THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
Railroad Laws.---Debate in Continuation.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
FRIDAY, February 21, 1873[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 195.]
The SPEAKER announced the question on Mr. Woodard's motion to reconsider the vote of yesterday by which the bill [S. 6] considering the transportation of freight and passengers over Railroads within this State, etc., was laid on the table with notice of Mr. Branham's motion to take up the Railroad bill [S. 115.]
Mr. WILSON of Ripley. Mr. Speaker, I think that by this time every man on this floor must have recognized the fact, that this question is beset with difficulties. I am interested in this question just as any other citizen, excepting as to the pecuniary sense of the word. I want a bill that shall be just to all parties; and as I understand the provisions of the bill [S. 6] its operation will not be just to the Railroad companies. I read from the first section:
"For transporting any of the aforesaid articles a distance of more than twenty miles, and not more than fifty, miles, at a rate not exceeding seventy-five per cent, above the rates fixed and charged for transporting freight over the entire length of such railroad. For transporting the aforesaid articles a greater distance than fifty miles, at a rate not exceeding fifty per cent, above the rates fixed and charged for transporting freight over the entire length of such railroads."
For an illustration of the operation of this section, I will take the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad, because perhaps I am more familiar with that road. That railroad is three hundred miles long; and for their through freight they charge thirteen dollars per mile per car; and charging at that rate for a car from Delaware to Perrysville, it would be just twenty-six cents per mile. Add one hundred per cent, and it will be just fifty-two cents per mile. I presume this is a fair illustration of the workings of the bill on all the lines of railroad in the State: and every gentleman must grant that this would be exceedingly unjust to the railroad companies: for we must not forget that it does not cost them much more time and trouble to transport their shipments the whole length of their line than any shorter distance. Then considering the time for loading and discharging they would receive but about fourteen or fifteen cents a day per car, without any account of the labor and the expense of hauling.
I am confident that it is impossible to fix that kind of a tariff without doing the utmost injustice to the railroads, and at the same time it would be doing injustice to the shippers. And this is only one of the defects of the bill. There are similar defects all through it.
Let us now take up the Senate bill No. 115. I desire to call attention especially to the seventh section. It is this:
SEC. 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, mer- page: 526[View Page 526] chanize, property or freight on such railroad, as large or a larger or greater amount as toll or compensation, than is or shall be at the same time changes 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.
Now this section will obviate nearly all the harshness that has been pointed out in the other bill. Take the same railroad - the Ohio and Mississippi again for an illustration. The rate from Cincinnati to St. Louis was fifty dollars per car: and if this seventh section had been in operation it would have cost the shippers but just twenty-seven dollars per car for their shipments to any intermediate point between Cincinnati and St. Louis.
It seems to me that there is one section in the amendments of the House to the Senate bill No. 6, that should be inserted in the bill S. No. 115; that section is No. 9. It provides that the railroad companies shall furnish a car or cars to the same consignee on the demand of the shipper; and it requires the company to carry all kinds of freight-lumber, coal, grain, live stock, wood - everything that the shippers require. People complain about the railroads refusing to carry wood, and the Senate bill No. 115 would not compel them to carry wood; but this section 9, in connection with the provisions of section seven of the Senate bill No. 115, would compel them to carry cord-wood, making that article cheaper in the cities, and worth more all along the lines of all the railroads.
Now my suggestion is this: take Senate bill No. 115, as it stands now, (which I think is just in all its provisions except the proviso,) and insert this section nine, and so pass it back to the Senate for their concurrence. It may be hard to determine in some cases as to what is reasonable and right and just: but as a general thing the juries are not favorable to the railroad companies. I presume they are quite as hostile to them and as unwilling to do them justice as we are. They give verdicts for the very highest estimates of damages, and often the supreme court is compelled to reverse them. I think the only thing we can do is to compel them to carry all kinds of freight, and to move the same at reasonable rates: and then, if they charge more than the shippers can pay, or afford to pay, the courts can come in and compel them to reduce their rates and make them reasonable.
