of the weak lines, and then of the strong ones-for a bankrupt railway, having no responsibility to bondholders or shareholders, is the most reckless and destructive of competitors. These adjustments and divisions of traffic, known as railway pools, do not raise transportation charges above a reasonable level. Almost without exception they have resulted in holding rates steadily at the lowest point at which the business can be done at a living profit. This is notably illustrated just now, as you are aware, in our own section. Never was there a closer pooling arrangement between trunk lines than that which now exists between the six roads leading from Minneapolis to Chicago, yet never were freight tariffs so low as at the present time, and never were the people better accommodated. The well-known fact that, concurrently with the development of the railway pooling system, railway rates have steadily, greatly, and everywhere decreased is a summary refutation of the whole theory on which section 5 is founded. The pooling or apportionment system, besides preserving railways from insolvency, and railway investments from destruction, directly benefits every business community by giving some degree of uniformity and stability to transportation charges, and thus enabling business men to shape their course with greater certainty and safety. A railway rate war, although it temporarily reduces the market price of transportation below actual cost, is universally and justly regarded as a misfortune to all legitimate lines of trade. Obviously it is of no advantage to the public to enjoy any service at less than its reasonable cost, including a fair return upon the capital invested in rendering that service. The rule of unregulated and unreasoning competition, followed by the "survival of the fittest," when applied to railroads, means their own ruin, with resulting calamity to every other business interest which is worth preserving. The railway pool, honestly administered, is the natural balance-wheel of interstate commerce. Secton 5 of the pending bill does not provide or suggest any substitute for this regulative and conservative agency. On the contrary, it would seem to render commercial chaos legally obligatory. (5) It is not a sufficient answer to say that if found to be injurious in their working, these provisions may be repealed at the next session of Congress. The mischief that can be accomplished by their operation during a single business season is simply immeasurable, and there is not the slightest necessity for Assuming the risk. The interstate-commerce bill has adequate scope for its initial purpose without including the sections to which objection is here made. Omitting these, the bill lays the broad foundation of a system of salutary legislation, which a little time and experience will develop and perfect. It is evolution, and not revolution, that the situation calls for. Such a policy will avoid the risk of serious and disastrous mistakes; at least it will not invite that demoralization of now reviving business, that shock to commercial confidence, that stagnation of enterprise, that aggravation of the labor difficulties, that wholesale depreciation and destruction of values which many competent and disinterested students of the problem foresee in case the bill becomes a law in its present form. The panic of 1873 was precipitated and intensified, if it was not largely caused, by injurious State legislation affecting railroads, hastily enacted in response to unreasoning clamor. It would seem to be hardly the part of wisdom or of statesmanship to incur even the liability of repeating that experience, and on a larger scale, during the present century. With great respect, your obedient servants, A. B. NETTLETON, H. A. TOWNE, Mr. EVARTS. I present a memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of New York, embracing a report and resolutions of that body unanimously adopted on the 6th instant, on the subject of interstate commerce, now pending. The results to which this important commercial body came on this very serious question were unanimous, and the memorial is accompanied with some statements and explanations of the reasons from a practical point of view by the merchants of the city of New York. They favor the general system of having a commission and of having the pending bill adopted: but on the subject of the fourth and fifth sections, relating to the long and short hauls and the pools, they present their reasons against the permanent adoption of any such regulations without further investigation, and suggest very grave reasons why they should not be adopted at all. The considerations which are embraced in this examination by these intelligent representatives of the great city of New York, give a very concise and perfect statement of the views of the business community. I ask that the memorial may lie upon the table, and that it may be printed and appear in the RECORD to-morrow. I may desire to make some comment upon the measure and should be glad to have the text of the memorial before the Senate that it may be understood. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York asks the unanimous consent of the Senate to have printed in the RECORD the memorial presented by him from the Chamber of Commerce of New York. