Kansas people, and all other people on this great continent, that railroads should not charge for half the distance on the same line of road more for carrying freight than they did from the point of departure double the distance. The proposition is plain. I have read since I cast that vote the great argument of Mr. Basil W. Duke. I have read it all through in pamphlet, in which he attempted to controvert that proposition, and I say if Senators rely on an argument of that kind they are relying on a broken reed.

The argument is not good, as any man can show with time. I find the argument of Mr. Basil W. Duke in a pamphlet circulated, the argument which in one form or another has been taken up by every Senator who opposed the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia. It is the whole gist of the argument changed in form. Different members look through a kaleidoscope at the argument.

The argument of Basil W. Duke, of Kentucky, in one form or another has been repeated and reiterated ad nauseam on this floor. I read the pamphlet right through to see if I could find in the original argument itself anything to sustain these gentlemen, and I could not. It may be my fault, but I could not do it.

Now, what is this proposition? I have tried to show the Senate, and I have satisfied my own mind, that the provisions of the bill--although the committee say it will not have the effect which I teared-might have the effect, and would have the effect, to impose burdens upon the entire inland navigation interests of the United States. I have said to the Committee of the Whole Senate that we had expended something like $173,000,000 in improving these water communications, these highways upon which every inhabitant of the United States may go and travel as upon a public highway with his own vehicle, whether it be a dugout, a barge, a batteau, a steamboat, or a scow, with his own freight in his own way-the great highways of the people.

I believe that this bill without some amendment of this kind will impose all the restrictions and all the penalties and all the obligations it prescribes upon every common carrier by water upon these highways which we are year by year called upon to make appropriations to improve, and this year we have a bill which amounts to eighteen or twenty million dollars. We lay a restriction upon that class of common carriage upon water which would render useless all the attempts of this Government to improve these great highways. That is my belief about it, earnest, sincere, after the most careful attention I have given to it. Every one knows that any bill which lays its hand upon the water communications of the country, auy bill which impedes the right of the citizen to go on these great highways whether improved by the money of the nation or whether the gift of God, suitable for transportation, if it should restrict their convenience, if it should restrict their navigability, if it should prevent the citizens from using these communications and highways of the nation, the Senate and the House, the Congress that passes such a bill and the President that approved such a bill, would meet with a storm of indignation and reproach from the people of the United States that no man could stand up under. It is to avoid the possibility of such a construction that I have said in regard to water communication that where the carriers, by water have some common management, control, or even arrangement with railroads by which they are a continuous line, then as they have entered into that arrangement and given that control and that management voluntarily, with the law before them, they shall be subject to it. Do

not subject them to the penalties of this bill, penalties of $5,000 for a violation of it. Do not impose that upon every man who uses his own vessel, large or small, to transport freight upon the rivers or the lakes or the sounds or the bays of the United States from place to place, because it had been transported by a railroad company to the place where he reached it, or because it might in a continuous carriage be transported by a railroad company from the place where he delivered it.

Mr. HALE. Let me ask a question. I see what the Senator is seeking to get at, and I appreciate that by the terms of his amendment he wants to take out from the operation of this bill all that great interior lake navigation and river navigation that is not operated, to use his language, under a common control, management, or arrangement "— those are the exact words-with a railroad. Now, I want to ask the Senator whether there is any difficulty in making the application of this rule as he has laid it down? What would be construed as a common control or management or arrangement? Suppose, for instance, that the railroad makes no control or arrangement or management from year to year, or from month to month, but that by the terms of a particular contract it only applies to a specific cargo, to a specific freight for the time being, for only that once, would that be a common control, management, or arrangement? Because if it would not, and it is desirable to take these lines of lake steamers and river steamers out of this bill, it would be easy enough to avoid what might seem to be carried by the amendment of the Senator from Michigan, by making no common control, management, or arrangement, but only letting it appear as if it was a contract for the time being, as though the vessel itself went independent, without regard to the road, and took up the freight and carried it and transferred it to another point where the railroad came in. Does not the Senator see that there might be difficulty? I do not know whether it can be remedied or not, but is there not difficulty here in the application of the amendinent?

