« PreviousContinue »
touching that same proposition. The amendment proposed by the Senator from Vermont may be found to be quite as important as the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia which has been discussed here for days. I do not say that it is, and I do not say that I shall desire to discuss it at all, but if Senators will consider that amendment they will find that it is very important indeed, and it may necessarily lead to a long discussion.
To say that the discussion to-morrow after 4 o'clock or after any other time shall proceed under the five-minute rule is simply to say that this body is to act upon that most important proposition in the bill, because it is the most important proposition in the bill, in my judgment, the fourth section, without proper discussion and without a proper understanding of it, is to iny mind to pass upon the bill without due consideration.
If the proposition of the Senator from Vermont had been presented here a week or ten days ago and had been discussed and considered in connection with the other amendments, then we would have been ready to vote upon it; but it has not been here at all. If Senators will undertake to investigate the amendment of the Senator from Vermont they will find that it is a very important proposition, and we may be prepared to take it, and we may not.
My judgment is that the best thing the Senate can do is to adjourn upon this condition of affairs and proceed with the discussion of the bill properly.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. The Senator from New York, I think, will remeniber that the proposition which the Senator from Vermont now has given notice he will offer as an amendment to section 4 was suggested by me on one of the days that the so-called Camden amendment was pending. So the Senate is not taken by surprise in this regard at all. It is not a new subject brought at this hour before the Senate but was definitely stated several days ago during that general discussion, and was one of the amendments which I suggested on that occasion.
Mr. CALL. If the Senator from Ilinois will now consent, I will move that the Senate adjourn.
Mr. CULLOM. I hope before the Senator makes the motion to adjourn that the Senate will consent to the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts, that general debate close at 4 o'clock and that after that the debate on the bill and amendments shall be under the five-minute rule.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will again submit the proposition.
Mr. MILLER. Oh, no.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair understands that objection is made. The question recurs on the motion of the Senator from Florida that the Senate do now adjourn.
Mr. ALDRICH. I ask the Senator from Florida to withdraw the motion for a moment until consent can be had for printing the billand amendments.
Mr. CALL. Certainly.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to printing the bill with the amendments? The Chair hears none, and that order is made.
Mr. CULLOM. I shall move to take up the bill to-morrow morning immediately after the morning business.
Mr. CALL. I renew my motion that the Senate adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 21 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Wednesday, May 12, at 12 o'clock m.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1886. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If there are no further “ concurrent or other resolutions " the Calendar is in order.
Mr. CULLOM. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the unfinished business of yesterday.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending question is on concurring in the second reserved amendment made as in Committee of the Whole. The amendment will be stated.
The CHIEF CLERK. In line 3 of section 4, after the words “passengers or," the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, inserted the words "of the like class and quantity of;" so as to read:
That it shall unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of the like class and quantity of property subject to the provisions of this act for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction.
Mr. CAMDEN. That is the amendment which the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK) gave notice that he would move to amend or to strike out.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in the amendment, which is the converse proposition.
Mr. CAMDEN. It is in order, after the notice given by the Senator from Kentucky, to move to amend the amendment, is it not?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is in order to move to amend it, or the question of agreeing to it will, as a matter of course, present the same question as the question of striking it out. It is in order to amend it, however.
Mr. CAMDEN. Would it be in order, if the clause is not stricken out, then to move to amend it?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. If it is now agreed to, it can not be amended, except by adding other words.
Mr. CAMDEN. But if it fails to be amended, then a vote could be taken on striking it out entirely?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Certainly.
Mr. HARRIS. Pending the question, Will the Senate concur in the amendment made in Committee of the Whole? it is competent to amend the amendment, if the Senate chooses so to do.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Clearly.
