Mr. COCHRAN. I am very glad, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Philadelphia has brought this matter to its practical bearing. We have been running very wild this morning in broad denunciation and inculpation of the Committee on Railroads and Canals and its work. For my own part, sir, 1 am not affected by reflections of that nature. I believe that the gentleman from Bucks, (Mr. Lear,) who indulged in them most largely, really did his cause, if he had one, which seemed to be somewhat doubtful, more harm than benefit by the course which he pursued. I therefore shall not trouble this committee with replying to such reflections. The time of the committee is too important to be taken up with responding to matters of that character. I suppose that I might inveigh probably as long and as loudly as he did, but I do not think it is my duty to do so, and therefore I pass it all by. Mr. Chairman, this section has undergone a thorough criticism by the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Gowen.) He is competent to criticise it. He understands the subject. But after listening to his remarks with attention, I cannot agree with them, and 1 cannot agree with his intrepretation of the section itself. This section sets out by declaring in terms, in the first place, what the statutes and the chapters of these corporations declare, that they are public highways. I pre sume there is not a railroad charter in the State that does not contain this provision, and I know that our general railroad law expressly declares that to be the case. Mr. CUYLER. If the gentleman will pardon me at that point, the general railroad law qualifies that declaration in a very important particular. While it says that the road shall be a public highway, it also says that the motive power shall be furnished by, and controlled altogether by, the corporation. This omits that. Mr. COCHRAN. I wish the gentleman from Philadelphia to understand me. I agree entirely that the railroad companies should control their own motive power. I have no disposition to take the control of the motive power from the road, nor to allow anybody to put his motive power on that road or run it over their rails. That is not my intention; nor was it the intention of the committee. If gentlemen consider that to be the intention of the section, and that the expression is imperfect, I hope they will correct both, but not im pute to the committee an intention which they did not entertain. The idea was this, that these were public highways, and that the people should have the right to transport persons and property on these roads. It was not intended that they should have the right to take the motive power and the machinery out of the control of the railroad company. That would be exceedingly injurious, exceedingly harmful. Nothing of that kind was contemplated. But here was the difficulty which the committee encountered, and which they desired to remedy, and that difficulty was one which the gentleman from Philadelphia who has just spoken, (Mr. Gowen,) now makes trouble about-the difficulty which persons who have no pecuniary interest in, and no official or other control over, these railroads met when they were brought into competition with persons who had that official control and that pecuniary interest in the roads, the discriminations that were made against them, and the disadvantages which they were compelled to encounter. That is the idea of the section. The gentleman from Philadelphia has discussed this question with perfect candor, but I submit to him that he has given too broad an application to the word "officers." Is a mere ticket agent to be considered an officer in a corporation of this kind? Is he not a simple agent, employee, or something of that kind? I contend that he is not an officer. If he is not an officer, then the heft of the objection of the gentleman from Philadelphia to this and the section stands prohibiting this particular part of the section is destroyed, competition between the officers proper of the railroad and the individual who is subject to be put at a disadvantage by the operations of those officers. first clause of this section. I have tried Now, sir, that is the objection to the to meet it, and to meet it fairly, and if I have not met it fairly I suppose it is because, as the gentleman from Bucks (Mr. Lear) politely asserted, this Railroad Committee is utterly unfit to discharge its duty. That was not merely a reflection on the members of the Railroad Committee, but it was a reflection upon a majority of this committee of the whole, because the committee of the whole, the gentleman from Bucks notwithstanding, has adopted a large portion of the report of the Railroad Committee. He need not think when he is firing his shots at the Committee on Railroads that he is not hitting other, and, as I suppose, he may consider better, men than the Committee on Railroads. Why, sir, I really do not know exactly what season of the year that comes, but I really believe this must be the time when the bucks are in the rutting season, from the tenor of the speech which that gentleman made this morning. [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, allow me to say, with regard to the criticism of the gentleman from Philadelphia on the last portion of the section, that I think it is really not applicable, from the fact that he has not taken into view these words, "shall supply the same in equal ratable proportions." What does that mean? Does it mean that any man can go to a railroad company and say, "I want these cars, and you must supply me with all I want?" No, sir. Of course, the cars must be called for, or else they will not be supplied. Then they must be "needed," and that is a question on which the railroad company has as good a right to speak as the individual. The mere declaration of the individual that he needs those cars does not compel the railroad company to furnish them. If the railroad company knows he does not need them, they are not to be furnished. But further than that, they are to be supplied in "equal ratable proportions." That was intended to meet the very point that was suggested by the gentleman from Allegheny, to which the gentleman from Philadelphia objects. How was that to be done? 66 Equal ratable proportions" means that if there is not sufficient on the ground to supply the whole demand, then there shall be an equal ratable adjustment and supply furnished; and if there is enough to supply the whole demand, then the supply shall be equal according to the demand and the respective needs of those who demand them. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up so much of the time of this committee, but I have, unfortunately, been compelled to do it from day to day, in order to explain the views of the committee. Mr. GoWEN. Will the gentleman allow me to suggest a difficulty to him? Mr. COCHRAN. Certainly. Mr. GoWEN. I am going to take a case in the coal regions. The gentleman will admit that the man who has a colliery, and has five hundred thousand dollars invested in it, is one who ought to be pro tected. The Reading railroad company distributes its cars to every colliery evenly. Whenever coal gets very high, you get a lot of people digging in dirt-banks, and screening out coal, who have not a penny invested. They may want cars; they may need cars. The company has always said lately, "we will furnish no cars for that purpose; if they want cars they must get them for themselves." Every car furnished to them is taking a car from a man who is in a more legitimate business, and whose capital suffers for the want of being furnished with cars. Mr. COCHRAN. I do not understand the statement of the gentleman when he says that is not a legitimate business. Are not poor men to be protected, at least ratably, with rich men? Is not the man who has a small colliery to have some consideration as well as the man who has a large one, with a capital of four hundred thousand dollars or five hundred thousand dollars? Mr. GoWEN. The gentleman does not understand me at all. It is not a question of rates; it is not a question of money; it is not a question of small colliery or big colliery; it is a question of colliery of any kind in one case, and no colliery at all in the other. Mr. COCHRAN. Well, sir, if those parties get out from the debris of the collieries that which is coal, fit for transportation, is it to be said that because they get it they shall have no cars to transport it? Are they not producing from the debris of the collieries just as well as the man who, in the colliery, picks out the coal from the imbedded rock? Where is the difference in point of productive value, except in quantity? There may be some in quality; but still the article is useful; it is a merchantable article; it is a saving of that which would otherwise be utterly lost; and I think that men so employed should have, according to their needs, some opportunity to carry the fruits of their labor to market. Mr. DODD. If the gentleman from York will permit me, I wish to suggest a difficulty to my mind, for which, perhaps, the gentleman will suggest a remedy. We have labored in the oil regions under great difficulties on account of these discriminations. When there was a corner in oil, certain Pittsburg rings got all the cars, at least that has been asserted, and I believe correctly. Now, suppose this section adopted that cars are to be furnished as called for and needed, and these rings, colluding with the railroad company, call for double or treble the amount of cars that they really need; what is to prevent the railroad company still furnishing them to then, to the loss of others? Mr. COCHRAN. They must furnish the cars in equal ratable proportions. There are penalties for the, violation of all these sections, if gentlemen will refer to them. There is a section providing for a specific penalty. If the gentleman from Venango can make this section more perI fect than it is, to meet that difficulty, certainly shall have no objections to such an amendment. He practically knows of this thing, and I shall not object to any amendment that he shall propose that will make the section more effective. But, sir, here is the difficulty; in the way the thing stands now it is all at sea; and I think the gentleman will admit that he stands to-day entirely at the mercy of those companies, and they can carry out, to the full extent, the discrimination to which he objects; whereas, here is an attempt at least to bring this matter within the scope of some rule or regulation. Mr. DODD. I wish to say that I am in favor of the section, and will vote to adopt this language, if none better can be suggested. I am not able to suggest any better myself, but I hope some one will. Mr. CоCHRAN. Now, Mr. Chairman, with great deference to gentlemen here, especially those who have made such tremendous raids upon the Railroad Committee, I think that remark of the gentleman from Venango is a pretty good defence of that committee. After considerable labor we have presented this report; and the gentleman, who understands the subject, and understands it well, and is competent to prepare a provision on the subject, says he cannot suggest anything better, and he will take it as it is if he cannot get anything better. We have done the best we could in all these matters; and I say here that as each of these sections is considered, if the section is treated fairly and discussed fairly,and amendments that are calculated to make it better and more beneficial are proposed, there is no man here who is more willing than I am that the thing should be matured and perfected. The