Mr. President, I think the committee would have been fully justified in saying that it is too plain to be made plainer by argument, that such a rule is susceptible of universal application, and would, under all circumstances, be a useful and fair one. The justice of the general principle seems now to be admitted on all sides. The extent and manner of its application seem to be the only question.

If the fourth section had stopped at the end of the provision prohibiting charging more for a shorter than a longer haul over the same road and in the same direction, leaving out the words, "from the same original point of departure," in lines 5 and 6, and then had left out the entire proviso following, the section would have accomplished the object intended to be provided for by the proposed amendment, and the object which ought to be provided for and without which any bill will fail to meet the widest field of necessity for the passage of a law regulating interstate commerce.

The section as it stands limits the provisions against charging more for a shorter than a longer haul to shipments from the same original point of departure. Why should this limitation be made? What justice is there in it?

Take, for instance, Chicago as the great starting-point from the West, in which all the trunk-line roads leading to the seaboard are in competition-this provision limiting its operations to the same original starting-point would mean, that if a car-load of grain, live stock, or any other product was shipped to the seaboard at a given rate, the rates on all other shipments of the same kind of freight from Chicago to the same points or to intermediate points should not be charged more than the through rate from Chicago to the seaboard, but as soon as you get out of Chicago the roads have arbitrary discretion to charge the whole country outside of Chicago to the seaboard any arbitrary rates they choose.

This would insure to Chicago and other great competitive shipping points cheap and uniform rates of transportation in all directions, but would deny the same advantages and protection to intermediate points and all other sections not blessed with large commerce and competing roads. Such a provision might aptly be termed "A bill to increase the wealth and population of commercial cities at the expense of the country at large," for it not only discriminates against shippers, who are generally the producers, at intermediate and non-competitive points, but it does more-it discriminates against sections of country, it discriminates against the thrift and enterprise of towns and the distribution of manufacturing interests, the value of real estate, and of the general interest and enterprise of the whole country outside of the large cities and competitive shipping points. It regulates arbitrarily the interstate commerce of the country, and usurps a function which the Constitution confides to Congress alone. It amounts to an abuse; and abuses will find a correction sooner or later, especially where great popular interests are involved.

A town or section of country may have manufacturing advantages of certain kinds that would enable it to manufacture to advantage in competition with larger places at the same rate of freight. But manufacturers and shippers at such points may be either forced into bankruptcy or compelled to remove their business to the cities or competitive railroad centers by being charged higher rates on short hauls than competitors in the same line of business are charged for longer hauls. It has the effect of driving population and business enterprise from the country and the towns to the cities and centers of railroad competition, and of creating for one section over another section commercial advantages which no power ought to be permitted to exercise.

In order to show the workings of the provision as it stands in the bill, let us start with a shipment from Chicago or Saint Louis and follow it through to the seaboard, and for the purpose of this illustration we will assume the average distance to be 800 miles and divide it into sections of 50 miles each.

A car-load of freight starts, billed through to the seaboard at $50. The provision limits the rate to all other shippers of the same kind of freight over the same road from that point to the same destination, or to intermediate points over the same road to the same rate, or in case of the shorter haul not to exceed the same charge; but after you get out 10 miles from the original point of departure the limitation is removed and shippers may be charged in the first 50 miles 20 per cent. more than was charged from Chicago or Saint Louis to any point in the same direction; and shippers in the next section of 50 miles may be charged 30 per cent. more, and so on for any succeeding section, there being no limitation as compared with the shipments from other points of departure. The right to charge is unlimited except by the capacity of the freight to bear the charges.

But let us assume that at the end of the sixth section, or 300 miles from the first point of departure, the car reaches another important shipping center where competition forces a recognition of the 300 miles shorter haul, and the rate from that point is $35 for the car-load, but as soon as you get out of that point on the next section of 50 miles the limitation is again removed and the conditions may favor charging for the sections covering the next 200 miles double the rate charged in any of the preceding sections. In other words, the provision extends only to shipments from the same points-and leaves all other points and sections open to the same palpable discriminations that now exist, for local rates to go up or down as circumstances and location permit. Competition fixes rates for cities and centers of trade; individual railroad lines fix it for the country and towns through which they pass.

Mr. President, we will now go back over the illustration to point out the practical features of the discriminations to which shippers so much object and so earnestly demand shall be corrected by legislation. The charge to the shippers on the first section of 50 miles after leaving the original starting-point is not governed by the rates for the longer haul, and may be charged $20, or even $30, more per car than was charged for the longer haul. They therefore see passing their doors car-loads of the same products from a greater distance going to the same markets at a less rate of freight; and this same feature of discrimination may and does continue with increased aggravation and injustice at various points as the distance increases from the starting-point and diminishes toward the markets, until in the States occupying the geographical position, like the one which I have the honor in part to represent, situated in the line of transit two-thirds of the distance nearer the Eastern market, is often charged considerably more for the same products for one-third or one-fourth the haul than was charged to others from the original point of departure in the far West.