Mr. CAMDEN. Under the notice given by the Senator from Kentucky I will move to strike out the word “quantity” and insert the word “quality.” The PRESIDENT
pro tempore. That is in order. Mr. CAMDEN. The amendment as it stands now, confining it to the " like class and quantity of property,” would place the section in a position in which it could not be carried out, and would entirely destroy the value of the provision. It would limit it to the exact quantity or would leave it liable to the interpretation that a shipper of one car-load of property might be charged more than a shipper of fifty or five hundred car-loads of property. In other words, it limits it to the
same quantity of shipment. If a car-load of freight of the same kind contains a thousand pounds less than another car-load of the same kind it opens the question of discrimination between the two cars containing a different quantity. If one shipper ships one car-load and another shipper ships fifty car-loads it allows the large shipper to be discriminated in favor of against the shipper of only one car-load.
When the amendment was offered by the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] I sat by the side of the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] and I thought that it would apply to the same class and quality. That would be a proper amendment, and to that amendment I should have no objection. When the Senator from Kentucky asked me what it was I replied to him that it was for the same class or quality of goods. That would mean that the companies may charge, as provided by this section, the same rate for car-loads of cattle, for car-loads of grain, or for car-loads of the like quality of goods; and that would be a proper amendment.
The Senate will understand the question, no doubt. I move to strike out “quantity" and insert "quality.”
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. CAMDEN] to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. ALLISON. I should like to ask the Senator from West Virginia what he understands by the word “quantity.' Does it not have reference to transportation, for instance, by car-load as distinguished from transportation in single packages or parcels? I think that is the understanding in the several State statutes. For example, most railways, I think, charge less for a keg of nails in a car-load of nails transported from Wheeling to Chicago than they do for a single keg of nails mixed up with other freight. I suppose the amendment simply relates to carload quantities as distinguished from smaller parcels which are taken from station to station.
Mr. HARRIS. It is certainly very clear, the Senator from Iowa will allow me to say, that if the amendment stands as it now is incorporated in the bill, the fourth section will not be operative wherever there is a difference in the quantity of goods shipped, however small that ditference. If the Senator desires that it shall apply to the car-load unit, that idea had better be incorporated into the amendment; but I would prefer the adoption of the amendment suggested by the Senator from West Virginia striking out the word “quantity" altogether and letting it apply to the same class, character, and quality of freight.
Mr. ALLISON. That is substantially the same thing.
Mr. ALDRICH. If the Senator from Iowa will let me answer the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee I will state that these words are now in the statutes of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and a large number of other States, and have received judicial construction, and that construction has not been at all of the nature suggested by the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. HARRIS. I should like to ask the Senator from Rhode Island if his amendment remains in the bill and one man ships of grain, if you choose, a car-load of so many tons and another ships a car-load of one ton less, would the rule apply?
Mr. ALDRICH. It certainly would; that is, it would allow the carloads to be carried at the same rate.
Mr. HARRIS. "If one man shipped 100 car-loads and another 50 car. loads, would not his amendment exempt that shipment from the operations of this section ?
Mr. ALDRICH. I think it would.
Mr. ALDRICH. I think it would, and very properly. That was the intention of the amendment.
Mr. HARRIS. Very well; we understand the amendment alike, then. If they differ in quantity, the rule prescribed by the fourth section does not apply to the shipment. Therefore I want to strike out the word "quantity" and let it refer to quality.”
Mr. ALDRICH. I understand the pending amendment of the Senator from West Virginia to be to insert the word "quality" in place of the word "quantity." I take it for granted that the Senators upon that side of the Chamber are desirous that some intelligent and sensible bill shall be passed on this subject. For one, I hope the Senate will not make the bill ridiculous by inserting the word "quality.”
I should like the Senator from West Virginia or any other Senator to say what he means by the "quality" of the freight. Does he mean to say that coal worth $4 a ton is to be transported at a different rate from coal worth $5 a ton, or that coal which is to be used for domestic purposes is to be transported at a different rate from that which is to be used for manufacturing purposes, or that cotton cloth worth 4 cents a yard is to be charged a different rate from cotton cloth worth 8 cents a yard, or that pig-iron is to be charged a different rate according to the quality of the iron?
