« PreviousContinue »
act of Congress, and states that the act of Massachusetts is different from it, and his reasons
Mr. WILSON, of lowa. That would be simply involving a difference of opinion between Judge Russell and myself and other members of the Senate concerning the proper construction of the fourth section of the present bill. That is all there is of that. It does not avoid the point I am making, that Massachusetts has the long-and-short-haul provision of this bill in her law, and one reason given for the satisfaction which the commissioners have concerning that law is that it bas remedied a great evil and a great injustice. It has helped to save small industries and small places from being crushed out of existence. If it will do that in Massachusetts, where they apply this rule. why not, if it is given proper application, do the same in other States?
Mr. President, one of the reasons why I support this bili is that it will have a tendency to prevent the crushing out of small industries; and not only that, but it will have the additional tendency of inducing the upbuilding of small industries. It may be that Rhode Island and Massachusetts, speaking here to-day, see through the operation of this bill, it' it shall become a law, the upbuilding of manufacturing business in Iowa, in Nebraska, in Minnesota, in Dakota, and throughout those Western regions that are now depressed, or, rather, which are now prevented because of the methods and practices of the administration of our railway system.
I have a case in mind like this, which seems to me in point. A gentleman who had accumulated a few thousand dollars desired to establish a wagon manufactory at a town in the State of Iowa. He had capital sufficient to buy the lots on which to erect his buildings, sufficient to put up the buildings, and to purchase and place his machinery therein to give employment to fifty or seventy-five workmen. He looked the ground over and made his calculations. He saw what he could do, and determined upon locating at that point. The next important thing for him, Mr. President, was to ascertain whether or not as against your great factories in Ohio, and as against the factories in Chicago or in New York, or elsewhere he could get such rates for material in and such rates for manufactured product out as would justify him in investing his capital where, as a citizen and business man, he desired. When he made his application to the company to know what rates he could have, what was the answer? “No, we can not give you such rates as these others have. We are not prepared to have manufacturing establishments built at this point; go to this place, to that place, or the other," naming them. But, he responded, "I have not money enough to buy land to build a house on at those places. I can do all that I need to do at the place I have selected—buy my land, build my houses, and put in machinery sufficient to give fifty or seventy-five men employment.” He could not do it simply because of the method adopted by the transporting companies of the country for favorite localities while applying the opposite to others.
There are instances of this kind multiplied over and over again throughout the country, instances of such discrimination as I called to the attention of the Senate before the holidays with respect to the corn crop of Iowa, instances of favoritism of all kinds, instances of such favoritism as bring out from the manufacturers of agricultural machinery in your own State protests against this bill because they have special rates and others can not get them. Of course the manufacturing establishments that have their special rates do not want a bill
passed that will establish a rule of equality, fairness, and exact justice between all men engaged in business in this country.
It is because I believe this bill has the tendency to bring about these great results that I shall give it my support. I want to establish in our commercial system, so largely dominated by our transportation system, that equality in business movements that each man is entitled to under the Constitution of the United States and ourdoctrine of equality. I do not want these artificial persons, the transporting companies of the country, to determine whether I or any other man may or may not invest capital for the purpose of business whenever and wherever we please. Yet that is a usurpation that the transportation companies have assumed to themselves, and they do dictate where business may be done and where it may not be done, where profit may be made and where it may not be made.
Therefore, having, as I have said, with care and diligence studied this question since the days, years ago, referred to by the Senator from Rhode Island—having, because of that care and study,changed my views somewhat, I have concluded, as a Senator representing in part the people of the State of Iowa, to give my vote for å measure which I believe will tend in the direction of justice.
Mr. President, I do not concur in the position which has been taken by some Senators that we had better not do anything now and wait and see whether we can not find something better. The people and the business of the country have waited and waited long enough. They have endured the outrages and hardships imposed by the bad methods and iniquities of the transportation system of the country long enough.
If there are to be some mistakes let them be made on the side of the business and the people of this country, and let experience show wherein they are mistakes, and we will correct them by and by when we get the light sufficient to guide us in that action. But let us not pase this day by, or this session of Congress by, without giving an affirmative response to the well-grounded demand of the people and the business men and farmers of this country that they shall have relief from the wrongs and bad practices that now lie imbedded in the present method of administering the transportation system of the United States.