But, Mr. President, the evils of this kind of discrimination complained of are not confined by any means to the long hauls from the West. The far greater proportion, I would say 80 per cent., originates along the lines of railroads from, non-competitive points as compared with competitive points throughout the country in all directions, and the illustration drawn from the longer haul is applicable to all points and distances on every road to which legislation by Congress could apply. Take, for instance, competitive points along the Ohio River-where low rates prevail by reason of competition--and the non-competitive points

50 and 100, or even 200 miles nearer the market, the same products going in the same direction are often charged 50 per cent. more, and sometimes double the amount of the longer haul from the Ohio River or beyond it.

Mr. President, this is not theory, nor is it the statement of imaginary cases that might exist; it is the every-day experience. It is a notorious fact that men engaged in agricultural and stock-raising pursuits in West Virginia and other States near the Eastern markets, who ship their products from points one-half to three-fourths nearer the markets, will be met in the same markets with the same kind of products shipped two or three times the distance, coming by their own doors at greatly less rates, often as much as one-half less. And it sometimes happens that shippers living in these States ship their own products to market and at the same time purchase products of the same kind in Chicago and the West and ship to the same market at the same time at less freight than is paid for their own products almost at the market gates. In support of this assertion I beg to read a letter, received only a few days ago from one of the most substantial, intelligent, and reputable farmers of the South Branch Valley, in my State. I do not give his name, for the reason that I have no authority to give it publicity, but the letter is only the repetition of complaints received by Senators and Representatives almost daily on this subject. The letter says:

I believe you are opposed to the interstate-commerce bill. I believe the people of our State are almost unanimously in favor of it. I know of none who are opposed to it, except those who are interested in special rates and in railroads.

I will stop here to remark in this connection that I do not know how the writer could have imagined this to be my position unless he has been deceived by misrepresentations, or imagines that because I have some railroad interests in my own State I can not rise to the level of a disinterested conviction on this important subject. I have that conviction, and this is not the first time I have expressed it on this floor. But let that pass; that is not the point to which I wish to call the attention of Senators.

The letter goes on to say:

Our

Our people complain very much of discriminations; it costs us more to get our cattle to market (from the point named in West Virginia), often as much as double, as from farther west. I was in Philadelphia in December, with cattlemen from Ohio and farther west, who were paying about one-half the rate of freight I paid. I buy more or less cattle in Chicago every spring, and it costs me a great deal more to get my cattle home than to ship them to the seaboard. State can never prosper unless we can compete with the West in transportation. They get to market so much cheaper than we do. We would be better off if we were 500 miles farther west. I own one of the best farms in this part of the State, and am offering it for sale in order to go west, where I can get cheaper transportation, and many others are doing the same thing and leaving our State.

Now, Mr. President, why should we legislate to perpetuate this discrimination, that affects the great body of shippers all over the country, instead of providing for its relief? I challenge any satisfactory reason for it. If we are in earnest about passing a bill that will reach the greatest evils of discrimination let us meet the question fairly and squarely. If you limit the provisions "to the same original point of departure," instead of covering the most important principle in long and short hauls, it only adds to the evils of the discriminations complained of by practically sanctioning its most objectionable feature. Such a bill discriminates in favor of discrimination, for it discriminates against whole sections of country, and would give to large cities the monopoly of nearly all kinds of business by reason of the guarantee

that would be offerred for cheap and uniform transportation charges. This principle was most eloquently expressed by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON], although I believe he voted against the amendment then pending. Iquote from the remarks of the Senator, page 438, second session of the Forty-eighth Congress:

The people of this country can not be brought to an acceptance of the abnorTM mal system of forced combination and centralization with which the transporting corporations have bound to their own real or supposed convenience the industries of the country. I am glad to feel assured that this is so; for I can not believe that the present tendency to drive the manufacturing industries and all who employ and are employed therein to a comparatively few localities will tend to conserve the best public interests, whether we regard them from the standpoints of moral, material, or political consideration, singly or combined. The system is repressive and unjust. A body-politic can no more thrive under a system which confines the vital forces represented by its employments, its business, its commerce to a few points than can a natural body whose life currents are obstructed and denied their normal action. A self-reliant man, whose independence and individuality assert themselves in his ways of life, is always a conquering force. A nation thrives by multiplication of such men; it weakens and dwarfs as their numbers diminish. The rule is not confined to individuals. It applies to communities as well as to men. A self-reliant, energetic, prosperous, contented community is a national force. Multiply this force, and the nation grows in strength, prosperity, contentment; and so long as these conditions exist its power will increase and its institutions endure.

