"Now to illustrate the necessity of this. The sworn testimony before the Committee on Commerce of the Forty-fourth Congress shows that freight from the city of Pittsburg, to be sent to Philadelphia, in the same State, could be placed on the Ohio River and sent down the Ohio River five hundred and forty miles to the city of Cincinnati, where there are competing lines of railroad, and from there sent back through Pittsburg to Philadelphia cheaper than it could be sent directly from Pittsburg to Philadelphia.

"A year ago last winter the commercial bodies of New York and Philadelphia stated before our committee that they could ship articles of commerce from Philadelphia and New York to the city of Boston, and from there ship them to the West cheaper than they could send them directly from those cities to the West. My friend from Nevada here [Mr. Dag gett] has the evidence, which, if he has the opportunity, he will present to the House, showing that a car-load of freight sent from Omaha to the West will be charged more if it stops at the Palisades, in Nevada, than if it went to San Francisco and was brought back. Freights could be taken from Omaha to San Francisco on through rates, and back to the Palisades on way rates, as cheap or cheaper than they could be taken from Omaha directly to the Palisades.

"I could go on and multiply instances of this kind to an indefinite extent, showing the necessity of limiting the power of these corporations to discriminate in favor of one locality or business, and against another locality or business, to enrich one town or city, and impoverish another town or city.

"When these corporations were created it was for the purpose of furnishing conveniences of transportation to all the people, and not as instruments of oppression to any. "These are all the provisions of the proposed bill except one. We require these railroads to print and post up their schedule rates of freight. They say they do that now. If they do, then they pay no respect to their schedules. It was denied by the President of the New York Central Railroad, and by the President of the Erie Railroad, in writing over their own signatures, in answer to an inquiry of the Chamber of Commerce of the city of New York, that they discriminated in rates or made any special rates, and immediately succeeding that denial proof was made before the committee of the New York Legislature engaged in the investigation of the subject that six thousand special contracts had been made by the New York Central Railroad in one year preceding that time -that many instances of special rates, of discriminations.

"I am speaking now of the railroads themselves, not the stockholders, for these fare but little better than the other people of this country. It is the managers, the officers, who profit by the wrongs inflicted upon the people and

the stockholders. One of the modes of doing this is by the organization of corporations within corporations, rings within rings, to control particular branches of commerce in their own interest, and then to exercise the power of discrimination as between men and places, to secure a monopoly in the particular trade. But I pass from that branch to the subject.

"These are the provisions of the bill-simple, easily understood, incontrovertible, on account of the practical truth which underlies and supports each of them. We propose to remedy these evils. We propose three remedies: first, a civil action in behalf of the party aggrieved by a violation of the provisions of this bill, with triple damages in case of recovery; second, a qui tam action-a civil suit to be brought and conducted by a public officer where the litigants are unable to combat the power of these vast corporations; and on the successful prosecution of such suit the penalty is to be not less than $1,000. In addition to this we propose by the bill which I advocate to allow a criminal remedy by indictment against the officers and agents of the corporations violating the law, with a penalty of $1,000. These measures do not involve imprisonment; they involve pecuniary liability only; but they have been intentionally made sufficiently vigorous to prevent a willful violation of the law.

"But if these simple provisions of the bill, with these remedies so easily understood, were adopted, and nothing more, the measure would not meet the expectations of the public. I looked to the action of the various States to see why it was that State legislation of a somewhat similar character had been ineffectual. I found that suits often failed for want of evidence. When one of the officers of these corporations was summoned before the tribunals of justice and put upon the stand as a witness, he declined to testify. When asked for his reasons, he would say he could not testify without criminating himself; and so he was permitted to stand aside. To overcome this difficulty, to open the mouths of these gentlemen who know what they are doing, we propose to compel them to testify in civil suits in which they are parties, with the reservation that their testimony shall not be used against them in criminal proceedings. This is not an unusual, but in such cases a necessary remedy.

"Again, in States where equitable powers were not given, in the trial of civil causes of this kind it often became necessary to get facts from the books, papers, and documents of these corporations, and when they declined to surrender them the court was powerless to enforce their production. To overcome this difficulty we provide that the courts trying civil cases under this bill shall have equitable as well as legal powers, and may compel the production of books and papers, may compel discovery as in any other proceeding in equity. Thus we provide for opening the mouths, for opening the books, papers, and documents of these cor

porations, so as to prevent the concealment of facts necessary to the ends of justice, and to prevent evasions of law which would defeat the purposes of the bill.

