Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. That is another thing I did not intend to mention. I was here. I should not have mentioned that if

I had not been asked. Are there any other questions? But let me say before leaving this point that not only was I present, but so also were Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, and Mr. JOHNSON, of New York, who had united in the minority report.

However, Mr. Speaker, we have this conference report before us now. It has come down to us now and here as a practical point that this House has got to decide upon one way or the other. In my view we have to vote down or adopt the conference report. I wish there were power in the House to recommit it, for I know the majority of this House desires to pass some legislation to control railroads. I know that and feel it, and I myself would to-day vote for the Cullom bill as I did before, and am only amazed, if I can refer to it under the rules, to find in another body of this legislature sitting at the other end of the Capitol that those sustaining that bill were meager indeed in number, while it had been passed in the same Senate a few months before by a large majority, and in accordance with the wishes of people in many parts of the country as expressed to us by joint resolutions of State Legislatures, by the action of boards of trade, by the action of chambers of commerce, and by the action of other commercial associations known by different names.

I am going to begin perhaps at the wrong end, because it is natural for us to look to our own localities and homes; and I shall incorporate in my remarks and adopt the suggestions as my own and ask the Clerk to read these resolutions of the Board of Trade of Philadelphia, which were passed last night. I speak of that board of trade as an association of gentlemen of the highest integrity and of the greatest commercial importance. It is a board known everywhere, and I believe is the oldest organization of the kind in this country. I ask to have these resolutions read: and as they seem to embrace almost every point on which I ask for a vote against the report of the conference committee, the reading of them will shorten my remarks very much.

The Clerk read as follows:

The memorial of the Board of Trade of the city of Philadelphia respectfully represents:

That your memorialists favor the passage of a bill by Congress under which a supervisory power shall be exercised through a board of commissioners over the interstate commerce of the country, and approve of the general provisions of the bill which has just passed the Senate of the United States, in that it prohibits all drawbacks and preferences, the effect of which shall be to create an unfair or unjust discrimination in favor of any particular person or locality, and also in that it secures the open publication of the rates upon such traffic, and also gives the commission the aid of the proper law officers of the United States, and of the processes of the courts to enforce their decisions upon any questions that may be brought before them.

But your memorialists beg to protest against the fourth section of said bill, known as the "long and short haul clause," under which any carrier is prohibited from charging or receiving "any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer distance." That this provision of the bill would, in the judgment of your memoralists, largely cripple and embarrass the movement of through traffic between the East and the West, and would result not only in increasing the cost of the necessaries of life to the consumer in the East, but would also reduce the value of grain, provisions, cotton, tobacco, and other staples to the producer in the West and South.

That as the interstate railways are mainly dependent for their revenue upon their local traffic, and as such a provision would compel them to accept for the transportation of such local traffic a sum of money not exceeding the proportion of the gross charge to which they would be entitled on through traffic, they would as a matter of inevitable necessity, be compelled either to reduce the rates on their local traffic to such a point as to bankrupt themselves and make them unable

to meet their fixed charges, or to charge on the through business the same rates that they do upon their local traffic. That the effect of this would be to prevent such through traffic from being exchanged between the East and the West for the reason that the rates on through traffic are largely fixed over the entire country by the competition of water routes; and as the railroads, in order to get any portion of the through traffic, are compelled to approximate their rates to those charged by the water routes, they are necessarily obliged to accept on this through traffic a compensation but little in excess of the cost of carrying the same. That in the judgment of your memorialists, no injury results from this course on the part of the railway companies, but, on the contrary, as it not only furnishes cheap flour and other provisions to the laboring classes of our own country, but also enables an enormous volume of provisions, cereals, and other staples to reach the seaboard and thence by ocean transportation the markets of other countries, and there meet on favorable terms the products of other parts of the world, thus placing the balance of trade in favor of the United States and making it a creditor of other nations rather than their debtor. That anything which prevents the free and unrestricted movement of this traffic must work a most serious financial injury to the producer, consumer, and transporter.

They therefore beg of your honorable body to so amend the bill referred to as to remove or modify the objectionable section known as the "long-and-shorthaul clause," believing that in making the request they are acting in harmony with the views expressed by a majority of the commercial organizations of the entire country.

Your memorialists also beg to protest against the fifth section of the bill referred to, which prohibits what is known as pooling by the railway companies. Your memorialists believe that the effect of pools has been to secure uniform rates to shippers and prevent discriminations between individuals; but they recommend that all pool agreements between the railway companies should be submitted to the board of interstate-commerce commissioners, and that none should be valid until so submitted and approved by said board. That in this manner only such agreements as are fair and just to all interests, and would secure the public against unjust and unfair discrimination would be sanctioned and approved; and that with the power vested in a board to approve only such as in their judgment are fair and just, the railways would be able to enforce these agreements, and prevent the reckless destruction of property which has been caused in the past by what are known as railroad wars. That in this manner, also, a fair rate would always be secured on the through traffic of the country, and while no charge would be levied upon it which would interfere with its free movement, or in any manner check the development of the West and South or the general prosperity of the United States, such a revenue would be derived from the through traffic as would prevent any imposition by the railways of unjust charges upon their local traffic.

