THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Railroad Laws.---Debate in Continuation.
THURSDAY February 20, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 191, 192.]
Pending the consideration of the bill [S. 6.] concerning the transportation of freight and passengers over Railroads within this State, repealing, etc., as the first special order in connection with the bill [S. 115] to prevent extortionate charges for, and unjust discriminations in, the transportation of freight by railroad companies and other common carriers, and to provide remedy when such extortions are practiced, etc.
Mr. MILLER proposed to amend the bill S. No. 6, by striking out and inserting certain sections of the Senate bill No. 115.
The SPEAKER called the gentleman's attention to rule sixty-four. The Chair cannot entertain the motion, because the Senate bill No. 115 is also before the House.
Mr. BRANHAM could not so understand the rule sixty-four, and, more for the purpose of making a speech than for testing the soundness of the ruling, he moved to amend the pending bill S. No. 6, by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting the matter of the bill's. No. 115. He said: Mr. Speaker, there is no question to come before us that is to have a deeper effect on the people of Indiana than the one now before the House. I know not how far the railroad system has contributed to our advancement; and that advancement is what we want; and we do not seem to, and perhaps we ought not to, care what it costs.
But before I go any further, as a friend of the railroads, I will say that I have paid my individual fare on every railroad I have traveled over for the year that is past. - And now I desire to ask this House to reflect as to what they propose to do ? and especially to ask themselves whether in remedying one evil they will not make a greater one? I am as willing as any man to go as far as we legally can go to remedy the evils we complain of.
Mr. Speaker: You start out with Senate bill 6, with an arbitrary rate for every railroad in the State - a thing that will crush out the poor railroads, and build up the big ones. Assuredly it must be evident to every man, that some of the railroads can live and make money at a rate of charges that others can not. Is it the desire of the House that no more railroads shall be built in Indiana? If you fix arbitrary rates for these roads, as the prices in Senate bill No. 6, you might as well provide that no more money shall come into the State for the construction of new roads. You could no more effectually drive railroad capital out of the State, than by the passage of that bill.
There is the New Albany and Chicago railroad, and the Evansville and Crawfordsville railroad - they can't pretend to carry freights at the same rates, that can be afforded by the older and stronger railroads. Now in fixing the rates of freights, how are you page: 520[View Page 520] to come at the true principle? I say the principle embodied in Senate bill 115, is the only one you can adopt.
If the Constitution of the State would allow us to classify the roads, we could reach it. But we cannot do that. You have got to fix the rates all alike. I know that some of our railroads have never paid their stockholders anything: yet have not the regions of country through which their lines run realized a great benefit from them?
Now what is the provisions of this Senate bill? It is that the rate over each road shall be fixed by the circumstances surrounding it - looking at, and considering the amount of business done by each road. I know that the Senate bill proposes to fix the rates by the charges for through freight between here and New York. It proposes to fix the rates in one of two ways. But what does it base its rate of charges upon, when it says, you shall not charge over one hundred per cent, more for transportations twenty miles, than for the whole distance? Do you mean you shall charge for hauling twenty miles at the same rate per mile, as for the whole length of the road within the State? or at the same rate per mile that you charge to New York? and how can you fix the rates of freight in this State by that rule, while the rates of freight to New York and the eastern cities are continually fluctuating? I say sir, if you want to make Indiana a desert as to railroads adopt this bill.
Suppose you compel them to put up their charges on their through freight? There are two meanings to what is expressed here by through freight. One means the freight through to New York and Boston, and the other means the carrying of freight over the length of their lines in the State of Indiana. Now the Committee on Railroads proposes in the Senate bill No. 115 to understand by through freight, that which is carried within the State of Indiana, and then it provides that no greater sum shall be charged for a portion of the distance than for the whole distance. You have got to adopt the same rule.
In addition to that, the Senate bill No. 115 proposes to leave the question as to what is reasonable with reference to damages, to the jury that may hear the case. What are the difficulties about which we complain ? There are two. One is, the railroads charge extravagantly over portions of their road - and more even than over their entire line. And another is, they exclude some classes of freight. Now Senate bill No. 115, compels these men to operate and to be liable as common carriers. I don't believe that the railroads holding special charters are beyond our reach. I don't believe that it is in the power of the State to part with a single particle of her sovereign power. I believe that the State has within itself the right to revoke every grant she has ever made by paying the resulting damages. Can she not then make any arrangement she pleases that will relieve this difficulty? This bill 115 provides that the freight shall be moved in the order of its shipment: and if the company refuse to move it, it shall be amenable for the damages - and the question of damages is left for the jury to settle along the lines where such movements are denied or delayed.