We can't afford to legislate so as to cripple these railroads. Then our power stops at the State line. They can charge what they pleas up to the State line and so make up the deficiency occasioned by our tariff, And besides there are a number of smaller roads and weaker companies that would be utterly ruined by the passage of bill No. 6. It seems to me, that no intelligent mind, at all familiar with the subject, can favor Senate bill No. 6, without he has a desire to injure the railroads and the people of the State. I hope, therefore, that this vote will be reconsidered, and that these two bills will be recommitted to the Judiciary Committee, or some other committee, with instructions to make the amendments that I have suggested to the bill 115.
Mr. MELLET. I must say that my conclusions are about the same with those of the gentleman from Ripley. This is a question in which the people feel an interest. Certain it is that abuses and wrongs have crept into our Railroad System; and the people are demanding redress; and they expect us to give it. This discussion must have disclosed these facts to every mind: and while it is important that the Railroad Tariff for passengers and freights should be as low as practible, still it does not become the State of Indiana to compare the railroad with a Chinese wall to keep out these abuses: therefore I shall not support any bill to rnanacle the Railroad which I think would be detrimental to the interests of the State.
I believe there are objections to the Senate bill No. 6 which it would be very difficult for us to surmount. You propose, in that bill to regulate the tariff of freight according to the through rates charged by the leading lines through the State. Now what would be the effect of that? I will call the attention of the House to the principle involved in this bill of regulating the tariff according to the standard of the through rates charged by the leading lines. The evil complained of is the work of the through lines - inflicted by the larger railroads. The gentlemen from Jefferson (Mr. Branham) referred the difficulty to the proper source: the larger companies opening their mouths and swallowing up the smaller ones. It is those companies that are coining the money, that are swallowing up the competing lines as fast as they are built. This is where the wrong lies. And the question is whether the Senate hill No. 6 will remove the difficulty: or whether it will not rather increase the hardships.
It has been stated by the gentleman from Jefferson that one of its effects will be to drive the great channels of trade outside of the State: they will go round the State either above or below. So we are in their power, so far as that is concerned. Another of its effects might be appreciated in these facts: The city of Indianapolis is a great and growing city, giving wealth to the State and developing her resources in every direction. Her well filled houses of trade are competing with those of other western cities - drawing trade from Cincinnati page: 527[View Page 527] meeting her more than half way. Then by passing this bill you would drive away the trade of this city, and embarrass the farmers all over the State - sending them to Cincinnati, and Chicago, and building up those places by the distruction of Indianapolis; and if its effects might be felt by the through lines it seems evident that its effect on them would be very slight. I think I know whereof I speak when I say that the money made by the railroads is not made by the local freight nor by the passenger travel. It is the through freight that builds them up. Whenever this is not the case the exception is extraordinary.
Then what will be the effect of the bill so far as the smaller roads are concerned? With the most of them their whole business depends upon the local freight and passenger travel: and the bill would cut them down to competition with the through lines, a thing which never can be and never could appear just. There are many railroads in the State located where the travel is meager and which are running but one passenger train and one freight train each way per day; and they are charging rates almost double those you propose to allow. The New Albany and Salem railroad is one of this class - one of the oldest and poorest of all our Railroads and you propose to make the charge with them the same as on the Pan-Handle,whilst one is coining money, and the other is loosing. It would build up the Pan-Handle and destroy the weaker and older road: and finally: it would make the most successful road a huge anaconda, which would swallow up all the neighboring railroads.
For example: the Pan-Handle road between here and Richmond runs three passenger cars each way per day. Each car averages fifty passengers; and you will allow them such rates as will make the receipts for each car three hundred dollars per day. Then if you take the New Albany and Salem with its single car, carrying perhaps one half the number of passengers which each one of the Pan-Handle cars will carry, the effect will be to take the trains off the road.
And the same argument would apply to every new road, with the exception proba- of the Vandalia road. While I would vote for a bill to compel such rates upon roads that are really paying upon the capital used in them I would be unwilling to destroy the roads whose very existence depends upon their present charges for the benefit of such a law.
