Q. (By Senator KYLE.) What about water transportation to New York and Boston as regards rates?-A. We have the river from here to New Orleans, and the steamers thence to the East on the one side, and then we have the river from here to Cincinnati and rail thence.

Q. What are the rates to New York and Boston by way of New Orleans, by water?-A. I think they publish the same rates as all rail.

Q. No advantage then in water transportation at all?-A. The present rail rates are fixed by that water transportation. They have adjusted themselves to these conditions.

Q. What about insurance for water and land transportation?-A. There is an additional cost of insurance. The water rate from here to the East by the way of Cincinnati is 5 cents lower than the railroad rate, which is supposed to cover the difference of insurance, and make provision for slow time.

Q. (By Mr. RATCHFORD.) What are the rates on a bale of cotton from here to the New England mill?-A. To Boston points a rate of 55 cents per 100 pounds, estimating 500 pounds to the bale.

Q. Are you acquainted with the rates from here to Liverpool?-A. I have them in the office. They are changing all the time.

Q. Can you state approximately? Is it higher?-A. I think they are about 72 cents. I have not noticed it for a day or two.

Q. (By Mr. SMYTH.) The Southern Railroad, from recent statements published, shows a degree of prosperity?-A. I think so.

Q. They share in the general prosperity of the country?-A. I think so.

Q. Apparently there is no excuse for advancing rates and maintaining these exceedingly high rates to local points on their road?-A. I do not understand that they have ever earned anything on their stock, and I suppose it would be reasonable to accord them the privilege of doing so.

Q. Is it not a fact that the Southern Railroad paid a dividend on their stock last year, and possibly another the 1st of April?-A. On preferred stock I think they did. Í understand that under the old conditions, when these rates were in effect, they did not make anything on their stock. That is the rule with a great many of the roads, and especially so with reference to the Memphis division of the Southern.

Q. (By Senator KYLE.) Do you know anything about the capitalization of the Southern road?-A. No, I do not.

Q. (By Mr. SMYTH.) Ís not the fact that these rates to local mills in the Carolinas are so high due entirely to their being local points on the Southern Railroad, noncompetitive points, which other roads can not reach?—A. That is quite probable; I pre

sume so.

Q. Therefore they make a fixed arbitrary of 17 points above the rate to Norfolk, about the same distance from here?-A. I assume the fact that these are local points accounts for their being able to hold a higher rate.

Q. They have power to make the rate?-A. No doubt about that.

Q. You are familiar with the interstate-commerce law?-A. Yes, sir; more or less. Q. Under the present law, as we have seen, the railroads initiate the rate of freight and submit it to the commission, and it remains in force, even if the commission objects to it, until the question is decided in the courts as to its being a fair rate. Do you think that is the fair and proper way in which it should be handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission, or would it be better to clothe the Interstate Commerce Commission with power to inaugurate the rates and let them be in force at once and await the decision of the court as to their being reasonable?—A. We think that would be preferable, of course, from the shippers' standpoint, and our bureau has petitioned our members of Congress to clothe the commission with powers to adjust rates in correction of what they deem to be discrimination.

Q. Would your bureau be willing to go further and clothe the commission with power to audit and examine the books of all railroads doing interstate business, under competent inspectors, as in the national bank system?-A. Yes. Is that incorporated in Mr. Cullom's amendment to the bill which is now pending?

Q. It is covered in the report which has been made by this commission to Congress, which was submitted early in February.-A. The reason I ask is, we have asked our representatives to advocate the adoption of Mr. Cullom's amended bill.

Q. You are in favor, then, of the Cullom bill?-A. With a few changes. We recommended that the fourth section should carry the present provision as to different circumstances and conditions not requiring the strict observance of the long and short haul clause.

Q. (By Senator KYLE, interrupting). You do not want to make the long and short haul clause mandatory?-A. No; we do not think that would be fair, and I think it would work great hardship not only to the railroads but to trade centers.

Q. (By Mr. SMYTH.) Before you accepted this position with the Memphis Freight Bureau, were you not connected with railroads? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What road?-A. I was connected with the freight department of the Memphis and Charleston Railroad.

Q. That is part of the Southern system?-A. It is now. I was assistant general freight agent.

Q. Is there a physical division or pooling system among the railroads here?—A. I understand there is.

Q. So no road can do more than its quota, or if it does it gets no more revenue?— A. I think the system is to divide the cotton business, and if a road gets more than its proportion, and the shipper insists on its taking more, a transfer is made to some other road.

