are to double or quadruple the revenues of the railroads of this country, and competition ceases to be a regulator at all.

I am entirely willing to admit that competition has, to a large extent, failed, but we, I think, are not yet ready to legislate here that there shall be no competition at all between the great railroads of this country. Certainly we can not afford to do that unless we go a step further and provide what shall be the rate upon all freights shipped from the West to the East. If the Government is ready to come to the point of fixing the rate upon a bushel of grain from Kansas or Nebraska or Dakota to New York, if it is willing to fix it from every intermediate point, then it may dispense with competition at once and wipe it out. Perhaps we may arrive at a time before long when we may know enough of transportation, when we may understand this problem well enough, to do that; but up to the present time competition has worked great benefits to portions of our country. It undoubtedly has, in many instances, worked injustice to individuals and to particular localities, and the committee thought they were going as far as it was safe to go in making the provision found in section 4.

Mr. President, there is nothing in that section--and I submit it to the candid judgment of the whole Senate-which by any inference gives a railroad company a right to charge five or ten times as much for carrying a bushel of grain 1,000 miles as it charges for carrying it 2,000 miles. There is no such inference to be found in the section. This bill simply proposes to say in regard to the short and long haul that the provision shall apply to each initial starting-point. It undertakes to say that if a certain rate is made from Chicago to New York, it shall not be more from Chicago to Pittsburgh than it is to New York over that line; or if a rate is made from Chicago to New York over the Lake Shore and New York Central, that the charge shall not be greater to Albany from Chicago than it is from Chicago to New York city or from any other station along the line. If you will come down to Cleveland, it undertakes to say that the charge fixed from Cleveland to New York city shall not be exceeded by the charge from Cleveland to Poughkeepsie or Hudson, N. Y., or to any other intermediate point; and you are to say in this bill that it shall bear an equal and exact relation to the charge which is made from Chicago to New York.

These long lines of roads reaching from the Mississippi to the seaboard do not belong to any one corporation. There are several lines running from Chicago to Cleveland, for instance, or to some other point and stopping there, and then connecting with another road which goes on to the seaboard. Can you undertake to say that because a road from Chicago to Cleveland, in connection with a road coming east, is willing to take a low rate of freight, and therefore secure to itself the freight from the connecting road, when you go to Cleveland or to some other point where it meets another road, that other corporation shall be controlled in its charges by the charges which the railroad from Chicago to Cleveland was willing to make? Can you do that by this bill or any other? You can not touch the State railroads of this country at all. Mr. President, by this bill you only touch them where they run from one State to another, or where they issue bills of lading carrying produce from one State into another or through one State into another. It is impossible that you shall do this, and I deny again that the proposition contained in section 4 is in the interest of the railroads any more than it is in the interest of the shipper and the consumer; but I say that the other proposition, if it shall be carried out, will absolutely destroy all competition from all points in the West or from all intermediate points.

I stated before in some remarks I made on this bill, that this provision in regard to the short and long haul was almost, if not precisely, in the same language as the Massachusetts law; that, in short, the committee substantially copied that law in putting it in here, and in doing it they had the judgment of the commission of Massachusetts upon that point that it was safe to go thus far and that it was not safe to go farther.

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. GORMAN] undertook to tell the Senate a few moments ago what Mr. Kernan, of the New York railroad commission, had said, and that the rule adopted by the New York commission was precisely what this provision would be if the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia were to prevail. I undertook to say that the rule adopted by the New York commission is precisely the Massachusetts law-that and nothing more and nothing else. Let me read it.

It is well known here that the State of New York has no law on this subject, but it has an able railroad commission before whom all complaints go and are heard, and who give recommendations or decisions upon the questions. This commission in carrying on its work has had to make certain rules and regulations governing its own action; and upon this one question it has evolved this rule, and it is a rule upon which it acts and hears all disputes that come before it.

Railroads should not, as a general rule, charge more between a terminal and an intermediate point, for a like class and quantity of freight, than is charged between such terminal and a more distant point.

In the bill we have it "from the same original point of departure." That is the language used by the committee in the bill. The language

of the New York rule is:

Between a terminal and an intermediate point, for a like class and quantity of freight, than is charged between such terminal

That is, such original starting-point

and a more distant point, even though at such more distant point there be railroad or water competition, unless railroads can affirmatively establish such circumstances governing such competition as justify the higher charge for the shorter distance.

In different language, it is precisely the provision of this bill. We provide that when starting from the same original point of departure the charge shall not be higher.

