The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-12-08

O.. The part Ol Inc W put oil SAiO
to the business of ticket scalping. The
interstate commerce commission first
called attention to the subject in its re-
port of 1888, and it has been before
congress ever since, in one form or
another. During the last session extern
sive hearings were given both to the
representatives of the railroads and
the scalpers, and Mr.. Sherman of New
York secured ia pledges for the meas
ure. 1t was, however, deemed mad
Visable to bring the measure forward
until the present session. The debate
today lasted four hours, and was spir-
tied upon both sides. None of the
amendments offered were adopted, and
the bill passed as reported by the com
mittee.
Mr.. Payne of New York asked unan-
imous consent to consider the senate
bill TO amend the laws relating to
American seamen, but Mr. Hepburn
(Rep., la demanded the regular or
der. This was the call of committees.
The first committee called was the
committee on interstate commerce. and
Mr.. Hepburn called up the anti-scalp-
ing bill
Mr.. Hepburn offered to make an ar
rangement regarding the ii ne to be oc-
cupied in debating the bill. Mr.. White
(Rep., Ills.) said there was opposition
to the measure.
Mr.. Adamson Dem. GAP, who made
the minority report, was absent Mr..
Bland CDem-. MOO said he desired TO
raise the question of consideration, but
the speaker announced that it was too
late.
Mr.. Bland said that an important bill
like this should be debated at length,
and he objected to the offer of another
hour on a side. All efforts to effect an
agreement as to time failed, and Mr..
Hepburn was thereupon recognized for
an hour. He yielded to Mr.. Sherman
(Rep., n. Y) who explained that the
bill was very similar to the one passed
during the last congress. The changes
were mainly restrictive upon corpora
tons. The bill REQUIRED the carriers
subject to the interstate commerce act
to provide each agent authorized to
sell tickets with a certificate, and made
1t unlawful for an officer Of such car
rier TO supply tickets to any but au-
thorized agents. 1t made violation of
these provisions a, nlisdemeanor, and
provided for the redemption Of unused
or partially used tickets, and also pro-
vided penalties for forging or altering
tickets.
Mr.. Sherman said this legislation had
been repeatedly recommended by the
interstate commerce commission; that
it had the support of newspapers
and commercial bodies, and that over
5000 petitions in its favor had been
presented to the house during the pres
ent congress. The business commune
ties had come TO look upon the ticket
brokerage business as Illegal The
amount of fraud practiced, if known,
would startle anyone unfamiliar with
the facts.
TRANSFERABLE TICKETS.
Mr.. Brundige Dem. Ark) offered as
; an amendment a proviso to the effect
that the act should not apply to tick
cts that are issued by any railroad or
other common carrier, for the purpose
of being transferred. In explaining his
amendment. Mr.. Brundige declared
that the real purpose of the bill was
TO prevent certain railroads from plac-
ing tickets in the hands of scalpers
Tor the purpose of being transferred.
The provision relating to forgery was
unnecessary. Every state had stat
utes against the issue of forged instru-
ments.
Mr.. Hepburn, in advocacy of the bill,
said there were but two sources OF op
position to the pending measure, the
ticket sealpers, who made money out
of the business, and certain railroads
who succeeded, through scalpers, in
violating the. interstate commerce law.
He said that there were railroads who
had 50 pei. cent of their business
through scalpers, and he appealed to
the friends of the bin not to allow the
amendment to prevail.
Mr. Mann (Rep., I'D said there were
some weak roads which would not be
able to compete with their strong rivals
except through the agency of the ticket
brokers. For some years, he said. there
had been g movement for the passage
Of 10 IN 1aora1f2a MOLINE of aicrl,+
rates. This was a bin to authorize the
railroads to pool their passenger bust
ness, This legislation, he said was in
the interest Of the largest and strongest
railroads.
Mr. Bland (Dem., Mo- said he fav-
ored the Brundige amendment, but was
opposed TO the bill as a whole. IF the
amendment prevailed, he thought the
friends Of the bill would lose interest in
il The purpose Of the bill was to legal
lize pooling of passenger traffic and to
Make away from the states, as far as
Possible, jurisdiction over this subject
The bill was opposed by Messrs Lit
tie Dem, Mo-, Bodine CDem., MOI,
Bartlett (Den., Ga.) and Gillett (Rep.
AIass.l. The latter said that all the
courts decisions thus far had been in
the direction Of the unconstitutionality
of the proposed law. He said scalpers
could not do business if the railroads
did not supply them with tickets.
Mr.. Corliss (Rep., Mich) said that
this bill would not prevent discrimina-
ton 1t would simply transfer the
right to discriminate from the scalpers
to the authorized agents. He gave no
tice of an amendment he would offer to
make any authorized agent of any rail-
road equally liable with an unauthor-
ICED agent for selling tickets below pub
lished rates.
a INDUSTRIOUS PROPOSITION.
Mr.. Updegraff CRep., Ia) made
warm speech in opposition to the bill
He could not, he said, allow so mon
strous a proposition as the bill con
tained to pass without a word. It
ought to be entitled a bill to suppress
competition in passenger traffic. He
had loved the Republican party and
had rej0iced in its achievements. 1t had
done much to elevate mankind and was
now riding high on the tide of popular
ity. This bill would mark the begin |
ming of its decadence. Its passage would |
impair, in the minds of the masses, the |
honesty and integrity of his party.
Mr.. Marsh lRep., lid and Mr. Con-
nell (Rep. ILL opposed the bill in a !
vigorous manner.
Mr. Hepburn, in charge of the bill, |
replied to its critics. It was not de- |
signed to stif1e competition.
On rising vote, the Brundige |
amendment was defeated, TOSS. The |
vote was then taken by ayes and noes. |
The amendment was defeated, 101-122.
The vote then required on Mr.. Cor |
liss' amendment. 1t was also defeated, |
$50
MIR. Adamson lDem., Ga.). Mr.. Gaines
Dem., TENN and Mr. Todd fusion, |
Mich.) opposed the bill. The latter made |