The Washington herald., 1915-01-21
This Bill Should Be Defeated.

need to emphasize this to the mind OF any observ-
ant man. Just in passing, however, let us remark
that the last STRAW" of this nature which has been
brought to public notice is the introduction into
the legislature of the State of New York of two
bills having for their practical purpose, each in
slightly different way the repeal of the full train
crew law which was enacted at the instigation of
William Sulzer, the blatherskite who was lately
elected from the Office Of governor Of the State
The law has proved oppressive and absolutely
needless burden the railroads of the State; and
the experience has been the same in other States
where similar law has prevailed There is little
doubt that the days of this law wherever it exists
arc numbered In one State, where it was referred
to the people, it Overwhelmingly defeated by
the labor vote
Nevertheless, there is one vainous anti-corpo-
ration crusade that still hangs on, and that is the
persecution of the anthracite railroad companies.
From the fact that anthracite has become some
thing of luxury, and that the ownership of the
anthracite mines-which are located, as every one
knows, in a comparatively small district in the
State Of Pcnnsylvania-has in the course of ma
ture become somewhat concentrated the idea is
perennial with a certain class OF people to attempt
to force the individuals who these mines to
sell the output thereof and to exhaust the mines
at price below the cost of production. There
it to be the proper thing to urge that the wages
of men employed in the mines shall be continually
increased and that the railroads who transport
hard coal to market shall receive only nominal
compensation for their services.
Up to the present the courts OF the country
have prevented the accomplishment of these de-
sires. Those who pressing the program of con-
fscation thought at time that they had fixed
upon method OF making their Rlan successful by
inserting clause which has since become known
as the commodities clause" in the interstate
commerce act which made it unlawful for a rail-
road 10 transport any articles commodities pro-
duced by such railroad company, except in so far
as these commodities designed for the
specific OF the railroad company itself But
the courts held that this did not prevent a railroad
company from Transporting coal in which it had
only an indirect or partial interest, which was
sold in good faith at the mouth OF the mine to a
separate company. 1t was admitted that often
times the individual stockholders OF the railroad
company and the company to which the coal was
sold at the mouth OF the mine were to some extent
the same
In the various litigations upon this question,
the government has contcnded, in substance that
no man had a right to be interested in two dif-
fcrcnt companies engaged in the same general line
of business; but the courts have uniformly held
that there was no warrant OF law for such conten-
tion. Now apparently, the foes of the railroads |
have set out to if they provide the warrant
OF law which has hitherto been lacking.
Accordingly a bill has been introduced by
Chairman AdamSon Of the House Committee on
Commerce, OF which the vital provision seems to |
be as follows:
he unlawful Tor any railroad subject to the act to
regulate commerce TO transport any articles or
thereafter manufactured, mined, or
Produced first by such railroad company or under
it's authority directly or indirectly. or, second by
any person. firm corporation subject TO its con-
troll or to whose control it is subject through !
stock ownership or otherwise, or third, by any
or association which has the same
shareholders members as IT has or
is otherwise subject to the same control This |
shall apply irrespective OF whether !
there is any relation direct or indirect. between
the railroad company and the articles COM
luoditcs at the time of transportation.
Other provisions of the bill ampliiy this prohi- !
bon in various ways, and it will at once be seen
bv those who take the trouble to read the bill
carefully that its purpose is prevent railroad
from carrying to anything but local
markets the product OF any industry located along
its lines in which, directly indirectly, not merely
the railroad company ITSELF but any large stock
holder in tho railroad company i, interested. In
nearly all instances, OF course, this would mcan in
practical effect that the products OF the industry
could not obtain any market at all Or, better TO
illustrate tho scope of the law, let the suPposit-
ious case be taken Of Mr.. George +. Baker, OF
New York City, and the Reading Railway Com
Dany. Let it be assumed that Mr.. Baker is both a
large holder in the Reading Railway Company and
a large or the sole owner OF timber tract on the
lines OF the Reading Railway Company. Under
the law as proposed it would be impossible for Mr..
Baker to move any OF the timber from his land to
a market that worth while. Neither would 1t
be possible for farmer in Nebraska whose lands
are fortunately located along the lines of railroad
to move his wheat to market if at the
same time he was a large stockholder in that rail-
road company
We do not know that we really warranted
in giving any space to discussion OF this matter,
because the immense probabilities that Mr..
monstrous proposition will never be
pressed to a vote in Congress. But nevertheless,
we think it is desirable to point out right at this
juncture that if there is such thing as uncon-
stitutonal statute the Adamson bill would be un
if it assumed the form OF law. 1t
has not yet come to such a pass in this country
that an individual who holds railroad stock in 4
genuine way, his unqualified personal property,