Your memorialists therefore urge upon your honorable body the recommittal of the said bill to a conference committee for the purpose of amending the fourth and fifth sections thereof as already stated.

And your memorialists will ever pray, &c. [SEAL.]

FRED. FRALEY,
Vice-President.

J. P. TUCKER,

Secretary.

PHILADELPHIA, January 17, 1887.

DEAR SIR: Iinclose herewith the memorial of the Board of Trade of the city of Philadelphia to the House of Representatives, protesting against the passage of the interstate-commerce bill in its present shape, and asking your honorable body to recommit the said bill to a conference committee for purpose of amending the fourth and fifth sections thereof.

Yours truly,

Hon. CHAS. O'NEILL,

Washington, D. C.

J. P. TUCKER, Secretary.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, while on this subject I will state here that the National Board of Trade, composed of representatives from all the boards of trade of the country-I presume from all the boards of trade of the country and the chambers of commerce, &c.-met here during the pendency of the Reagan bill in the course of one winter and were here again last winter; and they advised Congress not to pass the Reagan bill, and especially not to pass some of the very features of this conference committee's bill. This National Board of Trade is meeting here to-day or to-morrow. I do not want to foreshadow what they may do, but in my opinion they will pass a resolu

tion asking this House to hesitate before it adopts the conference committee's report and the bill, and will advise against at least some provisions of it.

Why, sir, my friend from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] has changed his line very much. He did not vote for the Cullom bill. He might have voted for the Cullom bill, which had in it the provision for the appointment of a commission. He might have voted for that bill, and I never understood why he did not do it, being a gentleman of very conservative views.

Mr. CRISP. Will the gentleman permit me a remark? Am I to understand the gentleman from Pennsylvania as thinking that this bill is the Cullom bill?

I

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. No, sir; I only wish it were. am amazed to find it is not the Cullom bill, and I believe it would have been the Cullom bill if there had been a proper representation of the views of the minority of this House on the conference.

Mr. CRISP. Of course, as I was one of the conferees, I can make no reply to that.

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Of course the gentleman understands that the Cullom bill has the commission clause in it: but I suppose something had to be yielded on the question of the courts. There was the trouble, and the provision now creating this commission makes it almost a court. It does not make a trial by jury exactly, but it makes the commission almost a court, and makes the proceedings almost similar to proceedings in courts. There will be delay in decisious upon the question of short and long haul, and not the practical general rules as contemplated in the Cullom bill. The proposition in the Cuilom bill as passed by the Senate, and as voted for by 102 members of this House against 126 against it, was for a commission, but did not in itself create any of the delays that the bill now reported does. It meant that there should be a speedy settlement of these questions of long and short haul, and that general rules should be made-not a long investigation, as it is supposed will be had under the provisions of this bill.

As I believe in the knowledge and experience of the commercial associations of the country, I want to refer to them again after I have alluded to the concurrent resolution passed by the Legislature of Iowa favoring the passage of the Cullom bill regulating interstate commerce, a resolution passed by both branches of the Iowa Legislature, sent to this House and presented by a member from Iowa, I think Mr. HENDERSON, and copies presented by other members of that State. And so were resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee, Wis.; so also of the association entitled the Merchants' and Manufacturers' Company, of Cincinnati; so also the resolutions of the Chamber of Commerce of Saint Paul, and so on. They have come here from nearly all the great centers of trade.

I might refer also to the many, many editorials which appeared at the time when the report was made, and the many, many editorials which appear now that could be selected from the papers of the country urging the House to adhere to the Cullom bill and not to vote for the adoption of this conference report and the passage of the bill recommended by the conference committee. I speak for instance now of the Louisville Courier-Journal; I speak of one of the Cincinnati papers: I speak of the North American of the city of Philadelphia, and various other papers well known throughout this country giving this advice to the House now. I presume gentlemen read their local papers at least and

learn the feeling expressed by editors; for we are so much dependent upon the information we receive through the channel of newspapers that the views of the press ought to have influence on the House.

I refer more particularly to commercial associations. They are composed of men engaged in business, men who understand all about these questions of transportation, men who have no desire to crush the railroads, who do not wish to disturb the rights of the individual citizen, but who do, on the contrary, wish to see the progress of the railroads continued in the direction of conforming their charges to the demands of the people. Does any gentleman dispute that progress? I have heretofore asserted, and it cannot be denied, that within a comparatively short period the average charges have fallen from 2 cents per ton per mile to about seven-eights of a cent per ton per mile. I take it that such legislation as this is calculated to retard railroad progress and to interfere seriously with the movement of freight-especially freight at points far distant from the seaboard. Hence I find myself unable to subscribe to legislation which, in any iron-clad way, interferes with the right to charge less per ton per mile for the long haul than for the short haul. I do not believe that legislation of that character is good legislation.

