given quantity of grain or any kind of property over a given line of road, say a thousand miles, and another given quantity for 500 miles, the railroad company shall not be allowed to charge any more for shipping the 500 miles that given quantity of property than the thousand miles.

Mr. ALDRICH. Referring to a similar kind of freight and to a similar quantity. I want an explanation of the Senator's own statement. Does he refer to a similar kind of freight or a similar quantity?

Mr. CULLOM. The railroad companies are allowed to make their own classifications as far as this bill is concerned. The bill does not undertake to say that they shall charge as much or less for shipping a car-load, or any other given quantity of grain. We do not undertake to regulate the question of amount at all, but we leave the subject in the hands of the commission, so that if a man is charged as much for shipping a jack-knife as he does for shipping a car-load of grain, it is extortion, and it is for the commission to see what is being done and to prosecute the railroad company if it is proper to do so in such a case. The bill does not interfere with that.

The bill simply provides, so far as this section is concerned, in the first portion of it. that you shall be governed by the provisions of the law and you shall not charge more for the short than you do for the long distance. As to the quantity, there is nothing said about it in the section, and there is not any necessity for anything being said about it to make any court or anybody else understand what the provision

means.

When the Senator from Kansas intimates that there has been some sort of following of this committee by railroad men and the procuring of the insertion of words in this bill that will protect the railroads in some way or other in the framing of the provisions of the section, I undertake to say that any insinuation of that sort is utterly groundless, because those words were inserted in the section as a matter of fact on the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. HARRIS], who was simply desiring to get the section in such shape as that it could be construed to mean what it says in contradistinction of the idea that they should not be allowed to charge so much per mile. In other words, that it should not be a prorate provision, but it should be in the aggregate as to the whole distance.

Mr. KENNA. Will the Senator allow me to make a suggestion? Mr. CULLOM.

Mr. KENNA.

Certainly.

I understand the section to be intended to deal with gross amounts and not with rates.

Mr. ALLISON. If the fourth section was out that would be exactly true.

Mr. CULLOM. That is the effect of the fourth section.

Mr. ALLISON. I do not know that I can contribute anything to the debate on this subject, but after carefully looking at the second section of this bill it seems to me that the true amendment to be inserted in lines 3 and 4 of section 4 would be to put in a substantial reference to the second section of the bill. The second section of the bill provides: That if any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback, or other device, charge, demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for any service rendered, or to be rendered, in the transportation of passengers or property, subject to the provisions of the act, than it charges, demands, collects, or receives from any other person or persons for doing for him or them a like and contemporaneous service in the transportation of a like kind of traffic under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, such common carrier shall be deemed guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared to be unlawful.

It seems to me plain that the second section does recognize the right of the railway company to charge different rates for the same class of property, if you please, where the conditions and circumstances are dissimilar; so that I think a railway can make a classification of so much per car, so much per parcel, or can make a classification which shall include pig-iron and crude oil, and another classification which shall include nails by the keg and refined oil, and so on; and under those classifications, if the conditions are similar and the circumstances alike, they may make the same rate. If they are not alike they can make differ

ent rates.

So it seems to me it would be better to insert here 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, as provided by the second section of this act, which clearly indicates the conditions and circumstances. &c., which will regulate the different classes. Would not that cover the suggestion of the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island? Unless some such provision is already understood to be in this bill, I am entirely in favor of the insertion of it in the fourth section, as the Senator from Rhode Island has proposed, and if anything is to be inserted the language that is there now is the precise language that ought to be inserted, and no other.

Mr. PLATT. Of course I do not suppose that any member of this committee can compete with the Senator from Kansas in the critical examination of the language of this bill, but I want to assure the Senator from Kansas, without any feeling in reference to the charges or insinuations which he has made with regard to the object of this word “aggregate" in the bill, that he is entirely mistaken so far as the committee is concerned, though I understand he does not impute anything to the committee.

Mr. INGALLS. I made not the slightest imputation by the remotest inference on any member of the committee.

it.

