the Department of Agriculture for April and I find in it, what will surprise no man, this statement:

Steps are being taken to ship Indian wheat in a better state of cleanliness than heretofore, which are expected to increase the value by from 5 to 7 per cent. Much improvement has been made in this regard since the first introduction of Indian wheat into English markets; nevertheless it is estimated that in the last export season 30,000 tons of dirt and foreign matter were carried to the seaboard and, in part, exported abroad.

A steady, constant, powerful effort is being made to develop that industry, to improve the grade of wheat, and to put the Indian wheatgrower where the American wheat-grower has been.

A scheme has been floated in London, through the instrumentality, it is said. of the secretary of state for India, Lord Randolph Churchill, by which the directors of the Great Indian Peninsula Railroad will be enabled to extend their system via Bhopal to Gwalior, Agra, and Cawnpore, in the Indian midland. This plan has long been advocated by the Bombay Chamber of Commerce, and when completed (in five years, according to the calculation) is expected to exert a most important influence on trade, as it shortens the distance to Cawnpore by 134 miles and opens up some of the finest wheat and seed lands in India.

The rates for carrying in this country have gone down for the last few years, as I have said, but I tell the Senator from West Virginia they have not gone down as much as they have from the Indian wheat ports to Liverpool. I find in this report made by my friend from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] certain statistics as to freight rates from Calcutta. The rate per bushel in 1874 was 32.6 cents, the rate in 1885 was 18.1 cents; from Kurrachee it was in 1874 39.8 cents, now it is 16.7 cents; from Bombay in 1880 it was 32.5 cents, and now it is 16.2 cents. From Russia, which has entered the lists, from the Black Sea it was 19.4 cents in 1873, and it is now 10 cents; from the Baltic Sea it was 9.7 cents in 1873, it is now 6 cents. From our Atlantic ports it was 21.1 cents in 1873, it is now 10.8 cents, and from the Pacific ports it was 26 cents in 1885. It will not be a year until the rate of freight from the Indian ports will be lower under the influence of England and the competition which she is building up than from this country. Shall we, shall the American Senate strike hands with Great Britain to drive the American wheat-grower out of the markets of the world?

It seems to me, Mr. President, striking down the competition in the West can have and will have no other effect; I can not for my life see how those gentlemen who represent the Atlantic seacoast can favor this proposition. We can not ship to New York and Baltimore and Philadelphia and Boston if we are to be denied the benefit of a low through rate. I see but one result if it is persisted in, and that is that a large part of Illinois and Nebraska and Iowa and Dakota and Wisconsin and Minnesota and Kansas will be compelled (and it will come as true as the sun comes in the morning if this policy is forced upon us)—will find its export market at Montreal, beyond the reach of such a jurisdiction, instead of as heretofore from New York and Baltimore and Boston and Philadelphia. And where our products are exported our merchants will be likely to buy. The Lake Superior system of commerce will take all this to Canada, and Canada will not be backward on her part.

Mr. President, section 4 of this bill, even if it were amended as the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN] proposes, admits the principle for which I contend, and repudiates the proposition upon which the Senator from West Virginia bases his argument, to wit, that under no circumstances is it fair for a railway company to charge more for a short than for a long haul.

Reference is made to Massachusetts, from which section 4 is taken.

In Massachusetts an attempt was made to incorporate into the law, for operation within the State only, this amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, but the Massachusetts general court, with great unanimity, voted it down. They were not willing to strike down competition in that State, as they saw and knew that such an amendment would do, and so they inserted in their law, and it has remained in their law, the very words which the Senator from West Virginia is so anxious to strike out from the same original point of departure."

Section 4 of the bill provides

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 Illinois [Mr. CULLOM], I think, would hardly have dared to face his constituents and report as chairman of this committee this section as I have thus far read it. I doubt if the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. PLATT] could have been induced to favor such a provision standing by itself. Let me complete the section. It is thus:

Provided, however, That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act such common carrier may in special cases be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property, and the commission may from time to time make general rules covering exceptions to any such common carrier in cases where there is competition by river, sea, canal, or lake, &c.

Here we have a recognition by the committee, after all the testimony it took, that there are, and will be, circumstances under which it would be injurious to the commerce of the country, and to the people, if the carrier is not permitted to charge more for a short haul than for å long haul.

Mr. CAMDEN. How is that provision affected by my amendment? Mr. SPOONER. I understand that the pending amendment simply proposes to strike out from section 4 as it stands the words, “and from the same original point of departure.”

