Semi-weekly interior journal. [volume] (Stanford, Ky.) 1881-1905, 1899-08-25
M'CHORD MEASURE.
How II Would Operate to the Benefit
of the People.

From 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 carry |
ing the citizen over a waterway. Why |
is 1t that railway corporations should |
be above the law?
1.-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 Ii exacts for carrying freight be- |
tween Louisville and Nashville, more
than four times the distance. That !
company exacts more for carry I
ing coal from the Darlington
mines. in hopkins county, to Madison |
vile, in the same county, than IL ex-
acts to carry coal from these mines
through jacksonville. 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 carrying coal
from the Carter county mines to Mt
Sterling than II 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
lucky Central division from Cincinnati
to Falmouth and Cynthiana than 1t
charges to carry freight to Lexington.
These 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-
cording to the rule enunciated by Mr..
Coils p. Huntington, namely, All that
the traffic will bear
I'm the last report to the congress
the United States interstate commerce
commissioners declare IL to be essen
tial 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 Cypress the weak
Probably no one thing today does so
much TO force out the small operator
and build up those trusts and monop,
olies, against which law and public
| opinion alike beat in vain, as discrim-
ination in freight rates
Many OF the states have such laws
as was contemplated by the McChord
bill, among them Nebraska. The con-
! test with reference 10 this matter In
| Kentucky Is substantially that which
Mr.. Bryan fought In Nebraska to OBJ
tain lower freight rates for the people
of that state and to prevent favoritism
/ between individuals and localities. The
/ Nebraska railroad commission. under
the law of that state, fixed maximum
rates for railway freight carrying The
| railway corporations contested In the
courts the validity OF the law confer
ring the power 10 fix Gates upon the
commission, and also business Of the
| rates fixed. That litigation Yves car
ried to 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 greater
rate than that fixed by commission,
which the court adjudged TO he too
| low In that contest the people OF Ne
braska were represented by their at
torney, Mr. william Jennings Bryan.
1.-THE decision in the Nebraska case
was rendered after the adjournment
OF the general assembly that passed
the MeChord bill. That decision es-
tablishes the proposition that was at
! frmed hy tAe advocates OF the Ne
| Chord bill in the discussion concern-
ing II, namely: That by eoEIerring
upon a railway commission the power
| to fix maximum rates no wrong can
come to railway corporations. because