The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1917-02-09
FAIL In ATTMEPT
TO REOPEN TWO
CENT FARE ACT
Continued from Page One.

Magnuson, Martin, Maxwell, Miller.
Moen Of Trail, Mcdonnell, McManus,
Nathan. Minis o'Connors Of Pembina,
Olson of Cavalier, Olson OF Eddy, Pat
terson, Peterson Of Towner, Prater,
Guam, Renauld, Schrag, Stair, Strom.
Walton, Ward, Weld Of Kidder, Weld
Of Wells, Whipple, Wright, Varnum,
and the speaker.
O'Connor of Grand Forks, while not
entering into the debate, explained his
vote by declaring he, personally, had
been for a 2-cent passenger fare the
first eight years, and that he believed
the people of North Dakota were en-
titled to a 2-cent rate, just as well as
the people of Minnesota. He also
maintained that the reduced passenger
rates would not affect the states
chances Of obtaining better freight
rates.
Representative Mackoff. in opening
the debate. asserted that the bill
hadn't been given sufficient considera
ton when it was tabled yesterday. He
maintained that supreme court
decision quoted the day previous in
support of the contention that the bill
was unconstitutional, was not to the
point. 1t was raised in this state on
the present law relating to the ga
cent passenger fare, and affected only
the provision that sought to compel
railroads to issue 1000 mile books for
2 cents a mile. Such provision was
held discriminatory, but the main body
of the bill, reducing the passenger
fare, was not affected.
Mr.. Mackoff maintained that the
house members who had used. such
case, and misled the house.
Representative HendrickSon said
that he had been accused Of making a
misstatement of fact when the rail-
day previous, he had declared the rail-
roads operating within this state
would be held to come within the 81,
200 a mile earning class. The bill
provides that railroads shall be per-
mitted to charge only cents a mile
when their earnings are $1,000 mile
per year.
The speaker quoted from a report
by the state rate expert, showing 500
earnings at $3.50; N. p. earnings at
$1.675; g. N. earnings at $1,567 mile
per year. He said, too, that in figur-
ing passenger receipts. all incomes
derived from passenger trains was in
cluded, thus embracing mails, express,
etc.
Mr.. Leiderbach, of Dunn county,
took up the question of freight rates.
by asserting that present laws didn't
give the rail commission power to-
regulate freight rates-or, at least,
that the commission didn't regulate
them.
Representative Tenneson, of Cass
county, maintained that it wasn't fair
to penalize the people of the state for
the reason that had been advanced by
an opponent Of the bill a day earlier,
that the bill was being killed because
the sponsor had declared he Slipped
one over" At that point, Hendrickson
stated to the house that he did not
make the statement that had been
credited to him.
Mr.. Tenneson contended for the
lower rate as benefit to all the peo-
pie.
Representative Patterson supported
the indefinite postponement of the bill
by quoting from the Moody analysis
of statistics of steam railroads, point
ing out that the earnings of railroads
were small on passenger receipts.
Representative Stair believed that
III. b. No. 72-the rate bill-was intro
duced to play into the hands Of the
and not to help the peo-
pie.
Representative Diyet, citing the fact
that a traveller leaving Moorhead, and
going 200 miles east, pays 81 fare.
while IL he boards a train at Fargo
and travels 200 miles west, he pays SIS,
commended this state was entitled to
the same rate as Minnesota.
Mr.. Divet also believed the method
OF killing the bill unwise and unfair.
IL was at this point that he entered
upon q discussion Of what he termed
general comment, to the effect that the
Nonpartisan league had an alliance
with the railroads that would serve TO-
exempt the railroads from detrimental