I think it will inevitably disturb, greatly, the interests of the transportation lines and, of course, disturb, at the same time, the interests of the people, who desire cheap and rapid transportation, and to whom it is as advantageous as it is to the railroads. Any one who looks at the record of the proceedings upon this bill in the body at the other end of this building can see plainly that many a gentleman who voted for it doubted whether he understood what he was voting for. [Laughter.] Many gentlemen who voted for the bill admitted that they did not understand the operations of some of its provisions, and some who voted against it made the same admission. [Renewed laughter.] I was very glad of the compliment paid to my friend from Georgia [Mr. CRISP], a member of the committee of conference. I refer to the fact that there was a correspondence between him and a member of the Senate as to how the gentleman from Georgia understood certain provisions of the bill.

That was a very gratifying compliment, a distinguished Senator asking information from a member of the House! [Laughter.] I thought it a very high compliment to the House and to the understanding which the Senator knew the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CRISP] to possess and his ability to explain, as well as he could [laughter], the provisions of this bill. I do not think it detracts at all from the ability of the gentleman that he is not able to explain all its provisions. I do not wonder at it. Nobody in the Senate who asked for a satisfactory explanation of the bill received it, and nobody here has received such an explanation. But that is not the question. I fear, and I think I can perceive, that many gentlemen will vote for this bill without understanding what it will result in. They think that the pressure has been so great from the country that there ought to be some bill passed upon this subject. Now, I do not see this day where the great pressure from the people is to be discovered.

I admit that there is occasionally a locality where there is complaint about the railroads and from which there is a pressure for the passage of some bill; but, take the great producers of the country and the great shippers of the country, is there any pressure here from them for the passage of such a bill as the one which has passed the Senate and is likely to pass the House? Some years ago, I admit, there

were complaints and there were reasons for complaints of the railroad corporations, but to-day those reasons have largely disappeared. In the great State of Pennsylvania I do not know where to find a complaint on the part of shippers against the railroads. I recollect when there used to be complaints, but I do not know of any there now, and I believe the same is true of other States to a very great extent.

The fact is that the building of railroads has been of such immense advantage to the country that the people are willing to let the men who understand the railroad business manage it themselves.

Mr. ROWELL. If the gentleman will permit a question, does he not think that the legislation which has been enacted in twenty-six States and Territories, and which has been in operation for several years, has had a good deal to do with reducing the complaints and the grounds for complaint?

Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. Yes; I do not doubt that. Several of the States have enacted laws creating railroad commissions, and undoubtedly those have had great effect, and there, perhaps, is where this power had better be left, for there is less danger from this question in State legislation than in National legislation, less danger of injury to the people as well as to those who have their means invested in the transportation lines. Railroad commissions have been created in Massachusetts and in other States, and they have been to a great extent successful in removing the grounds of complaint against the railroads.

The legislation of the State of Pennsylvania, the constitutional provisions adopted by that State, have done good. Pennsylvania is against discrimination; her Legislature is against it, her people are against it, everybody there is opposed to discrimination. My colleagues know that as well as I do. We could not stand up here and favor anything looking like discrimination and be considered representatives of our people. Mr. WEBER. Have you a railroad commission? Mr. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. We have no such commission in Pennsylvania. I only wish we had. I think we would be in a fair way of getting such a commission but for this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the railroad companies, so far as I know, appear to be totally unconcerned on this question. I know nothing of them; and I hear nothing from them. I do not know that their representatives are here; I have not seen any of them. Some of these companies may like some of the provisions of this bill, as I do; and some of them may differ with me in my ideas in regard to this bill. But I do not know and do not care how they feel. I have had my convictions upon this subject for years; and I feel to-day more strongly convinced than ever that we should be very careful how we legislate in this general way by passing an almost iron-clad bill. I do not regard the bill as now recommended by the conferees as an improvement upon the Cullom bill. I regard the long-and-short-haul clause in its present form as so very binding that there can be no redress.

I have thought all along that the shipper and the railroad company could agree as to what would be "similar circumstances." So they could. They have agreed in the past, and they could agree now. I do not think legislation upon that question is required. I know that since we passed the "Reagan bill" in the House, the freights charged by the railroad companies have been diminishing in a slight degree, as much as could be expected when you take into account what should be a fair profit to the railroad companies and what accommodations should be extended to the shippers of freight. It is not to be supposed that a railroad company wants to carry freight at a loss.