CHAIRMAN. A further amendment is not now in order. There is an amendt ment to an amendment pending. Mr. GUTHRIE. Then I desire to say that if the amendment to the amendment be voted down, I shall offer this as a substitute for the section: "No officer, manager or employee of any railroad or canal shall be engaged, directly or indirectly, in the business of forwarding or transporting of freight or passengers on the lines thereof; and all regulations adopted by the companies owning, controlling or managing such railroads or canals, having the effect to rations in the transportation of freight or discriminate against individuals or corpopassengers, shall be void." Mr. LILLY. I suggest to the gentleman from Allegheny, whose amendment is pending, (Mr. S. A. Purviance,) that he modify it so as to strike out all after I think the residue of the section has been the word "power," in the fourteenth line. shown to be unnecessary by the gentleman from Philadelphia, (Mr. Gowen,) and I hope the section will be amended in that way. I believe that striking out that portion will remove many of the objections that have been found with the section. Mr. S. A. PURVIANCE. I withdraw my amendment for the present, for the purpose of enabling my colleague, (Mr. Guthrie,) who has just read his, to have it offered in this place. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment to the amendment is withdrawn. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Venango (Mr. Dodd.) Mr. GUTHRIE. I now move, as an amendment to the amendment, to strike out all after the word "section," and insert what I have read. The CHAIRMAN. That is not an amendment to the amendment. The question must first be taken on the amendment. Mr. COCHRAN. What is the amendment? The CHAIRMAN. It is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Venango (Mr. Dodd.) Mr. LAWRENCE. Let the Clerk read the section as it will stand if amended. The CLERK read as follows: "All regulations adopted by railroad or canal companies, having the effect of hin The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the dering or discriminating against indivi amendment to the amendment. Mr. GUTHRIE. I wish to offer an amendment as a substitute for the section. duals, partnerships or corporations in the transportation of property on such railroads and canals, shall be void; and no railroad corporation, nor any lessee or manager of the works thereof, shall make any preference in their own favor or between individuals, partnerships and companies shipping and transporting thereon, in furnishing cars or motive power, but shall supply the same in equal ratable proportions to each shipper or transporter, in the order which cars and motive power shall be called for or needed by them, as shippers or transporters on said railroad." Mr. ALRICKS. Before the vote is taken on the section, I beg leave to say a word on the subject. I admit that if our committees were differently constituted I would not object, for, like my friend from Centre, (Mr. M'Allister,) I like more work-I would willingly have been on this committee; not that I should be of any advantage to the committee, but that I might get light on the subject. Therefore it was that I was opposed to this report being referred back to the committee, because I wanted all that was said on the subject to be said in committee of the whole, that we might know the reasons why we should adopt this article, or why we should oppose it as it was reported. I should have been very glad if the idea thrown out by the gentleman from Lycoming (Mr. Armstrong) had been adopted, and some friends of the railroad interest, if there are such in this Convention, had been placed on that committee; not that I supposed the committee was composed of such "unstable souls" that they could be beguiled-for it was an able committee-I do not believe those gentlemen would intentionally lead the Committee on Railroads or the committee of the whole into any error, although their own bias might be strongly in favor of railroad companies. The gentleman from the city of Phila delphia, who addressed us this morning, (Mr. Gowen,) objected to putting so many provisions in our Constitution, and he said he preferred the old Constitution. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I rode after the first locomotive that ever passed over what is now the Pennsylvania railroad, certainly behind the second that passed over; and it was about the time that the Convention which adopted our Constitution was in session. They knew nothing in 1838 about the dangers of railroad companies. The Convention that adopted our present Constitution had not the light before them that we have before us, and therefore they could not incorporate in the Constitution those restrictions which it is 36. Vol. III. necessary for us to place upon the companies, to do justice to individuals. Mr. Chairman, in the course of my profession a paper has been presented to me, purporting to be an article of agreement, in print, between a railroad company and a transporter. I understand that this section is intended to protect transporters against improper influences on the part of railroad companies. Now, the purport of that paper was this: The party was asked to enter into a contract that he would not hold the railroad company responsible for any damages done to the goods it was cartion; that he would not hold the company rying while in the course of transportaresponsible for any delay that might be occasioned in forwarding those goods; in other words, that he would not hold the company responsible for the act of the employees of the company, &c. That paper, or one like it, is in the possession of gentlemen who are connected with railroad companies; and as we all ask for light on the subject, I hope that it will be produced before this