Mr. CAMDEN. That is all.

Mr. SPOONER. Leaving the section to stand as I read it, with the provision in it that the Senator from West Virginia thinks ought not to be in it, that wherever there is competition by rail, by canal, by lake, by river the carrier shall be exempted from the operation of the provision in this section if the commissioners, or a majority of them, think the popular interest will be thereby subserved.

I do not think this proviso is adequate protection. If it be admitted, as the committee admits, as the bill admits, and as every one seems to admit but the Senator from West Virginia, that an absolute long and short haul provision would stifle competition, it seems that the Senate of the United States ought to hesitate a long while before it votes to turn these competitive forces-in which the people have so vital an interest, distributed all over the United States under every imaginable combination of circumstances, for which localities have taxed themselves millions of dollars-over to the discretionary power of a commission of five men.

I would not give the competitive benefits which we have in the country to-day and the interest of commerce over into the keeping of any board unless it was made up of angels. It is a dangerous experiment to try; and the Senator from West Virginia the other day made an argument against it which ought not to be forgotten, and I think he would not be content with it now if he did not regard the proviso au

thorizing exceptions to be made as an utterly nugatory provision. He said, and he said wisely, although perhaps I ought not to say it, that from the very beginning these commissioners, if they exercise the power given by the proviso, would be exercising it in favor of the railway companies and would be immediately brought under suspicion and their power for good would be impaired at the outset. Moreover, there would be so many complaints, with all the other matters of complaint which would come before the commissioners, that they would find it impossible, if they numbered one hundred instead of five, to consider the cases in which the interests of the people would absolutely demand that they should make exceptions.

I had the honor to give notice a few days ago that I would offer an amendment to this section, and I for one moment ask the attention of the Senate to this amendment. I do not know that it will meet the favor of a single Senator. I do not claim that it would accomplish what the Senator from West Virginia wants to accomplish; I do not think it would; but I do think it is the only safe provision which ought to be made in reference to this dangerous and difficult subject at this time. I have changed the language of section 4 around. Instead of making it a rule that no railroad company shall charge more for a short haul than a long haul, and giving to these commissioners the power, where they think it is best, to make exceptions, I have drawn a proposed section as follows:

It shall be lawful for said commissioners to prohibit, in special cases or by general rule, any common carrier within the provisions of this act from charging or receiving 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: Provided, however, That the power by this section given to said commissioners shall not be exercised so as to substantially deprive any place or community of the benefit and advantage of competition existing or hereafter to exist, it being the object hereof to provide in said commissioners a means of preventing, wherever the same can be done consistently with this proviso, any such carrier from recouping or making up by means of increased charges from local and non-competing stations for rates lowered elsewhere by reason of competition: Provided further, That the action taken by said commissioners under the provisions hereof shall be upon notice to the railway company or companies interested, and upon due hearing by said commissioners; and it shall be the especial duty of said commissioners to investigate and report at the next session of Congress as to the extent to which, if at all, the commercial interests of the country and justice to the carriers engaged in interstate commerce demand or permit the enactment of a law prohibiting carriers within the provisions of this act from charging or receiving 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.

I should be willing, I think, to have this amended by striking out these words, "and from the same original point of departure," with the limitation contained in the proviso.

It has seemed to me that no Senator ought to be willing to vest in any commission a power over this subject, except with a declaration that they should not exercise it so as to substantially deprive any community of now existing competition. It is a limitation which I think the people will demand and the justice of which is apparent.

I am not surprised that the committee should, even after investigation, be unwilling to grapple with the question of pooling at this session, but should prefer to recommend delay until by more complete investigation more intelligent action can be had, but I confess to great surprise that the committee should at the same time consider it wise, without the most complete investigation possible, to arrest even in a

qualified way the competitive forces of the country as provided by section 4. I think they could not have been criticised as too conservative in a matter of so great danger and delicacy and difficulty if they had left that, with the subject of pooling, to a future thorough investigation.

Mr. PALMER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN] because it is unfair to the railroads and it is unfair to the people. I do not suppose that I shall be accused of entertaining any particular regard for railroads as railroads, but only as servants of the people. I think that this amendment would discriminate against certain of our railroads in favor of others, against our railroads in favor of foreign corporations; and as an illustration will serve to give my idea better than any amount of logic, I will state a fact which does fully illustrate it.