There is yet another consideration. The Legislature a few years ago provided that the different counties might assist the railroad companies about the building of their lines within their county limits. My county has paid large sums of money for such roads. Some of them are completed and some are not. Many of them were built upon the idea that they would be paying roads, upon the charges they now make. The effect of this bill upon such roads as have been built upon that estimate would be to take off their cars; and the effect upon such as are not completed would be to prevent their construction. My county has one hundred and fifty thou-and dollars in such a projected road, and it is very doubtful whether it can be built under the present circumstances. But you think it would be a paying investment to iron and equip the road even if they could be allowed to charge the existing rates. If this bill were to pass it never would be built certainly. This is but a single example in our county: and the same may be said of several other counties wherein roads would be sunk - lost by this bill forever.
I think, sir, that the existing hardships under our Railroad System would be greatly relieved by affixing the House amendment, section ten, to the Senate bill No. 6, which provides that they shall furnish cars upon reasonable notice at reasonable rates, under reasonable circumstances for the shipment of all kinds of freight which it may be proper for them to ship. That can be done, without making your arbitrary rates of charges. While I believe the Senate bill No. 115 to be almost nugatory now, I think it could be amended so as to make it a very good bill. I think section three and its proviso, which will compel the Railroad, in case it is sued, and judgment is obtained for excess of charges over what they should be, would bring us to the solution of the difficulty, because it would not only compel the Railroads to pay the excess, but make them pay the cost of the suit and the attorneys fees. The gentleman from Wayne (Mr. Walker,) complains that no man who has but a small bill against a Railroad can afford to pay attorneys fees and spend his time in a law suit with them. And such, of course, is the fact. The Railroad has its attorneys paid by the year, and the suit costs them nothing. But make the company pay the charges of this kind if the judgment is recovered, and it seems to me that they would be careful about exacting extortionate charges from any person on their lines, and so very few provocations to have suits would arise.
And now believing that a bill which would be unobjectionable to the House could be made by embodying parts of the Senate bills 6 and 115, I move that the two bills be recommited to the Committee on the Judiciary: and that they report a new bill that will be satisfactory; and that they submit the report next Wednesday at ten o'clock.
Mr. WOODARD. It seems to me that we shall have to postpone this matter or page: 528[View Page 528] have no legislation on the subject. But I could inform gentlemen that it can't be long before we shall have as great a demand for legislation on this subject as we have had for legislation on the subject of Temperance. It's nothing but right that we should do something to repress these monopolies that are crushing out the rights and liberties of the people: and I even wonder why the Legislature has not discovered it long ago. But now, when we have a practicable bill, gentlemen are proposing to refer it and to change and destroy any legislation that would effect the railroads of the State : and they are telling you that injustice is likely to be done to the railroads of the State; and they are silent as to the injustice done to the people. The Senate bill No. 115 is virtually ineffectual. There is not a single penalty attached to it. We might do much better simply to send a memorial for justice to the Presidents and Directors of the Railroads. It would have a better effect. If we simply say they shan't charge extravagant rates, that they shall be reasonable etc., - who is to determine what is extravagant and what is reasonable? That would be the query, upon which we should have to appeal to the Railroad men themselves: and they would have to determine all such questions. I do not want to discriminate against any particular institution, but I do want the people to be protected against their hardships in this matter. But while we, in this State continue to be very tenacious about the rights of the railroads; in almost every other State they have laws restricting them: then why should not we do the same? [He made a statement of figures of his own, and from the report of a Congressional Committee charged with the in-investigation of this subject, to show what he himself had suffered from railroad exorbitances and that their rates from St. Louis, Louisville, etc., to New York are continually fluctuating; and he continued: Why can't the Railroads determine and fix what would be a fair charge for transportation, and not be continually putting the prices up and down? They certainly can determine as well as we can the cost of their labor, coal, wood, rolling stock, etc. I am willing they should have fair profits; but when they come to watering their stock and centralizing their power, then I am for the rights of the people.