Convention, because, as I read the paper then, it occurred to me that it was utterly impossible for any man, who was not within a certain influence and ring, to compete as a common carrier. It appeared to me that every person who signed such an agreement as that would tie his hands and agree to be driven out of business or become bankrupt. I ask only for light and information; and the gentlemen who have access to the contracts of the railroad companies, I hope, will bring it in that it may be read from the Clerk's desk, and we may know all that we are doing in the premises, because I wish to do justice to railroads, and at the same time I wish to protect the natural citizen. other day by my friend from Bucks—a There was an insinuation made the soft impeachment, a mild insinuation— that Slaymaker's bull (who we all heard was opposed to locomotives) was typical of the members of this Convention who are in favor of putting constitutional restrictions on railroad companies. I do not like anything like coarseness, yet I must say I am satisfied, after what we heard this morning about the rara avis, we have at least one sound egg in this Convention. Mr. S. A. PURVIANCE. I move to strike out all after the word "power," in the fourteenth line, to the end of the section. That leaves the prohibition to discrimi nate in furnishing cars standing,generally, relief shall be co-extensive with the vio without the specifications which follow. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Allegheny moves an amendment to the amendment, to strike out all after the word "power," in the fourteenth line. Mr. BUCKALEW. I wish to make a suggestion in addition to that already made by the mover of this amendment, and that is that the Legislature, upon the complaint of shippers in any part of the Commonwealth, engaged in any branch of business, will have complete power, by law, to make regulations from time to time, and from time to time to change them, by which the penalties which are denounced in the previous portion of the section shall be enforced. The fault-if there be any fault in this report is that the committee have attempted to apply the principle in a particular way. The section contains a denunciation of any favoritism in the furnishing of cars and other facilities by railroad companies. That should be put in the Constitution, but the committee have gone into matter of detail,in saying that these facilities shall be furnished according to a certain fixed rule. That is the "call" rule, when called for by the persons who desire these facilities from time to time. Now, sir, let us omit that, and leave this subject so that it can be regulated by law; that if this rule of supplying facilities, according to call, is not sufficient, the Legislature may adopt another, or may adopt several other rules; but if you put it into the Constitution that these facilities shall be furnished according to this call rule, you shut up the Legislature from all power over the subject, at all events from all power hereafter to change that rule, which will be inflexible. I think, therefore, that the amendment just proposed by the gentleman from Allegheny is a very proper and legitimate one; that we ought to leave this section, as we ought ordinarily to leave sections which we consider a declaration of a general principle, a denunciation of discrimination by these corporations against any person doing business upon their road, and specifically saying that, in the particulars of motive power and cars, there shall be no such discrimination, so that in any case of injustice a party aggrieved may call the corporation to account, and get the judgment of a court conveniently located; if you please, a court of the county or city in which the question arises, by a bill in equity, summary and immediate relief, and that that lation of this general principle of indiscriminating facilities to all, equally and uniformly. It seems to me, then, that this section will be greatly improved by leaving out the concluding clause, which attempts to define the single manner in which this principle shall be enforced. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Mr. BIDDLE. I should like to have it read. The CLERK. The amendment to the amendment is to strike out the words: "But shall supply the same in equal ratable proportions to each shipper or transporter in the order in which cars and motive power shall be called for and needed by them as shippers or transport ers on said railroad." The amendment to the amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question now is on the amendment as amended.. Mr. GUTHRIE. I now offer my amendment as a substitute. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Allegheny offers an amendment, which is not an amendment to the amendment. The other was not strictly, but the point was not suggested. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Venango (Mr. Dodd.) difference between the amendment of the Mr. COCHRAN. I understand the only ment of the gentleman from Allegheny gentleman from Venango and the amendis, that the gentleman from Allegheny moves to strike out more, and I do not see why that is not an amendment to the amendment. The gentleman from Vetinct part of this section, and the gentlenango moves to strike out a certain disman from Allegheny moves to strike out other matter. Is not that an amendment the whole section remaining, and to insert to the amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Allegheny moves a substitute for the sec tion. Mr. GUTHRIE. You may call it a substitute if you please. I propose to offer it as an amendment, to strike out all after the "section" and insert. The CHAIRMAN. It is not an amendment to the amendment, but rather a new section, and the question is on the amendment of the gentleman from Venango (Mr. Dodd.) |