Two or three years ago wheat was carried from Chicago (and Chicago has been the chief point that has been discussed here to day, and it probably ships more freight than any point in the United States unless it is New York) to tide water at a rate of freight so low that it was put down to 10 cents a hundred on wheat. That was equivalent to $2 a ton from Chicago to New York. It was equivalent to 2 mills a ton per mile. What little I know of railroads leads me to believe that this freight, independent of other circumstances, could never have been transported for 2 mills per mile; but in the dull season of the year, when empty cars in the absence of that freight would be rolling back to tide water, the railroads could afford to take it and did take it. they take it? Out from Chicago run numerous railroad lines. There is the Pennsylvania Central, there is the Baltimore and Ohio, there is the Michigan Southern and Lake Shore, there is the Michigan Central, there is the Detroit and Milwaukee, which is now a part of the Grand Trunk, there is the connection the Grand Trunk has with its steamers from Chicago, and also the connection with the New York Central by steamer from Chicago.

Why did

Now suppose that the railroads had not taken that wheat at 10 cents a hundred from Chicago to New York, what would have been the result? It would have been taken by lake steamers, barges, or other craft down to Collingwood at the foot of Georgian Bay, shipped on board the cars of the Grand Trunk road, taken to Montreal, and shipped to Europe, or it would have been taken down the lake to Point Edward, at the foot of Lake Huron, shipped aboard the Grand Trunk road there and taken to Montreal, or it would have gone in Canadian and American bottoms through to Montreal, and thus our railroads would have been discriminated against.

However, there is one point I did not mention. It could have gone by steamer to Buffalo, and there the New York Central would have been discriminated in favor of because the New York Central is wholly within the State of New York and is exempt from the provisions of this bill. That is a point which I think has not been mentioned. There is one of the largest corporations of this country that would have been discriminated in favor of. In regard to the point that my colleague from Michigan, for whose judgment I have the highest respect, made in relation to the control that this bill, if it becomes a law, would exercise over the shipping of the lakes, I think it would apply only to that shipping which is connected with some railroad or some canal-boat line and thus makes a continuous line in that way through to New York. In carrying freights on the lakes nothing is ever said outside of these

lines about rates to New York. It is 6 cents to Buffalo, 4 cents to Buffalo, 2 cents to Buffalo, and last year it was brought down to 2 cents a bushel on wheat to Buffalo. The railroads certainly were not there to divide it. They had no part or lot in it.

The rival lines of railroad brought lake freights down to this figure. They made money; they could afford to carry freight very low; otherwise they would have run to the tide water with empty cars.

Now my idea is this: We must not cripple the railroads; we must make them strong, and then make them behave themselves. There is the whole difficulty. We do not want to embarrass them; we want to control them.

As to the point which the Senator from Ohio made when he propounded a conundrum of this character, "If freight was being carried from Pittsburgh to New York at $20 a car. would it be equitable or just to take freight from Chicago to New York for $10 a car?" Abstractly we should say not. Independent of any qualifying conditions the answer involuntarily would be that it would not be equitable.

But when we take into consideration the competition that does exist at Chicago and the necessity for taking these freights at low rates, my opinion is that it would be better for Pittsburgh to permit that road to carry freights at any price it could make money at, particularly freight not naturally coming to it that she could not get without going into competition for it, and then let this commission come in and regulate the freights between Pittsburgh and New York.

In regard to the discrimination that my colleague alluded to, it is not the railroads that make the discrimination, it is the Almighty. Chicago is favorably situated. She has two strings and possibly five strings to her bow. She has the Lake, she has the Grand Trunk road, she has the British territory to go through, and she has these numerous railways of ours.

I think that if the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia should pass it would cover the bill with derision and there would be such a howl over this country before December that all of us who had voted for it would desire to hide our heads.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HARRIS in the chair). The question is on the amendment proposed by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN] which will be read.

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 4, line 5, after the word "direction" it is proposed to strike out "and from the same original point of departure."

Mr. CAMDEN. I believe the yeas and nays have been ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered, the Chair is informed.

Mr. CAMDEN. Mr. President, in concluding the debate on this amendment, I shall not enter into any details or attempt to repeat the substance of the argument made by me some days ago in presenting it. I simply desire to call the attention of the Senate to the vital points embraced by the amendment. In the remarks which have been submitted in opposition to it, the attention of the Senate has been rather directed from the real question involved than to it. The argument of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] was one of confession and avoidance, rather than an argument against the proposition embraced in the amendment. The Senator, by his whole argument, admits the justice of the proposition, but contends that in other portions of the bill the remedy sought to be ingrafted by this amendment has been