Page images
PDF
EPUB

this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particu lar description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.

This is likewise a declaration that a greater sum shall not be charged for a shorter than for a longer haul under similar circumstances and conditions, because such a charge would be the making or giving of an "undue or unreasonable preference or advantage" to one particular "locality," or would subject some other particular "locality" to an "undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

Now let us see what section 4 savs and means. It reads as follows: SEC. 4. 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 for 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, the shorter being included within the longer distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance: Prorided, however. That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act, such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property; and the commission may from time to time prescribe the extent to which such designated common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section of this act.

As I understand it, this section as it now stands simply prohibits a railroad corporation from charging a greater aggregate sum-not a higher rate for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line, in the same direction, and under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, when the shorter is included within the longer distance. There is no other prohibition made in positive terms. The declaration that "this shall not be construed as authorizing any common carrier within the terms of this act to charge and receive as great compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance" does not in terms prohibit the charging as much for a shorter as for a longer distance, but simply withholds the legislative sanction from the making of such a charge. This qualifying clause negatives the inference that might possibly be drawn from the language of the section without these words, namely: that an equal charge for a shorter distance is authorized by inference because only a greater charge is prohibited. This qualification, therefore, leaves the question of whether an equal amount can be charged for the shorter distance to be determined by the provisions of the bill to which I have already referred, requiring all charges to be reasonable, and forbidding the giving of an unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular locality.

Mr. HOAR. I should like to inquire of the Senator from Illinois, with his permission, if he understands that the interpretation of the language of this bill that it only prohibits the charging a larger gross sum for the shorter than for the longer distance, and does not prohibit a larger proportionate charge for the shorter than the longer distance, is the sense in which the House of Representatives, as represented by their conferees, understand the bill, so far as he is informed?

Mr. CULLOM. I have no question but that every member of the conference committees of both Houses unqualifiedly and without mistake understands this not to be a prorate per-ton-per-mile law, but that the corporations shall not be allowed to charge in the aggregate, in the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

sum total, the same amount for the short as for the long distance, unless under certain circumstances.

The requirement of the fourth section, then, is that as between shipments of the same kind in the same direction over the same line, and made under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, a greater sum shall not be charged for a shorter than for a longer haul when the shorter comprises part of the longer haul-not that a higher rate shall not be charged per mile, but that a greater aggregate sum shall not be charged. And I desire to say here, Mr. President, that one of the elements of opposition to this bill throughout the country has been the result of a misrepresentation of the meaning of the fourth section of the bill. There has seemed to be, on the part of those who want no legislation, a determination that that section of the bill shall be construed into a pro-rateper-mile section, when I undertake to say that no man who has been on the committee ever dreamed that the language which is used in that section, and which has been used in it from the beginning since the select committee reported the bill to the Senate, could have that construction placed on the words used.

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. May I ask the Senator a question?
Mr. CULLOM.

Yes, sir.

[blocks in formation]

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 for the transportation of passengers or of like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, &c.

* *

*

*

What I want to get at is the meaning of these words, "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions for a shorter than for a longer distance on the same line, the shorter being included within the longer distance." To explain what I desire to get at, I will make this inquiry of the chairman of the committee: Take a long haul, from San Francisco to Portland, Oreg., over a railroad. running from San Francisco to Portland. Transportation by rail over a route like that, of course, is affected to a certain extent by steamship competition, by steamers running between the terminal points. Now suppose a short haul, between points intermediate of those two terminal points, say from Stockton to Roseburgh; would that come within the provisions of the section? Would that short haul, included in this long haul, be subject to the influence of steamboat competition? Is that a haul "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions" as the haul over the whole line of road?

Mr. CULLOM. I will touch upon that subject briefly in what I have to say, and shall answer the Senator from Oregon in the course of my remarks.

Mr. MITCHELL, of Oregon. I am inquiring for information. I have not yet made up my mind as to the construction of this bill.

Mr. CULLOM. I am not objecting to the Senator's inquiry. I was going to say that I shall discuss that point briefly in what I say; but in answer to the Senator I have this to say now: that the words "substantially similar circumstances and conditions" are words of very great importance, and words which may be taken for what they say by a court or by a commission who may have something to do with the construction of the law. Whether the section should be construed so as to give relief as to the water point of competition that the Senator refers to, or not, the section itself does provide that at such a competing point, if the fact does exist, the interstate commission shall have the power to give relief upon a showing of the proper state of facts.