Mr. President, a diffusion of industries will multiply such communities as will give us the results I have indicated, and this diffusion will transpire whenever the transportation shackles shall have been stricken from the willing limbs of communities now impatient of the restraints which hold them to inaction. They want to move, but they can not. They witness the processes of forced centralization going on, and feel and know that the vast concentration of capital, and work, and workers in the ponderous cities gives back no augury of encouragement to us to let this system go on unchallenged. I do not mean by this that we should so legislate that cities shall cease to grow; but I do mean that the practices of the transporting corporations whereby abnormal growth is forced upon a few cities at the expense of the equal rights of other communities shall cease by voluntary action or be reformed by law, and in saying this I look beyond the field covered by the material interests of those other communities as they may be affected by a diffusion of industries throughout the country, and into that even more intricate one where the action of political forces tends to resolve the weal or woe of this Republic. Nor do I make the suggestion in any sense from the standpoint of partisan consideration, but from that better view which takes in the public good, the general welfare and stability of our institutions, regard less of the effect which may fall to any party organization or association of men

The committee admit, within certain limitations and oft-occurring conditions, that the provision prohibiting charging more for a shorter than a longer haul, which includes the shorter haul, would be a useful and fair

one.

Mr. President, there should be no limitations to these conditions. Railroad experts may, and do, advance plausible theories for retaining this unlimited control over shipments along the lines of their roads, but there can be no just and equitable reason for it. A railroad company may say that it can haul a loaded car twice the distance under certain conditions for the same amount that it would haul another car, similarly loaded, one-half the distance. That means that a loaded car can be hauled a given distance for nothing, but no railroad company can demonstrate that a loaded car can be hauled a given distance for less than nothing.

The amendment proposed does not provide that the charge shall be in proportion to the distance, or at a rate per mile; it simply requires that railroads shall not charge a greater sum for the same kind of freight for a shorter haul than it does for a longer haul, which includes the shorter. Shippers are willing that the railroads shall receive fair and remunerative rates; they do not complain so much of the rates as they do of the unfairness of discriminations that gives one section advantages over another section, one town over another town, and one set of manufacturers over other manufacturers; that makes lands in one locality

worth more than in another locality less eligibly situated with reference to the markets. And they especially complain to see car-loads of the same kind of freight passing their doors from more distant points to the same markets at less cost than they pay for transporting the same class of freight to the same market a less distance.

Albert Fink, trunk-line commissioner, and perhaps the highest authority on railroad traffic in this country, says in his evidence before your committee, on page 91:

The local charges can always be properly regulated when proper through tariffs are maintained; hence the first object should be to secure the maintenance of properly adjusted through tariffs that are reasonable to the public and to the railroads. This done there will be no difficulty in adjusting local tariffs and preventing unjust discrimination. It is a rule generally adopted by all railroads to properly adjust local tariffs to the through tariffs when the latter are reasonable and fairly remunerative. For example, the tariffs of the Pennsylvania Railroad are so arranged that no higher charge is made from any station east of Pittsburgh to Philadelphia than from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, nor from any station this side of Chicago than from Chicago. That is a rule generally adopted by all roads.

Senator HARRIS. Never to charge more for a short than for a long distance? Mr. FINK. I do not say "never," because there are conditions under which this may be done without any injustice; but it is the general rule, in making tariffs, that whenever a proper through tariff is established, under which the railroads can live, they regulate all the local charges so as not to cause any unjust discrimination between the through and local rates; but when the railroads get into a fight, as some of them are at present, and when they charge 10 or 12 cents a hundred on grain from Chicago to New York, less than the cost of transportation, not because such low rates are a commercial necessity, but simply because the companies can not control the maintenance of reasonable rates on account of dissension among themselves, then the local rates can not be graded down to suit those through rates, and unjust discrimination between local and through rates is the unavoidable result.

The CHAIRMAN. You say the local rates can not be graded down?

Mr. FINK. They can be, of course; but the result would be that the roads would very soon have to stop running, because they would not make enough money to pay their operating expenses; and it is in this way that the great difficulty arises, which has given just cause to much complaint, that in times of war between the railroads, when proper, well-regulated tariffs are not maintained, the local interests suffer, and unjust discrimination exists. The remedy, however, is not to put down the local rates, but to put up the through rates to a proper basis which would be just and reasonable both to the public and the railroads.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean by the Government?

Mr. FINK. That is the question. There can be no doubt that there must be some control exercised over the railroad tariffs that will prevent unjust discrimination. If the railroads can not govern themselves, then I think it is proper that the Government should step in and give aid to the railroads. In that case the question would be whether the Government can give any aid at all, and what that aid should be.

It will be observed that Mr. Fink, who speaks with as much knowledge and authority from a railroad standpoint as any man in this country, concedes the justice of the long and short haul principle, but assumes that through rates must control the local rates; and as the railroads, by reason of competition, rate-cutting, and rate wars, can not control the through rates, that the local rates must not be controlled. That is to say, that railroad managers must be allowed to cut each other's throats on long hauls from competing points and make up the deficiency on the balance of the country by higher rates on shorter hauls.

Mr. President, is it not plain that if Mr. Fink will reverse his proposition and give stability and something like uniformity to local rates he will solve the problem of uniformity and stability to through rates? For if railroads are prohibited from charging more for a short than for a longer haul, which includes the shorter haul, and they know that competition and rate-cutting at distant points means rate-cutting all through to the end of the line in the same direction, would the roads not be forced in self-preservation to maintain uniform and fair through