I will say to the gentleman that they can't refer to a single case in the whole country where Legislation has done injustice to the Railroad companies. - If gentlemen hac suffered what I have suffered at the hand of the Railroads, they would realize that we ought to have some laws restricting them.
The SPEAKER. The motion of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Mellett) is not in order. The question is on the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Senate bill No. 6 was laid on the table.
Mr. BUSKIRK. Mr. Speaker. I hold in my hand a petition praying this Legislature to enact the Senate bill No. 6. It is signed by one hundred of the leading business men of Gibson county.Now it seems to me that, in approaching a question of this kind, we ought not to do it as advocates or partizans, but that we should approach in the spirit of fairness and candor, that we may be able to do justice to both sides,where there seems to be conflicting interests.
Now, I confess that in a matter of this kind no man can find himself entirely free from doubt as to what is just, or right or expedient - exactly. It seems to me that, in considering a question of this kind, we ought not to jump at conclusions, but take as careful survey of the facts about which we are to deal as possible, under the circumstances. I do not stand here as a friend or an enemy of Railroads. I stand here simply as a member of the Legislature of the State, intent upon doing what is right and just as between the people and the Railroad corporations. Now, by the vote of the House yesterday, we substituted the Senate bill No. 115 for the Senate bill No. 6, and the question before us is, shall we reconsider that vote? In order to determine that question we ought to consider the provisions of the Senate bill No. 115, and see whether they are capable, in the form in which the bill comes to us, of meeting the wants of the people. We find then, in this bill the requirement that the Railroads shall carry freight for reasonable rates. It does not prescribe what those rates are. It fixes no basis upon those rates, or their compensation is to be estimated. We find that tt provides no penalty worth anything to the people when this presumption may be neglected. Now if any legislation at all is needed, this bill certainly will not meet the case. When the people are asking for "bread" if we enact this bill for them, it would be but "giving them a stone." If this bill becomes a law, what practical end will it subserve?
It seems to me that it will do no good; that it is incapable in its present form or with the amendments suggested, of meeting any want of the people or of establishing justice between the people and the Railroad corporations. It seems to me, that notwithstanding any provision in this bill, the Railroads could fix for themselves their own rates of compensation and that the people would be utterly powerless: and if a man goes into a a law suit with a Railroad corporation upon an issue as to what they shall say is a reasonable rate of compensation for freight car- page: 529[View Page 529] ried, - I ask any gentleman to say what success there could be in that kind of a law suit? Do not the Railroads have the complete mastery of all questions in litigations of this kind? Certainly the shipper could not be redressed under this bill.
But it is proposed that, in a suit to recover for an overcharge for freight, it shall be provided that if the railroad lose, it shall pay the attorneys fees. It seems to me that would be a barren remedy. For in the first place, the determination of the suit would be uncertain: and then, simply to provide a law to enable the people to recover for exorbitant charges, without providing any basis upon which those charges can be determined, is putting into the hands of the people but a barren scepter. It seems to me that we might as well not legislate at all as to legislate in the direction of this Senate bill No. 115.
Now what is the Senate bill No. 6? and right here I must premise that all the provisions of Senate bill No 6, do not exactly suit me; and I do not suppose that a bill can be made which will exactly meet the requirements of every gentleman in this matter. It is a very difficult matter to legislate upon. The railroad corporations do a very extensive business; and in considering questions of this kind, we ought to know and remember the difficulties, and act as wisely as we can under all the circumstances. We ought to act as practical men - to do the best we can, even if we can't do as well as we might desire.
