mu» 4 x
:5 (31 M‘- .JJJQ {it}:
A LAwa >4" acwm

r‘._,‘\f\ MAJ \L (L \‘L/tkL/{L‘F
Vim [, J, .,JJ'}\.'J- ..’;a~1.;.'.Q"JJ-—:/\
r ,vn

THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL REGULATION
OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE THROUGH
THE ENACTMENT OF THE INTERSTATE

COMMERCE ACT OF l887
THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M. A.

Hanley W AIbig
1932

1!": . “1—,_._-_E flvfi. - _ .

. i.l‘ u..l.,u¢|(l (kn llo

 

 

 

 

THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL REGULATION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE

THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF THE INTERSTATE COMHERCE ACT OF 1887

Hanley W. Albig

1932

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the require-
ments for the degree of Master of Arts in the Graduate
School of Michigan.State College of Agriculture and

Applied Science.

.. trove}. for the Departrtent of History

HE Eulit1315616nc€

Acknowlaijnent

I wish to express my gratitude to Pro-
fessor E. B. Lyon for his constructive crit-

13132 and many helpful suggestions.

-OUTLIIE~

I. Introduction
A. Develcpment of the trannportation eyete .
1. FGSUQG of the perici 1329-1860.

é. RSpil dGVCIOQLERC after 155C.

3. The Gran“er lines.

E. The Groneer laws.

1. Illinois reilrcai lefielation, 1?€€-l?71.

2. Vinneeote railroa! legislation, 18?1-1875.

3. Iowa uni Wisconsin reilroafl leninlation, 1874-1875.
F. The Gran 3r Decisions.

1. Munn vs. Illinois.

2. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Co. vs Iowa.

3. Peik vs. Chicago anJ Northwestern Railway Congeny.

II. Tailure of State legislation to solve tfio problem.

A. Conditions ugfler State regulation.

va.

3. Pifficvltiee of effective State regulation.

‘.’.

oitv for national rsxulation.

‘.
C . rm?

I."

III. The power of Con r333 to refiilzte interetyte co ue'ce.
A. Senate cor ittee investi‘etiOEQ.

B. Prepositione eetebliefiei.

IV.

Y.

Available prcoeienta as a basis for regulation.

A. The exrerioaze of tie Grun‘

B. Englin railigy lzgiglation.

The agitation for Nwtionu; r: Lintion.

' PM. . _.>I o . ‘
I a, D Q, F 5 t“ I a
h. P 3er- »m 3 ~73 to . .1

--.

«I

a
_‘ 1
S.)

1. Fogrort of‘ the News 13.11. 'ittee ox.‘ 1c.- ' '4 3:3 Cs.:-1.l:3,Junc 15358.

a. TF3 r ..,. it" t’“ re ort.
t. T”o n tur: r: t‘- r’3“£t.
2. Con"" 5313‘:1 P:*i:n {ricr t. 1T74.
a. thu.e of tie till: 1“‘ reanlzeizoa i“t?37‘3‘:o

E. The Azt of 1 73— KP”:3%tiDn of live stock transportation.

1.}

q

0
—‘

L. ,‘ J'Crevy Fill, Jorucry 95. 1373-

. m. .. . ~. 1.. i L . 3-. a,
a. 4-3 recs no for ibS ntro action.

“a
O
*3
(D

.ain provisions of the kill.

h‘J
\

Le cpgooition to the fill in Congreoe.

O
o
*5]

’\

d. Its pzssore bv t5: House, Hrrch 25, 1374.

b

‘

e. (:1; :3‘t1011 Of 4153 8393-4590
4. Th: T ndon.Rfigort, Ayril 34, 1574.

a re;sone for the recort.

Ex
0
*3

b. T.3 coiyoeition of the coaxittee.

, .. . ' .k
C. Jilfi n.‘;Ll‘..13 CA. tut? fil‘uoibo

L.

c. The 0p¢oeition t3 the bill in Congress.

1. Its p:seage I tVe House.

. The Reagen Bill of 1880.

The Benign Bill of 1$;5.

v
..
I

.313 provisions of the bill.

.'."'-

0
f3

"I- ‘ I .. : _ I r 1 a
3-0 .8. - -41 1 43'rC/‘V141. 1 ,3? t 3“ 11.110
‘ -.. g a . n .. O '
L. It; £-;*. r' t . 'ouefe 31 e on etit"te for the

Fouee or Reegnn Bil].
c. Tfie iozilock in Congreee.

The Cullen Senate Committee.

T11

gr.

0
.-.,
u.

rfiesone for toe inveetifi“tion.

0"
0

TE; cowgosition of the comm ttee.
c. Their ratio of investigrtion.

d. The ComLittee'e report, January 18, 188”.

fuhli: Opinion on the question.

