Page images

word "changes;" and also in line 32, after the word "and," to insert "of changes in;" so as to read:

And the commission shall prescribe the manner in which notice of advances and reductions in such published rates, fares, charges, and of changes in classifications shall be given.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CULLOM. In section 7, line 7, I move that the word "one" be stricken out before "thousand" and "five" inserted; so as to read: SEC. 7. That any common carrier who shall willfully do, cause to be done, or permit to be done any of the acts, matters, or things in this act declared to be unlawful shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof in any district court of the United States within whose jurisdiction such offense was committed, be subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 for each offense.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CULLOM. In lines 9 and 10, of section 7, I move that the words "its principal" be stricken out before the word "officer;" in the same line, after the word "officer," to strike out the words "or traffic manager, by whatever name called, or the;" in line 9, before the word "officer," to insert "any;" and after the word "person," in line 10, to insert the words "connected therewith;" so as to read:

Provided, however, That whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any officer, agent, or person connected therewith who shall be guilty of any such violation of this act, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CULLOM. Then in line 15 of the same section, I move to strike out the word "one" and insert "five;" so as to read:

Provided, however, That whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any officer, agent, or person connected therewith who shall be guilty of such violation of this act, shall be personally liable as and for a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof in any district court of the United States within whose jurisdiction such offense was committed, shall be subject to a fine of not more than $5,000 for each offense.

The amendment was agreed to.


I did not get the Senator's statement of the previous

Mr. CULLOM. I will again read the clause as proposed to be amended.

Provided, however, That whenever such common carrier is a corporation, any officer, agent, or person connected therewith who shall be guilty of any such violation of this act, &c.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Georgia object?

Mr. BROWN. No.

Mr. CULLOM. The Senator is only trying to get the words. Then in section 12, after the word "commission," in line 20, I move to insert:

And to the satisfaction of the party or parties complaining.

So as to read:

And if, within the time specified, it shall be made to appear to the commission that such common carrier has ceased from such violation of law, and has made reparation for the injury found to have been done, in compliance with the report and notice of the commission, and to the satisfaction of the party or parties complaining, a statement to that effect shall be entered of record by the commission, &c.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CULLOM. In section 9, lines 10 and 14, I move to insert the words "and testimony" before the words " of witnesses" in each of those two lines; so as to read:

And for the purposes of this act the commission shall have power to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all books,

papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements, and documents relating to any matter under investigation, and to that end may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and documents under the provisions of this section.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CULLOM. These are the only amendments I desire to offer; and I now wish to say a few words generally with reference to the bill. I am not disposed to discuss the general subject of the regulation of interstate commerce, for the reason that it was very extensively discussed during the last term of Congress when the bill was before the Senate for consideration, and I think the Senate and the country generally agree that some legislation ought to be enacted.

The select committee appointed by the Senate about a year ago has prosecuted the investigation it was charged with, doing as best it could. It has made its report to the Senate, which report, with the testimony taken, is before the Senate and the country, and along with it the committee reported the bill now under consideration.

I believe I am justified in saying that there is no subject of a public nature that is before the country about which there is so great unanimity of sentiment as there is upon the proposition that the National Government ought in some way to regulate interstate commerce. The testimony taken by the committee shows conclusively to my mind, and I think to every man's mind who reads it, that there is a necessity for some legislation by the National Government looking to the regulation of interstate commerce by railroads and by water ways in connection therewith.

I believe the time has gone by when it is necessary for any one to take up the time of the Senate in discussing the proposition that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. These questions have been discussed over and over again in Congress, and the highest judicial tribunals of the country have decided over and over again that Congress has the power to regulate commerce among the States. So I do not feel at liberty, if I were disposed, to occupy the attention of the Senate in discussing the general question of whether the people of the United States want Congress to do anything, or whether there is any necessity for our doing anything, or the question of the constitutional right of the Congress of the United States to pass some act regulating commerce among the States.

If the three propositions are correct, that the public sentiment is substantially unanimous that we should act, that the necessity for action exists, and that the power of Congress is admitted, the only question left is what Congress ought to do specifically; in other words, what kind of an act should Congress pass? The committee has reported a bill which is the best judgment that the committee had upon the subject, and I may say about which substantially the committee is unanimous in its judgment in favor of it. There may be one or two points in connection with the bill that the committee was not entirely unanimous concerning, but which I will only intimate may be so.