Mr. CAMDEN. I ask the Senator from New York if that is not the exact provision of the bill when amended by striking out “from the same original point of departure?" The bill as amended will be then in exact conformity with the rule adopted by the New York commission.

Mr. MILLER. It will be just as different from it as it is possible for the English language to make it.

Mr. CAMDEN. Where is the difference?

Mr. MILLER. The bill as it now stands says:

SEC. 4. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or property subject to the provisions of this act for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, and from the same original point of departure.

The Senator from West Virginia proposes to strike out the words "and from the same original point of departure." If I understand him, that is the amendment. Now, in place of "the same original point of departure" in the bill as we have it, the New York rule is “between a terminal and an intermediate point, for a like class and quantity of freight, than is charged between such terminal and a more distant

point." It does not mean going to the same terminal, but it means starting from the same terminal, one of the termini of the road. It seems to me that that is as plain as it is possible to make the English language. Let me read it again:

Railroads should not, as a general rule, charge more between a terminal and an intermediate point, for a like class and quantity of freight, than is charged between such terminal and a more distant point.

That is the terminal in both cases, whether it went a long or a short distance; the one terminal was the same, starting from the same point. Mr. CAMDEN. It does not say starting at the same point. It says between terminals.

Mr. MILLER.
Mr. CAMDEN.

It says between the same terminals.

Does it say "the same terminals?"

Mr. MILLER. If the Senator will take it and read it, I think he will agree with me as to the construction to be placed upon it. I have not any doubt about it.

I have very little more to say, Mr. President, in regard to this, but I do not propose to have it go uncontradicted here that the amendment as proposed by the Senator from West Virginia is in the interest of the consumer and the producer as against the railroads. I have not any doubt that if that provision should be adopted and carried out it would double the receipts of all the great trunk lines of this country, and that it would be used by the trunk lines as a reason for increasing their through rates. Undoubtedly they would be compelled to make such charges in all cases as would enable them in carrying their way freight to make a proportionate charge, and still make a fair profit upon the value or the cost of the road.

Mr. HARRIS. May I ask the Senator from New York if in his opinion these great trunk lines have been carrying their freight at less than the actual cost of transportation?

Mr. MILLER. I have very little information upon that subject. I have no positive knowledge because I am not in a position to be informed upon it, but if we are to take into consideration the dividends or the want of dividends that have been made upon some roads and the fact that some of them have gone into bankruptcy, we must believe that there must have either been bad management or at times in great railroad wars they have carried freights at less than the actual cost of carrying them.

Mr. HARRIS. If in railroad wars, or under other circumstances, no matter what, railroad companies carry through freight at less than the cost of transportation, does the Senator think that it is right and just that those companies should recoup upon the local traffic and compel the people who are at their mercy, because there is no competition, to make up the loss thus sustained?

Mr. MILLER. Most certainly not, Mr. President. That is one of the evils we are seeking to cure by the passage of this bill; that is one of the greatest evils of the present system of railroading in this country, and I have not any doubt that if this bill as it stands becomes a law, if the commission shall be appointed under the provisions of sections 1 and 2, even if section 4 were cast out of the bill, that evil would to a very large extent be remedied. Certainly I am willing to go as far as the Senator himself in meeting any such evil as that.

Mr. HARRIS. Now, I should like to say a word upon that particular point with respect to the railroad wars, because they induce that condition of carrying freights at less than cost. While a railroad com

pany knows that it may carry through passengers at any rate, to illustrate, from Chicago to the city of New York for $1, yet when it takes

up a passenger 5 or 6 miles out of Chicago, it can charge him fifteen, or twenty, or twenty-five dollars to recoup for the loss in carrying through passengers; and the same rule applies to freights from Chicago to New York.

If the Senator will consent to strike out this language and assert by the law that the transportation company shall not charge more in the aggregate for the short than for the long haul, he will do a great deal in the line of preventing these cut-throat railroad wars and freight wars that reduce freight rates and passenger rates below the cost of transporting freight and passengers. With this language in the bill, that is the exact effect of it. Take Washington city as the initial startingpoint, and you are shipping to the city of New York. Under the provisions of the bill as it stands to-day you can not charge any more from Washington to Philadelphia than you do to New York. You may charge as much. You can not charge any more from Washington to Jersey City than you can to New York. But suppose you want to ship from Baltimore to New York. Under the provisions of the fourth sec tion as it now stands you may charge twice as much, you may charge ten times as much to ship exactly the same character and the same quantity of freight from the city of Baltimore to New York as you charge from the city of Washington to New York.