Mr. CONGER. My answer to that is this: If there is no common arrangement or common control or common contract for a through rate from any point, I will say from Saint Paul to New York partly by rail and partly by water-that is, partly by the lakes-if there is no arrangement by which they carry in common for a given price for the whole, a portion by each part, rail and water-when one ships to a port on the lake and there it is subject to carriage by anything that will take it by charter party or a contract made there, then there is no common arrangement for that through freight either as to price of carriage or anything of that kind, and there is no special arrangement either. It is to avoid bringing under the control of this bill that class of vessels, a very large class of vessels, which take freight where they can find it and carry it where they agree to as independent boats, that this amendment is offered.

It is not half I would desire

I thought there could be no possible objection to this. the provision I would desire for such an amendment. that there should be a common specific contract or arrangement of carriage all the way from Saint Paul to New York, with the amount of freight defined and the ratio of freight charged on the rail and on the water, and on the rail again defined. That is done where there is a continuous through arrangement, so that the vessels become a part of the railroad line and are subject to its freight charges and its expedition, and all those questions that arise.

It is the easiest thing in the world in regard to any freight, by the

invoice, by the consignment, by the bill of lading, to declare that it shall be all rail to New York, or that it shall be part rail and part water, on the lakes or on the rivers. The very bill of lading itself shows what the arrangement and control is. So I have said "under a common control, management," or, to meet all possible cases, an "arrange

ment.

I am asked a question in regard to the evidence of it. The evidence is plain. There will be no escaping the common arrangement under this provision, the common control of the railroad and of the vessel or of the line of vessels. When they do make such an arrangement in common between the vessel carrier and the land carrier by railroad, then they do it knowingly and come under the operation of this bill that applies to both. Both know what the law is; both know where it applies; and I am perfectly willing that if a carrier by water knowingly enters into any arrangement or contract or common control with regard to that kind of freight, he shall be liable to all the obligations of this bill.

Mr. HALE. Let me ask the Senator how that immense amount of commerce that is brought to one side of the lakes by railroad and taken from the other side by railroad for through transportation and which over the waters immediately is carried by steamers, is generally carried. Is it by independent ships, vessels, steamers, or under some such arrangement as would be included in the words of the amendment of the Senator from Michigan? How is that done?

Mr. CONGER. I know how it is, the same on the lakes and the same on the rivers. Railroads and lines of steamboat transportation have a common contract by which they take freight and divide the receipts. Mr. HALE. Divide the whole freight?

Mr. CONGER. Divide the whole freight. There are several lines of that kind on the great lakes where there are large shipments from points to points coming by rail and leaving by rail, as there is at Cleve-' land, at Erie, at Buffalo, and at Ogdensburg within our borders from Chicago, and there are lines of steamers connecting with railroads. They always run by a common arrangement for the carriage of freight and each gets a fixed proportion of the freight. They come under the provisions of this bill and ought to.

Mr. HALE.

Undoubtedly.

Mr. CONGER. I do not object to that because that connects with the railroad freight, and the lines of vessel have their management and arrangement and they enter into this agreement knowingly; but there are hundreds of ports on the lake shore where freight is received which does not come by rail. The six thousand million feet of lumber that are manufactured in the State of Michigan leave its ports where the mills are around the lakes, and they go in single vessels owned by the mill men sometimes, chartered vessels sometimes picked up where they can, and they take this lumber freight to Chicago, the great lumber market, millions and millions of feet of it. I am speaking now of Michigan lumber and not of Wisconsin and Minnesota. It is gathered up at all the points around the lakes and shipped in a mill-owner's vessel or a hired vessel or a chartered vessel for the occasion, perhaps running all the season from the mill. All that class of vessels, because that lumber goes out of Chicago by rail, ought not to be covered by a law of this kind.

Mr. PLATT. Certainly not.

Mr. CONGER. So the friends of this bill, those who have charge of

it, say it ought not to be included.

Now, there is lumber shipped from Detroit to Pittsburgh. That is shipped in the harbor, on the lakes or wherever it may be, on board this same class of vessels to Erie or to any point whence it may go by canal or by rail to its point of destination. There is no reason in the world why those vessels should be liable to the pains and penalties of the bill. Until they have reached a point by a contract with one party by rail when it has been carried by water and is to be carried by rail, there is no reason why that class of vessels or common carriers should come under the provision of the bill. Mr. MORRILL. May I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. CONGER. Yes.