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it will be so ordered. The memorial will lie on the table. The memorial is as follows: THE INTERSTATE-COMMERCE BILL. At the monthly meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, heid January 6, 1887, the following report and resolutions in regard to the interstate-commerce bill, before the United States Senate, were unanimously adopted: To the Chamber of Commerce: The undersigned committee, requested by the executive committee of this chamber to examine the bill known as the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce, beg leave repectfully to report that, upon analysis of the bill in question, the following provisions are found to be embodied therein: ANALYSIS OF THE BILL. Section 1: The bill is not to apply to the transportation of passengers or property wholly within any one State. It declares that all charges made for or in connection with any transportation (covered by the bill) shall be reasonable and just, and all others are prohibited, and declared to be unlawful. Sections 2 and 3 prohibit, directly or indirectly, any special rebate or drawback, and any discrimination in charges against any person, firm, or locality, or against any particular description of traffe, in transportation of passengers or property, under like or substantially like circumstances and conditions; and also require that every common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall accord all reasonable, proper, and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, but provides this shall not be construed as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in like business " Section 1 makes it unlawful for any common carrier to charge or receive any greater compensation for the transportation of passengers or property, under substantially like circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer haul over the same line in the same direction, unless the common carrier receive in special cases, after investigation, authority from the commission to charge less for the longer than for the shorter haul; and the commission is empowered to prescribe the extent to which the common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of the act. Section 5 is an absolute prohibition against pooling in any form. Section 6 obliges the common carrier to plainly print in large type, and keep for public inspection, schedules showing the rates and fares, including terminal charges, for the transportation of passengers and property, and which shall also include the classification of freight in force upon such railroad. It also provides that no change in rates shall be made without ten days' previous public notice thereof; and, further, that every common carrier shall file with the commission copies of all contracts, agreements, or arrangements with other common carriers in relation to any traffic affected by the provisions of this act; it also' provides for the enforcement of these provisions by the circuit courts of the United States. Section 7 makes it unlawful for a common carrier to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied, or, by other means and devices, to prevent the carriage of freights from being continuous from the place of shipment to the place of destination. Sections 8, 9, and 10 prescribe the damages for a violation of this act, and methods of legal procedure. Sections 11 to 17 provide for a commission of five persons, to be appointed by the President; regulates their terms of office; defines their qualifications, one of which is, that they shall not hold stock or bonds of any carrier embraced within the bill; also their powers and duties, and prescribes their relations to the courts, and further outlines the legal proceedings connected with the enforcement of this act. Section 18 fixes the annual salary of each commissioner at $7,500, and provides for a secretary at $3,500 per annum, and allows mileage to commissioners when traveling. Section 19 establishes the office of the commission at Washington city, but permits commissioners to prosecute inquiries and hold special sessions in any part of the United States, when so required by circumstances or necessity. Section 20 requires full annual reports from all common carriers, subject to the provisions of this act. Section 21 requires a report to be annually made to the Secretary of the Interior, to be by him transmitted to Congress; said report to contain any information and data collected by the commission, with such recommendations for additional legislation as they may deem necessary. Section 22 excludes from operation of this law property carried free for the United States, the States, or nunicipal governments, or for charity. Section 23 appropriates $100,000 for the purposes of this act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1888. Your committee believe that the national welfare requires that an interstate conmission should be appointed, and they are of the opinion that this bill, in its main feature, has been carefully considered and wisely framed. They believe that the absolute publicity and uniformity required by this bill will largely cure the evils of which the public have in former years had good reason to complain. They believe that experience has demonstrated that secret rates, drawbacks, and like devices for concealing discriminations, on the part of the common carriers, to favored persons, firmis, or localities, have been the principal cause of the public dissatisfaction with railroad management. Your committee believe that rates on the railroads should be as uniform, under like circumstances, and as well known to the public as custom-house duties. Your committee are of opinion that (section 4) the prohibition