The Wichita daily eagle., 1897-12-26

may so materially affect these people
who are not represented mere at this
meeting, when we do not know what the
effect of such legislation may be tc
them? Is there any one here who can
say beyond question of doubt that these
| people will not be injured. 1 hardly think
SO.
REASONS FOR OPPOSITION.
81 am opposed To the legalizing OF
pooling between railroads: Because pool
ing of tonnage or Of earnings is contrary
to the statutes OF various states, partic-
uIarly in the west, and uniformity is
needed between state and national leg
islation upon transportation questions
Because eighty-seven Of the CONNER
ciaI bodies Of the United States have in
| the past expressed themselves as oppos-
ed to pooling between railroads.
Because the senate committee on in
terstate commerce in 1885, previous 10
the adoption of the present law. found
much opposition TO pooling at all points
visited by them Among others who tes-
tilted I found the following: John O'Don-
rall, member OF the board Of railroad
commissioners Of New York, who said:
4 am opposed to a pool in any form.
James H. Seymour representing the New
York Mercantile Exchange: They (the
pools) should certainly be prohibited by
law
Fl. B. Thurber of New York, the dis
tinguished chairman OF this committee.
before converted 20 pooling section, said:
4 believe that the pooling contracts
should be entirely prohibited, but rail-
roads should naturally agree upon pub
lie tariffs between common points. These
tariffs be made subject 70 the approval
of the board of commissioners but should
not be made legally binding, because in
that case the freedom to make lower
rates, which is now a safeguard against
extortion, would be abridged or prohib-
tied. Railroad men who excuse pooling
contracts, by claiming that they prevent
discrimina ton as between shippers, but
this object would be reached by compell-
ing the railroads by adequate penalties
10 observe their public rates. This was
well provided for in the Reagan bill.
81. H. Walker, manufacturer OF boots
whole pooling system and the whole the
ory of the pooling system is to protect
the interests of the shareholders. II is
against public interest, in my judg-
ment.'
Edward Kimball, commission mer-
chant of Boston: L think the pooling sys-
TEN should be forbidden by law. 1 see
no benefits to arise from the pooling sys-
tenn"
Testimony in similar lines against
pooling was given by another manufac-
tr1rer Of Boston, packer Of Chicago, a
grain man Of Chicago, and two officers
Of the Kansas City board of trade; two
merchants and a manufacturer of Des
Moines, Iowa; cattle dealer of Council
Bluffs, Iowa; dry goods merchant Of
Omaha; several merchants of st. Paul:
one of them Gpresident of the Jobbers'
Union) said: I think Il is the universal
sentiment of the state that pooling
should be prohibited by law
SOUTH IS OPPOSED.
"a wholesale grocer of Atlanta said:
Pooling contracts entirely destroy COM
petition between roads, and are always
entered into for that express purpose.
Where pooling is possible competition is
impossible; consequently it is in contra
vention to public policy
similar testimony was given by a
leading attorney Of Atlanta, by various
grain and flour dealers and others of the
same city; by farmers in Indiana and
Wisconsin; by merchants of Nashville,
and Mr.. Richard P. Mayo, Jr., an ex-
railroad commissioner of Illinois, said:
Pooling OF earnings or business should
be prohibited by law
with the exception OF Mr.. Thurber,
I have no evidence that any Of these
gentlemen have changed their minds.
Because in answer TO inquiries OF the
Interstate Commerce Commission sent
TO all the commercial organizations of
the United States TO the state railroad
commissioners. the various shippers, to
railroad officials and railroad association
officials, and others, answers as publish
ed in their sixth annual report show
that but two commercial organizations
and tsree shippers favored legalizing
pools. Sixteen of the favorable answers
were from railroad officials, four from
railroad association officials, and one
from the editor of a railroad newspaper.
Out of the tfirty-ssven favorable an
swers, twenty-one were directly inter
es1ed in railroads.
Because in the latest testimony taken
on the subject Of pooling by the senate
committee, IN April, 1897, but one ship
per testified al all. He. while practically
controlling all the elevators on west
ern line, including a large elevator in
Chicago, is one OF the largest handlers of
grain in the United States, and IS noted
among MS competitors as seldom. If ever,
paying tariff Yet he testified IN favor
legalizing pools. while our friends on the
other side say they want pools legalized
in the interests Of the small dealer Is il
possible this gentleman favors pools for
the same reason?
Because concur IN the views as out
lined in the following extracts from ed
itorials OF leading western metropolitan
newSpap pers.
Chicago Tribune, April Srd. 1897
Now the question is. shall the interests
OF the many OF the interests OF the few
he consulted? Senator Foraker thinks
the Interests % the few should be con-
served. His 5.n allows the railroads TO
make rules and put rates as high as
the want them. provi6ed. they can OBJ
tain the approval Of the interstate COM
merce commission. That means II will
10 uaTaSSarx- only Sor tho rafFr-s5S ~