Q. (By Senator KYLE.) And a road gets its proportion if it does not haul any?— A. No; I think they have no revenue pool; it is a physical pool, and unless the roads are able to control their proportions the deficit is turned over to them by some road in excess.

Q. (By Mr. SMYTH.) The effect is, if the railroad has received its full quota of cotton or other commodities, the shipper is powerless to insist on his shipments going by that road; it will transfer it to another road?-A. That is the way we understand it.

Q. (By Mr. RATCHFORD.) What is the standard or basis upon which it is made?— A. The agreement as to proportion is based on the movement of past years.

Q. On the carrying capacity of the road?-A. The strength of the lines is considered. Q. As Captain Smyth has stated, the ultimate effect is what is commonly known as a pooling system?-A. I think so.

Q. Do you believe that such a pooling system is a good thing for the shipper?— A. I do not. I think it works rather to his detriment.

Q. The public service would be best served by each road's having its own rates and affording to shippers the opportunity of having his goods go over the line he prefers?-A. I think so. There is one thing they claim that is worthy of consideration; that is that under the present system the rates are stable and are alike to all parties.

Q. I understand you said at the beginning that the rates were based on the cost of the water transportation?--A. Yes, sir.

Q. With reference to water transportation of cotton, for instance to Boston and New York, has there at any time been a barge line from here to these points or to the Gulf?-A. There has been no business of late; a number of years ago it was Landled by barge to New Orleans.

Q. (By Senator KYLE.) Would that materially decrease the expense?-A. Under the present rates, I think not.

Q. (By Mr. RATCHFORD.) The insurance is higher when shipped by water?A. Yes. I do not think it is feasible to ship that way under present rates. That would be done if they should advance the rates from Memphis.

Q. (By Senator KYLE.) What is the insurance from here to Norfolk and Pinners Point-the insurance rates?-A. I really do not know. I do not think they insure by rail, unless it is under the general policy that covers all liability by rail and water transportation. I think they accept the railroad's bill of lading as sufficient insurance.

Q. The insurance rate on cotton is as great by water as it is for land transportation? A. Yes; it would be greater.

Q. (By Mr. SMYTH.) How are your local rates on cotton to Memphis from points around? Are they as high as they were several years ago? Any reduction in the last 25 years?—A. Yes; a considerable reduction in the last 5 years.

Q. How is that fixed; 10 miles, 20 miles, and so on?-A. No. I think it is controlled by outside competition almost entirely.

Q. Have you a railroad commission in Tennessee?-A. Yes.

Q. It has established these local rates on cotton?-A. It has taken no action on the rate question at all. The law provides they shall make a tariff of all freights throughout the State, but they have never done so.

Q. You consider the local rates on cotton to Memphis as fair?-A. No; we have some contention. Some of them we think are fair; others are too high.

Q. I suppose you are kept busy looking after these inequalities?-A. Yes; thoroughly so.

Q. And you will touch upon the question of rates to the Carolina mills?-A. Yes; we hope to get that adjusted, although we have not had very much encouragement. Q. (By Mr. RATCHFORD.) You have made some allusion to the long and short haul clause. As an experienced railroad man, I should like to have your opinion on that subject more fully. Upon what basis do you believe that matter should be adjusted?— A. It is a very intricate question. I do not know that I could outline any general principles that would govern the matter. The conditions are so different at different points that it is hard to establish any rule.

Q. Do you know of any good reasons why it will cost more to ship a bale of cotton from Memphis, for instance, to Charlotte, N. C., than to ship the same bale to a New England mill?-A. No; it would not cost the railroad as much to handle the bale of cotton to Charlotte.

Q. It taxes the shipper more, we understand?-A. Yes.

Q. Do you know of any good reason why it should?—A. No; I do not. to me these rates should be adjusted.

It seems

Q. (By Mr. SMYTH.) They simply have the power to do it?-A. I think they should be adjusted more nearly in relation to the rates to the Southern seaboard.

Q. (By Mr. RATCHFORD.) The causes that operate in that instance operate in all other instances where the distance is about equal, do they not?-A. I do not understand your question.

