Senator from Rhode Island in making a frank statement he will excuse me for it. I do not mean to cast my vote for a bill that is to give Rhode Island an advantage over any other State unless she is entitled to it and unless she can assert here to-day that she labors under some disadvantage.

The bill ought never to pass Congress unless it is meant to say that we intend to take charge of the railroads and the telegraph lines of the country. Then we should say it all at once, take charge of everything that is identified with the transmission of mail matter and of freight, and let every man be patriotic enough to come up and vote for it. But when the Senator from New Jersey suggests the amendment he does I know what it means, and I should be unfit to represent the people who sent me here if I did not know it. Representing an Atlantic coast State simply, fighting on the same line that he has been for the three years I have known him here, he asks that there shall be free trade for all that labor produces everywhere else than in the State of New Jersey and that they shall have protection there.

I know that it is not in order after having made a speech to make a motion which will in itself not be debatable, but there seems to be so much in the bill that so many gentleman have an interest in that I now move to lay it on the table.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia moves that the amendment do lie on the table.

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. No, sir, the bill, I beg pardon; and I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virgina moves that the bill lie on the table, and on that motion he demands the yeas and nays.

The yeas and pays were ordered; and the Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. PALMER (when Mr. CONGER'S name was called). If my colleague [Mr. CONGER] were here, he would vote “nay."

The roll-call was concluded.

Mr. BLACKBURN. On this question I am paired with the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. MANDERSON]. If he were present I should vote nay.

Mr. HALE. I am paired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK]. If he were here, I should vote nay.”

Mr. HARRIS. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BECK] would vote nay" if he were here.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I will say to the Senator from Maine that if my colleague [Mr. BECK] were present he would vote "nay.”

Mr. HALE. Then I shall vote nay.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I will assume to vote in the face of my pair, and ask to record my vote "nay."

Mr. JONES, of Arkansas. I am paired with the Senator from Indiana [Mr. HARRISON], but I feel sure that if he were present he would vote "nay." So I record my vote nay.

Mr. VAN WYCK. My colleague [Mr. MANDERSON], who is paired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BLACK BURN], is only temporarily absent from the Chamber. He would vote nay if present.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I have already recorded my vote in the negative.

Mr. VAN WYCK. I merely desired to state the position of my colleague.

Mr. BLACKBURN. I have stated as much, and voted.

Mr. VEST (after having voted in the negative). I withdraw my vote. I am paired with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. PLUMB]. I do not know how he would vote, and I do not see his colleague [Mr. INGALLS] here to instruct me.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The vote is withdrawn.
The result was announced-yea 1, nays 54; as follows:

So the motion to lay the bill on the table was not agreed to.

Mr. CAMDEN. Mr. President

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. May I ask the Senator from West Virginia to give me just one moment?

Mr. CAMDEN. Certainly.

Mr. RIDDLEBERGER. I wish to call attention to the fact that the vote just taken settles the whole constitutional question, and certainly resolves all that we would call a Democratic States rights party into the one general proposition that the Federal Government has a right to control the railroads. I ask pardon, but I wanted to solve the proposition. I do not want any more gentlemen to come and talk to me and to the people whom I in part represent about States rights. We have now determined that question with one single vote against it, that the Federal Government has a right to fix the status of the railroads and to control them, and that includes telegraphs and everything else.

Mr. CAMDEN. I am very heartily in favor of the bill, and I do not seek to throw any obstructions in the way of it. My sole object is to so restrict and modify the language used in the amendment offered by the Senator from Rhode Island as to make it in harmony with the bill. It has been suggested to strike out after the word "or," in line 3, the words "of the like class and quantity of property." and to insert "of like kind of property under substantially similar circumstances and conditions.""

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from West Virginia withdraw his former amendment to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole on the motion of the Senator from Rhode Island?

Mr. CAMDEN. I desire to withdraw my former amendment, and to offer the amendment I have just stated, as it meets the point fully I was aiming at in offering the former amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. In section 4, line 3, after the word "or," it is proposed to strike out the words "of the like class and quantity of property," and insert in lieu thereof the words:

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

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

Mr. MILLER. I am very glad to see that the Senator from West Virginia has repented of his amendment which was adopted some days ago, and that he is now willing to restore section 4 to its condition as it was originally reported by the committee.. Of course while agreeing to the amendment which he has suggested, and I shall be very glad to agree to it, it leaves nothing of his other amendment, and I have no doubt when we reach line 6 he will vote to non-concur in it.

Mr. CAMDEN. I could not understand what the Senator from New York said, though I should have liked to have done so.

Mr. VANCE. If the object of the friends of this portion of the bill is sincerely to relieve the discrimination upon the individual whose shipment is called the short haul, I can not see why they are not content to let well enough alone. The language employed in the fourth section, "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 subject to the provisions of this act for a shorter than a longer haul over the same line in the same direction," is just as explicit as language can be made. Everybody would understand it, and there could be no mistaking it by courts or railroad companies.

But when you come to insert "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions," you simply open a gap through which, in less time than we have taken in the passage of this bill, the railroad companies will drive not only a coach and six, but an engine with forty cars. That would be the effect of it.

