the time it first came
into existence until the present time
1t is a cardinal principle of the popu
list party, it is thing that we have
gone before the people and discussed
and promised them relief along this
line.
Now then, Mr.. Chairman with this
preface want to take up and discuss
what is now before us.
In IS o or 1891 when that great ma
tionsl body met in Washington, COM
posed of the interstate commerce COM
mission, and the state commissioners
of the different states, in considering
this phase of railroad legislation it ar.
rived at some conclusions, as follows:
have before me the report of the rail
road commissioners of the state of Iowa
for 1891, and on page 81 they discuss
the following proposition: First, Is the
question of a reasonable rate, under
the discussion of the supreme court
necessarily judicial question? Second,
What is the best standard of just and
reasonable rate? What elements
should be considered in determined the
reasonableness of a rate? Third,
What legislation on the subject is de.
sirable?
Upon the first proposition the COM
mission quotes the following decisions:
cat common law a common carrier
4 was entitled to charge a reasonable
rate, but 1t was competent for the
King or parliament to determine by
license or by statute what was reason
able. In the absence of limitation in
the grant the question was left for the
courts to determine. This common
law rule seems to have been followed
in this country"
"In the absence ofAlllegislative reg
ulation upon the subject, either by
general law or by charter, a railroad
company is entitled to charlie a rea-
sonable rate for passenger and freight
travel and traffic; and in such case it is
for the courts to decide what is reason
able. Chicago, etc, R. R. Co., vs..
Iowa, 90, U. s., 161; W. & st. Paul,
Blake, "a U. S. sO.p
"When the legislature, either by
charter or general law, gives the right