The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1915-04-21
REVIVAL OF
FARE BILL
is SOUGHT

(CeasisseA frem Page oss.)
ture. continue In force only until
Sept 1. 1917. reverting then TO the
present scale. A bill providing for
an Investigation of railroad rates
during that time Is pending IN the
railroad committee. This amend.
ment barely squeaked through. re
ceiving only the necessary 81 votes.
Rep. John Y. Martin. OF Corunna.
then moved 70 strike out the clause
placing upper peninsula roads In a
separate class. Opponents Of the
bill. seeing that this clause would be
OF beneht to them In their fight TO
kin the entire measure. voted
against this motion. the count being
80 TO s, Several upper peninsula
members made n valiant fight TO re-
tain this section also.
OF the entire FIVE hours Of ora.
tory but two speeches are worthy
Of more than passing mention. They
were made by Rep. Albert T. Peter.
man. OF Calumet. In support Of the
railroad cause. and by Rep. Charles
ID. Symonds. OF Menominee. against
the bill
Rep. Symonds devoted most OF lis
time 20 an analysis Of the railroad
figures, declaring that In them pas
senger expense had been had been
figured Al 81 per cent Of the total
operating cost OF the systems. This.
he declared. was absurd when the
roads mentioned tmot Of them sian
roads running but one short spassen-
ger train a day. were taken into
consideration and the volume OF pas
ssnger and freight business con.
trasted.
He also called attention TO the
fact that. IN preparing figures con
trasting business before and after
tile two-cent fare law was passed.
the year 1908. when the present
law was n force. had been left out.
Omissio nof this year made the Nc.
ures submitted widely different than
they actually were. he said. He also
declared that the upper peninsula OF
Michigan contained a population OF
a little more than 10 persons 10 a
square mile. Wisconsin. he said.
had eight to the square mile and
Minnesota four. yet the roads Of
these states receive but two cents n
mile on passenger business. The
Of ~
woald not hold water, he insisted.
Answering arguments snent the
figures submitted by the railroad
companies Rep. Peterman read let
ter from the chairman OF the Inter.
state Commerce Commission ex.
planning the methods through which
they were obtained and assuring him
that those submitted by Michigan
systems were correct He quoted
from the proceedings Of the Mime
sofa rate cases and from the SUI
preme courts decision In the West
Virginia rate case.
Representatives william +.
Jerome. OF Hiilsdale, Sigurd q. Mel
son, Of Ironwood; Meriey Wiley, Of
sauit Ste. Marie; Newell Smith. OF
81. Louis. and several others spoke
against the bill. while Rep. Empson.
Flowers, Sheridan, Ford, whiteley
and Griggs supported IL
The desire OF the members OF the
house to extend aid 70 the Pere-
Marquette was emphasized in many
spec hes and Receiver Paul King
Was landed In no uncertain terms
by many speakers.
Ths action OF fsbor unions In op-
posing the bill because OF the re-
fusal OF the Pere Marquette TO rein.
state men kept out Of work since
the strike was strong factor
against the bill
whether or not the reconsiders-
ton viii 60 through today IL uncer.
tain to say the least. Upper PENN
sula members. At first inclined TO
think well of the idea, experienced
a sudden charge OF heart last night
when the real purpose Of the move
to strike out the upper peninsula
section-was explained. u In believ.
cd that they win vote against recon.
sideration rather than see this sec.
ton stricken out Of the bill.
Failure Of the rate bill pressges a
bitter conflict between the roads
and the state. II Is authorita.
lively reported here. Several OF the
larger roads had. after the West
Virginia case was decided, with
drawn from the attempt 10 obtain
relief from the Legislature In the bc-