How can the conditions be substantially similar, if one lot of freight is shipped 500 miles and another is shipped 1,000 miles? What do you mean by that? How can the circumstances be similar when the articles are dissimilar, when the distance is dissimilar, and when the amount of service rendered by the carrier is dissimilar?

I do not impugn men's motives; I am not in the habit of doing so; but it seems to me that if we are in dead earnest, if we are not trying to deceive the people by throwing a tub to the whale, when we have incorporated language which serves our purpose we should stop and not put in any language that would enable somebody to hang a doubt upon it, or by perverting the interpretation avoid the true intent and meaning of the act. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. MAXEY. The amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia and adopted as in Committee of the Whole was perfectly plain to my mind, and was a positive command of law. The law proposed

ISC- -24

directed; it left nothing on that point to the commission, nothing to the discretion of anybody. But the expression used now in the proposed amendment takes from the power of the law the settlement of this question and transfers it to the commission. That is the effect of it. It leaves to the discretion of the commission to determine whether there are substantialty like conditions and circumstances, whereas the measure settled the matter without leaving it to the commissioners or anybody else.

If the question came into court, all the courts could do would be to take the law as written and say whether the law has been complied with; but when you put in these words of discretion (and they are words of discretion), "substantially similar conditions and circumstances," then the courts would have to determine by their own discretion or by that of the commissioners whether the circumstances were substantially the same.

So to my mind there is an essential difference between the amendment as now proposed and that adopted as in Committee of the Whole. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the proposed amendment to the amendment made as in Committee of the Whole.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment as amended.

The amendment as amended was concurred in.

Mr. CULLOM. Probably it would be well to transpose the words in lines 4 and 5 of the fourth section, "subject to the provisions of this act," and insert the same words after the word "carrier" in line 2 of the same section, so as to read:

That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive, &c.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The words will be transposed if there be no objection. The Chair hears none. The next reserved amendment will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK.

In section 4, line 6, after the word "direction," the Senate as in Committee of the Whole agreed to 'strike out the words:

And from the same original point of departure.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on concurring in this reserved amendment.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I move to amend the clause proposed to be stricken out by adding after the word "departure" and before the semicolon in line 7 of the reprinted bill the words "or to the same point of arrival."

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated. The CHIEF CLERK. In section 4, line 7, after the word "direction," insert the words "or to the same point of arrival;" so as to read:

For a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, or to the same point of arrival.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Vermont to the reserved amendment. Mr. EDMUNDS. The object of that is to have the clause retained in the bill and made complete.

Mr. HARRIS. The Chief Clerk did not read the part stricken out as in Committee of the Whole, the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN].

Mr. EDMUNDS. I refer to the clause as it stands in the original bill. The Committee of the Whole recommends that it be stricken out but it is still part of the bill; it is merely a recommendation of the Committee of the Whole. If my amendment be agreed to with the clause proposed to be stricken out, it would read:

And from the same original point of departure or to the same point of arrival. I am amending the clause proposed to

That makes a whole clause.

be stricken out. If my amendment should be agreed to then the bill would read:

For a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, and from the same original point of departure, or to the same point of arrival.

The bill as it stands only covers that evil from the point of departure, and therefore, while you could not ship from Chicago to Pittsburgh at a less rate than you could from Pittsburgh to New York, for instance, you could ship at a less rate than you could from Pittsburgh to New York, because Pittsburgh is not the same original point of departure that Chicago is. Therefore, to complement it, and make that proposition complete, you have got to have it work both ways, so that shipping from Chicago to New York (I take that as an illustration), being the original point of departure, the bill would forbid the Chicago shipper, the railroad, to make a greater rate from Chicago to Pittsburgh, for illustration, than from Chicago to New York. But when you come to the other part of the same proposition, the shipper, without my amendment, i ⚫ would still be at liberty to make a greater rate from Pittsburgh to New York than from Chicago to New York, because Pittsburgh and Chicago are not the same original points of departure.

As

In order to make this thing just, it is proper to add "or to the same point of arrival," so that a shipper from Pittsburgh to New York could not be charged more than a shipper from Chicago to New York. the bill has it, he could be charged more from Chicago to Pittsburgh than he could from Chicago to New York, and from Pittsburgh to New York he could be charged any sum that the company chose to impose upon him.

Mr. HARRIS. May I ask the Senator from Vermont if his amendment is agreed to and his idea is carried out in respect to this section, whether the railroad company could not charge one rate from Chicago to New York and charge a different rate from a depot 50 miles east of Chicago, and a higher rate to New York?

Mr. EDMUNDS. No; that is exactly what my amendment forbids, and exactly what may be done now under the bill as it stands. Mr. KENNA. Not as it stands.

Mr. EDMUNDS. As it stands; because the amendment agreed to as in Committee of the Whole is not yet finally agreed to, and so I say the words are still in the bill "from the same original point of departure.

Mr. KENNA. I hope the Senator will allow me a word just at that point. Suppose a car-load or a number of car-loads started 50 miles east of Chicago and stopped 5 miles west of New York, then the provision, which the Senator proposes, would not affect the right to charge there.

Mr. EDMUNDS. It would not affect it either way; neither would the original proposition.

?

7