Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

So, sir; I shall vote against recommittal; so I shall vote in favor of agreeing to the report of the committee, not because it suits me in all respects, not because it suits very many of the people of my State, but because I think this is the last opportunity of the session to pass any bill whatever on this subject.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit the report, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HAMPTON (when Mr. BUTLER's name was called). My colleague (Mr. BUTLER] is paired with the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. VAN WYCK). Were be present, my colleague would vote "yea."

Mr. BECK (when Mr. CAMDEN's name was called). The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. CAMDEN) requested me to announce his pair with the Senator from California (Mr. STANFORD). The Senator from West Virginia, if present, would vote “nay.”

Mr. DAWES (when his name was called). I am paired on this bill, and all the questions connected with it, with the Senator from Texas [Mr. MAXEY). If he were present, I should vote “yea."

Mr. BLACKBURN (when Mr. KENNA's name was called). The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. KENNA] is paired with the Senator from New York (Mr. MILLER). Were the Senator from West Virginia present, he would vote “nay."

Mr. COKE (when Mr. MAXEY's name was called). My colleague [Mr. MAXEY] is paired with the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES]. If he were here, my colleague would vote "nay."

Mr. MORGAN (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Indiana (Mr. VOORHEES]. If he were here, I should vote yea.”

Mr. VANCE (when Mr. RANSOM's name was called). My colleague [Mr. RANSOM] is absent on account of illness.

Mr. CULLOM (when Mr. VAN WYCK's name was called). The Senator from Nebraska (Mr. VAN WYCK] wrote me a note asking me to pair him in favor of the bill. I am satisfied he would vote “nay" on this motion.

The roll-call was concluded.

Mr. MORGAN. I am informed that some arrangement has been made by which the pair between myself and the Senator from Indiana [Mr. VOORHEES] has been changed to a pair between the Senator from Indiana (Mr. VOORHEES) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. McPHERSON). If that be so, I vote “yea."

Mr. SEWELL. That is so.
Mr. MORGAN. I vote “yea.”

Mr. SEWELL. I desire to say, on behalf of my colleague [Mr. McPHERSON), who is obliged to be absent, that he desired to be paired in favor of the recommittal of this bill, although he is in favor of the passage of the bill in case the motion to recommit fails.

The result was announced-yeas 25, nays 36; as follows:

YEAS-25.

Aldrich,
Blair,
Brown,
Cameron,
Chace,
Cheney,
Evarts,

Frye,
Gray,
Hale,
Hampton,
Hawley,
Hoar,
Mahone,

Mitchell of Oregon, Sewell,
Mitchell of Pa., Sherman,
Morgan,

Spooner,
Morrill,

Williams.
Payne,
Platt,
Sawyer,

[graphic]

NAYS-36.
Allison,
Conger,
Harris,

Sabin,
Beck,
Cullom,
Ingalls,

Saulsbury,
Berry,
Dolph,

Jones of Arkansas, Teller,
Blackburn, Edmunds,

Jones of Nevada, Vance,
Bowen,
Eustis,
McMillan,

Vest,
Call,
Fair,

Manderson, Walthall,
Cockrell,
George,
Palmer,

Whitthorne,
Coke,
Gibson,
Plumb,

Wilson of Iowa,
Colquitt,
Gorman,
Pugh,

Wilson of Md.

ABSENT–14.
Butler,
Jones of Florida, Miller,

Van Wyck,
Camden,
Kenna,
Ransom,

Voorhees.
Dawes,

MePherson, Riddleberger,
Harrison,
Maxey,

Stanford,
So the motion to recommit was not agreed to.

Mr. CULLOM. I suppose the question now is on agreeing to the conference report?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now is on agreeing to the conference report.

Mr. DOLPH. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate but a moment. I have so far taken no part in the discussion of this measure, preferring to leave that for those better qualified by experience and study of the question to speak upon it. I shall not discuss it now; but I desire before the vote is taken upon the report of the committee to briefly give my reasons for the vote I expect to cast.

I have no doubt that Congress has power under the Constitution to make needful rules for the regulation of interstate commerce. Just how far provisions fixing rates and prescribing rules for transportation will be upheld I am unable to say. It will probably be held that the rates fixed and the rules prescribed inust be reasonable, and reasonable regulations will no doubt be upheld. There is, beyond question, I think, a general demand for Congressional legislation upon the subject of interstate commerce, and a general belief also that the pending bill, as agreed upon in conference committee, should become a law, and I am not sure but that the provisions of the bill which to me appear to be the most questionable are the most popular!