Q. The causes that operate in that instance operate in all other instances where the intermediate points bear the same relation to the initial point and the New England point we speak of?-A. Not in all cases. Many of the lines undertake to apply the long and short haul clause strictly. The situation with reference to these mills I can explain in this way: Very frequently we have had here what you might call a war of rates; that is, under competition between the various roads, cotton rates to the Eastern points have been reduced below a paying basis. Under these conditions it does not seem to me that the railroads should be forced to carry that competition to their local territory, where they have to get the principal part of their earnings. Therefore it seems to me that the application of the fourth section of the long and short haul clause would be oppressive. We have a case in point which I can illustrate by, and that is in the rates from the East to Memphis. We hold these rates are entirely too high as compared with the rates from the East to St. Louis. We are in competition actively with St. Louis to all points on and west of the Mississippi River, and our contention is that the rates from the East to Memphis should be the same as to St. Louis. The railroads say that they can not make that adjustment, to do justice to Memphis, without destroying their whole rate structure between Eastern points and Memphis. That line of reasoning deprives us of being put on a competitive basis with the people we are competing with.

Q. The practice of the railroad companies, we understand, is to meet competition at great shipping centers, and to impose the same rate generally on intermediate points along their own road, even if the haul is shorter. If that be the purpose, and I do not think it will be disputed, does it not operate against the building of factories and other industries at these intermediate points along its own line of railroad?— A. I should think it would.

Q. In the end what interest is served by the the company? Is their own interest served particularly if they prevent the building of factories and mills and industries of all kinds by reason of this discrimination in freights?-A. Of course the lower the rates to and from their local points the greater will be the development of those points. There is no question about that. The only question is whether they can afford it.

Q. (By Mr. SMYTH.) Would not the increase of business coming from those points more than reimburse them for any loss?-A. It might and it might not.

Q. (By Mr. RATCHFORD.) Is there any distance basis that might be adopted that would minimize the discrimination against intermediate points? I ask you that question as an experienced railroad man-in general terms?—A. I do not think I could answer it.

Q. You do not know of any?-A. No. (Testimony closed.)

WASHINGTON, D. C., May 11, 1900.

TESTIMONY OF MR. H. R. FULLER,

Representative of the national brotherhoods of railroad employees at Washington during the sessions of the Fifty-sixth Congress, in matters pertaining to national legislation.

The commission met at 11 a. m., Mr. Phillips presiding Mr. H. R. Fuller, legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, was introduced as a witness, and, being duly sworn, testified as follows:

Q. (By Mr. PHILLIPS). Will you state your name, residence, and occupation, please?-A. H. R. Fuller, 1836 Sixth avenue, Beaverfalls, Pa.; legislative represen

tative Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers.

Q. Representative?-A. Yes.

Q. In what capacity?—A. Looking after matters in which they are interested in the way of national legislation.

Q. (By Mr. FARQUHAR). How long have you been representative of the brotherhoods here?-A. Well, over a year now. I was here at the session last winter, and came here a little while after the opening of the present session this winter.

Q. Your credential as representative then comes from all of those separate bodies?A. It might be well to submit my credential; I have it right here. It is signed by the executive officers of these organizations.

Mr. PHILLIPS. Will the secretary please read it for the information of the commission?

(The secretary read the paper submitted by the witness, as follows:)

WASHINGTON, D. C., December 6, 1899.

To whom these presents may concern, greeting:

This is to certify that at a meeting of the chief executive officers of the followingnamed railroad labor organizations, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and the Order of Railroad Telegraphers, held at Washington, D. C., December 6, 1899, the bearer hereof, Mr. H. R. Fuller, whose signature appears below, was duly chosen to serve as the representative of the said organizations at Washington, D. C., during the sessions of the Fifty-sixth Congress, in matters pertaining to national legislation.

H. R. FULLER, Representative.

P. M. ARTHUR,

Grand Chief Engineer, B. of L. E.
E. E. CLARK,

Grand Chief Conductor, O. of R. C.
F. P. SARGENT,

Grand Master, B. of L. F.

P. H. MORRISSEY,

Grand Master, B. of R. T.
W. V. POWELL,

President, O. of R. T.

Q. (By Mr. KENNEDY.) When not representing the brotherhoods now, are you employed as a railroad worker? A. Yes.

Q. In what capacity?-A. It might be well to give you a statement of my services and the fact that I am an employee in actual service when not engaged here. Here is a statement from my general superintendent of the Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad Company.

(The secretary read the statement as follows:)

[The Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad Company, J. B. Yohe, general superintendent.]

To whom it may concern:

PITTSBURG, PA., December 27, 1899.