Then this bill proposes to limit the charges - that in no case shall it be greater than over the whole line. And at the same time when unreasonable charges are made the courts are open, and parties can make their complaints and pleadings. But gentlemen say that this will be opening wide the door for interminable law suits. I do not believe it. Now I want gentlemen to look at this matter; and not from any prejudiced standpoint, but in the interest of the people. What ought we to do in regard to this matter? How are we to be just to the roads and to the shippers, the people? Do you want to drive the roads out of the State? certainly not. The State of Indiana has got three or four trunk railroads that can live. I suppose they could live by through business alone. But pass this bill No. 6, and what would be the result to the State of Indiana? These established railroads have but to come to Cincinnati and cross the Ohio bridge, and they can pass westward by the southern State routes, and never touch our borders: or they can take the northern lines, and do the same thing, only running through Indiana twelve or fifteen miles.
Where then is the wisdom that would say to the people of Indiana who have capital invested in railroads; You shall not have any share in this through freight business? I say to you, sir, that you are as powerless to control the rates of through freight charged by the railroads as you are to control the waves of the ocean. Then you want to protect shippers from exhorbitant charges and leave to the road a fair per cent of their earnings. That is what the bill 115 does. But the other bill No. 6, will not ouly cripple all the new and weaker roads of the State, but it will effectually suspend the building of another mile of railroad. But that is not all, nor the worst. The State of Indiana has much undeveloped wealth. It has always been with us, but not generally known till lately, though I have been long acquainted with it. And why is this wealth yet undeveloped? It is because the lines of railroads have not reached it: and unless the people are helped to reach it, it will remain without utility till doomsday. We have page: 521[View Page 521]coal and iron enough to supply the world indefinitely as to time. Is it any body's business to stay the hand of progress that would reach these shores of wealth ? No it cannot be. Then let us foster these great interests, instead of restraining them. Let us inflict no serious injury on the capital we have already invested.
I know that the time has been that these railroads have made immense amounts of money: and the producers of the country have also made money, and I know that the prices of produce have gone down. But if you shut out these competing lines what will be the result? Your lands may be rich, and your produce may be abundant; but what will it be worth to you ? I know of cases where they have all winter long burnt their corn, because it was cheaper than cord-wood. Then we want that which will cheapen transportation to the people. But let us ask ourselves this question : Will it be right for us to say to these vandal railroads, You shall carry your neighborhood passengers and local freight at the same rate that you establish for carrying your passengers and freight over thousands of miles ? I will venture the assertion here, that, notwithstanding the fact that the owners and managers of these roads make immense fortunes, the people of Indiana in the mean time have actually made more money than they. I will not be understood by these remarks as justifying the unjust discriminations and extortions of these roads. I say they should be corrected. But I say the Senate bill No. 6, is impracticable, because, while it would paralize some of the roads, others would avoid its provisions and proceed without injury. I know some of them have made reductions of over fifteen per cent in their freight charges.
And this bill, proposes that whatever rates they may make for their through carriage, for the whole length of their lines, in no case shall their local rates exceed their through rates. But their rates from New York are arbitrary and fluctuating. And suppose you say they shall make that the gage of their local rates ? What would be the result ? Every pound of their freight will be left at the State line; and there will be a local rate established over the State of Indiana and what does this bill No. 115 propose? It simply proposes that they shall not charge more to the nearer than to the fartherst point in the State. Now, take the Evansviile and our local State roads, and suppose you say they shall charge a certain rate per mile. Then those established routes will stop at the Indiana line, and the Ohio and Mississippi road will receive their carriages and the local rates established for this State. So it will not be in the power of legislation here to afford the remedy.
But take the bill No. 115, and I know that is more practical. And what I know about railroading I learned by taking a pick and shovel, and working my way up through all the gradations to the last round in the ladder of railroad promotion. And I can take the provision for the idleness of cars in the bill No. 6, and make railroading pay without operating at all. Three dollars a day for each car will pay well enough, and you may switch them all aside and make money. But your bill proposes to make it five dollars. But the Senate bill which the Railroad Committee here have recommended provides that they shall move their freight in the order of the shipments, and the jury shall find the damages for delays. And ten dollars a day as your bill provides, will not he enough sometimes. I may self have lost hundreds of dollars a day by these delays, when perhaps, the roads have not been at all to blame.