I fear, however, that the provisions of the bill concerning long and short hauls, as left by the Committee on Commerce, if construed strictly, will work to the disadvantage of the West, and so injuriously affect the whole country; but I do not think upon the whole it will be seriously detrimental to the State I have the honor in part to represent. I was much impressed with the forcible, lucid, and terse statements of the senior Senator from California upon the subject of long and short hauls, and as to the effect which, according to his judgment, the provisions of the pending bill upon that subject will have upon the Pacific coast, and if I construed the fourth section of the bill as he does I could not vote for the report, but I am inclined to think that the section is flexible enough to be adapted to the evident necessities of commerce in cases of long hauls from competitive points mentioned by the Senator.

I think that under this bill, if it becomes a law, a portion of the through traffic from the East to the Pacific coast will be trausferred to the Canadian Pacific and to sailing vessels passing around the Horn, and that the rates of transportation from New York and Boston to San Francisco and Portland will probably be somewhat increased and local rates may not be reduced. Ocean transportation and the Canadian Pacific will, however, to a great extent, regulate the rate of reight for transcontinental traffic whether this bill becomes a law or pot.

[graphic]

I doubt, however, whether freight rates from the East to interior towns along the transportation lines will be increased, and the bill, I think, will be beneficial, if it has any effect, to the farmers of Oregon and Washington Territory, as the agricultural products of that region reach the seaboard upon the Pacific by comparatively short hauls and are shipped to foreign markets around Cape Horn; and it is quite possible that if the effect of the bill is to increase the cost of transportation of the wheat of Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa to the seaboard it will to some extent increase the value of wheat in Oregon.

Thequestion is so complicated, important, and far-reaching, however, that I should have preferred to have left it for further consideration after investigation and report by the commission to be created by the bill, and would now vote, if I had opportunity to do so, to modify the provision. If I could have been convinced that by a further conference and an agreement the provision in question would have been modified, I should have been inclined to lavor that course, but I am in favor of some legislation upon the subject of the regulation of interstate commerce at the present session of Congress; and the friends of the measure contend, and it is quite probable, that if the conference report is not adopted legislation upon the subject at this session is impossible.

I see no practicable way, therefore, of amending the bill by striking out the provisions I think of doubtful utility, or even of preventing by my vote their enactment into law. If I must either vote for the provisions as they stand in the bill concerning long and short hauls, or place myself by my vote in apparent hostility to the entire measure, and that without being able to accomplish anything practicable, I shall vote for the bill as it stands. I voted for the Senate bill and prefer it to the bill as agreed upon by the conmittee.

The States in my judgment which will be most disastrously affected by the pending bill if it becomes a law will be the grain-producing States of the Upper Mississippi Valley, but the representatives of those States upon this floor generally support the bill, and I do not feel called upon to set up for their protection my judgment against theirs.

It is quite possible also that the effect of the bill upon the Western States will not be as detrimental as supposed. It may be well to let the experiment be tried so that further legislation upon the subject may be had in the light of experience under the operation of the law. At all events, I am not disposed to be so tenacious of my own opinion concerning one or two provisions of the bill as to by my vote prevent any legislation upon the subject.

Mr. BLAIR. Mr. President, the State which I have the honor in part to represent has a population just about equally divided, on the one hand agricultural, on the other mechanical, or engaged in those pursuits and occupations which are to a great extent dependent upon agriculture.

The agriculture of the State is not such, however, as to afford sustenance or a sufficiency of the productions of the earth for the supply even of the farmers of the State, so that it is a fact in regard to New Hampshire more than it is true in regard to any other State in the Union, that our agricultural citizens as well as the remaining half of our population are dependent upon the far West for breadstuffs and provisions of every description to a very great extent. Probably at least fivesixths of the flour consumed in our State comes from the Northwest, perhaps even a larger proportion, and the corn that feeds our animals, and by the use of which our lumbering and other operations are carried on, comes very largely from the West.

[graphic]

On the other hand, the mechanical and manufacturing products of our State find there their chief market, and thus it is that in New Hampshire the question of the long and the short haul is the all-important question.

With such consideration as I have been able to give to this provision of the bill now that it has been pending these many years it is entirely clear to my mind that its inevitable operation, if it be an honest bill and be honestly enforced, will be very largely to increase the cost of the long haul.

If it be so its operacion will be detrimental to the interests of my State in both respects. It will increase the cost of a large proportion of that which we buy and it will diminish the value of that which we manufacture and sell.

I am satisfied, too, that the provision with reference to the lessening of the expense of the short haul by limiting it to the expenditure of the long haul will not be practically of any efficient service to our State, and in fact I do not believe it will be anywhere.