<1
H
O
H
E
O
I"
0
W
:3;
6'
C‘.
.-
5..
H.
“a
C:
. l
( ‘1
1'"
‘ 5
c;
to
(D
r;
’L.
O
(D
'(9
O
E
C"
Q
(:3
{3
H.
U)
H.
o
:5
-.' J
O

A.

"go Jecieions leafiing u~ to the Taheeh decision, 1376-1886.

(L:
a
p-
"‘4
P.
”.3
p-
',\
5
(3
(D
O
”2
Cf
1-;
L24
m
0
04'
t2
*3
( J
:5
O

VI

«5.

VIII. Co

The Int'

A. Evolution in Cor1r1'

D.

\
21L

1.
A.

I.

l.

3“otate C0129

Act of 1387.

1'38

1* 13“ 0f i~e fenoto.

o
A

a. Tle Senate 1111 1533 reportei from tke cowmittee.

I. It. 52.. 35.40 by“ t‘e 1.5; -9.-.
2. T1: éztivitiee of ts; range.
a. It: r.50ytion of the Senate Bill 1337.
b. It. Lisulge of the Roagwn Bill as e substitzte.
71. r", cw; .-i~1on of t- 3 two hills.
4. T .2 SJ. 1- dithw'em to t";:: 6111‘s. ti-‘mts.
5... Co it.-..:»f 3.... :L :f i. rgi=oixlt53.
(I). it; 7.1.... 3..-; ..}~ “:3 hit. .3 133-1.
W. T a ie‘gt: on t'1 ”P.urt.
b. The a:?fiyt'o‘e c %‘~ "A ert.
(1) :37: t»; s:
(.1) 7? tr 2.
C" r<3‘*“iczt.on of tWe Pill'e pro :96: trrv‘?* Cotj**~1.
1. A portfzxn or an economic meeevre?
3. T33 nuprort of the Feature in Conqrzee.
3. T33 o‘ ooition to the measure in anrr31e.
T‘e attittie of tVe yurlic.
Tfie .JVisians of the Act.
‘31:".
Tre CD1L1L’IIZH oi the agitation for Felerel rogtletian.
Th. effects of tlo Interet; 3 CC merce .ct.

1.

The desire to afford the principal cities of the Atlantic Seaboard
with aiequate transportation facilities for reaching the expanding mar-
kets of the tississippi Valley led to the construction of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad, the first railroad of any consiiershle length de-
signed for the purpose of passenger ani freisht traffic. Actual con-
struction began in 1828, uni, although not the first railroad in the
United States, it is generally associated with the beginning of the Am-
erican Railroad System. 1

Other lines were started at once ani the mileage increased from
380 miles in 1833 to 30,626 miles in 1860. Construction during this
period was mostly local in character, especially in the east and south.
Late in the period there was a tendency to consolidate and the princi-
pal lines developed were the Baltimore and Ohio, the New York Central,
the Erie, and the Pennsylvania.d Externivo preparations were made
during the latter part of this period to extend the lines west of the
Mississippi River. The Gulf of flexico was also connected with the Ohio
ani Upper Mississippi Valleys.3

In 1869 the total mileage had increasei to 43,510 miles. Between
1850-1869 coneoliistion forte! the leaiinz feature of railway construc-
tion. During this period the gigantic Granger systems redistinr from
Chicano in northern, northwestern, southwestern, ani southern directions
were develOPei. These lines were the Illinois Central; Chicago and

_

1. Stuart Daggett, "Principles of Inland Transportation“ pp. 56-57.

2. Ibid., pp. 58-62. Cf. J.L.Ringwalt, "Development of Transportation
Systems in the United States' (Detailed statistics and history of
each line.)

33. Rineralt, Op. cit., p. 141.

2.

North Western; Chicago, Burlincton, and Quincy; the Chicago, Rock Is-
lani, and Pacific; ani the Chicago and Alton. By 1880 the totel mile—
age in the United States was 84,965 ani this had increased to 149,102
miles in 188?.4 By this time the first transcontinental lines had
been constructei- the Union Pacific and Central Pacific met in 1869;
the Northern Pacific, 1883; and the Atchinson, Tepeka, and Santa Fe,
1884. The Great Northern had also been extended to the Pacific and the
Southern Pacific hal Openei up a line east to New Orleans.0

After the Civil lat eXpansion hai been too rapid, snl overbuild-
ing of railroads hsi rcsultei. The system of governnentsl land grants
hai substituted an artifical stimulus for the economic incentive of rail-
road earnings. Investment of capital was in adv nce of the economic
need or of the possibility of earning aiequste returns. Business mor-
ality itself was low, ani chaotic conditions ani ahuses were likely to
result. The unusei capacity of the overbuilt reilroefls was resroneible
for intolerable practices. Ruinoue-conretition resulteo from the at-
tempt to obtain the small a"ount of traffic that developed ani to divert
it from rival roais. a ”It was easier to steal existing traffic than to
create new tusiness".d The cornerstone of the economic philosophy of
the tines was competition, and the policy of laissez‘fiaigg prevailed;
little was done to correct abuses either by legislation or public regup
lstion.7

Discrimination and extortionate charges constituted the chief

grounds of complaint against the transportation system. The principle

 

4. Ibid., pp. 174-189, 196, 197.
5. E. F. Riegel, "Story of the western Railroads" Ch.18.
6. E. L. Bogart, ”An Economic History of the United States" p.645.