Mr. MORRILL. Recognizing the Senator from Iowa as a good lawyer who has studied this bill with diligence, I desire to call his attention to one provision in the bill. Of course we all understand that if this bill should pass the Canadian roads can not be affected by it so far as we are concerned, and therefore the bankrupt roads in Canada are likely to have all the business that they can do. Beyond all question, that is to be the practical result; we are to give a very large share of our business to Canada.
On the third page of this bill, in the second paragraph of the sixth section, I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Iowa to this phraseology:
Any freight shipped from the United States through a foreign country into the United States, the through rate on which shall not have been made public as required by this act, shall, before it is admitted into the United States from said foreign country, be subject to customs duties as if said freight were of foreign production.
I desire to know how we are to obtain that from the Canadian roads? How can we compel them to give this notice of their rates ?
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I have not before me the print of the bill that the Senator from Vermont has.
Mr MORRILL. I will give my copy to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. • Perhaps the Senator from Illinois, who has charge of the bill, can readily answer the question.
Mr. CULLOM. The language of the bill on the subject referred to by the Senator from Vermont is that the Canada road, if you please, which begins at Chicago and ends at Portland, shall publish its through rates from Chicago to Portland, and if it declines or fails to do so, then the provision in reference to customs duties shall apply.
Mr. MORRILL. But the road does not begin at Chicago.
Mr. PALMER. If the Senator from Vermont will excuse me, I will state that the road begins at Chicago by a late arrangement. They now control the Detroit and Milwaukee road, which runs through Michigan, and which is now a part of the Grand Trunk system.
Mr. SEWELL. I should like to ask the Senator from Ilinois a question.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from lowa has the floor.
Mr. WILSON, of lowa. Then the Senator from Vermont was mistaken in his premises.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey appeals to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. SEWELL. I desire to ask the Senator from Illinois if that provision for a charge of duties on the freight of the Canada road would not be an abrogation of the treaty of Washington ?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from lowa yield? Mr. WILSON, of lowa. I had yielded the floor generally.
Mr. CULLOM. I do not understand that it would. My impression is that that provision of the treaty of Washington has been abrogated at some time, and if it were not, this is a police regulation by which the United States has a right to require notice to be given, and if the road does not comply with it the penalty will attach.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to say in regard to the treaty of Washington that the thirtieth article of it, which seemed to he the principal one which embarrassed some railway gentlemen, was without their knowing it, which was very strange, terminated on the 1st of July, 1885, and is no longer in force.
Mr. CULLOM. So I understand.
Mr. EDMUNDS. The twenty-ninth article relates exclusively to the cross-transportation between one country and the other over the territories of the other, where duties shall not be charged in the country through which the goods go; and that has nothing to do with this question at all. So, in my humble opinion, after having examined it, there is no ground whatever for the pretension that among all the other evils that will happen if we pass this bill we are going to get into any difficulty in regard to contravening the provisions of the existing regulations with Great Britain.
Mr. ALDRICH. Mr. President, I wish to say a single word in answer to the remarks of the Senator from Iowa, in regard to the extract which I read from his speech. I certainly intended to say nothing that was discourteous or not complimentary to the Senator.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I hope the gentleman did not understand me as lodging any complaint of that kind, for I certainly did not do it.
Mr. ALDRICH. I meant to create the impression that while the words used in his speech were the argument of an attorney, the judg. ment and the conclusions of the utterances were those of a statesman. I am sure there is nothing in the portion of the speech which I have read, or the remainder of it, that would cause the Senator from Iowa to be anything else but proud that it should be contrasted either in its style or spirit or in its conclusiveness with his later utterances in another capacity.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I am not taking any exception whatever to the use the Senator from Rhode Island made of my remarks. It has afforded me an opportunity to express publicly in my place as a Senator my thorough revision and reformation of the mistaken views I then entertained concerning the interests involved.
Mr. ALDRICH. The principal reason which the Senator from Iowa has given up to this moment for this change of heart is that the law in Massachusetts works so well that he thinks it ought to have a larger application. There is no possible analogy between the two laws or letween the two conditions. The act of Massachusetts prohibits a larger charge for a shorter than for a longer haul from the silme original point of departure.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Still it is a question of a long and short haul.