So, Mr. President, all I desire to do in connection with the bill is to explain as specifically as I can, without taking up too much time, the meaning of the provisions of the bill, and the reasons, very briefly suggested, for the provisions of the bill as they are contained in it.

The general legislation proposed in the bill is contained in the first seven sections, the remainder being devoted to the organization of a commission and to the details of its operation as a means of securing the enforcement of the act.

The general theory of the measure is that as unjust discrimination

in its various forms is recognized as the chief of all evils growing out of the existing methods of railroad management it is the duty of Congress to strike at that evil above all things else. The bill has accordingly been drawn with that end in view. The first section defines and prescribes the scope and application of the bill. The second, third, and fourth sections specifically prohibit and declare unlawful the various forms of unjust discrimination between persons, between different commodities or particular kinds of traffic, and between places. The fifth section requires the publication of rates and declares it unlawful to charge more or less than the public rates. The sixth section provides that shipments shall be considered as continuous from the place of shipment to the place of destination, and prohibits combinations to evade the provisions of the act by breaking of bulk, carriage in different cars, transshipment, or other devices. The seventh is the general-penalty section. It makes the performance of any acts declared unlawful in the preceding sections a misdemeanor and fixes the penalty.

In connection with these sections I desire to call attention to section 20, in which it is expressly stipulated that the provisions of this act shall not in any way abridge or alter the common-law remedies now open to the shipper, but shall be considered as in addition to such remedies, except that the remedy at common law and that proposed in the bill shall not both be prosecuted at the same time. Under the terms of the bill no one is obliged to appeal to the commission, and two courses are open to any one who may be aggrieved by the violation of any one of these general provisions which I have mentioned. He is simply obliged to elect which course he will adopt, and may at his own pleasure either bring suit in the courts on his own account for the recovery of overcharges or damages, or he may ask the commission to arbitrate the controversy, and, if necessary, to investigate his complaint, the advantage of the latter course being that in the event of a favorable finding by the commission his evidence is collected for him without expense to himself, and he can if it becomes necessary go into court with a prima facie case already established.

It is substantially agreed by those who have investigated the question of railroad regulation, that publicity is the most effective remedy for the evils most seriously complained of, so far as it is possible to remedy them by legislation. There are two directions in which a greater measure of publicity is essential and can be secured by legislation. The first is as to the rates actually charged, in order that every shipper may know whether he is treated fairly and without unjust discrimination. The second is as to the methods of management and financial operations of the railroad corporations, in order that the net results of their business may be accurately known, and that the public may be placed in a position to determine the reasonableness of the charges made, which are in the nature of a tax upon commerce. The publication of rates as provided in the fifth section is intended to in part meet the first requirement I have mentioned, and the bill proposes to meet both the first and second by the creation of a commission authorized to secure the enforcement of the law and with ample power to investigate every detail of railroad management, and to enforce the making of complete and accurate reports by the corporations. If the railroads can be compelled to let in the sunlight of publicity upon all ther operations, personal favoritism and the chief causes of complaint will to a great extent disappear, and the accurate information obtained will enable the law-making power to devise any further remedies that it may be possible to apply by legislation. With this brief explanation of the general scope of the bill, I will now invite the attention of the Senate to the provisions and meaning of the different sections more in detail.


By the terms of the first section, the provisions of the bill are made to apply only to transportation by or upon a railroad, except where a railroad and water route are together used for a continuous carriage or ship. ment. The pending bill goes further than others which have been before Congress in proposing to regulate the transportation of passengers as well as of freight, because there seems to be no good reason why so important a branch of the railroad business as the passenger traffic should not be made the subject of regulation as well as the freight traffic. While the provisions of the bill are made to apply mainly to the regulation of interstate commerce, in order to regulate such commerce fairly and effectively it has been deemed necessary to extend its application also to certain classes of foreign commerce which are intimately intermingled with interstate commerce, such as shipments between the United States and adjacent countries by railroad, and the transportation by railroad of shipments between points in the United States and ports of transshipment or of entry when such shipments are destined to or received from a foreign country on through bills of lading. To avoid any uncertainty as to the meaning of these provisions in regard to what may be at the same time in some instances State and foreign commerce, it is expressly provided that the bill shall not apply to the transportation of property wholly within one State and not destined to or received from a foreign country. The bill is not intended to affect the stage-coach, the street railway, the telegraph lines, the canal-boat, or the vessel employed in the inland or coasting trade, even though they may be engaged in interstate commerce, as it would do if it was made to apply to all common carriers engaged in interstate commerce, because it is not deemed necessary or practicable to cover such a multitude of subjects. It is aimed at the regulation of the railroad corporations, but the definition of the term "railroad" given in the first section is intended to bring within the application of the bill all the numerous instrumentalities of shipment or carriage by or upon a railroad, such as the fast-freight lines, express companies, sleeping-car companies, or any other organizations which undertake any part of the work of a carrier by railroad.

