The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1903-03-27

/ ludt luis NOulN
not instruct Senator Erwin, becaus
Senator Erwin represented two Othe
counties besiIes Maury and the peopl
Of those counties would nave to joII
in the instructions. he therefore
moved that no instructions be made.
Nh. E. H. Hatcher. attorsey for th'
N, e. q ST. L. r. r ., seconded tn,
motion. He argued that the proposed
Baxter bill would help nobody bu
Baxter anu his railroad. How could
it help Maury county or any shipper
The law OF the state already reqnir
ed that every railroad should treat all
other ROADS alike ana receive each
Others freight. and read from the code
to this effect. He saiG the bill simply
would require the old roads to furnish
physical connections and shipping
sheds, etc. which they had no use for 10
Bakers road. 1t would not be worth
one cent to a shipper. The represent
tives, he said. were better acquainted
with the bill, anyway, than the MEM
beers of the executive committee.
They had heard the arguments before
the legislative committees. when tue
bill had been argued by able lawyers
representing both roads. He thought
the committee had no jurisdiction In
the matter, that 1t was getting outside
the functions of the committee.
Mr.. James A. Smiser was the next
speaker. He said he had sent out the
call hurredly because he had under
stood that the Baxter bill would be
called up in the Senate Wednesday.
He had notified every committeeman
Saturday afternoon of the meeting. He
insisted that the Baxter bill was not as
new as Mr.. Hatcher claimed, and that
the members of the committee were
reasonably familiar with it's provisions
The committee was composed OF repre-
sentative, intelligent citizens and they
we're competent to act on the measure.
He argued in favor of the bill very ear
nestly. He believed it won d help the
people of Maury county and the entire
State. Admitting that it would help
Jere Baxter's road-simply because
Baxter read is the or ly new road being
built in this section of the State-he be-
lieved that from the broad standpoint OF
citizenship, looking to the best interests
of all the people of Tennessee, the bill
was meritorious measure and ought to
become law. 1t simply provides for
one thing, and that was that every rail
roed should treat every other road in
the same manner and that no road
should be Disseminated against. He
read the bill and then asked if there was
anything wrong or unfair in it. He SAID
that if that bill was defeated it simply
meant that the people Of the State say
to the L. & N. Railroad Co., and the n.
G. q St. L. Railroad Co., that they
could receive each Others, freight and
make transportation rates between
themselves and not compel them to
make similar arrangements with com
peting roads. NOW, ask you AS fair
men, is it fair to let these old roads make
such arrangements and agf eements be-
tween themselves and not ,equ re them
to make the san ran, en- 'nts with
new roads. VIII never va say to
the Louisville & Nashville Railroad
Co, that it shall not take freight
from Baxter's road, you put it in the
power of the l.. & n. Railroad to Jhrot-
tie every new road that seeks to enter
Nashville. 1t simply means to strangle
Jere Baxter's road to death. The L.
&, n. Road could continue 10 fix freight
rates by people shipping over that
road"
1t won ldn't hurt the merchant, becaus
be simply put on an extra charge on
the selling price of his goods, so that
it was the consumer who bore the brunt
after all. Therefore it affected every
citizen of Maury county.
Suppose Baxter's road desires to
ship coal from the East Tennessee coal
fields to Columbia. AT present the
Baxter road would have to unload it's
coal cars at Nashville, haul the coal to
the L. & N. freight depot, then re-
load it on the latter roads cars.
1t would be a. such cost that no road
could afford to do it, but when you
force the u. q n. to take Baxter 8 cars
YOU give your own people chance to
get better railroad facilities and lower
freight rates, he said.
When you shut up this venue of
competition you snut out all chance OF
competition He was against allowing
old, established roads to throttle the
building of new roads. he was for
new railroads; he was for every one
that ever wanted to be built in Ten
nessee.
He argued that the committee ought |
to speak on the question, and that they
had right to do it. 1t was not
always prdCblCdl IOT tuo pcOplo w
meet In mass meeting. The execu-
tive committee was composed of re- /
preventative citizens and they ought to
take action.
He referred to the law already on
the statute. quoted by Mr.. Smlser, but
said that it applied only to roads hav-
ing no physical onnections; there
fore it was no relief to any new road.
That law had been passed for the
purpose of protecting new roads and 1t
was the idea of the legislature that
passed the law that it should afford
such protection but it does not 90 so.
1t was drawn, he said by shrew0
lawyer who did not intend that it
should be effective.
The committee ought to ask the rep
from this county to sup
port the bill. 1t was right in it
self, and it was right because it will
help our people, and enable them to
shake off the shackles of the old estab-
llshed roads which have their coils
around us and are grinding us down
for every dollar they can get out of us.
He closed by expressing the hope that
the committee would take action in
Senator Erwin to vote for
the bill.
Mr.. E. H. Hatcher then argued in