The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1907-02-27

against the North Dakota university
on the question of the government
ownership of railroads were very IN
teresting and some good points We're
brought out. They upheld the mega
tive and the following are the adj
dresses of the three speakers:
LESLIE r. PHILLIPS.
Nothing can be more important to
the prosperity Of the country than a
good system of transportation. Presi-
dent Roosevelt, in his message to con-
gress, December, 1901, said, THE rail-
roads are the arteries through which
the life blood of our nation flows"
The president is right. Our railroads
are important. This we do not deny.
Any argument which our opponents
may advance this evening in support
of the Importance of railroads, we at
the outset cheerfully concede to. Oar
question for discussion is. Resolved,
that all railroads in the United States
should be owned and operated by the
federal government" The terms of
this proposition are so clear that no
definitions are necessary. There should,
however, be some limitations put upon
the application of the word railroads"
BY railroads" we mean all systems of
roads known as trunk lines; all inter-
state lines and all short lines within
the states which are in any way con-
nected with these longer lines. Street
car railways, of course, are excluded.
Any reference made to these by the
opposition must be regarded as argu-
ing beside the point. In discussing
this question there are two theories
as to how the railroad problem should
be solved. One is government owner
ship, the other government regulation.
We of the affirmative stand for the
former We maintain that there should
be complete government ownership
and operation. Our opponents will ar
que for private or corporation owner
ship with government regulations. and
in arguing for government regulation
they will keep just as close to our side
of the question as they possibly can.
They dare not do otherwise. In the
time allotted to ME shall discuss two
phases of the question: First, the
present system of legislation is made
quate; second, there is need of reform.
That railroad legislation in the United
States has been inadequate can be
shown by briefly reviewing the history
of some Of the attempts at government
regulation.
Granger Movement.
About the year 1870 movement was
started in several of the western states
known as the granger movement, an
attempt at state regulation of rail-
roads. This movement soon proved to
be failure.
After this failure it became evident
that federal action was necessary to
exercise control over interstate traf-
fic, so congress in 1887 passed the in
terstate commerce act.
Has Failed.
The interstate commerce commits
sion, like the granger movement, has
failed to regulate the railroads. it
has not been success and it never
will be success. Let me read you
some extracts from one of the reports
of the interstate commerce commits
sion. In the report of 1899, page s, we
find: IF any carrier gives discrimi-
mating or preferential rates it is the
duty of the commission to prevent Or
punish such misconduct. Unfortunate
.ly the commission is powerless to per-
form any such duties"
The Elkins bill, an act which was
passed in 1903 and which was intended
as a supplement or rather amendment,
to the act of 1887, has also been fail
ure. But this should be no surprise,
for the bill was drawn up in the office
of President A. ]. Cassatt of the Penn
sylvania Railroad company. 1t was d
bill conceived by the railroads, passed
by the railroads and in the interest of
the railroads. 1t is we'll known fact
that the railroad men gave out more
rebates in the ten months Immediately
following the passage of this bill than
In the twelve months preceding it's
passage.
Hepburn Bill
There is another bill which was
passed by congress last June-the bill
known as the Hepburn rate regulation
bill. This bill is intended also as sup
p1ement to the interstate commerce
act. It, too, is failure. Mr.. Parsons
in his book, 1.-THE Railroads. the Trusts
and the People" page 533, referring to
this bill, says: 1T gives the commits
sion the formal power to fix the maxi
mum rates, but it gives the railroads
the power to take the commissions or
ders into court and obstruct and large
ly nullify the commissions efforts to
secure just and equal treatment. The
commission has no authority to revise
rates on its own motion, nor to con-
troll classification by which the rail-
roads can so readily change rates. No
provision is made for valuation of rail-
road property, which is essential to
fixing fair rates."
The Elkins bill, section 4, was di-
rected as plainly as English language
could direct it against the long and
short haul, yet the commission could
do nothing. In the new bill the word
ing is identically the same and the
commission has more power than for
merly, yet it is not succeeding. In the
interstate commerce commission in
vestigation just ended at Spokane,
while they found discrimination of the
worst sort. yet they could do nothing.
The decision was deferred until next
June. Then, IL the commission does
take action, which is not at all proba-
BILE, the railroads can take their deci-