It is the unanimous opinion of the Railroad Committee that we will go as far as we ought to go by adopting the provisions of the Senate No. 115: for they found that the more they examined the subject the more difficult it becomes.
The SPEAKER. The Chair understands the motion to be to amend the bill by striking out all after the enacting clause, and inserting the provisions of the Senate bill No. 115. That motion is not in order.
Mr. BRANHAM. Then I move to lay on the table the bill No. 6, for the purpose of taking up the Senate bill No. 115.
The motion was agreed to - yeas 51, nays 21.
Mr. WOODARD. I move to reconsider the vote just taken.
Mr. OFFUTT. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Branhan) has been permitted when there was nothing before the House calling for a debate, to make an elaborate argument in favor of railroad corporations and monopolie generally, perhaps I will be excused, now that there is something before the House, for saying a word in behaif of the people, in whom the sovereign power of this and every other State is lodged. Sir, if I thought the desolation and ruin which has been so vividly and forcibly pictured here by the gentleman fron Jefferson (Mr. Branham), would be entailed upon the people of Indiana, in consequence of the passage of Senate bill No. 6, I certainly would vote against it. If I could conceive that the effect of the passage of the bill would be to drive capital from the State, or prevent its coming into the State, as contended by the gentleman from Jefferson, I could not conscientiously support the bill. But sir, this dread about driving capital out of the State is not a new song for the gentleman from Jefferson. I have page: 522[View Page 522] heard him sing it before. True, it has been set to new music, but still it is the same old song. It was but yesterday we heard it said on this floor that if the bill introduced by the gentleman from Marion (Mr. Kimball) in relation to the record of legal instruments should fail to pass, it would have the effect to drive capital out of the State, and yet the bill did fail to pass, and so far as can be observed capital has remained statu quo.
Again Mr. Speaker, it was said by the gentleman from Jefferson that if Senate bill No. 6 becomes a law then railroad companies will increase the rates of transportation on through freights. Now I undertake to say that there is and will be no trouble as to the rates of through freight where there is competition. But when you get away from competition, when you leave railroad centers you will find that these monopolies, lay their hands heavily upon the people, and compel them to pay unjust and exhorbitant rates for shipping. It is the tariff on local freights that require the restraints of law, and in voting upon this question I hope the House will keep in view the wants and needs of the people who live at intermediate or way stations. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Jefferson informed us in the opening of his remarks, that he had paid his fair on every railroad in the State over which he had traveled for the last year. Does the gentleman mean to insinuate that because forsooth, some railroad company may have given some member of this House a pass over their road, that therefore he is under obligation to them with this measure. The gentleman may so insinuate if he pleases, but I should hesitate long before placing such an estimate upon any gentleman upon this floor.
Mr. BRANHAM, here interupted and said: Mr. Speaker, it has been charged that I am the special friend of railroads and that I ride free over all of them. I made the remark to rebut that.
Mr. OFFUTT. Mr. Speaker, I never heard that charge made against the gentleman: neither do I make it now. I impugn no man's motives; I leave it to the House to determine from the gentleman's own conduct in reference to this measure, whether he is the champion of railroads or not.
I desire now Mr. Speaker, to say a few words in reference to Senate bill No. 115. It is but natural that the gentleman from Jefferson should think that this bill contains all the freight regulations that can be wisely incorporated into a law upon this subject. He is the father of this article.
Mr. BRANHAM. No, sir, I am not the father of the bill.
Mr. OFFUTT. Well, you may not be its natural parent, but you adopted it into your family at a tender age, and you are now watching over it with a fatherly care. [Laughter.] Mr. Speaker, I hope the members of this House have carefully read and considered the provisions of this favorite measure of the gentleman from Jefferson. I have given it some attention, and now undertake to say that there is not a single section of the bill that is worth any more than the paper on which it is written. Substantially the bill is this:
That railroad companies shall charge reasonable rates of fare and reasonable tariff on freights.
But it does not pretend to determine what is reasonable. Thus you see it leaves the matter just where it finds it - in the hands of the railroads.
It is claimed that section seven regulates the question of freights and great stress was laid upon the virtue and efficacy of that section by the gentleman from Jefferson, as though it was the "panacea for all ills." Gentlemen "lend your ears,"and listen to the peculiar wording of that section, and then determine for yourselves whether upon any fair construction it can afford any relief whatever to the people of Indiana. It reads:
Section 7. It shall not be lawful for any railroad company or its agents, or for any person or officer operating or managing a railroad situated within this State to charge or collect for the transportation of goods, merchandise, property, or freights on such railroad as large or a larger or a grealer amount as toll or compensation than is or shall be at the same time charged or collected for the transportation of like quantities of the same class of goods, merchandise, property or freight over a greater distance upon the same road.
