serve to them the right to contest the reasonableness of the charges imposed just as they now possess it. These are simply the proper rules of conservative business, and are not obnoxious to the criticisms aimed at them by those who may have been engaged in their violation.

But it is objected that the fifth section, which I have already quoted, is harsh, unreasonable, and unjust? Why? Is there anything in it that applies to railroad management a new and exceptional business rule? Do not men get on well in other departments of business without resorting to the practice of pooling? Suppose the managers of our railroads should devote as much time, care, and ability in applying to their affairs the ordinary and conservative business rules which other men observe, could they not present the results of success which appear in other fields of enterprise? Do they not all know from actual experience that the railroad pool is a delusion and a snare? What is more common among them than violations of pooling agreements? What calls them together oftener than these violations?

Do they not know that the whole system and the practices under it tend to business demoralization, and to a sort of moral obliquity in the management of affairs? And are not these things sufficient to suggest to the really able and keen-witted men who control the railroads of this country that it is quite time for them to abandon a practice which_hurts quite as much as it helps, is unreliable, vexatious and expensive; first to the corporations and finally to the public? If they do not know these things, then it is quite time to establish a rule of public law which shall not only instruct them but forbid their further practice of the vicious system. I have already quoted from one who has come to realize that the time has come for a change. The fifth section of the bill before us will establish the change if it shall become the law. And when the change shall have been effected, and the strong, vigorous, practical minds in direction of our railroad companies get down to the dutiful work of reforming the abuses which they have too long fostered, I can but believe that they will approve the wisdom of the action which I trust this body is about to take.

Mr. President, another section of the bill deserves special notice. It is the third, and reads as follows:

SEC. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular 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 section, given the aid of the others, I have noticed is of very great practical value. It asserts the doctrine of equality to which I referred in the early portion of my remarks. It does not introduce a new principle of law. It merely restates the old doctrine of equal rights, which underlies and permeates our entire civil structure.

Persons, companies, firms, corporations, localities, and traffics are all factors of our civil society, and each is entitled to equality in rights and treatment, so necessary to the maintenance of our institutions. Neither the States nor the General Government may interfere with this equality. Much less can it be rightfully interfered with by the instru mentalities of society and its progress created by public law. But it has

been interfered with by the railroad corporations in respect of each and every one of the matters and things mentioned in this section. Nothing has been more common in the practices of the railroad companies than the perpetration of the things therein denounced. Preferences and advantages therein prohibited have been common disbursements by the railroad companies. With them the business interests of persons, firms, companies, corporations, and localities have been made or destroyed at will.

The special rates, rebates, drawbacks, and devices denounced as unlawful by the second section of the bill have assured prosperity or enforced disaster in instances almost beyond computation. This is all wrong, and I can but hope that we have reached a time when these things are to cease by command of law; and it is a cause of congratulation, and will so be regarded by the people, that this command is to be enforced by penal sanctions. In this regard the tenth section of the bill is comprehensive, and can but receive general public commendation. This section will make it the personal interest of all those who manage our transportation system to obey the law. It is as follows: [See Sec. X.]

Taking this section in connection with the others I have noticed, it seems to me that the enactment of this bill will assure substantial reforms in the respects named, and, indeed, I may say that the general structure of the bill gives promise of an effective start in the matter of regulating the great subject of which it treats. It is not a harsh and vindictive bill, as some who will come under its regulative provision in the event of its enactment have alleged. In some respects it is not as radical as I would have wished; but I am willing to try it as it is, and therefore will vote for its passage. It does not seem to me that it will work the harm to the proper and legitimate interests of the carrier companies of the country that some seem to fear it will. No one can be helped by doing injustice to them. Nor do the people ask that this shall be done. They recognize the helpful aid the railroads have given to the development and progress of the country, but they insist on the enactment of a law which will aid them in recovering some of their lost rights. They are willing that the railroad companies shall prosper and be reasonably paid for their service, but they will not recognize them as masters, for they know that they were created to be servants; and it may be set down as one of the things irrevocably resolved upon that the public demand which has induced the presence of this bill here will not cease until justice shall be intrenched in the transportation system of the country.

The progress made toward effecting the demand of the people for proper regulative legislation does not seem to have impressed itself in any considerable practical degree upon the minds of the railroad managers of the country. They have thus far defeated all efforts for such legislation. But they do not seem to have improved their methods. An illustration of this statement may be found in Iowa at this time relative to the agricultural interests of the State. The western portion of the State produced a large corn crop this year. The eastern part of the State had a very light yield of this cereal. The result is that corn is selling at a low price in the western part of the State. The farmers in the eastern section need this cheap corn to feed their stock; for they have horses, cattle, and hogs without number.

Do the railroad companies take these facts into account and adjust their rates to harmonize with these exceptional conditions? Not at all. On the contrary they go right on as though nothing out of the line of ordinary agricultural events had transpired in Iowa. On the 16th instant, corn was selling in Western Iowa at from 20 cents to 25 cents per bushel. In Chicago it was quoted at from 363 cents to 36. At Ottumwa, in Southeastern Iowa, the price was 40 cents to 42 cents per bushel. So that Western Iowa corn was selling in Chicago at from 3 to 6 cents cheaper per bushel than the Eastern Iowa farmer could buy it for use on his farm; and these conditions have existed from the day that corn crop matured down to the present time.

What results have we from this state of facts? Why, that the farmers have been forced to sell their horses, cattle, and hogs in a depressed market, and at whatever prices they could get.