These, briefly stated, are the provisions of the bill which I propose to ask the House to adopt as a substitute for the original bill, that substitute being now in fact the bill of the majority."

Mr. Singleton, of Illinois: "I would like to get the gentleman's opinion upon the question of the power of the States to furnish the same remedies proposed by this bill."

Mr. Reagan: "As to the power of the State, it is as full and ample as the power of the General Government, though limited to commerce wholly within the State. The State can adopt the same provisions with reference to State commerce that we adopt with reference to interstate commerce."

Mr. Singleton: "Does not this bill apply to internal commerce?"

Mr. Reagan: "We can not control that; we have not the power to control commerce wholly within a State."

Mr. Singleton: "All the commerce within a State must be internal commerce, of course." Mr. Reagan: "I will tell my friend how we meet that difficulty. Of course when goods are shipped in a State the commerce originates in the State; but the marks upon the goods indicate whether they are destined to stop within that State or go to another. These marks are put upon the goods, not by the railroad company but by the shipper; and if the shipper in Illinois marks his freight for New York or any other State than Illinois, it is interstate commerce; and the law takes hold of it and protects it from the initial point to the time the freight is landed at its destination."

Mr. Singleton: "What I wished to ask was, whether that commerce would be subject to inspection at the terminal point? Whether the commodity the gentleman treats as commerce in transitu would be subject to inspection or not? Is that your understanding?"

Mr. Reagan: "I am not sure that I understand the gentleman's question. There is nothing in the bill in reference to that, however."

Mr. Singleton: "This is a very important inquiry, because our courts have held that it is not even an article of commerce until after it has been inspected, much less commerce itself." Mr. Reagan: "Very well. However that may be, when a man ships five tons of wheat from Chicago to New York I submit that it is commerce, and it does not take an inspector to make it wheat."

Mr. Rice, of Massachusetts: "I wish to ask the gentleman from Texas whether he believes that Congress has power to oblige the New York Central Railroad in any way to modify its charges on freight received by it at Buffalo, either from railroads coming into Buffalo or by water-carriage over the lakes, that freight to be carried within the State of New York by

the New York Central Railroad, a corporation of the State of New York, and not existing outside of the State of New York."

Mr. Reagan: "I will answer the gentleman from Massachusetts as I have already answered the gentleman from Illinois. Whether the commerce is interstate or State commerce depends upon the fact as to whether it is shipped from one State and destined to another or to a foreign country, or shipped from a foreign country for one of the States. If the commerce is shipped, the bill specially provides that from the point of shipment in the State where it starts to the point of its destination it is interstate commerce in the sense of the law, whether it goes over one or many railroads. It would be undoubtedly as much interstate commerce passing part of the way over water as if it passed all the way over land. The question of water or land transportation has nothing whatever to do with the character of the commerce, but simply its origin and destination. Its origin and destination fix the fact."

Mr. Singleton: "I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas myself, further, if a stream should have its source in one State, and thread its way through the mountains and valleys for one half its length before it became navigable and subject to the power of Congress, would it be an interstate stream?"

Mr. Reagan: "That is a question that has already been decided by the courts of the country. The Supreme Court has settled that question, and it is even stronger than the question of my friend from Illinois. They have declared, and the decision has been repeated, that if a commerce originates upon a stream running entirely within a State which ends by emptying into another stream or bay, gulf or sea, and thereby communicates by water with other States or foreign countries, the commerce which passes on from State to State is interstate commerce. The Saginaw River in Michigan, a small stream only forty miles long, is given as an example. All its course is wholly within the State of Michigan, but the commerce passing on it to other States is held to be interstate commerce."

Mr. Harris, of Virginia: "The gentleman says the destination of the commerce shall determine its character. Then let me suppose a case that must inevitably arise. Goods or produce in Ohio destined for Wheeling, West Virginia, are shipped on a road that has no control east of the west bank of the Ohio River, and the company says, We will ship this to the west bank of the Ohio River, but we have no power to ship it beyond that'; would that be, under the gentleman's bill, interstate commerce if landed on the Ohio River, simply because directed to Wheeling, on the east bank of the Ohio River?"