This is to certify that Mr. H. R. Fuller is a passenger conductor at present in the employ of the Pittsburg and Lake Erie Railroad Company, and is granted leave of absence at his own request.

His term of service is as follows: From April 1, 1887, to May 17, 1889, freight brakeman; from May 17, 1889, to October 25, 1898, freight conductor; from October 25, 1898, to date, passenger conductor.

Yours, truly,

J. B. YOHE, General Superintendent.

Mr. PHILLIPS. If there are no further questions the statement of Mr. Fuller will now be read.

(The statement was read, as follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission: Having received a copy of your topical plan of inquiry on the conditions of labor and capital employed in transportation, with an invitation to make answer thereto, I desire to give you such information on questions 1 to 24 as I have been able to collect, my answers being mostly confined to the conditions of those classes of railroad employees which comprise the membership of the five railroad labor organizations, i. e., Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, Order of Railway Conductors, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, and Order of Railroad Telegraphers.

Terms and conditions of employment.-Where employees are organized on protective lines the terms and conditions of employment are, as a rule, made the subjects of mutual written agreement between them and their employers. This is generally done through committees representing the employees and the chief operating officer of the road. These agreements generally stipulate the rates of wages to be paid, hours of labor, pay for overtime, conditions of advancement in the service, and also make provisions for fair and impartial trials for employees before they are suspended or dismissed from the service, and many other matters which are of much interest to the employees. This plan has been brought about through the influence of the organizations of the employees, and it gives greater satisfaction than where the men work under conditions wholly prescribed by their employers. Where the employees are unorganized they do not enjoy these privileges, and are compelled to work under conditions laid down by the employers, which experience has shown are not so favorable. A fair comparison of the conditions of organized and unorganized labor will, I believe, prove to the unbiased mind that labor organizations are a great assistance to the laboring classes.

In addition to the rules and conditions of employment mutually agreed to and made by the employees and the companies, the companies have many rules and conditions that must be complied with by the men. The enginemen are required to pass examinations on the rules, machinery, and the workings of the air brake and steam-heating apparatuses. Trainmen are required to pass examinations on the rules and the workings of the air brake and steam-heating apparatuses; and in addition to this, passenger conductors are required to pass examinations on their duties, such as the handling of coupon tickets, mileage books, and other forms of transportation.

These requirements are right and fair; indeed, they are essential to the safe and successful management of a railroad, and they are so considered by the employees; but there are many other conditions under which men are required to work that they think are very unfair, and great objections are made to them. For instance, some companies have required as a condition of employment that employees should not hold membership in any labor organization. The employees think this is an encroachment upon their liberties, and many protests have been made; and as a result of such protests some States have passed laws forbidding the practice; but in some cases such laws have been declared by the courts to be unconstitutional. An act passed by Congress, and approved June 1, 1898, forbids this practice, but it is known that the spirit of the law is being violated.

Some companies require as a condition of employment that the employees become members of the relief associations conducted by such companies. This the men also consider unfair. Section 10 of the act approved June 1, 1898, also forbids this practice, but nevertheless men who do not signify a desire to join them are not given employment.

New employees are required to pass a physical examination, and only those who are sound in body and limb are given employment. This rule has worked great injury to many good, competent, and experienced employees who have received a slight injury while in the service of one company when they seek employment with another. This rule would not seem so unjust if the physical defect rendered the man unfit to perform the service sought. But this is not the case, for in many instances men are refused employment on account of the loss of a finger or a small part of a hand or foot, which, I might say, would not in the least interfere with their performing their duties. I have given some thought to this question, and I have been unable to find a good reason why the companies should adopt such a stringent

rule.

Many companies have also adopted an age limit—that is, they will not give employment to men who are over a certain age. The limit varies; some roads make it as low as 25 years while others have placed it as high as 40 years. There is one thing sure to result from the physical examination and the age limit, and that is the overstocking of the railroad labor market, for it must be remembered that thousands of railroad employees are injured every year, and many who lose employment with one company will find themselves debarred by the age limit when they seek employment with another. The report of the Interstate Commerce Commission for the year 1898 (page 63) gives the ratio of trainmen injured to those employed as 1 to 11, and it is fair to assume that a great many of these were not injured to the extent of being incapacitated from performing the duties of trainmen. I can not give you any figures as to the number of men who are thrown on the market on account of the age limit, but when we look around and see the great army of employees who are over the age of 30 or 40 years, it is not hard to predict the result of a rule which denies them employment by other companies when they lose their present situations.