to charge more for a shorter haul than a longer one is objectionable and certain to work against the public welfare. If enacted, it would do little good to any one. Local rates would not be thereby reduced, but through traffic, which, on the average, furnishes not to exceed one-quarter of the revenues of the trunk lines, would be either refuse, or raised to a standard of local rates-thus obstructing and materially decreasing the moving and exportation of cotton, grain, petroleum, and other products. Upon the utmost freedom in making through contracts from the West to the seaboard depends the development of the entire West and its farming lands. The gigantic results already witnessed, due to the fortuitous combinations of railroads and water transportation an the ability to carry this through traffic for trifling additional cost, and so far at very moderate rates of freight, has produced a wealth to the whole nation so far exceeding any possible local benefits to be gained by the proposed prohibition as to forbid its consideration. Nor is this provision necessary to protect the local resident from imposition; his remedy is provided in the bill, quite independent of the through If a local rate is unjust it must be remedied; but the consideration thereof must depend upon the particular surroundings and circumstances of that individual case, and not upon that of others further on the line, who may have competing roads, water transportation, and many other things affecting rates of freight not at all applicable to the case in question. One immediate and inevitable effect of such a prohibition would be to divert most important volumes of freight to competing Canadian roads running to the seaboard. trafli. As to sections, your committee is also of opinion that the absolute prohibition against pooling is unwise, and much more likely to work injuriously to the puliethan beneficially. If it be considered, it will be evident that most if notall of the evils of unequal rates, discriminations, and partiality have arisen from unrestricted competition, the only result aimed at by the proposed prohibition, while a uniform tariff between all competing lines, arranged upon planes of equity to all shippers, and enforced by an agreed volume of tonnage apportioned to each road, is the very end to be accomplished by the bill itself-and this is "pooling." Its actual operation has been to do away with discriminations against individuals and localities; it has secured greater uniformity of rates; it has been found of greater advantage to shippers to deal with a "pool" commissioner, representing all the trunk lines, than to be compelled to confer with many officials in detail-as instanced in the late dry-goods classification agreement-its existence has secured a steadily decreasing average rate of freight, which has developed during the whole period of "pooling." In general the system seems to have been productive of good to the public, and in many instances where injustice has arisen it has been from lack of good faith to keep its conditions on the part of the common carrier. While, on the other hand, its tendency has been to avoid disastrous railroad wars, entailing upon the investors serious loss, and always productive of disastrous effects upon the laboring classes and the commerce of the country. For these reasons this committee would urge that any action looking to prohibition of pooling be at least deferred, and the subject referred (as was originally proposed by the Senate bill on this subject) to the commission to be established by this bill, for full investigation, report, and suggested legislation, if they deem any needed, in the future. It is true that the framers of this bill, evidently fearing the strict operation of section 4 (as it regards the long and short haul), have lodged the discretion with the commissioners to limit or suspend, after investigation, its operation in certain cases. And if it be wise to confide to them so great a power, it can not be unreasonable to leave the whole subject (affected by sections 4 and 5) to them and their discretion, which would be the case were no clauses of this character contained in the bill. If any discrimination of an unjust character arises, the commissioners are fully vested with power to investigate and correct the same, and this seems to be all that is required at present, and untit more experience is gained by the commission. To this chamber the public are largely indebted for the investigation of the Hepburn committee, which led to the appointment of the railroad commission of this State. This commission has proved eminently satisfactory both to the public and the railroads, and has performed great public service. The experience of our State railroad commission should furnish a valuable guide and precedent for the larger and more important duties of an interstate commission. When a law was passed creating a railroad commission in this State the powers and duties of the State commission were largely advisory. This chamber was of the opinion that the powers of this commission were too limited, but experience has demonstrated that the law was wise and salutary. The advice of the commission to the railroad managers has been followed in most instances, in spirit if not in letter. Publicity and public opinion have satisfactorily supplied the place of mandatory provisions of the law in this State. In conclusion, your committee beg leave to offer the following resolutions: Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce approve of Senate bill known as 1532, with the exceptions of section 4, prohibiting greater charges for the shorter than the longer haul, and also section 5, which contains an absolute provision against pooling They believe these sections, for reasons stated in above report, should be stricken out or amended as suggested herein. 