It seems to me that the amendment is perfectly absurd, with due respect to the Senator from West Virginia who offers it. I do not think that any railroad company ever has varied or ever could vary its rates for the transportation of freight on account of the quality of the goods transported. Every railroad company would be compelled to have an appraiser to determine the quality of the goods upon inspection before the rate could be fixed.
Mr. HARRIS. I should like to suggest to the Senator from West Virginia to modify bis amendment and move to strike out the words
and quantity" without inserting the word “quality.” “Of the like class " is quite specific enough, without putting in the word "quality" at all.
Mr. CAMDEN. I accept that.
Mr. HARRIS. Hence I suggest to him to modify his amendment so as to move merely to strike out the words and quantity." Mr. CAMDEN. I accept the suggestion of the Senator from Ten
My object is to get at the same result aimed at by the Senator from Tennessee, and I think that his suggestion completely covers it.
In this connection I will say, however, in answer to the Senator from Rhode Island, that "quality" can not be construed to embrace the definition he gives to it. The word "quality" here would mean “ the like kind and character." It does not refer to the degree of fineness or the difference between the quality of the goods, but it refers to the same classification of goods. That is the idea of my amendment.
Mr. ALDRICH. The word “class” is already in the amendment.
Mr. CAMDEN. But “class" is not classification. Classification rates are divided into first, second, third, and fourth class rates. The quality is the classification of the rate; but the word “class' embraces the whole thing, and I accept the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee. Mr. PLATT. The necessity some ame
ent of this kind, I suppose, arises from the fact that there is fear that unless something of the
nature of this amendment is put into this section it will prevent a railroad from charging for a small quantity of goods any more than for a large quantity of goods under the short-haul provision. For instance, if there was nothing of the kind suggested by the amendment in the bill, it is supposed by some Senators that a railroad company would have no right to charge any greater amount for one horse when shipped alone than was charged for one horse when shipped by the car-load a greater distance. I think it would be wrong to bind a railroad company to any such rule as that. It would not be right to allow a person who wanted to ship 10 bushels of grain for 900 miles to say, "I must have the same rate on those 10 bushels of grain when shipped alone that a large shipper has for 950 miles when the grain is shipped by the carload or by many car-loads."
If the section is open to that construction, there ought to be some amendment here to relieve it from that construction, for Senators will see that that would not be right or just. It would not be right or just for the Senator from West Virginia to go to the depot at Parkersburg with a single horse and say, “I must have the same rate, or at least no higher rate for this horse which is to occupy an entire car, than for a horse when shipped in a car-load of horses from Chicago to New York.
If the section is open to that construction, it should have something in the nature of this amendment; but the difficulty, I apprehend, is in the language employed. It is the language of the Massachusetts statute, but Mr. Russell, the chairman of the Massachusetts railroad commission, says that “class” is an unfortunate word in that statute. “Class” is used certainly at times with a technical significance, meaning "classification.” The railroad commissioners of Massachusetts have held, however, that “class” in the statute means “kind," but they admit that it is open to misconstruction. “Kind” is a very much better word than "class,” in my judgment. Let me read from the testimony of Mr. Russell, chairman of the railroad commission of Massa chusetts. He says: The law applies to freight of the same kind,
Mr. CAMDEN. Will the Senator from Connecticut allow me to interrupt him a moment?
Mr. PLATT. Yes, sir.
Mr. CAMDEN. If the Senator prefers the word “kind” I have no objection.
Mr. MILLER. I would suggest to the Senator from Connecticut if he wants to change the word “class,” that the technical railroad word is “ classification." We all know that all railroads divide their freight into from one to five different classifications.
Mr. PLATT. That is just what I want to avoid.
Mr. PLATT. The classification throughout the country is not uniform. That is one of the difficulties of the railroad problem. The classification west of the Mississippi River is entirely different from the classification east of the Mississippi River; and if this word “class" or “classification” is in here and the word “class” means “classification," then you immediately get into trouble with freight which crosses the Mississippi River either east or west because the classification is entirely different.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator will permit me for a moment. There