Mr. HOAR.

The power of suspension is given in a special case.

Mr. CULLOM. And of course every case of the kind would be a special case, if, in the judgment of the commission, it was deemed necessary to relieve the railroad company at that particular competing point from the operation of the law.

Mr. HARRIS. It does not refer to one single shipment, but to the establishment of a rule by the commission.

Mr. CULLOM. Of course a rule applying to all alike. Mr. HOAR. I will put an illustration. The port of Boston, in Massachusetts, has a foreign commerce of about $125,000,000 annually. It was larger than that three or four years ago, but the change is not in the amount of commerce, but in the value of the articles exported and imported. That was the amount last year. Now, probably, of the exports, which are seventy odd millions of dollars, between thirty and forty millions consist of cotton, cattle, wheat, corn, hams and bacon, and lard-the food products of the West and the cotton of the South. Every ton of that produce exported to day I suppose is taken from a place in the country which is from 150 to 250 miles nearer to New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. Now, the railroads give a rebate of five per cent. on all those exported articles. On that export trade of course depends a corresponding import trade, which otherwise we should not get at that port.

Have we got, under this bill, to put down all the local business of Massachusetts, the cotton which is taken to her factories to be used there and the food products which are brought to feed her people, to the New York rates, that is to the rates of carriers who do not have to carry the goods so far by 250 miles; or have we got to give up that export trade; or is this great export trade of the second commercial city of the country to depend on whether five commissioners happen to think that is or is not a special case?

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, it may be said to be rather unfortunate that Boston is a little farther away from the center of gravity than New York; but I do not think, myself, that there is anything in this bill which prohibits a railroad from carrying to Boston just as cheaply as it carries to New York from Chicago or Omaha or San Francisco, and there is not anything now that prevents it.

Mr. HOAR. I do not think the Senator quite apprehends the force of my statement. The bill does not make New York a comparison; but does it not say that a company shall not carry over the same line of road to other points in Massachusetts the same article at a larger price than it charges this foreign commerce--that is the propositionunless the commissioners come in and make an exception? Then the railroads have got to put down the whole railroad transportation in cotton and food products in Massachusetts along their lines to the New York rates if they put down the exports from Boston to the New York rates, and that they can not do under the laws of trade, because, of course, the other road, which is 250 miles nearer, has the advantage. Mr. CULLOM. So far as this section is concerned, when a load of corn, wheat, cattle, or what not, is started from Chicago, there is nothing in this bill that prohibits the transportation company taking the product in a car from Chicago at exactly the same rate to Boston that it takes it to New York-not a single line. The only question, then, is a question as to whether the railroads will carry the products as cheaply to Boston as to New York. In my own judgment they will.

Mr. HOAR. My friend does not still answer the question. Do you not prohibit them from carrying it to Boston at a less rate than they

[graphic]

carry it to Springfield, or Worcester, or Fall River, or to any other point on the line in Massachusetts ?

Mr. CULLOM. At a less rate, yes.

Mr. HOAR. That is exactly the point. We have got, therefore, have we not, under your bill to put down Worcester and Springfield and Fall River to the New York rate, or else Boston can not have the exports?

Mr. CULLOM. Has the Senator any objection to having the rate put down? Is there any reason why the rates to New York and Boston should not be the same?

Mr. HOAR. The roads can not live at those rates. My friend has got in his bill the general provision that they shall not charge anything more than what is reasonable to those places. You have got the thing down under the operation of your bill to what is reasonable as an independent proposition.

Mr. CULLOM. Has the Senator any objection to that?

Mr. HOAR. Of course not. You have got it down to what is reasonable; now stop there. Then the railroad company says, "While I am doing this business for all New England, for all its local uses of every sort, food supply or supply of materials, at a reasonable rate and no more, which I am bound to do, I can, in connection with that business, take on, in addition, at 5 per cent. rebate, these thirty millions which are going to Europe, if you let me; but if you say I shall not do that unless I put local rates for all Massachusetts at 5 per cent. below what is reasonable for them, I can not live, and the whole business must go to New York." That is the proposition.