No reason is apparent why these independent and auxiliary agencies of transportation should not be made subject to supervision and regulation as well as the railroad corporations that have intrusted them with the performance of a portion of their public duties, while it is plain that if they should be left unrestricted in their operations the opportunities for evasion of the law by the railroads would be greatly increased, and it is clear that the same necessity exists for protecting the people against discriminating or unreasonable charges by the fast-freight lines and these other outside agencies as on the part of the railroad corporations themselves. The concluding paragraph of the first section asserts the common-law requirement that all charges made in the transportation of passengers or property by or upon a railroad shall be reasonable and just.


'The second section strikes at the evil of which the most serious complaint is made, and made justly, by prohibiting and declaring unlawful every variety of personal favoritism or unjust discrimination between persons. Its provisions are confined to that one great evil, and the object of the section is to place all shippers upon an absolute equality as to the rates charged for a like service under substantially similar circumstances. This section specifically prohibits special rates, rebates, drawbacks, or other devices for discriminating between shippers similarly situated and making like shipments. This particular and almost universal form of unjust discrimination is carefully defined

in this section, and in addition to the fine provided for such an offense in section 7 the carrier is made liable for all charges collected from all persons in excess of the lowest rate charged any person for like shipments during the same period. This section is a most important one, and seems to have been made as strong as possible; but if it can be strengthened in any way, I for one would be willing to make it stronger in order to do every thing possible to break up the existing system of personal favoritism.


The third section is broader and more general in its terms, and should perhaps have been made the second section, as it contains a general prohibition of every variety of unjust discrimination. The section covers two subjects. The first paragraph prohibits the giving of any undue or unreasonable preference to any particular person or locality, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatever, and declares such a preference unlawful, which by section 7 is made a misdemeanor punishable by fine. This covers in general terms, though by no means so completely, the provisions of section 2 as to discriminations against persons, but goes further and includes discriminations against localities or particular descriptions of traffic. The language adopted in this paragraph is substantially that of the English statute on the subject, which has been repeatedly construed by the English courts, so that its meaning has already been judicially established. The second part of the section is modeled in part upon the English and in part upon similar statutes in several of the States. Its purpose is to require railroads to furnish to connecting roads all reasonable and proper facilities for the interchange of traffic that may be necessary for the convenience of the public, and to prevent one road, or a combination of roads, from "freezing out" a connecting line by refusing to accept traffic from it or deliver traffic to it upon any terms, as has been done.


Section 3 in general terms prohibits undue discriminations against localities, but section 4 is more specifically directed against that evil, by prohibiting a greater aggregate charge for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, and from the same original point of departure. This is the general declaration made, and it is agreed that this is the principle that should be observed as a general rule. The committee found, however, that this principle was not of universal application; that there were cases in which the railroads were compelled to make lower rates for longer than for shorter distances by the great law of competition, which is stronger than any law we can make, and that in some cases it would be a great hardship to the public as well as to the railroads to rigidly enforce the general principle.

In order to provide for these exceptional cases it was agreed that the commission should be authorized to make exceptions in cases where on investigation it may be found necessary and proper, and by general rules cover exceptions in cases where there is competition by river, sea, canal, or lake, from the operation of the fourth section of the act. In the judgment of at least a majority of the committee such a provision of law is necessary in order to get the benefit of any short-haul provision and at the same time do no injustice to the business of the country. The public sentiment of the country favors a provision of law prohibiting, without exceptions, a charge of more for a short than for a long haul on the same line of road, in the same direction, and from the same point of departure.

« PreviousContinue »