Mr. PLATT. I so understood the Senator, and I have no feeling about The committee put that word in there as I understand-it was not a favorite word of mine; I think it was rather a favorite word of the Senator from Tennessee-so that there should be no opportunity for a railroad company or a railroad manager to evade this provision as to not charging more for a short than for a long haul: and I will illustrate what it was for. If that word was not in there, what might a railroad officer do under a given set of circumstances? For instance, we will say it is 90 miles from New York to Philadelphia. That is the long haul. We will say it is 80 miles from New York to Germantown. That is the short haul. A railroad officer in New York might give a rate to Philadelphia of half a cent per mile, which would be 45 cents per ton, and for 10 tons would be $4.50 to Philadelphia. A man comes and says: "I want to ship some goods to Germantown," which we will say is 80 miles; these are not the exact distances. He says: "I charge you half a cent a ton per mile, which is 40 cents per ton, which is $4 for 10 tons, and I charge you $2 for terminal charges at New York," which makes $6 from New York to Germantown as against $4.50 he charged from New York to Philadelphia. The committee may have got befogged about that, but that and similar things were what the committee intended to prevent.

Mr. VANCE. Mr. President, it is said that in a multitude of counselors there is safety, at least for the counselors if for nobody else.

This discussion, to which I have listened with a great deal of interest since its beginning, has satisfied me that the amendment made by the committee in the fourth line should not be there. The true object of the fourth section is to prevent the unjust discrimination of the overcharge on the short haul. That is the whole object; and it seems to me that if that is the object of the section, the purpose is sufficiently and explicitly answered as the original language of the bill was with the exception of the amendment which was made in lines 6 and 7:

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.

Leaving the classification of property and all the details of it to the discretion of the railroad companies. Whenever we have said that there shall be no more charged for the short haul of passengers or property than for the long haul, we have answered what is intended by the section, no matter what kind of property may be affected. The language now of the amendment, "of the like class and quantity of property," would by implication say that there may be a kind of property and is a kind of property on which a carrier may rightfully charge more for the short haul than for the long haul. That can not be, because if the proposition is correct that the short haul shall not be charged more than the long one, it applies to one kind of property as well as another. I hope that the Senator from West Virginia will agree to the striking out of the words inserted in Committee of the Whole, and will stand square in behalf of the fourth section without any further amendment.

Mr. MCPHERSON. Mr. President, it would simplify the matter very much if it were in order at this stage of the discussion of the bill to move to strike out the entire fourth section and present a substitute for it. I rise to inquire if I should be in order at this time in doing that.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would not be in order at this time to move to strike out the whole fourth section. The amendments of the Committee of the Whole must first be acted upon. After they are acted on it will be in order to move to strike out the section. Mr. MCPHERSON. I ask that unanimous consent be given me at this stage

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I object.

Mr. MCPHERSON.

Very well, then: I will wait.

Mr. HARRIS. I suggest to the Senator from New Jersey and to the Chair that the Senator from New Jersey proposes to strike out the whole section and offer a substitute for it. His amendment may be offered at this time, and both the substitute he offers and the text of the section proposed to be stricken out will be open to amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It would not be in order now to of fer to amend the fourth section of the bill further than to amend the amendments already proposed. At a later stage it will be in order.

Mr. MCPHERSON. I would like to state while I am on my feet and in the line of discussion touching the amendments now being considered by the Senate, that I think if there is any question which has come before the Senate during my service in this body which the Senate has demonstrated its inability to cope with or meet intelligently it is the question now before the Senate. What I proposed to do, and what I shall do at some future time, is to eliminate from this discussion and from this bill this entire section and leave the whole matter where it is proposed to leave the pooling question in the nineteenth section

of the bill, with the commission itself, to examine and report to Congress exactly what legislation can be made and safely made. That is my purpose.

The nineteenth section of the bill proposes that the commission shall deal with the pooling question. I shall take part of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER], for I do not agree with all his amendment; neither do I agree with the committee's fourth section of the bill; but I shall take the last half of the amendment offered by the Senator from Wisconsin, which places the whole question of the long and short haul and of pooling entirely in the hands of the commission and requires it to report to Congress. That seems to me to be the intelligent way of dealing with it. The commission in other sections of the bill are required in every case to see that the rates from any part or section of the country, whether for a long or short haul, are reasonable and just; but as to the question involved in the fourth section of the bill, it properly belongs to the commission for examination and report.

