Mr. BACON. Yes, sir; certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. And that, too, in an important sense, more or less, to one of the parties to the controversy, to the railroad company, namely?

Mr. BACON. Not of any greater importance to the railroad company than to the public? They have equal interests.

The CHAIRMAN. But they do have that important relation?
Mr. BACON. They certainly do have an important relation.

The CHAIRMAN. What is, in your judgment, the serious evil properly to be complained of relating to railway charges?

Mr. BACON. Well, sir, I should say that there were two. First, there is the relation of rates between competing points, and the relation of rates between competing commodities, all of which are very important.

The CHAIRMAN. They are all in the nature of discriminations?

Mr. BACON. They are all in the nature of discriminations, but beyond that, and of far greater importance, is the general scale of rates throughout the country, which has been raised from year to year during the past four years to an extent that has produced, according to a statement made by the Interstate Commerce Commission, a difference in the charges for the year ending June 30, 1903, of $155,000,000 in excess of what the rates would have been that were in force in 1899.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, including the volume of traffic?
Mr. BACON. On the same tonnage.

The CHAIRMAN. On the same tonnage?

Mr. BACON. The same rate per ton of 1899, applied to the traffic of 1903, produced a difference of over $155,000,000 in excess.

The CHAIRMAN. That included the increased traffic?

Mr. BACON. No, sir; it takes the same rate per ton which was applied in 1899.

Mr. CUSHMAN. The same number of tons?

Mr. BACON. The same rate per ton that was in force in 1899, applied to the tonnage of 1903, increases the earnings by $155,000,000. That is to say, if the tonnage of 1903 was charged at the rates in force in 1899, the revenues derived by the railroads, or the charges paid by the public, were $155,000,000 greater than they would have been under the rates of 1899. That is the statement of the Interstate Commerce Commission, made to the Senate in response to a resolution of inquiry.

Mr. CUSHMAN. Do you mean that the same rate applied in 1899 applied now to the same number of tons would produce this excess? Mr. BACON. Not quite so much. The tonnage in 1903 was a little more, but the rate of 1903 applied to the tonnage of 1899 would pro duce $155,000,000 more.

Mr. CUSHMAN. That might be a question of increased amount of ton

nage.

Mr. BACON. That has no bearing upon it.

Mr. CUSHMAN. Then I do not understand you.

Mr. BACON. I have endeavored to make myself plain.

Mr. MOSELEY. If the rate of 1899 had been in force in 1903 the amount of freight paid would have been $155,000,000 less than it was. Mr. BACON. That is it, exactly. And this is a question that concerns the public. One point is very often forgotten--that is, that shippers have no concern as to what the actual freight rate is. Their concern

is that no one else shall have a lower rate than they have and that other places with which they have to compete shall have no discrimination in their favor against them; but the public is concerned in the rate itself. Everything that is consumed, in every form, whether for food or clothing, or heating or building, or for any other purpose whatever, is subject to these rates of freight, and the public are the ones who bear that rate.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, to get back to this matter of the character of the complaints that are made. Is it not true that the great volume of complaint is with regard to some form of discrimination, either in rates, or as to persons, or as to commodities, or as to localities?

Mr. BACON. That is the burden of the complaints, so far as shippers are concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the great burden?

Mr. BACON. No, sir; the shippers are one class and the public are another. The shippers constitute perhaps one-fiftieth part of the public.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BACON. And as long as their rates are equitable with regard to each other and with reference to the various commodities they handle they are fully satisfied; but they are the ones that make complaints against this particular evil, this evil of discrimination.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BACON. That is, discrimination between localities and between commodities. But the public at large is making complaint through the press of the country in the most impressive manner, and has been for years. Almost every paper in the country has been burdened with this complaint. But the people have no organization before Congress. They are left entirely to themselves and they are pleading their cause in an indefinite and indirect manner.

The CHAIRMAN. You have been appearing heretofore, have you not, as the representative of the shippers?

Mr. BACON. I am the representative of the shippers.

The CHAIRMAN. The commercial associations?

Mr. BACON. Yes sir; but the shippers naturally feel that they are interested

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go a little further. So that, so far as your representative capacity is concerned, you are intereted in these discriminations, and drawbacks, and things of that kind?

Mr. BACON. That is true. But we shippers

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). And the people whom you represent, as you have just stated, have but little care as to what the rate is if it is equitable with regard to all of the shippers?

Mr. BACON. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is it. So that when you make these other representations of the complaints of the populace that are voiced in the newspapers, you are getting outside of your official relations to this subject, are you not?

Mr. BACON. I take exception to the term "populist," because they are not embraced in any party.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not say "populist." I said "populace.” [Laughter.]

Mr. BACON. I beg your pardon. While the shippers are interested in the rates being properly adjusted, they naturally feel a reciprocal

interest toward those from whom they derive their business, those with whom they are doing business, and when they see that the rates are excessive, and that their customers and clients are suffering unjustly in regard to it, they naturally feel that it is necessary for them to exert their influence as far as it may be necessary to relieve that.

The CHAIRMAN. So that in representing this part of the subjectMr. BACON. I am speaking for the public.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking emotionally rather than professionally? [Laughter.]

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I would be glad, Mr. Bacon, if you would tell us in what way legislation is necessary-what new legislation is necessary--in order to remedy this vast number of complaints that are the complaints of the shippers which you have just spoken of?

Mr. BACON. The very legislation which is comprised in the bill which has been prepared through this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Have they not now legislation which prohibits discriminations between persons?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do they not have legislation which prohibits discriminations between localities?

Mr. BACON. We have legislation which prohibits it, but we have no means of enforcing it. The Commission is absolutely

The CHAIRMAN. We will get to that after a bit. Do we not have legislation with regard to discriminations as to commodities?

