The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-02-10
HOUSE WILL SIT
| PRIVATE CAR EVIL
Esch- Townsend Bill Purposely
Lacking, While Stevens Bill
/ Needs Thoro Inquiries.
BY w. w. Jermane.

S9 ny w. w. Jermane.
Washington, Feb 1870 much! has
been said in the discussion of railroad
legislation: this winter about the private
ear, OR refrigerator car, evil, such as the
Armour lines represent, that great sur
prise has been expressed over the fail
pre of the house committee on interstate
and foreign commerce to include some
provision for their regulation in the
Esch townsend bill, which passed the
house Thursday. (
Representative Stevens of Minnesota,
author of the bill placing private car
companies under the interstate COM,
merce commission, and member OF the
house committee, was asked the reason
for this apparent oversight. He ex-
planned the situation in this way:
= Why the Bill Went Thru.
] There were two reasons why the pri-
waite car provision was not inserted In
the I1sch- Townsend bill. Messrs. Esch
I and Townsend did not want to destroy
/ dts symmetry The bill was drafted by
i the department of justice and approved
by the president, and was directed to the
sole purpose Of giving the interstate
commerce commission power to fix rea-
ESonable rates upon complaint Of unreason-
l ableness or discrimination; to put the
orders of the commission into effect as
soon as possible, and to bring about
prompt settlement of disputes arising from
|, overcharges and discrimination by the
railroads - ~ E.yF. -
Ii The private car question: and the mid
might rate question are quite different
4 an their nature from those dealt with by
the Esch- Townsend bill. Each is a spe-
cies Of rebate or indirect discrimination,
and is to some extent included under the
terms, practices and regulations as found
! in the Esch bill, SO that some of the evils
would be remedied by the passage of that
bill. - 4.
Included in Stevens Bill.
| But there are three questions concern
! ing private car traffic which are not COW
: cred by the Esch-Townsend bill, but in
{ GUIDED in the bill introduced by myself
! frhe first is whether it is desirable to reg
: 1ate or prohibit the use Of private cars
! The second is whether it is desirable tc
| regulate or prohibit exclusive contracts
Fby any railroad with any private car
I company. The third is how far extra
+ service, such as refrigeration, etc. can o.
I ought to be included in the usual service
of carriage.
Z There is need for most careful investi-
/ cation, both legal and economic, before
! these questions can be satisfactorily dis
posed Of. The committee on interstate
:
to take testimony or to give any consid.
+ GRAFTON to these questions, and for tina
i treason the Esch-Townsend bill was no
q amended to cover all phases of the pri
/! Nate car evil.
/ Stevens Bill's Chances.
] Those interested in the question real
! tie that there is no. chance for the pas
! sage of a private car bill at this session
and but little for the enactment into
law Of the Esch-Townsend bill. But al
effort will be made to. pass the first
3Inamed bill at the next session, and thai
geongress, testimony on the private, ca,
/ question will be taken during the re
Snainder of this session, so that the com
sTnittee, on Interstate and foreign com
4 merce may have all the facts and argu
ments before it when the time comes t.
yeport a bill for passage.
There is a surprising lack Of informa
zion in the committee and among tn
general public +. about private cars
Even we'll informed railroad men, VIII
would be supposed to know, have bee,
4 unable to tell the committee" much o,
the subject. The interstate commerc
s;co1nmission doesn It appear to know
anything about them, and members o
Che committee believe it desirable t
study the question during the comm
recess Of congress in order that the
may deal with it intelligently next wiz
ter.
The overstreet Bill.
President Cassatt of the Pennsy
wanna railroad, in speech on tn
private car question last week, e,
gpressed approval of the Overstreet bi
on that subject. Little or nothing ha
}been heard of that bill, but investig;
;tion shows that it was introduced earl
o. the last session. It simply require
private car companies to make report
of their operations to the interstat
commerce commission, and gives tn
iscommission power to investigate III
fair rates, if they are common carrier
The bill does not give the, commissio
jurisdiction over them if they are NJ
common carriers. In the opinion {
Those who are seeking a remedy f
private car evils, the bill does not 90 fl
enough, and it is doubtful if anythi1
could be accomplished under it if p
were law. =. '". ., .-> 49, -: -
sni -------------- - 1t.!-r
EfAF m1.> r,,1,ioxo "a