But is the Senate bill No. 6, in its present form or with amendments, capable of meeting the requirements of the people? It seems to me that this ought to be the bill upon which we should act, rather than the Senate bill No. 115. The Senate bill No. 6 provides (as one of its features) that the passenger charge shall be at the rate of three cents per mile. But now, ought we to regulate the passenger tariff at all ? ought we to prescribe any specific sum? If we can answer that in the affirmative, then we have here a basis to go upon. It seems to me that the passenger tariff ought to be regulated by legislation: and we find that it is regulated in some of the eastern States. In the eastern States the rates of travel on the railroads average about one half the rate here. About two and a half cents per mile seems to have paid well enough there. And it is a fact that legislation reducing fare to two and a half cents per mile did not seem to rob the eastern States of their capital. It may make them those Erie difficulties which the gentleman from Jefferson undertook to parley to us about yesterday. So it seems to me that we have this right to regulate the rates of travel on the railroads in the same way and for the same reason that we regulate tolls on the gravel roads - on account of their public character - and they receive benefits which they would not if they were mere private parties. Then, is that basis here - three cents a mile - the correct basis? It seems to me, from what knowledge I have of the matter, that three cents would be enough here, if two and a half cents were enough in the eastern States. We know that is as much as is charged in the western States where there is competition.
I do not propose to say much upon the subject of freight tariffs. It seems to me that the remarks submitted yesterday by the gentleman from Hancock (Mr. Offutt) and the gentleman from Wayne (Mr. Walker) illustrated the justice of providing rates of freight. As to the through freight, there is no necessity for regulating that, because there is competition: and it seems to me that the basis established in this bill is correct. There is no doubt, that, where there is no competition, the railroads do charge exorbitant rates.
And I will say that, in my opinion, the railroads here will all meet the demands of this bill, even if it is not exactly what it ought to be. It seems to me, sir, that in the language of this memorial from Gibson county, by enacting the Senate bill No. 6, you will be making the railroad legislation which is required in this State. Then let us enact some bill that will provide a remedy for the people against the exhorbitant charges of the Railroads where there is no competition to protect the people.
Mr. THAYER. Mr. Speaker: The Railroad question is one of vital importance to the people, and one which materially effects the prosperity of the State and should be maturely considered before we make a law to regulate it. The cry of Railroad monopolies high rates of freight etc., which come to us from almost every quarter assures us that legislation is necessary; but, it should be of such a character that while it would protect the people from the oppression of monopolies, it would also protect an interest, which we all recognize as one of the most important in the State and one to which we are more indebted than any other, for the rapid development of our resources.
A law that would cripple or retard this interest, which is now being pushed so thoroughly, extending its branches to our vast coal fields and to almost every accessible point necesssary for the convenient and rapid transportation of our agricultural products, would indeed be a disaster and a needless one. The Railroad interest and the interests of the people are identical; for neither can prosper without the aid and co-operation of the other. Laws made upon the basis or34 page: 530[View Page 530] theory that the railroad companies are the enemies of the people will inevitably result in a conflict between the two and should carefully be avoided.
It is true, that as railroad companies grow wealthy, they are apt to usurp power and become oppressive - and often manifest a disposition to disregard the enactments of so small an institution as a State Legislature - and it will be well to remind them that it is by the protection of law that they prosper, and they must submit to our laws if they would continue to prosper. Let us be sure that we make laws that are practicable and then we see that they are enforced.
I come now to consider the proposition before the House, viz: the reconsideration of Senate bill No. 6 - and I will say at the out set that I am opposed to this bill for two particular reasons:
First. That it is wholly impracticable.
Second. That if it should become a law, and could be enforced, it would result in great injury rather than benefit to the ship-ing interest of the State. I will now give you my reasons for my belief, as briefly and intelligently as I can.
There are two kinds of freight known to shippers - one is designated local tariff and the other is called through tariff. Local tariff is the price charged for shipping all classes of merchandise to local or intermediate points - usually short distances and generally small quantities - and the price does not fluctuate but remains the same throughout the year, and often many years without change; while through tariff is the price charged for transporting freight from one great commercial center to another or from a local or intermediate station to a through point or vice versa. Through tariff differs from local tariff in two ways: it is cheaper because the freight is usually carried a long distance and generally in car load quaniities. It also fluctuates often during the yearso much so that the price is quoted in our market reports the same as the price of grain, stock or merchandize. The weather, the amount of business, and competition, regulate the price of the through tariff.
