Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. DINGLEY. The general debate not having been entered upon on this bill it is not in order to move to close it.

Mr. WELLBORN. But there has been general debate.

The SPEAKER. Of course if there has been no general debate the motion would not be in order.

Mr. REAGAN. There has not been much, but I suppose I spoke two or three minutes upon it.

Mr. DOCKERY. I do not think that there has been any.

The SPEAKER. The record will show. The present occupant of the chair supposes that the gentleman from Texas, before the bill was read at all, took the floor and proceeded to state the situation in regard to the bill, that is, when it came to the House and what order had been made in reference to it; but the Chair remembers no general debate.

Mr. WELLBORN. My colleague had actually begun his speech when it was interrupted by the objection of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUNHAM], who insisted on the reading of the bill.

The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the gentleman was merely stating the situation of the bill.

Mr. WELLBORN. I do not know what progress he had made, but he was actually addressing the House upon the bill.

The SPEAKER. The Chair remembers the gentleman had the floor and was proceeding in the manner suggested to explain the situation of the bill.

Mr. REED, of Maine. Why can not the gentleman make his observations now?

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The bill had not been read then. The SPEAKER. The bill had not been read when the gentleman from Texas took the floor, but it was read afterward.

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House to the question before it at this time. The Senate bill which has been read was referred to the Committee on Commerce. The committee reported that bill back with the recommendation to strike out all after the enacting clause and substitute the provisions of the House bill for it. It is right for me to say in reference to the main features of difference between the two bills that in three different Congresses, with the issue directly made, the House has decided in favor of the provisions of the House bill by large majorities upon a yea-and-nay vote.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I ask the gentleman from Texas to yield to me a few minutes before he gets through.

Mr. REAGAN. In a moment.

It was my belief and hope, sir, that we would be able to take action upon the bill at a much earlier day. After the House bill was in a position to take it up the Senate bill came to the House; and I think it is right I should make this explanation in view of some remarks that have been made. It would then have been idle to take up the House bill without reference to the other. The committee, therefore, as they believed proper, took up the Senate bill referred to them and acted upon it. It was some time after the Senate bill was reported back by the committee and placed upon the Calendar before we got this bill placed by order of the House for consideration along with the House bill.

From the time that order was obtained the House has been occupied continuously with appropriation bills and revenue bills which had pre

cedence, and there has been no time since this bill has been in a condition to be called up when it has been possible to call it up. Gentlemen may rest assured that if there had been any such time it would have been called up, for I have been in my place all the time, intending all the time to call it up whenever it was in order. I feel it due to the committee that I should make this statement, in view of the remarks made here this morning implying that the bill might have been considered at an early day in the session if sufficient vigilance had been exercised.

I now yield five minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'NEILL].

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take any five minutes for general debate upon this bill, because I want the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Texas, to comply with his agreement, to stand by his vote in the committee and to stand by the committee. I must say I have never seen such an instance as the gentleman presents of

Mr. TOWNSHEND. I call the gentleman to order. The gentleman declines to take the time yielded to him by the gentleman from Texas. Mr. TAULBEE. I rise to a parliamentary inquiry.

The SPEAKER.

The gentleman will state it.

Mr. TAULBEE. Do committees govern general debate in the House, or does that rest with the House?

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennnsylvania. I will answer that. The committees always arrange about the debate, and the gentleman ought to know it.

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to state to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'NEILL] that if he declines to accept the time

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. I do not decline to accept the time. I decline it for general debate. I desire to say to this House that they should have a practical exposition of these two bills

Mr. REAGAN. I call for the regular order, Mr. Speaker. I renew my motion that general debate be closed at 5 o'clock to-day, and upon that I ask the previous question.

Mr. TOWNSHEND. I ask my friend from Texas to make it 4 o'clock instead of 5.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] moves that general debate upon this bill close at 5 o'clock this afternoon. Mr. TOWNSHEND. I move to amend by making it 4 o'clock. Mr. DUNHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The SPEAKER. The motion can not be laid on the table. It is not debatable, and it is one of those motions which can not be disposed of in that way. The gentleman from Texas moves that all general debate upon this bill be closed at 5 o'clock p. m. to-day; to which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. TowNSHEND] moves an amendment, that all general debate upon the bill close at 4 o'clock p. m.; and upon these questions the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] demands the previous question.

The previous question was ordered.

The SPEAKER. The question now is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. TOWNSHEND] that general debate close at 4 o'clock.