Mr. MORRILL. Suppose where there was no contract or arrangement between the shipping companies, water and land, a case like this should occur, that the parties owning the merchandise to be shipped should make an arrangement or contract with one party to carry to a certain point for a certain rate, and when it got there the other party should have had a contract with the same parties to carry it at the same rate, and that this contract should become known and the constant usage, would the shipping parties on land and water be liable under the proposed arrangement, there being no contract whatever, only a usage?

Mr. ALLISON. They have no arrangement.

Mr. MORRILL. No arrangement whatever.

Mr. CONGER. The Senator asks a question as he might in regard to evidence. If this arrangement of carrying part of the way with one carrier and then a new contract carrying part of the way with another carrier is in fraud of the law, when that can be proved the law will attach. No man can escape the provisions of law by a pretended arrangement.

Mr. MORRILL.

But the constant practice all over the country now is that if you have anything you want to ship you mark on it the destination and by way of certain communications of this railroad and that and by water communication. The bill of lading goes without transfer to the person, and at the end he charges it to the whole route; it is charged over to the last party who has any control over it. That is the constant practice all over the country.

Mr. CONGER. That is a contract of shipping from the point of departure to the extreme end of the route.

Mr. MORRILL. There is no contract about it.

Mr. CONGER. I say that is virtually a contract from the point of departure to the through end of the route. The contractors at one end agree to lay down this freight in New York from Saint Paul or from Kansas City, or wherever it may be sent from, at a certain price. The contract may take either course. If it says partly by rail and partly by water the price is agreed upon and with expedition the freight must go on, the road taking the responsibility for its through freight to New York. There must be a contract or arrangement running with that freight on through, whether it is on another railroad or whether it is on a vessel. There must be a contract of expedition, of charging of the freightage, whether it is written out in full or not. Therefore I put in the words, "common control, common management, or arrangement," so that there can be no objection at all that it should come under some head by which these vessels should be made liable and in law would be held liable to the provision of the bill, after having made their arrangements and joined in a common management, or common control, or common arrangement.

I think that is fair. I think it embraces everything which the friends of the bill ought to ask, and it certainly means no more. It is in a modified form what I have been willing to give, and what the friends of the bill have declared would be the effect without it. I do not think it can have the effect without it, and therefore I want the provision inserted.

Mr. MCMILLAN. It seems to me that the bill as reported by the committee, upon a line of water transportation would embrace all kinds of traffic, whether part of a continuous line of transportation or not. The amendment of the Senator from Michigan limits the effect of the law, I think, to vessels which run in connection with some line of transportation by rail. I am willing to give all the competition by water that I can, and as the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan does leave room for competition on the lakes, on the rivers, and wherever there is transportation by water, I shall vote for his amendment. But if I could vote to exclude all vessels, whether running in connection with a line of transportation by rail or not, I should do that. That would suit me better; but as I can not get that I shall vote for the amendment of the Senator from Michigan, which does give competition by independent vessels upon all navigable waters and lines of boats running in connection with railroads. It is that much less to me.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the adoption of the amendment of the Senator from Michigan [Mr. CONGER].

Mr. BECK. I should like to hear the amendment read so that I may understand it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be again read. The CHIEF CLERK. In section 1, line 6, after the word "used," it is moved to insert the words "under a common control, management, or arrangement;" so as to read:

That the provisions of this act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers engaged in the transportation of passengers or property by railroad, or partly by railroad and partly by water when both are used under a common controi, managers, or arrangement for a continuous carriage or shipment, from one State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory of the United States, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States, &c.

Mr. BECK. Mr. President, it strikes me that the amendment is a good one because on the public water ways of the United States any individual man has a right to put his own boat, haul his own freight, and if he can not get it from railroads that carry partly by rail and partly by water, I think as far as the quantity is concerned he can act on his own responsibility and take the chances. He will not be able to do it in all cases, but he has the right to do it. As we are providing only, as I understand, for common carriers either by rail exclusively or by rail and water as a part of a continuous line, for the time being at least, I think it would be well for us to leave out that class of persons who are not acting as corporations, who are not acting under the authority of the United States or the States in carrying on commerce between the States, and we should allow the individual man not connected with any organization to which corporate rights have been given to manage his water communication to suit himself, if he can. I do not know that he can, but it strikes me that there will be no harm in the amendment.

I know that last year, and I see again this year, the struggle has been, and is now and will continue to be, between those of us who believe