2. Resolved, That as the commissioners under the proposed law will be charged with important and intricate business duties, they should, as far as the political and non-partisan considerations mentioned in the bili will admit, be selected with reference to their experience and knowledge of the business interests of the country, and that the agricultural, commercial, and railroad interests should all be represented upon such a commission. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. CULLOM. I renew my motion. CHARLES S. SMITH, Committee. JAS. M. BROWN, President. The Senator from Illinois moves that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the conference report on the interstate-commerce bill. The motion was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The report is before the Senate. Mr. BECK. Mr. President, I desire to be as brief as possible, and therefore I will ask not to be interrupted during my remarks, as I am sometimes led off into other matters in that way. The Senate resumed the consideration of the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the bill (S. 1532) to regulate commerce. Mr. BECK. Mr. President, the report of the committee of conference whcih we must either adopt or reject as a whole, presents the issue fairly between those of us who believe that the great interstate railways are, and of right ought to be, subject to law, and those who think that they are and ought to be a law unto themselves; that is the question, disguise it as we may. After a struggle of more than ten years the committees of the two Houses have for the first time agreed on a bill which they submit as the very best that can be had, saying it is that or nothing. Of course the railroads want nothing. No bill could be framed which their advocates would not oppose, and because this bill is not perfect and some of its provisions may hereafter need modification they insist that the railroads shall continue to exercise unlimited control over interstate commerce, discriminating in rates and classifications in charges for short hauls far greater than for hauling over the whole line, in granting rebates to favored shippers; in short, that they shall carry on their business as though the public had no rights which they are bound to respect. The defeat of the pending measure, either directly or by amendment, accomplishes their purpose. As long as the House and Senate moved in diverging lines they felt safe. When the two Houses come together, as their conferees have done, the railroads feel the importance of exerting all their power to defeat this measure, as they would any measure which subjected them to the control of Congress. Not being a member of the committee having this bill in charge, I am not as familiar with its details as some Senators who have studied them, but I think I understand its general scope and purpose. My long service on the Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard brought before me the complaints against the discriminations by the railroad pools in favor of the Standard Oil Company: the Pacific Railroad extortions on way freights; the anthracite coal combinations; the unjust rates imposed on shippers of dressed beef in the interest of the stock-yard rings, and other kindred evils which Congress alone can remedy. I have never doubted that it is not only the right but the duty of Congress to prevent by well-defined and carefully-guarded laws all discriminations, extortions, and combinations on the part of the great corporations engaged as common carriers of our interstate and foreign commerce over the public highways, which Congress and the States have authorized to be constructed for the common good and equal use of all the people. The Supreme Court has conclusively settled the question that Congress, and Congress alone, can protect the people against extortions of that character, and that the States are powerless. It has done so in the most emphatic manner within the last four months in a case about which there was no dispute as to the facts, and no difference of opinion as to the wrong inflicted, or as to the propriety of punishing the railroad company as a wrong doer. I refer to the case of the Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific Railway Company es. The State of Illinois, decided by the Supreme Court at the October term, 1886, in which Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court, and Mr. Justice Bradley the dissenting opinion. The record presents the whole question so fully and fairly that I need only quote briefly the facts and conclusions of law as shown by it. It shows that The Wabash, Saint Louis and Pacific Railway Company, an Illinois corporation, plaintiff in error, was sued by the State of Illinois to recover a penalty for the breach of its laws, passed to prevent extortion and unjust discrimination in the rates charged for the transportation of passengers and freight on railroads in the State. The law sued on was originally passed in 1871, and revised in 1873. The declaration alleged, in substance, that the company charged certain parties 15 cents per 100 pounds for carrying a load of freight from Peoria, in the State |