From Iowa newspapers I learn that this subject was brought to the attention of the railroad companies. At a meeting of the Live-Stock Breeders' Association, held in this State, the subject was acted on by the adoption of the following preamble and resolution, namely:

Whereas on account of the unparalleled drought, the farmers in Eastern and Central Iowa have a surplus of stock, while Western Iowa and Nebraska have a surplus of corn; and Whereas the present railroad tariff is driving to Chicago corn that is greatly needed at home: Therefore,

Be it resolved, That we respectfully ask the railroads running through Iowa to reduce their local freight rates, that farmers may be able to obtain grain to feed out their stock.

This action has produced no result. Prices range at about the same figures I have already stated, and the depression of agricultural interests continues, and this in face of the fact that the railroad companies could have extended relief without hurting themselves. If they had given the farmers of Eastern Iowa even the Chicago rate on Nebraska and Western Iowa corn, they would have tided them over the present exceptional period of depression and loss. Can there be a more suggestive illustration of the absence of the element of common sense in business management than these facts present? But this is only one illustration out of scores and even hundreds that might be cited; and while these things are practiced we may be sure that the demand for regulative legislation will not lower its tone nor reduce its exactions. Let us give the response which the bill of the conference committee presents.

REMARKS OF MR. PLATT.

IN THE U. S. SENATE JANUARY 5, 1887.

MR. PLATT. (Conn.) Mr. President, the utterances of Senators in this Chamber are so liable to be misunderstood, I will not say misrepresented, that I take occasion to say before proceeding with my remarks, and to say it with what emphasis I may, that I am in favor of legislation for the regulation of the business of the railroads of the country within the extreme limits of the Constitution, which I understand to be for the regulation of that portion of the business done upon the railroads of the country which comes within the definition of "interstate commerce." I wish that it were so that Congress had power to go further in the subject of railroad legislation.

More than that, I am in favor of this bill with one exception. I have labored earnestly, with what diligence I might conscientiously, to endeavor to perfect the bill and to assist the chairman of the committee and the other members of the committee in coming to conclusions upon this subject, and I am ready to agree with the report of the conference committee upon all the points except the one to which I shall call the attention of the Senate.

It is not a question of whether we shall legislate for the regulation of interstate commerce transacted by railroads, but it is a question of how we shall legislate. It is a vast and complicated subject that we deal with, vaster and more complicated, I think, than any one apprehends until he has made a careful and exhaustive study of the subject. The very fact that there were moved upon the railroads of the United States in the year of 1885, 437,000,000 tons of freight, a very large proportion of which, I suppose 60 per cent. at least, came under the definition of interstate commerce, the fact that the entire receipts of the railroads of this country in the year 1885 were $765,000,000, a sum more than twice as great as the entire income of the Government, of which $519,000,000 were from freight receipts alone, shows how vast the question is. How complicated it is no one can ever know except those who have been practically engaged in the operation of railroads.

The basis upon which we must legislate, as it seems to me, is simple. The justification for legislation is that the railroad business, unlike other business, is of a mixed nature. It is partly private business and partly public business. I think that we should refrain as far as possible from legislating to effect purely private business in this country. But when a private business is "charged with a public use," as the phrase is, when the railroad undertakes to discharge a public duty as well as to conduct its private business, it is eminently proper and necessary that there should be legislation to make sure that the public business is conducted for the public welfare; that its public duty is faithfully discharged, and that no abuses are allowed to exist.

I said the basis of legislation was simple. It should be the enforcement of the common law-that, and nothing more. Congress may not

justify itself, in my judgment, in stepping outside of the well-defined principles of the common law in legislation. Those principles affecting interstate railway business have had a growth of centuries. They provide the remedy for every difficulty which can arise in the operation of railroads. The application of those principles to every evil or abuse which can be charged against railroads and railroad corporations will solve the difficulty and remedy the evil. The difficulty is simply in the application.

So then, I think, we should confine our legislation to the enforcement of the common law. That is simple. It is only this; it can be expressed in a word. The rates charged by the common carriers must be reasonable, and such carriers must only charge like rates for like serv ices. That is all. It has been the intention of this committee to confine legislation within these limits. A careful study of the bill as it was passed by the Senate will show that we did not go outside of those limits, that we undertook to make no new law for the regulation of railroads and the business of railroads and interstate commerce in this country, but that we did undertake to hold the railroad management of this country up to the strict letter of the common law.

We did this intentionally. We did it because in the light of expe

rience in this and other countries we believed that that was the best method of dealing with the railroad problem, because those State Legislatures which had legislated thus and stopped there had done most toward a favorable and satisfactory solution of the railroad problem in the States. For instance, all the legislation of the State of Massachusetts upon this subject is to be found in a single statute which is in chapter 225 of the acts of May 16, 1882. I read it. It is an amendment to a former statute which imposed penalties for violations of the common law. It is this:

SECTION 1. Chapter 94 of the acts of the year 1882 is amended by striking out the first and second sections thereof and inserting instead the following words: "No railroad company shall in its charges for the transportation of freight or in doing its freight business make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to or in favor of any perfirm or corporation, nor subject any person, firm, or corporation to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage."

son,

That and a short-haul law upon which largely the short-haul provision of the Senate bill was modeled, and a single statute in relation to the transportation of milk, is all the remedial legislation which has been resorted to in the State of Massachusetts.

In addition to that they have a railroad commission. That commission has very little power. It has power to hear complaints and to make report to the attorney general of the state and to the legislature. That simple legislation has been found to be the most effective state legislation in the United States, and it is in that state where the legislation has been most simple, where it has been strictly confined to a declaration and enforcement of the common law, where the fewest complaints against railroads now exist. It is in those states which have legislated most severely and rigidly where the most numerous complaints, and in my judgment the best founded complaints of railroad abuses now exist.

The committee believed that it was not best in experimental legislation to go too far, for this legislation is experimental. They believed that it was unwise to attempt to prescribe a remedy for every alleged