Mr. MILLER.

tion?

Will the Senator now permit me to ask him a ques

Mr. HARRIS. Of course I will.

Mr. MILLER.

The floor seems to have changed hands. Does the Senator think that in the case which he has supposed there will be no remedy under the bill as it stands?

Mr. HARRIS. I have said nothing of the kind; but this I will say: If you refer me to another section of the bill to remedy the evil, I protest. Strike out your fourth section altogether, because it is, I will not say worse than useless, but it is quite useless to insist on retaining it in the bill. If it is only to apply to those points going in one direction from the same starting-point, and all the points of shipment between the original starting-point and the final terminus are to be utterly ignored and the rule is not to apply to them at all, I believe I should favor striking it out altogether.

Mr. MILLER. The Senator had much to do with making this bill, and he knows very well that the case which he supposes would come under the clause of being an unreasonable and unjust charge. He is also well aware that under this bill the party making such an outrageous charge would be guilty of extortion and could be punished under the bill, whether the fourth section was in or not. The fourth section only goes a step further than the general provision and undertakes to provide in certain special cases that certain things shall not be done. The Senator thinks it does not go far enough. I think it goes as far as it is wise for us to go at this time. But all these outrageous cases which the Senator has supposed and which the Senator from Kentucky proposed to us this morning, of a charge of $700 a car to a particular distance on the Pacific road, and the case which the Senator from Maryland has supposed, would all be brought under the direct control of the commission. If any person should make a complaint, the commission would investigate it, and they would undoubtedly find that all such charges were unreasonable and unjust, they would find that they were extortionate, and the transportation companies would be punished for making any such unjust or unreasonable discriminations. There is not any question about it under the bill.

Mr. BECK. I hope the Senator from New York will allow me to make a suggestion or two.

Mr. MILLER. Certainly.

Mr. BECK. I wish first to ask a question. I suppose the Senator from New York will agree that the low rates of tariff on long hauls, say from Chicago to New York, are only as low as they are because of the sharp competition with some other competing common carrier. That being so, and it being agreed that it is not fair to exact exorbitant rates from people at the intermediate points by charging them double and treble what is charged on the long haul, I should like to know how the freight rates can be increased at the long distance point, when they are brought to the low point they now are by competition and competition alone, as not one penny less is charged now than is absolutely necessary because of competition. Is not the present system of charges based upon the idea that the railroads have the right to take all they can get from all people who have no other means of transportation, and is it not our duty to limit their power and require them to conduct their commercial traffic among the States upon a reasonable and just basis to all the people?

I do not propose to make a speech, but, being on the floor, I desire to say that for a long time the struggle in this body and in the other House was whether Congress had any right, under our power to regulate commerce, to interfere with railroad freights at all. That right was contested, and has been contested, and perhaps will be contested now. This bill if it passes in any form at least establishes that right. I do not desire to go to the utmost limits of the power which I insist Congress possesses; but I desire to vote for some bill that will assert our power and settle our right to interfere when interference is needed.

I have argued this question of long and short hauls before somewhat elaborately, and I do not propose to do it now; but on the 20th of January, 1885, I observe by the RECORD which I hold in my hand, that I showed in my speech on that day by reference to an argument made by the Senator from Nevada [Mr. FAIR], and by a speech of Mr. Daggett, then a member of the House of Representatives, that it was no unusual thing, indeed it was the rule, for the great railroads running from Omaha to San Francisco to charge $300 a car-load from Omaha to San Francisco, and $800 for a car-load precisely similar from Omaha to Virginia City, which is six or eight hundred miles nearer Omaha than is San Francisco on the line of the road.

That state of things seemed to me to be extortion and unjust discrimination which Congress ought to prevent by law. It existed only because of the power that those railroads had to coerce whatever they saw fit out of the people; and I see no reason now, unless the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is adopted, why that road may not have a right to take up a car of freight at Cheyenne and charge $800 to haul it to Virginia City, when it is hauling one exactly like it on the same train from Omaha to San Francisco for $300, unless the words are stricken out which it is now proposed to strike out, "and from the same original point of departure,' It is an outrage to charge $800 a car from Omaha to Virginia City and $300 from Omaha to San Francisco for the same car on the same train laden with the same freight. We propose to stop that because they start from the same original point of departure, and yet it is argued that it is wrong to seek to strike out the words "and from the same original point of departure." I suppose the railroads want to reserve the right to charge $800 a car still from Cheyenne or any other point to Virginia City, which, under the language of the bill unless amended, they will have the right to do.