Mr. CALL. Mr. President, I believe the question presented to the Senate now is upon concurrence in the amendment adopted in Committee of the Whole as to "the like class and quantity of property."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. An amendment is proposed to that amendment by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN]. Mr. CALL. After that the question will come up on concurrence in this amendment.

I quite agree with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. CULLOM] that this part of the original section was in proper form and is better without this amendment. I think, therefore, that neither the amendment proposed by the Senator from West Virginia nor this amendment should be adopted, but that the Senate should non-concur in both.

The section is intended to reach and does reach alone the question of the long and short haul and the compensation for it. It is pertinent to nothing else; it can not affect anything else. It is perfectly clear that it only relates to the question of a greater compensation for a shorter than for a longer distance, and by no possibility, unless you interpolate this language in it, can it have any kind of relation to or effect on any other thing.

As to the discussion in reference to the word aggregate," adopted by the committee, that is very plain. Suppose there are two companies, common carriers in interstate transportation, using two lines of road. One line of road may charge twice as much as the other. This bill does not prohibit it. It simply requires that the aggregate on both roads, including their terminal charges, shall be the same. There is no difficulty about that; it is perfectly plain. The language adopted by the committee is appropriate, and you can not find a better term than the term aggregate" to express that idea that two roads, each charging different rates, shall not to the interstate transporter charge more in the aggregate, in the total, including their terminal facilities. The language is perfectly plain.

66

Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator from Florida permit me to ask him a question, as I am not sure that I understand him?

Mr. CALL. Certainly.

Mr. BROWN. Do you mean that we should disagree to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia which was adopted some days since, and the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island, both, and leave the section as it came from the committee?

Mr. CALL. No, sir, I mean this: in the text of section 4 you will see the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island in italics, "of the like class and quantity of."

Mr. BROWN. Then you do not propose to leave the section as it was reported by the committee, but you propose to take the section with the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia, which was adopted some time since, and treat that as the section?

Mr. CALL. That question is not now before the Senate.
Mr. BROWN.

position.

I understand that, but I wanted to understand your

Mr. CALL. That is my position, but the question before the Senate now is upon amending the words which are now in the bill "of the like class and quantity of" by striking out the word "quantity" and inserting the word "quality.'

Mr. BROWN. Then, by the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia you mean his amendment to the amendment of the Senator from Rhode Island?

Mr. CALL. Yet, sir, that is what I am speaking of.

Mr. HARRIS. If the Senator from Florida will allow me to make a suggestion to him, the Senator from West Virginia is ready to ask the unanimous consent of the Senate to withdraw the amendment he has heretofore offered and to offer this, which is satisfactory to the committee and also to the Senator from Rhode Island who moved the amendment:

Of like kind of property under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.

Adopting the language of the second section instead of the language adopted by the Senator from Rhode Island in his amendment.

Mr. CALL. I have no objection to that, though I do not think that has anything to do with that section.

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia not being present

Mr. HARRIS. The Senator from West Virginia is right at my elbow. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair begs pardon. The Senator from Virginia was recognized by the Chair.

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. Mr. President, I do not like the way this bill is being managed. There are too many amendments proposed and adopted without a vote. If the Senator from Rhode Island has any amendment to make to the bill it would be well to suggest it to the Senate and not to the Senator from Tennessee.

Sir, I do not represent a terminal State as the Senator from Rhode Island possibly does, but I do know the difference between a terminal State and terminal points of railroads. Therefore, I suggest again to the Senator from Tennessee that every Senator on this floor shall know exactly what is going in the bill and what is being taken out of it. I asked that an amendment be read a while ago and I could not have it done, because the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Kansas insisted upon holding the floor and discussing the amendment.

I undertake to say that the bill is argued only from the constituent standpoint; that every Senator here is trying to do something that will give his own people an advantage over those somebody else represents. If I am mistaken in that, then I do not understand the debate. Mr. ALDRICH. Then you disclaim it.

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I do not disclaim it, and if I excel the