Mr. Speaker, if this is what we are to rely upon for relief from railroad extortions, I hope the gentleman from Jefferson will explain its meaning.
Mr. BRANHAM: I will take the road from Indianapolis to Richmond for an illustration. I take the latter place because Richmond is a competing point. Then Knightstown, between here and Richmond is not a competing point. And the provision is that they can't charge any more for freight from here to Knightstown than they can charge for the same freight from here to Richmond.
Mr. OFFUTT: I am always glad to agree with my friend from Jefferson, when I can, and I am pleased to see that he gives the section an honest construction; and according to his own construction it permits railroad, companies to discriminate as heavily against local freights as they possibly can now. Now, the bill, says according to the construction of the gentleman from Jefferson, and I except it as the proper construction - that you must not charge for a car page: 523[View Page 523] load of freight to Knightstown more than you charge for the same freight to Richmond. The distance from this city to Richmond is sixty-nine miles; to Knighlstown is thirty-three miles. Then under this bill you may charge for moving a car thirty-three miles as much as for moving it sixty-nine miles. I go farther. Mr. Speaker, I contend that under this section of this bill a railroad company may charge within one cent as much for carrying freight one mile that they do for carrying it one hundred miles, if they please to do so. In short, sir, it leaves the whole matter as effectually in the hands of the roads as it is now. It regulates nothing and in my judgment is simply a lame attempt at "white-washing" this question over in the interest of railroad corporations.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to Senate bill No. 115, and hope the motion of the gentleman from Park to reconsider the vote laying Senate bill No. 6 on the table may prevail, and that bill passed the House. And in this connection, I desire to call attention to a provision of Senate bill No. 6, which is not in Senate bill No. 115. I regard it as a very important provision and one that will meet with the approval of a large and respectable portion of the people of the State. I refer to section nine. That section provides that railroad companies shall carry all kinds of freights, and prohibits them from discriminating in favor of one class of freights to the detriment of another. In a word, sir; it compels them to transport all kinds of freight, and it further provides that railroad companies shall furnish within a reasonable time the means of transportation. I don't know what trouble shippers may have in other parts of the State, but in the county I have the honor to represent shippers find it difficult indeed to get cars to transport their stock and grain to market. Now the gentleman from Jefferson contends that railroad companies are not responsible for this. I think they are, and I think further that we have a clear right to regulate this matter and that we ought to do so. For example Mr. Speaker, suppose a man living on the line of one of the roads leading into this city is engaged in buying and shipping live stock and has on hands ten thousand dollars worth of hogs, and hogs are worth here eight hundred dollars per hundred and that owing to the failure of the railroad company to furnish him the means of transportation he is unable to get his hogs to the market for two or three weeks and that in the meantime the price goes down one half, the result is the man is ruined financially, and who, I inquire is responsible for it? Why, clearly the railroad company. Now, Mr. Speaker I have said all I desire to say at this time on this subject I think the impositions now being practiced upon the people of the State by the railroad corporations are very apparant. The people everywhere are calling upon us for relief and I do hope this House may not adjourn without passing this bill, [Senate bill No. 6,] which in my judgment is the only one now before the House that will give the people of the State any substantial relief.
Mr. WALKER. This is a question of no ordinary importance. I do not desire to attack the motives of anybody. I do not intend to pursue any class of men with a vindictive spirit. I wish to legislate with equal and exact justice to all. I know very well that the railroads have enhanced the blessings of the country. And therefore we ought not to cry out against the thunder, when we know that along with the thunder come the blessings of the rain. My objection to the Senate bill No. 115 is, that there is no provision at all in it for the regulation of rates of travel. Did the House consider that when it voted to lay Senate bill No. 6 on the table you leave out that altogether? But the Senate bill No. 6 fixes that.
Now I believe without any disrespect to the author of this bill [S. No. 115, that it is glittering all over with generalities. Now, sir, suppose you had been imposed upon by railroads - had suffered from their discriminations and extravagant charges - and suppose you direct this first section of this bill at them :
"Be it enacted, etc., That is is hereby declared to be the duty of every railroad company, and every other common carrier engaged in the transportation of freight for hire, to transport along and over its line of travel, and between way stations on said line all kinds of freight which such company or carrier has been or may be accustomed to carry on or over any part of said line, and which may be offered for transportation at, and for reasonable rates or compensation; and in estimating what compensation or rates shall be considered reasonable, the distance over which the freight shall be carried, and the nature of the articles or commodities carried, shall be taken into consideration."
