The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1903-02-27
THE BAXTER BILL.

The argument before the joint com
| mittees of the House and Senate upor
the Baxter bill. has been no less able
aud entertaining. than 1t has been 1m'
portant and instructive. A forensic
political debate, between political
gladiators, would hardly have attracted
larger crowds or held their attention
better. And yet, we are glad to note,
hat spirited, plain and candid though
the speakers have been, they have held
themselves above personalities, and have
addressed themselves as sensible men
to sensi ole men.
The bill In detail is much too big to
be discussed IN one newspaper article.
The details are too varied and COM
pick to be discussed in full by one
man in one evening. even; and that
is where the speakers, as a rule, make
y grievous mistake-they attempted
too much. The Hon. James M. Head
was an exception to this rule. Hence.
his address was perhaps the most force
full one delivered. Not stronger in
fact than some of the others, but
clearer upon it's central thought, deep
or in it's impress and harder to be for
got.
THE purpose of the bill. its whole
scone and design said Mr.. Head,
"is to prevent one railroad from dis
eliminating against another railroad.
Just as all railroads are prevented
from discriminating between individ-
uals. - And again he said; "the
question presented by this bill is
simply this: Shall railroads be COM
pelled to treat each other as they are
now compelled to treat individualsY
Railroad companies are not given
the right of eminent domain that they
may make money off the people.
That is the purpose Of the capitalist
who invests his money lin railroads
and without it as an incentive there
would be no railroads built by private
capital. But that is not the in tention
or purpose of the state when 1t
grants to any corporation the right to
condemn and take the property OF the
citizen. The state does this for the
development of the states resources.
and the profit and convenience OF the
people, and il the state and the people
do not get any development or profit
for the railroads, they get nothing.
Hence railroads must be run not pure
ly for the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF their
stockholders, but in the interest OF
state development and to the profit OF
the people. Railroad terminal faclli-
ties are never asked or granted for the
convenience or.profit of the railroads
or terminal companies; but for the
more economical.'an and expeditions hand
ling Of freight and passengers, in the
interest Of the people. These grants
are asked in the name .of the people,
and granted for the sake of the people,
ana should be run in the interest OF
the people.
Judge Dickinson. attorney for the
Illinois Central, and Mr.. Russell, for
the Mobile & ohio, spoke against the
bill They both contended that they
did not wish to share their terminals
with other roads; that they had built
these terminals at great expense, and
did not think it fair or right that new
roads should come in now and enjoy
and use them.
Mr.. Head met this issue squarely.
Tat was the very point Of the con-
troversy, the very gist of the argu-
ment, the milk in the cocoanut.
These companies could not have built
these terminals without the aid and
consent of the state; and the state dio
not intend that they should acquire
these special privileges and build up
vast business monopoly for them
selves, but for the mutual advantage
of themselves and the general public.
----..---