Mr. ALDRICH. There is always a question of a long and short haul in every law regulating transportation, but they are as unlike as black is from white. They are as far apart as the north pole fron the south pole.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him? Mr. ALDRICH. Certainly.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That is simply a difference of opinion between the Senator from Rhode Island, myself, and others with respect to the construction to be placed upon that law in view of the language of the bill now before us.
Mr. ALDRICH. It is not a question of construction at all. but a question of fact. The Legislature of Massachusetts in 1872 deliberately refused to pass a bill which, in its provisions, was like the one now under consideration in the Senate, and they did pass a bill as unlike as it could possibly be. The Camden amendment, which was under discussion in the Senate so long, was to strikeout the very words which are in the Massachusetts law, and which are not in this bill, and which every Senator who spoke on the subject admitted changed radically and fundamentally the provisions of the bill.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. Nevertheless the Legislature enacted a law with reference to the language of which there may be a difference of opinion. There is a difference of opinion as to the effect of the language of that Massachusetts law.
Mr. ALDRICH. From the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth to the present hour they have enacted a great many laws, and most of them have as little relation to this section now before the Senate as the section in the law to which the Senator now refers. As I said before, they are as unlike as any two provisions can be, the words “from the original point of departure” preserving all the natural advantages of competitive points, and forbidding the very thing which this bill requires, which is the discrimination against competitive points and in favor of non-competitive points.
But if the statute of Massachusetts was identical with this, it is no reason why an act in its application to a small and dense community should be beneficial over the great extent of this country from one end to the other.
The Senator from Iowa said another thing, that perhaps the manufacturers of Massachusetts and Rhode Island did not want to see the manufactures of Iowa built up. The manufacturers of Massachusetts and Rhode Island are situated upon the waters of the Atlantic Ocean or very near them. They have a commerce to the West and to every part of the world which you can not restrict by your legislation and which you can not take from us. We are connected with the waterways through the Hudson River and the Erie Canal and the great lakes with the West and with the South, and you can not prevent it. It is a State like Iowa, a State like Colorado, a State like Kapsas, or a State like Nebraska, which is absolutely dependent upon cheap rates of transportation hy long hauls to the seaboard that this bill is going to affect.
Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. That business which can not be interfered with, as the Senator from Rhode Island says, because they have water transportation, may be very seriously interfered with if the people of Iowa and Nebraska should develop manufacturing establishments which would give them the products that are now shipped from Massachusetts and Rhode Island to those States.
Mr. ALDRICH. The people of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, so far as they are represented upon this floor, and I know the Senators from Massachusetts will coincide with this expression of opinion, will wel. come with gladness a development of manufactures in every village, in every hamlet of the West, in Iowa, or any other of the great agricul. tural States, and they will do as much here and now or at any other time for such development as will produce such results as any Senator on this floor
Mr. EDMUNDS. I wish to trespass on the indulgence of the Sen. ate for a single minute, not to go into debate, but to just simply read the one hundred and ninetieth section of the General Statutes of Massachusetts, which appear to have been passed, so far as this section goes, in 1874, and which appear to be in force still on this subject of long and short hauls, without much, if any, comment:
SEC. 190. No railroad corporation shall charge or receive for the transportation of freight to any station on its road a grenter sum than is at the time charged or received for the transportation of the like class and quantity of freight from the same original point of departure to a station at a greater distance on its road in the same direction.
Then it provides that two or more railroads making one line shall be subject to the same condition, &c.:
In the construction of this section the sum charged or received for the transportation of freight shall include all terminal charges; and the road of a corporation shall include all the road in use by it, whether owned or operated under a contract or lease.
Here is the fourth section of this bill, as recommended by the committee of conference:
That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate
Which is not in the Massachusetts statute, but it seems to be for the benefit of the companyfor the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction.
I am unable to see, I confess, how it is possible to distinguish in legal interpretation the Massachusetts statute from this clause that I have read. It does not say, as the Massachusetts statute, “ from the same original point of departure," but if it be under like circumstances and conditions it must be from the same original point of departure. The