Now, sir, the bill under consideration proposes to cheapen the local tariff by requiring railroad companies to regulate their local tariff by their through tariff, or, in other words, require them to carry local freight for the same rate per mile, as through freight with the addition of fifty to one hundred per cent. as per distance. This, of course, would subject the local tariff to the same changes or fluctuations as the through tariff, which would seem impracticable.
Again: suppose the railroad companies should establish a rate of freight to the State line sufficiently high to retain their existing schedules of local tariff. The result would be that it would not only defeat the intention of this bill, but, it would compel our shippers to pay the excessive charges to the State line, from which, if it should happen to be a competing point they would get lower rates, if not, they would have to pay local rates until they did reach a competing point; thereby sacrificing what I believe to be the true interest of the people, viz: the transportation of through freight.
The member from Jasper and Newton [Mr. Hatch] says the railroad companies in his district charge the price of two bushels of corn for transporting one to market. Admitting this to be true, what relief, I ask, would the people of Jasper and Newton find in Senate bill No. 6, even should their most sanguine expectations be realized and local freights be reduced one hundred per cent. Do the people of those counties find a market for their corn at the local points along the line of their railroads? if so, their resources are not as great as I supposed. I think if you should go to New York, Philadelphia, or Boston, or any of the great sea board markets of the country, you will see hundreds of cars laden with golden grain, bearing the unmistakeable impress of the counties of Jasper and Newton; consequently those counties want cheap through freights and this bill would afford them no relief.
Again; should this bill become a law, while it would not materially effect the great trunk lines that pass through our State it would bankrupt many of the local north and south roads, whose lines are wholly within our borders and who depend solely upon local freights and travel for their support. To illustrate, take the road from Indianapolis to Louisville, they charge for carrying one hundred barrels of flour the whole distance, one hundred miles, twenty-five dollars ; which would be twenty-five cents per mile for a car load. For a distance of ten miles - on the basis of the proposed bill they could only charge two dollars and a half with one hundred per cent, added, making five dollars for transporting one hundred barrels of flour a distance of ten miles, a portion of which would have to be paid for loading and unloading. You can readily see that this price would not pay expenses even.
Now what would be their remedy under the proposed bill to make the local freight pay, they would have to charge for the whole distance fifty or sixty dollars; which would be disastrous to the people of Indianapolis, while on the other hand if they retained the low through freight, the price of local freight on their line would bankrupt them The same may be said of most all the north and south roads in the State to a greater or less page: 531[View Page 531]degree, from the fact that under our Constitution we cannot classify the railroads, it I would be impossible to make a law on the basis of Senate bill No. 6, that would not do great injustice to some of the roads and the injustice will unavoidably fall upon roads that we would most desire to protect and assist.
I will call your attention to one or two more of the wise provisions of this bill. Commencing at line fourteen of section four, you find the following:
"Any station or freight agent of any railroad company at any station thereof in this State who shall fail to post up or keep posted up at his station such full, true, and accurate schedule as hereby required, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof, shall be fined twenty-five dollars for each and every offense, and in case of such failure to keep posted up such schedule at every station, each day of each failure shall be deemed and adjudged a separate offense."
As the schedule would have to be changed every time the through rates are changed - and the through rates are sometimes changed from three to five times per month, the agent would have to have pretty good wages or his fines would exceed his salary. The injustice and impracticability of this section are certainly apparent without further comment ; however, I will say that in my opinion it is fully par with the rest of the bill.
The member from Hancock [Mr. Offutt] has submitted an amendment which demands some attention. It is called section nine and provides as follows:"
Whenever one shipper or a company engaged in buying and shipping, etc , require a car or cars to be set on the side track, he shall pay five dollars per car for every day said car or cars shall remain there unused."
This provision would, in many cases, be hard and unjust to the shipper, and more, I believe than has ever been demanded by the railroad companias. All delays occuring under this provision would be put upon the way bill and collected with the freight without any trouble or expense whatever to the railroad company.
Another provision in the same section is as follows:
"If the railroad companies do not furnish said car or cars within a reasonable time they must pay ten dollars per car for each days delay thereafter."
