Hopkinsville Kentuckian., 1899-08-18
M'CHORD MEASURE.
How 1t Would Operate to the Benefit
of the People.

'Frcm the foundation OF the COM
monwealth to the present time the
statute law has fixed the charge which
every tollgate keeper might exact
from the citizen for travel on a turn
pike road. From the foundation OF
the commonwealth to- the present time
the law has controlled the charge that
every ferryman might exact for carr.
ing tire citizen over a waterway. why
be above the law?
"The Louisville and Nashville Rail-
road company exactS from the people.
OF Hardin county more to carry freight
to and from the louisville market
than 1t exacts for Carrying freight be-.
tween Louisville and Nashville. more,
than four times the distance. That.
company exacts more for carry
ing coal from the darlington
mines, in Hopkins county, to Madison
vile, IN the same county, than it ex-
acts 70 carry coal from these mines
through Madisonville, in the same
train, and drawn by the same locomo-
tive engine, to Evansville, Ind. The.
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway com
pany charges more for carving coal
from the Carter county mines to Mt.
Sterling than 1t charges to carry coal
from those mines through Mt. Ster.
ling to Lexington. The louisville and
Nashville Railroad company charges
more to carry freight over the Ken
tucky Central division from Cincinnati
to Falmouth and Cynthiana than it
charges to carry freight to Lexington.
fnese are examples of a practice that
Is followed by railroad corporations
all over the commonwealth wherever
there is not competition by rail or
water: AT noncompetitive points rail-
way freight charges are made in ac-
cordance with the axiom of railway
management once expressed by Mr..
William II. Vanderbilt, and also ac-
eording to the rule enunciated By Mr..
Coils P. Huntington, namely, 'Ali that
the traffic win bear
I'm the last report to the congress
the United States interstate commerce
commissioners declare 1t to be essen
ial to the preventing of extortion and
discrimination by railway corporations
In Interstate freight carrying that
power be conferred upon that commits
sion to fix maximum rates. And In
that report the result of the want of
this power by the commission is de-
clared to be-.
"a gross discrimination between
individuals and gross preferences be-
tween localities, which almost always
favor the strong and oppress the weak.
Probably no one thing today does so
much to force out the small operator
and build up those trusts and monoiR- \
olies, against which law and pubi3c =
opinion alike beat in vain, as discrifn-
ination in freight rates
Many of the states have such laws
as was contemplated by the McChord
Dill, among them Nebraska. The con-
test with reference to this matter in
X Ihafa fs,1I
Mr.. Bryan fought in Nebraska to oh
tain lower freight rates for the people
or that state and to prevent favoritisml
between individuals and localities. TheH
NebrasEa railroad commission. undert
the law or that state, fixed maximum
rates 1or railway freight carrying. The
railway corporations contested in the
courts the validity Of the law confer1S
ring the power to fix rates upon Lthg{ y
commission, and also business of Ne
rates nxed. That litigation was Car
~ REC q 10 the supreme court of the Unit
ed states, and there the Nebraska law
was adjudged valid. but the cause was
remanded for the fixing of a greater
rate than that fixed by commission.
which the court adjudged to be too
low. In that contest the people of Ne
braska were represented by their at
torney, Mr.. William Jennings Bryan.
The decision in the Nebraska case
was rendered after the adjournment
Of the general assembly that passed
the McChord bill. That decision es-
Lablishes the proposition that was az
lirmed by the advocates of the Nc
Chord bill In the discussion concern
Ing 1t, namely: That by comforting
upon q railway commission the power
10 hx maximum rates no wrong cant
'oms 70 railway eorporatio4s. bscause