Year: 1874

upon the real question at issue.


CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL OF RAILWAY


TRANSPORTATION.


have purposely passed over other
questions hastily, in order to discuss with
more fullness the important question of
transportation, a question which [ think
demands careful and dispassionate con-
sideration and discussion at this time. [
am no enemy of railroads or of railroad
men. [ recognize and appreciate fully
the great service which these arteries of
commerce have rendered in the develope-
ment, progress and growth of our great
country and especially of the great West.
| would do justice towards railroad cor
porations, recognizing and protecting all
their rights. But | would remember al
so the rights of the people and that these
great corporations should be servants and
not masters of the people Both parties
claim to be in favor of so controlling and
regulating railroad transportation as to
relieve the people from the oppression
and injustice of which they complain. As
we have already seen, the Republican
party proposes to invoke both state and
national legislation-each within its an
propriate sphere. That is to say. the
Republican party proposes to control and
regulate such transportation as is exclu-
sively within the limits of the state, by
state law, and to regulate interstate COM
merce by national law As we have also
seen, our opponents have presented a
platform which is quite as much upon the
one side as upon the other; but when it
is read in the light of the known fact that
a vast majority of its supporters are OPP
posed upon constitutional grounds to con-
gressional legislation, we may fairly claim
that they mean to place themselves in op-
position to all such legislation except as it
may be applied to railroads in the Terri
tories and in the District of Columbia.
Indeed, we are not left in doubt upon
this point, for it is settled by the platform
of the same party last year. In that
platform they expressed to us what they
mean when they say constitutional and
necessary legislation both state and nation
a" | turn to the platform of this same
party, adopted in 1873, and read as
follows:


That all corporations are subject to legislative
control; that those created by Congress should
be restricted and controlled by Congress, and
those under state laws should be subject to the
control respectively of the states creating them.


Here is a definition furnished by our
opponents themselves of what they be-
lieve Congress should do 1t should con-
troll such railroad corporations as have
been ''created by Congress" and when it
is suggested that Congress has never
chartered railroad in any of the states,
it will be seen that this doctrine is a prac-
tical denial of all power in Congress. Our
opponents then would have us rely exclu-
sively upon state legislation. Such is the
inevitable conclusion to be drawn from
their platforms. Is the Republican party
right in demanding national as we'll as
state legislation? Let us see. | assert
that state control of interstate commerce
is both


lhIhAIllS+ADIIE AMI L..


To show that it is impracticable, let a
few facts be stated. The policy of our
opponents is to attempt the control of all
the railroads in the country with the ex-
ception of lines chartered by Congress in
the territories and in the District of Col
umbia) by state laws alone. This is all
the remedy which this new party can
offer you. Is it sufficient? ? Is it all you
want? Are you satisfied with it? Let us
see. A single railroad corporation owns
line of railroad running from the Missou-
ri river to the city of Boston. 1t may
not be called by one name throughout the
route but it is practically one continuous
connected line, over the whole route. and
under the management of one corporation.
1t passes through the States of Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New
York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Or
perhaps it is line running north and
south, say from St Paul to New Orleans,
which you wish to control This latter
would probably pass through the states of
Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee,
Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. How
can the charges of such railroads be regu-
lated by state legislation Are we to have
one rate in one state and another rate in
another? Here would be inequality and
discrimination, the very things we are
fighting against. Does anybody suppose
that ten or a dozen states can unite and
all pass precisely the same statute upon
the subject? If you rely upon this your
disappointment is certain. What shall
be done if one or more states along this
line should pass no law at all? In such a
case the charge for passing over the terri
tory of such state or states could be in
creased, and the courts of other states
could not punish for it. Besides, which
of the ten states over which a cargo of
freight has been carried shall have iuris-
diction to inquire whether there has been
an overcharge for the whole trip?


How can the law of any State have
any extra territorial operation or force
Can the railroad company be sued in each
one of the ten States through which it
passes, and if not, in which If the pen
alties are greater in one State than in an
other, to which penalty shall the company
be subjected? 3? And if a penalty has been
recovered in one State will that bar all
action in other States If one State fixes
one rate of charges as the maximum and
another State fixes different rate, which
shall be the rate charged on through
freights ? In such case would not obedi.
ence to the law of one State be the viola
ton of the law of the other? These diff
ticulties in the way of controlling railroads
and regulating their charges by State law
alone are simply insurmountable.


Now let it be remembered that it is the
oppressive charges of railroads for carry
ing the produce of this western country
to an eastern market that we complain of,
and propose to find remedy for, and let
it also be remembered that not one of the
great tines Of transportation, ocer ,ohich
oar immense products must be carried to
market, IS chartered or created 6y Con-
gresS, and where, according to this Anti
Monopoly platform ESQ misnamed), can
you find this remedy? That the State
can control railroads within its limits is
not doubted, and that it ought to do so is
equally clear, but when you propose by
an act of the Legislature of Iowa to regu-
late charges upon line of railroad ex-
tending 1000 or 1900 miles beyond the
limits of the State, you propose more
than you can perform-you make pro-
misses only to break them.


But State law intended to operate
,1non ;ptar cfofo oomn,oroo 20 ,,nooo,t;t,,