Now, a man doing a business of transportation at a fair rate, a reasonable rate, and no more, may very often afford to take a particular piece of merchandise or merchandise for a particular destination at very much less than his usual rates. If the Senator should engage to take me with a hack over to Bladensburg this morning and charge me $10 for it, and that was a reasonable price and no more, and he should come across a man who was on his way there with a carpet-bag in his hand about to walk, and the man says, "I have got but a dollar in my pocket and I will give you that," and he takes him on, that does not do me any injustice, it does not do him any injustice, and it does not cause any loss. That is the attitude of the foreign commerce of every principal port. What I want to know of the Senator now is, not to debate this matter, but to ascertain the meaning of the bill. Do I correctly understand him as saying that the right to continue that foreign commerce, in which the condition is what I have stated, to be dependent in the future, under the act of Congress, on the opinion of five commissioners? More than that, is that foreign commerce to stop for a while, to be revived again a few months later, when the commission have organized and got around to this matter?

Mr. CULLOM. Mr. President, it is pretty difficult to pass any act providing for any regulation whatever that may not appear to harshly interfere with what somebody is doing. Now, so far as I am concerned, I have no disposition to interfere with the foreign commerce of this country. I would very much prefer to see the foreign commerce increase, if it can be done consistent with the protection of the great masses of the people of this country outside of the seaports.

But here we are met with this condition of affairs-unjust discrimination, extortion, secret rebates, and all manner of unjust practices have been going on for years by the railroad corporations of this country because there has been no regulation of them by the Government

of the United States. Now we come in with a bill that undertakes, in a moderate degree I think, to apply to them some sort of regulation. We say that there shall be no secret rebates; we say that there shall be no unjust discrimination; we say that there shall be no extortion. Then we come with the fourth section and say that there shall not be a greater charge for the shorter than for the longer distance over the same line under substantially similar circumstances, the shorter being included within the longer, and the property, of course, being of like kind.

Now, how are we ever going to regulate these railroads? The Senator from Massachusetts steps in and says that is going to interfere with the trade of Boston; it is going to stop the export trade and the import trade that is going on at the city of Boston." I do not know whether it will do so or not, but I do not believe it will because those words, as I said awhile ago, "under like conditions and circumstances, are words that the commission, that the railroad men, that the courts are bound to construe in the most liberal manner consistent with the actual honest commerce of this country.

I undertake to say that you can not pass any bill which will in any way restrict the traffic carried on by corporations unless you have something that will in some way appear to interfere with localities or with individual interests which are being carried on. I believe myself that those words "under similar conditions and circumstances" will open a way, if any way is necessary to be opened, so that the real commerce that is being conducted by Boston or New York or Philadelphia or any other seaport will go on without the slightest interruption. I do not believe that the Senator will find that his constituents in the city of Boston will be in the slightest degree interrupted in their foreign commerce which they are carrying on to-day, even if the very letter of the law should be enforced as the fourth section declares.

But I do not believe it will be enforced as the letter of it reads in all cases, but that a proper and liberal construction will be given by the courts and by the commission and by the railroads themselves to the words I have referred to. My own judgment is that if the common carriers of this country proceed right along in the discharge of their honest duties as common carriers and construe those words liberally so that they may carry the products of the West to the city of Boston to be transported to the people on the other side of the water, there will be no interference with that work by the commission, by the courts, or by anybody else. But if we are going to regulate these corporations at all, if we are going to stop unjust discriminations and the secret rebates by which towns are built up and towns are destroyed, by which individuals are destroyed and individuals are built up, we must have something in the bill which will mean something, or else we might as well lay the bill on the table and go at other business.

The limitations placed upon the prohibition that is made are very significant, and they must not be overlooked. They require that in determining the sum that may be charged for a shorter as compared with a longer distance, the comparison must be made

1. Between shipments "of like kind of property."

2. "Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions." 3. "Over the same line."

4. "In the same direction."

5. When the shorter is "included within the longer distance." When the act is to be applied in any given case to measure the charge that may be made for any distance, as compared with a longer distance,

« PreviousContinue »