Railroad companies should be held responsible for unreasonable delay in furnishing cars, but the amount should be regulated by the damage sustained, and not fixed at a mere nominal sum. Delays often occur where no damage is sustained and again where it will amount to hundreds or even thousands of dollars, the facts should determine the award.
I come now to consider the provisions of bill No. 115. This bill while it does not fully meet my views, is I think, the true basis of Legislation upon this subject, and with a few amendments will make a good law. It recognizes the fact that while we cannot classify the railroads of the State and establish a uniform rate to be charged for the transportation of freight, yet no railroad should be allowed to charge unreasonable rates, and in adjudging what a reasonable rate is, the kind of freight and the distance shall be taken into consideration. It provides that protests may be made and proven by parol evidence against paying an exorbitant price for transportation of any kind of goods or merchandize. It also provides that while railroad companies may regulate the prices charged for transporting through freight, they shall not establish those rates at the expense of the local or intermediate points along their lines. That is they shall not ship from competing points for a less rate of freight than from any other station of a less distance on the line of their roads.
This provision is a very important one and will be recived with great satisfaction by the shippers from local points throughout the state. It will give the intermediate or way station the advantage of the competition at the central points thereby making them good markets, build them up and develop the resources of the surrounding country. The rule has been (though of course, there are exceptions) to make the price of transportation very low from competing points, such as St. Louis, Chicago and Indianapolis, and very high from local points where there is no competition; thereby virtually compelling the persons who do not happen to live where they can market their grain at a competing point to pay a portion of the freight of their more fortunate neghbors; for illustration, I will say that from here to Louisville you can ship a barrel of flour for twenty-five cents, while from Edinburg, one half the distance, you will have to pay forty cents. This is an unjust discrimination and is enforced by railroad companies only at stations where there is no competition. Our bill will correct this evil by requiring the railroad companies to carry the freight from Edinburg and all other stations along their road as cheap as they do from Indianapolis, thereby making the local points just as good markets for their grain - so far as transportation is concerned - as Indianapolis, which I think, is as much as they should ask in this direction. Railroad companies should do this without compulsion, for it tends to develop the resources and increase the products for transportation where they have exclusive jurisdiction.
Again, section three of this bill require the railroad companies to carry our freight, when offered in car load quantities within a page: 532[View Page 532] reasonable time and upon their failure or refusal to do so they may be compelled to pay double amount of damages sustained by the delay. This is a wise provision and will be of great service to our shippers from local or intermediate stations, who are often compelled to hold their grain or other merchandise at great loss, for the railroad companies knowing that they have a sure thing of the freight at these places will always furnish cars first at points where there is competition, and they are likely to lose part of the freight if cars are not promptly on hand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have said about all I desire to upon that question. My conclusions are formed from long experience as a shipper and I believe the House - after due consideration - will agree with me that Senate bill No. 6, is not the kind of Legislation that the people demand at this time and that it should, therefore, not be reconsidered.
While with Senate bill 115 as a State law and some general legislation by Congress embracing the same principle so far as continuous lines are concerned, and preventing combinations and consolidations to the detriment of the people will I believe effectually protect the interest of the people throughout the country.
Mr. BRANHAM. Mr. Speaker. I do not rise for the purpose of making a speech, but for the purpose of making an explanation which I think is due to myself and the House, and that is this: I did not say one word about the Senate bill No. 6, till the friends of that bill wished to have the amendments engrossed Then believing its friends had perfected it as far as they desired - believing this I got the floor and moved to lay that bill on the table, in order to give the friends of the Senate bill No. 115 the privilege of perfecting that. But it seems that motion was misunderstood.
The thing I want to submit to the friends of the bill 115 is, that the Committee made their report on it so as to allow them to make it as nearly perfect as they can. Then it will be right and proper for the House to decide when we will take it up. I hope the gentleman from Park will withdraw the motion to reconsider the vote on my motion for the purpose of allowing us to take up the bill 115.