Mr. Reagan: "I will read a clause of the bill which answers the gentleman's question. We knew the railroads would make the exact point which my friend from Virginia has made, and

"No break, stoppage, or interruption, or any contract, agreement, or understanding, shall be made to prevent the carriage of any property from being and being treated as one continuous carriage, in the meaning of this act, from the place of shipment to the place of destination, unless such stoppage, interruption, contract, arrangement, or understanding was made in good faith for some practical and necessary purpose, without any intent to avoid or interrupt such continuous carriage, or to evade any of the provisions of this act. "We take care to provide in advance that the object of the act shall not be defeated by the machinations of the railroads; and if you will give us the bill I will guarantee that that

shall not be done."

Mr. Rice: "I desire to ask the gentleman a question right there. Does he contend that, under that section he has read, Congress can force the New York Central Road-I speak of that road merely in illustration-to make any rates beyond its terminus or to do anything else than take the freight that comes to it at Buffalo and carry it to its destination? Can the power of Congress be exerted over that State corporation to compel it to make contracts and rates beyond the State?"

Mr. Reagan: "What I propose to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts is, that this bill nowhere fixes any rates. It expressly avoids making any rates. But it takes the protection of the commerce between the States into its control, and out of the monopoly powers of the corporations; it prevents charging one man more than another man; it prevents rebate and drawbacks; it prevents pooling of freights, and prevents unjust discriminations between place and place. And the gentleman, before he debates this question intelligently, must separate his idea of regulating freights from the consideration of this bill.

"I know, sir, in all preceding discussions here in this House, in our committee, and in the committee of the Senate, the lawyers and managers of railroads have attempted to confuse this subject by saying that members of Congress, by their vocation, were not qualified to regulate railroad traffic. I have answered that before as I answer it to-day. They have said that none can do it but experts. God deliver this country if its interests are placed in the hands of railroad experts, in the interest of railroad companies, under the dictation of railroad officers! Sir, we have done better than that. We ask no aid of a railroad expert. We ask but honest consciences and commonsense to solve these propositions. What expert is necessary to say that the gentleman from Massachusetts shall not pay two dollars a ton for his freight while the gentleman from Illinois pays only one dollar a ton for the same sort of freight over the same ground? What expert is necessary? Common justice, common right, common necessity settles that question, and settles with equal conclusiveness the question against rebates and drawbacks, against

stroying of one city or town or business for the benefit of another."

Subsequently, on March 1st, the House refused further to consider the bill.

In the Senate, on February 2d, the following resolution relative to counting the electoral votes for President and Vice-President of the United States was taken up and considered:

Resolved, That the Senate will be ready to receive the House of Representatives in the Senate-Chamber on Wednesday, February 9th, at twelve o'clock meridian, for the purpose of being present at the opening and counting of the votes for President and VicePresident of the United States; that two persons be appointed tellers on the part of the Senate to make a list of the votes for President and Vice-President of the United States as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the Sen

ate, who shall announce the state of the vote, which shall be entered on the journals, and, if it shall appear that a choice hath been made agreeably to the Constitution, such entry on the journals shall be deemed a sufficient declaration thereof.

The pending question being on the amendment reported by the select committee to take into consideration the state of the law respecting the ascertaining and declaration of the result of the election for President and VicePresident of the United States, to strike out all after the word "resolved" and insert:

1. That the two Houses of Congress shall assemble in the hall of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, the 9th of February, 1881, at twelve

o'clock M., and the President of the Senate shall be the

presiding officer; that one person be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives to make a list of the votes as they shall be declared; that the result shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall announce the state of the vote and the persons elected be deemed a declaration of the persons elected Presito the two Houses assembled as aforesaid, which shall

dent and Vice-President of the United States; and, together with a list of votes, be entered on the journal

of the two Houses.

for President or Vice-President of the United States 2. That if it shall appear that any votes of electors have been given on a day other than that fixed for casting such votes by act of Congress, in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States; if the counting or omitting to count such votes shall not essentially change the result of the election, they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner: Were the votes of electors cast on the day of 1880, to be counted, the result would be for A B for President of the United States votes, and for C D for President of the United States votes; if not counted, the result would be for A B for President of the United States-————— -votes, and for C D for President of the United States votes; but in either event is elected President of the United States. And in the same manner for VicePresident.

Mr. Morgan, of Alabama: "I desire to insert after the word 'resolved' and before the figure 1 in the amendment the words 'by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring.' The substance of the resolution is a concurrent resolution."

Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont: "That is necessary."

The Vice-President: "The Chair hears no objection, and that modification will be made." Mr. Morgan: "I also move to strike out the words 'one person,' where it reads 'that one person be appointed a teller on the part of the Senate,' and to insert two persons,' and changing a teller' to tellers,' so as to make it read that two persons be appointed tellers on the part of the Senate'; so that the Houses shall be equally represented."

Mr. Edmunds:

That is right."

The Vice-President: "Is there objection to this amendment? The Chair hears none, and it is agreed to."

Mr. Morgan: "Mr. President, it is just one week from to-day until the Constitution and the law will require that the two Houses of Congress shall assemble at some place for the purpose of counting the vote of electors for President and Vice-President. In May last the Senate sent to the House of Representatives a rule upon this subject, which the House, so far as we are advised, has failed to take action upon. The time is drawing so short for the preparation which is necessary for this very important constitutional event that I suppose, in fact, I know, that Senators on both sides of the Chamber consider that it is time that we should take some measures for the purpose of bringing the two Houses together, so that the votes of the electors may be counted.

"The committee, I will say the majority of the committee, have concurred with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Ingalls], who offered the resolution for which the committee offers a substitute, in the opinion that it is now necessary for us to go back to some of the old precedents of the fathers in order that we may get together in due form with as little of irritation and as little of debate as possible for the purpose of performing this important duty.

"The Senate is aware of the fact, morally convinced of it, that some difficulty exists in reference to the electoral votes from at least one State; and while this matter has not been revealed to us, can not be revealed to us in any authentic form till the opening of the certificates that have been sent to the Vice-President, still we know so well the existence of the fact that the State of Georgia did not cast her vote on the same day that the other States of the Union cast their votes, that it becomes an important matter that some step should be now taken to prevent controversy, when the two Houses have met together, over that vote. Fortunately for the country, that appears to be the only irregularity, the only difficulty, that is presented in respect of any of the votes of the electors from any of the States.

"I think the country is to be congratulated that, after we have had so many difficulties in the past, we at last have an election where there appears to be but one question which can give rise to controversy or difference of opinion in the counting of the votes of electors.

VOL. XXI.-12 A

For my part, so far as I am advised, I am ready to admit, upon all the facts that have been made public, upon that sort of history which is recognized by all men in this country, that Mr. Garfield and Mr. Arthur have been elected President and Vice-President of the United States; that the people of the United States in the respective States have chosen electors who have cast the electoral vote in such a way that they have received each of them a majority of all the votes for the offices for which they have been respectively chosen. I would not put the slightest embarrassment in the way of a peaceful, regular, and orderly count of that vote, and the transmission of our highest office from the hands of the gentleman who now holds it to the hands of his successor; and I believe that in the expression of this sentiment I shall receive the cordial accord on the part of Senators on both sides of this Chamber.

"The question in reference to the State of Georgia is one of such serious importance, considered in reference to itself alone, considered in reference to the nature of the question, as that it might require properly long and careful deliberation for this body and the other House to come to a conclusion as to what was the true constitutional rule to be adopted. There are very grave differences of opinion on this question, because the question itself is one of great gravity and one of great importance. It seems to me impossible at this time, in the brief period which must intervene between this and the counting of the electoral votes, that we should arrive at a constitutional settlement of that question. Indeed, the tribunal which is to make a constitutional determination of that question is itself a matter of serious disputation, and has been for a great number of years. The manner of arriving at a solution of it, whether by an independent expression in each House, or by a concurrent resolution, or by a joint resolution, or by a law, is also a matter of serious disputation, and has been for a great many years.