Mr. BURROWS. Mr. Speaker, I desire to inquire whether the gentleman from Illinois means 4 o'clock this afternoon.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. BURROWS. Why, if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] occupies his hour, as he probably will, that will leave but half an hour for other gentlemen.

The question was taken on the amendinent of Mr. TOWNSHEND, and the Speaker declared that the ayes seemed to have it.

Mr. DUNHAM. I ask for a division.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 88, noes 42.

Mr. DUNHAM. No quorum.

The SPEAKER. The point being made that no quorum has voted, the Chair will appoint the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. DUNHAM, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. TOWNSHEND, to act as tellers.

The House again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 106, noes 23. Mr. TOWNSHEND. Mr. Speaker, in order to compromise this matter, I am willing to withdraw my amendment and let the general debate be closed at 5 o'clock.

The SPEAKER.

That is for the House to determine.

Mr. REAGAN. And with that let it be understood that the time is to be equally divided between the friends and the opponents of the

measure.

Mr. DUNHAM.

I object

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas.

Mr. HISCOCK.

draw his motion?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Has not the gentleman from Illinois a right to with

The SPEAKER. Certainly; but the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. DUNHAM] objects to the proposed understanding.

Mr. HISCOCK. But the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. TOWNSHEND] can withdraw his motion.

The SPEAKER. That he has a right to do.

Mr. TOWNSHEND. Then, Mr. Speaker, in deference to the desires of several gentlemen around me, I withdraw my amendment.

The SPEAKER. The amendment being withdrawn, the question is on the motion of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. REAGAN] that general debate close at 5 o'clock.

The question was taken; and the Speaker declared that the ayes seemed to have it.

[blocks in formation]

The House divided; and there were-ayes 114, noes 1.

Mr. DUNHAM.

No quorum has voted.

Mr. ANDERSON, of Kansas. I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative-yeas 204, nays 24, not voting 94; as follows:

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

So the motion to close general debate on the pending bill at 5 o'clock

p. m. to-day was agreed to.

Mr. MILLS.

I desire to announce that my colleague [Mr. SAYERS] 'is absent on a conference committee.

The following additional pairs were announced:

Mr. LOVERING with Mr. KELLEY, for the remainder of the day. Mr. ADAMS, of New York, with Mr. HAN BACK, for the remainder of the day.

The SPEAKER. Some requests for leave of absence which should have been presented to the House this morning were at that time mislaid. If there be no objection the Chair will now lay them before the House, before announcing the result of the vote just taken.

There was no objection; and, by unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted as follows:

To Mr. BRAGG, for the remainder of the session, on account of important business.

To Mr. WEST, for one week, on account of important business.
To Mr. SENEY, until Monday next.

To Mr. ANDERSON, of Ohio, indefinitely.

To Mr. BARNES, indefinitely, on account of important business.

To Mr. REID, North Carolina, until Monday next.

The result of the vote was announced as above stated.

Mr. REAGAN. There are now two hours and ten minutes remaining under the order of the House for general debate. I suggest that the time be equally divided between the friends and the opponents of the bill; and I suggest that the time in opposition be under the control of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. O'NEILL].

[blocks in formation]

Mr. REAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I shall limit what I have to say on this question to a statement of the leading differences between the two bills now before the House for consideration.

The Senate bill differs from the House bill in that its provisions relate to the transportation of passengers as well as freights, and transportation by water as well as by land.

The House bill relates only to the transportation of freights and on railroads.

The first section of the House bill should be amended by adding to it lines 24, 25, 26, 27 of the first section of the Senate bill.

The second section of the Senate bill differs from the House bill in providing a measure of damages for its violation, and which is inadequate, by saying that a person charged a higher rate than is charged to any other person may collect the difference between such higher rate and the lowest rate charged upon like shipments during the same period. This is no improvement on the common-law remedy which may now be invoked for a like purpose. The common law furnishes no practicable remedy for the abuses of power and the unlawful conduct of the managers of railroads. Claimants for small sums as damages can not as a general rule afford the expense of litigation to establish their claims, while the railroad corporations as a rule protract such litigation to such an extent as to wear out the claimants and defeat the ends of justice. Their power to tax the commerce of the country at will enables them to supply the revenues necessary to employ the ablest legal talent of the country to represent them, and also to meet court costs; for these purposes the citizen must use his private means. This is known as a matter of common observation to all of us, and if we would protect the public against such wrongs we must furnish a better remedy than the

« PreviousContinue »