Mr. OFFUTT. It seems to me that the House should not pass an act that will prove a mere farce.
Mr. BRANHAM. It is not my purpose to discuss the merits of the bill; but I wish to say to the gentleman and to the House, that notwithstanding their denunciations of the bill 115, it has been examined by the ablest attorneys of the State not in the employ of the railroads. What I ask is, for the House to allow the friends of the bill 115 to have the same opportunity for its general consideration and amendment which the friends of the Senate bill No. 6 have had.
Mr. WALKER. I hope the gentleman from Parke will not withdraw his motion. The gentleman from Jefferson thinks that will afford no opportunity for the friends of the bill 115 to perfect. But the Railroad Committee are friendly to the bill 115; and they have considered it, perfected it, and presented it as their bill.
Mr. BRANHAM. But the House has not acted on their report.
Mr. WALKER. The gentleman misapprehends the condition of bill 115. Did not the Chair decide the amendment of the gentleman from Decatur [Mr. Miller] to be out of order, because that bill was not before the House? The gentleman has submitted his remarks in the premises, and the question on the motion to lay on the table is not debateable. I believe it would be the wisest thing the House can do now, to reconsider the vote of yesterday, and them recommit both these bills to the Committee on the Judiciary; and as a member of that Committee, I am willing to say to the House that they will give the subject their first consideration: and every section and every line ought to be examined carefully in the light of the Constitution and as to its effect on the people. I do believe, sir, that this discussion has done good. Many good suggestions have been submitted, which the Committee can weigh and consider. I think this reference would be practicable; and gentlemen cannot understand it as an effort to kill either bill.
Mr. BRANHAM. Have not a majority of that Committee already committed themselves to this bill and pronounced the bill 115 a mere collection of glittering generalities?
Mr. WALKER. If the interrogation were limited to the chairman of the Committee, I would answer it in the affirmative; but I qualified my remark by saying that section seven has merits. And I will say now, that, if it is the sense of the House to pass the bill 115, I will give it my support with some amendments. I am not materially wedded to the Senate bill No. 6. - The suggestions that have been submitted by the gentleman from Kosciusko [Mr. Thayer] will be duly considered by the committee; and some of the suggestions that came from the gentleman from Ripley will be remembered by all.
I will say again, that I am not unalterably opposed to Senate bill 115. I am willing to reconsider by own position ; and I think we all might be enabled to do so from what has been brought out in this discussion. I am free to admit that there is manifest inequity and inequality in some of the sections of the page: 533[View Page 533] Senate bill No. 6; and the House cannot expect the return of those sections in the bill with the sanction of the Committee.
Mr. BRANHAM. When can the gentleman agree to report the bill back?
Mr. WALKER. The first night we can get together will be Monday night. We can return it, I have no doubt, on Tuesday morning.
A VOICE. "That will be too soon."
Mr. KING. If the motion to recommit prevails, I hope the Railroad Committee will be joined with the Judiciary Committee on the consideration of these bills.
Mr. WALKER. I should be glad to be associated with that Committee. I would be very glad: and I now invite the co-operation of that Committee.
Mr. BRANHAM. Then I hope the House will agree to the motion.
Mr. OFFUTT. I am perfectly willing to vote for the suggestion.
Mr. MELLETT. The motion was to amend the motion to reconsider so as to make it a motion to refer both bills to the Judiciary Committee with instructions to report next Wednesday.
Mr. WALKER. I believe the matter ought to be in the hands of the Judiciary Committee. - The Railroad Committee to meet with us and we report on the bills.
Mr. KING. I move to make the two a joint committee for this work.
Mr. SMITH. I do not think it would be unfair to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee.Mr. KING. It seems to me, if the bill is to be recommitted, it should be referred to same Committee that reported it.
Mr. GIVAN. Mr Speaker, can you refer any matter to two Committees by the same action?
Mr. WALKER. My motion was to refer the matter to the Judiciary Committee - the Railroad Committee to meet with us.
The SPEAKER. That is the understanding of the House.
And accordingly, by unanimous consent, the two bills were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