"It was, therefore, thought better by the majority of the committee-and I dare say that in this also there is perhaps a concurrence even of the minority-that a precedent which had been acted upon in one form or another during three controversies of this kind should be adopted. It being certain, as we understand, that Mr. Garfield is elected President of the United States, without reference to the question whether the vote of Georgia is counted or not counted, it seems to be the duty of the two Houses now to arrive at, to ascertain, to declare, and to enforce the result in which the country will find its peace, and I hope and trust its satisfaction. We, therefore, have thought that it was not inappropriate, that it was not a transgression of the traditions of this country, that indeed it was the best thing to do under the circumstances, to adopt that rule which was adopted in 1837, and which is substantially adopted in this resolution, with the ex

ception that the name of a State is not included in the resolution; but the fact that some State may have voted, or perhaps has voted, on a day not that fixed by laws of Congress and the Constitution of the United States, is stated in the resolution, and the resolution is predicated upon the assumption that such a fact exists, and, if it is found to exist, an order is arranged to be taken in that event by which that vote can be disposed of without producing any friction in the two Houses when they are assembled. I beg leave to say that in the case of the vote of Wisconsin, in 1857, when such preparation was not made, though the fact was known and should have been anticipated, the omission of this preparation to make provision for the event led to such things in the joint meeting of the two Houses, and afterward in each House, and to such disputation and such discontent on the part of members of the House of Representatives and the Senate as to the settlement of that question, and as to whether it was settled or not settled, as it would be desirable to avoid. In view of what then occurred, it seems to me it is the part of patriotism and prudence that we shall now take some steps for the purpose of anticipating and avoiding that danger."

Mr. Edmunds: "Mr. President, I have listened with great pleasure to the observations of the Senator from Alabama, who has stated that a constitutional election, as we understand it, of a President and Vice-President of the United States has been achieved, and that the persons elected are the persons whom he has named, so that all that is left is really a ceremonial, because the Constitution says that the votes, being opened, shall be counted, and that the person who has the majority, being a majority of all the electors appointed, shall be the President of the United States. That makes the Constitution the same as if it had said, shall be the President of the United States, whatever anybody may say to the contrary, be that body the President of the Senate, the Senate, the House of Representatives, or any two or all three of those bodies together. I think, myself, that is the Constitution, and that the Constitution never intended to leave it, and never has left it, by force of the Constitution alone, to any one or all of these three authorities to determine who has been elected by the States-and I emphasize that word as a State-rights man-to be the Chief Executive of the nation for the period mentioned in the Constitution.

"I have no disposition to discuss or criticise the second part of the amendment recommended by the committee, in respect of, as it is understood, the State of Georgia, rejecting, as I do, and denouncing-not in the sense of personal hostility, but in its broader sense-all implications that any amount of casuistry might draw out of the way in which this amendment is stated, either in its first or in its second part, as to an assumption of power on

the part of anybody under the existing state of the law to decide in the sense of a finality, or in the sense of any legal effect, whether the vote of the State of Georgia ought to be counted or not.

"So saying-and saying this, I think, for all Senators who agree with me in these general principles, and I believe everybody does-I am willing for one to acquiesce in this method of not disposing of or deciding upon the question, or rather in this method of not disposing or deciding upon any question whatever. In this state of certainty, as we suppose, it is not necessary that we should go into the question of whether you as the President of the Senate, or whether the two Houses together or separately, or all three, can determine any question arising out of an event like this.

"With this disclaimer and denunciation of the implications which, as I said before, casuistry might possibly raise out of the language of this amendment, I am willing to have the ceremony proceed; but I submit to the chairman of the committee and to the Senate that the words 'hall of the House of Representatives' ought to be stricken out, and the words 'Senate-chamber' inserted in their place, and I

make that motion.

"I make it not because I suppose or suspect that there is the slightest practical consequence on this occasion in such a change; but precedent does make history and does make law in a certain sense, and the time may come (as it has on one occasion already come) when the carrying of these archives, the voice of thirtyeight sovereign States, an eighth of a mile through such a great crowd of people whom you do not know, in a time of high excitement, to the other end of this Capitol building, would be a matter of danger and exposure; and when you look to the theory of the Constitution-I am not talking about the mere legal propriety of going over to the House of Representatives; I do not for the present deny it or assert it; but I am talking about the wise thing and the wise spirit of the Constitution that says these votes shall be sent to the President of the Senate. They are sent to him as an officer. The person of the President of the Senate may change from day to day, as we all know, including the President pro tempore who is the President of the Senate for the time being. They are sent, therefore, to this body, in the person of its presiding officer. I do not mean by that to say that the body has any control over them; but I use that phrase in order to show that they come to the head of this body in his official character.

"The Constitution itself says that on the day appointed by law, he, having in charge the sacred records, shall open them in the presence of the two Houses, that then the votes shall be counted, and so on. I submit, therefore, earnestly to my honored friend, the chairman of this committee, and to all other Senators, that the true and only wise place-I am not now