I do not believe it will operate to diminish the cost of the short hanl, and for this reason: A reasonable compensation will always be allowed to the capital of the railroads or of the transportation companies. Such rates of fare and freight will always be held to be reasonable as will yield a fair income on the value of the property and the , services which are employed in the business of transportation.

If that be the case, and the income be not derived from one source, it will be reasonable to derive it from anotber, and if by virtue of law or in any way return for the long haul be diminished or inordinately increased, then the amount of revenue to be received írom the short haul will be increased or will be lessened in the same way by the rigid rule of law which may be adopted. So that whatever may be deducted from the short haul at those stations where the amount may exceed the aggregate which is paid from the point of competition will be made up on the other intervening points between the two points of competition.

There may be a general evening or leveling of the cost of the short haul between the points of competition, but whatever is lost at one point of the short haul may be made up at another, and thus the aggregate of the receipts of the short haul will remain the same in any case, and the actual taxation to the people will be the same under the operation of this bill that it is under existing conditions. Thus the general benefit which it is anticipated will be derived to the shippers of the country at large will not be realized under the operation of this act.

I believe the operation of this bill will be to the injury of the consumers of the State which I represent, and from that standpoint I oppose the bill, and I oppose it all the way through. I voted for its recommittal, and on the final question I shall vote to disagree to the report.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the report. Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HAWLEY, and others called for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the Secretary proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. CULLOM (when Mr. DAWES's name was called). The Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. DAWES] left the Senate Chamber a few moments ago and asked me to announce his pair with the Senator from Texas (Mr. MAXEY] and to state that he would vote against the motion to agree to the conference report.

[graphic]

Mr. COKE. I will announce now that my colleague [Mr. MAXEY] who is paired with the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. DAWES], if here, would vote “yea."

Mr. BLACKBURN (when Mr. KENNA's name was called). The Senator from West Virginia (Mr. KENNA] is paired with the Senator from New York [Mr. MILLER). Were the Senator from West Virginia present he would vote "yea;'' and his colleague [Mr. CAMDEN) is paired with the Senator from California (Mr. STANFORD). Were Mr. CAMDEN present he would vote "yea."

Mr. SEWELL (when Mr. MCPHERSON's name was called). My colleague [Mr. McPHERSON) if present would vote "yea."

Mr. MORGAN (when his name was called). I am paired with the Senator from Indiana (Mr. VOORHEES). If he were present I would vote nay.”

The roll-call was concluded.

Mr. BECK. I was requested by the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. MCPHERSON] to say that while he was in favor of the recommittal of the bill, he was in favor of its passage, and if present would vote "yea.” The Senator from Indiana (Mr. VOORHEES] would also vote 'yea.”

Mr. HAMPTON. I announce again the pair of my colleague [Mr. BUTLER], who would vote against the bill if he were present.

Mr. GORMAN. Before the vote is announced, I wish to state that my colleague (Mr. Wilson, of Maryland), who is not present, I understand is paired with the Senator from Virginia (Mr. MAHONE). At all events, if he were present he would vote "yea" on this proposition. The result was announced-yeas 43, nays 15; as follows:

YEAS-43.
Allison,
Edmunds,
Ingalls,

Sawyer,
Beck,
Eustis

Jones of Arkansas, Sewell.
Berry,
Fair,

Jones of Nevada, Sherman,
Blackburn,
Frye,
McMillan,

Spooner,
Bowen,
George,

Manderson, Teller,
Cockrell,
Gibson,

Mitchell of Oreg., Vance,
Coke,
Gorman,
Palmer,

Vest,
Colquitt,
Gray,
Plumb,

Walthall,
Conger,
Hale,
Pugh,

Whitthorne,
Cullom.
Harris,
Sabin,

Wilson of Iowa.
Dolph,
Hawley,

Saulsbury,

NAYS-15.
Aldrich,
Chace,
Hoar,

Payne,
Blair,
Cheney,
Mahone,

Platt,
Brown,
Evarts,

Mitchell of Pa., Williams.
Cameron,
Hampton,

Morrill,

ABSENT-17.
Butler,
Jones of Florida, Mörgan,

Voorhees,
Call,
Kenna,
Ransom,

Wilson of Md.
Camden,

McPherson, Riddleberger,
Dawes,
Maxey,

Stanford,
Harrison,
Miller,

Van Wyck,
So the report was concurred in.

ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY. Mr. CAMERON. I move that when the Senate adjourns to-day it be to meet on Monday next.

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HARRIS. I move that the Senate adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 11 o'clock and 40 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until Monday, January 17, at 12 o'clock m.

« PreviousContinue »