A delightful lecture it is to the railroad companies - a declaration as to what is their duty! and what does that amount to? I do not believe that it will reflect any credit on my judgment to vote for this bill, nor that it can have any other effect, unless it might serve to raise a hugh and cry amongst some people, that we have done something frightful. I fully agree with the gentleman from Hancock [Mr. offutt,] as he presents this question, especially as to what will be the effect under the provisions of section 7 of this bill. It will be this: If any railroad company may charge fifty dollars a car from Richmond to Indianapolis, the same or any other company may charge forty-nine dollars ninety-nine cents for moving a car ten page: 524[View Page 524] miles or any other number of miles of that distance!
Mr. BRANHAM. If the gentleman were on a jury how would he decide that question of right?
Mr. WALKER. What does it amount to, to give an individual the empty right of action to any party who has perhaps not more than twenty dollars involved in the question ? Where is the wisdom of going to law against a railroad company which pays five thousand dollars a year to its lawyer, by a man who has a claim of only a few dollars against it? He has a right to recover, but his claim will never or very rarely exceed the price he has to pay his attorney. The right of action amounts to just nothing. Heretofore they have charged us more for carrying half way to Indianapolis, than for carrying all the way. But under this bill they may charge for carrying to Centerville within one cent of what they charge for carrying to this city.
But as to competition; what does this competition amount to in Indiana? We tried that in Wayne county, in building the Fort Wayne road. Before the iron was laid along come the Pan-Handle and leased the road, and so held the monopoly. These solid companies, like Aaron's rod swallow up all the rest; and you have no competition on which to rely. There is no other road for us except the New York Central; and whenever it is necessary they combine and fix the rate of travel, and you are powerless. So you can't rely upon competition, for they take away competition by leasing the roads built by the taxation of the people. Now what can we do ? Nothing, but to attempt to compel the company to make their charges for freights and passengers as equitable as we can. That is all that is left to us; and that I believe is provided under section one of the bill No. 6.
Now, sir, I believe, even if this is wrong, it is better to let this thing crystalize into law - let it receive judicial interpretation - let us have two years in which this thing may settle down into practice, - and at the end of that time we may have a great deal more light than we have now. And, in the mean time, is it not better for this Legislature to whistle down the breakes now? Let us pass this bill now, and look to some future Legislature for relief, if we are wrong. We desire to save the people of the State, and save them now. But this Senate bill number 115 amounts to nothing more than the paper upon which it is written. But as to this section one of that bill I would like to take it and perhaps another section and embody it as an amendment of Senate bill No. 6, for it is probable with all our lines of railroad, that they will charge a greater rate for the shorter than they ought to charge for the longer distance. And at the end of section one of Senate bill No. 6, I should prefer to cut out the lines twenty-three to twenty-five; then the virtue of the bill if it has virtue will be in that proposition. But I must say again, that, according to my judgment, our action will result in nothing but glittering generalities if we pass the Senate bill No. 115. The people will find themselves remedyless. I do hope the House will reconsider its action.
Mr. SHIRLEY. I hope the house will reconsider this vote, and amend the Senate bill No. 6. Let us pass that, and have its workings for two years.
Mr. COWGILL. If it should be right to pass the bill No. 6, I hope it will be passed: but I fear that the reasonings in its favor are not much to be relied on. I want to call attention to section seventh of the bill [S. No. 115.] I think gentlemen might see that they are mistaken in regard to this section. They take the road from Indianapolis to Richmond and Centerville is on that road six miles from Richmond. Now the provission of section seven is that the railroad company shall not charge a greater rate of freight from Centerville to Richmond or from Knightstown to Richmond than from Indianapolis to Richmond. And I would like to know if this word "reasonable" does not occur also in the bill S. No. 6? In the bill No. 115 it is provided that whenever any exhorbitant or unreasonable charge has been made and collected, it can be recovered back. It is true, the very material question as to what is "reasonable" arises, and has to be decided; but that question is no more inevitable under the operation of this bill than under the other. I think the bill No. 115 does what is just and fair between shippers and railroads; and that at least it is much more fair and equal in its provisons than the bill No. 6. The argument of the gentleman from Jefferson (Mr. Branham) has not been answered, and cannot be answered and there are several provisions in the bill No. 6 that are unreasonable and unjust.
[Then the subject was passed over by the adjournment.]