Mr. BACON. There is legislation-that is, there is a declarative statement in an act of Congress prohibiting that.

The CHAIRMAN. Prohibiting that?

Mr. BACON. We are not asking for legislation to prohibit it. We are asking for the means of enforcing that legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Now, we have a criminal statute to aid n its enforcement, have we not?

Mr. BACON. Not in its enforcement.

The CHAIRMAN. We have not a criminal statute?

Mr. BACON. Only in regard to personal relations.

The CHAIRMAN. Have we not legislation with regard to discriminations, prohibiting discriminations as to commodities?

Mr. BACON. There are no penalties.

The CHAIRMAN. There are no penalties?

Mr. BACON. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. A discrimination either against the person or against the locality or against a rate is forbidden by the law, is it not?

Mr. BACON. It is forbidden that rates shall be discriminative between localities or between commodities, or, as the act expresses it, between different descriptions of traffic; but it ends there.

The CHAIRMAN. And between persons?

Mr. BACON. I left out the persons.

The CHAIRMAN. See if it ends there. I think it does not.

Discrim

ination in either of these respects by a carrier is prohibited, you say? Mr. BACON. It is prohibited; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Then it is an offense, is it not, against the statute

a violation of the statute?

Mr. BACON. It is a violation of the statute.

The CHAIRMAN. Have we not a Commission whose duty it is to make inquiry with regard to all violations of the provisions of that statute?

Mr. BACON. We have, and they have made inquiries and have found that violations do occur in many instances, and have attempted to remedy it, without effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Whenever they find that there is a violation of the statute it is their duty, is it not, under the statute, to proceed to the courts for remedies?

Mr. BACON. I do not understand that it is their duty to proceed through the courts. It is their duty to hear any complaint respecting

such violations.

The CHAIRMAN. And when they hear that a violation of the statute has occurred, you say that you have not yet known that it was their duty to proceed to the courts?

Mr. BACON. No, sir. It is their duty to investigate.

The CHAIRMAN. To investigate?

Mr. BACON. And report.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And your understanding of the law-the present law is that whenever they find that there is a violation, that ends the matter, except as they may advise the discontinuance of it?

Mr. BACON. The act states that on finding any violation of the law the Commission shall notify the carrier to that effect and notify it to discontinue that violation.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BACON. Those are the words the statute uses.

The CHAIRMAN. And in your judgment that ends the duty and the power of the Commission.

Mr. BACON. The Commission is authorized

The CHAIRMAN. Will you just answer that question, please?
Mr. BACON. What is the question? Just let me have it again.
The stenographer read the question as follows:

And in your judgment that ends the duty and the power of the Commission?

The CHAIRMAN. When they have ordered the Commission to desist? Mr. BACON. No, sir; it does not.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, for the railroad companies to desist?

Mr. BACON. No, sir. It is authorized to proceed to enforce its orders through the courts.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BACON. In case that is not obeyed by the railway company. But let me say right here

The CHAIRMAN. Go on and answer that point.

Mr. BACON (continuing). The extent of the power conferred by the act upon the Commission in regard to a discriminative rate or an excessive rate is to so declare it, and to notify the company to cease and desist from that violation. The result of it is that its order may be complied with by a change of 1 per cent, we will say, on the existing rates, when under the existing circumstances, it is plain that there ought to be a change of 10 or 20 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. I wish you would file with the committee all the instances you know of that thing having been done. I think it will be of great use for us to investigate.

Mr. MANN. And you knew whether he drew the bill or not?

Mr. BACON. It was the general understanding that he drew it, and in my negotiations with him it was so treated.

Mr. MANN. Did you have any statement from him as to whether he drew it?

Mr. BACON. I think that he stated to me that he drew the bill. Mr. MANN. Who is the vice-chairman of your law convention? Mr. BACON. The vice-chairman is Mr. Charles H. Seybt, of St. Louis.

Mr. MANN. He is a director in the Vandalia Railroad, is he not? Mr. BACON. I understand he is; yes, sir.

Mr. MANN. That is a part of the Pennsylvania Railroad system, is it not?

Mr. BACON. It is a part of its system; whether it is owned or leased I do not know. I think it is leased.

Mr. MANN. It is a part of the Pennsylvania system, and the Pennsylvania Railroad determines who the directors shall be?

Mr. BACON. That I am not certain about; but it is understood to be under the control of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company.

Mr. MANN. The secretary of your convention is Mr. Frank Barry? Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANN. He is also the manager of the organization in Washington?

Mr. BACON. We do not style him manager; he represents the committee in Washington.

Mr. MANN. Did you not elect him as manager of the organization in Washington?

Mr. BACON. No, sir; he was the secretary, elected as secretary, with the understanding, however, that he would spend his time in Washington during the sessions of Congress.

Mr. MANN. The reports of your proceedings show that you elected him as manager of the organization.

Mr. BACON. Will you please cite it?

Mr. MANN. I will, although I do not know whether I can pick it right out at this moment or not. I will call your attention to it. Mr. BACON. He was elected by the executive committee at a meeting held after the adjournment of the convention, and he was elected as secretary.

Mr. MANN. Elected as secretary by the committee?
Mr. BACON. By the committee; yes, sir.

Mr. MANN. I will call your attention to that report later, so that you may know what the title is that you conferred upon Mr. Barry. Mr. BACON. Whatever he may be styled it is expected that he will be in Washington during the sessions of Congress for the purpose of giving any information that may be desired in relation to proposed legislation.

Mr. MANN. He occupied the same position a year ago?

Mr. BACON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANN. And was here in Washington in charge of the movement inaugurated by the Interstate Commerce Law Convention, which you are also representing?

Mr. BACON. He was; yes, sir.

Mr. MANN. Did you ever see the article which he wrote, or purported to write, published in "Freight," of April, 1904?