7. Ibid.

3.

causes were: (1) Stock wstering. (2) Capitalization of surplus earn-
8

inqs. (3) The introduction of intermediate agencies, such as car
companies, fast freight lines, etc. (4) lConstruztion Rings”.
(5) Unfair adjustments of throuxh and local rates, and unjust discrimn
instions against certain lbcelities, whereby one co: unity was compelled
to pay unreasonable charges in order test another more favored Tight
pay less than the services were worth. (6) General extravagance
and corruption in railroai manaqetcnt wherety ferorites were enriched
and the putlic impoverishei. (7) Combination an! ccnscliiation of
railway co remiss, by which free cornetition was destroyed, ani the pro-
ducing and commercial interests of the country handed over to the con-
trol of monopolies, which were thereby enabled to force upon the public
the exorbitant rstes rendered necessary by such a system. (3) The

system of Operating fast and slow trains on the same roei sherely the
Q

H

cost of freight sovenent was believed to be largely increased.
Antagonism was also aroused by the uncompromising attitude assured by
the cailroad eutFGrities who shielded themselves behind the Dartmouth
College decision,1:ni asserted their privete character so far as the

management of their business was concerned. They deniei the risht of

the putlic, the States, or the nation to regulate or interfere with their

 

8. The net profits over and shove the amount paid on interest and dividends
were surnosei ts he eXpenied in permanent improvements and chargei to
capital account, for w‘ich additional stock use issued, ani increased
charges reniered necessary to meet the increésed dividends required. It
was insisted that this was a double form of taxation,first,in the ex-
orbitant charges from which such surplus profits were derived; and
second, in the conversion of such surplus into capital stodk,thereby
compelling the business of the country to pay increased chsrges on
all future transactions.

9. Senate Befott No.307, 43 Cong. l Sess., pp 71-79.

10. 4 Vheaton, 518. Cf. R. E. Cushuan, "Leading Coretitutioxsl Decisions"
pp. 63-79.

4

Operations in any way. It was claimed that the convenience of custom-
ers woe disregarded ant that travelers and shippers were eukjocted to
all sorts of discourteeiee and even injuries. Any etterpt to secure
justice was apt to result in nereecution by the powerful corporations.
"Absentee ownership" was blamed for many of the abuses, and the free page
system was criticized because of the influerne which the railroad corpo-
rations exercized over legislators and public officials.11

The Industrial Revolution had been followed by a period of indus-
trial development free from any interference on the part of government.
The economic doctrine of lgiggeghjgige reigned supreme. The evils of
unrestrainei co petition ani‘lgigggg,figigg,to a certain extent brought
their own curb. Following the Civil war the public reacted against the
illegal methole so commonly used, and cut-throat competition was 30 die-

12
estrous that some way out was neceseary. The outbreak against

leigscz fnire was caused by.the farmerc' grievances afainst the railroads
ezu other representetivee of capital, the general public dietruet of con-
eoliietion of industry and capital, and by the ideas of Stete socialien

13
brought to this cruntry by the increasing nunber of Furopenn ituiqrente.
The atterut to sutgect the railway corporations to the control of the
States found vent in the Granger Vovewent. The reeulte of this nove-
vent marked the abandonment of he a sec gaire theory that natural lane
alone were sufficient to ineure the management of the railroeie in the
interest of the people. It was the beginning of a definite atteopt to

14
solve the railway problem by restrictive State legislation.

11. S. J. Buck, 'The Granger Movement” pp. 12, 13.
12. H. V. Faulkner, “American Economic History" pp. 515, 516.

13. Ibid., p. 652.

14. Buck, 0p. cit., p. 123.

5.

Between 1869—13?5 the Grengers waged a fierce attack on the rail-
roads. The moverent was eignigicant in that it enabled the farm voter
to formulate eni give expression to his views in recrect to treneporta»

15
ticn juet when they were more than unusually pronouncei. The Teetern
farmers largely attributed their failure to market their crops at e prof-
it to the exorbitant railroad rates and to the high cost of e.iling com-
16
nodities by the uiddlenen who etood between the produce and consumer.
They directed their political influence primarily toward securing State
legisleticn regulating railroad corporations either by securing office
17

themqelvee or through their reoreeertat vee.

Illinois, xinnecote, Iowa, and Visconein were prinarily effected by
the Granger legislative experiments. The firet act wee peeeoi in Illi-
nois in 186? liniting the reels in general terns to "just, eeeonable, and
uniform rates". An amenirent to the Illinois State Constitution in 1870
declared reilroeisto be putlic hiyt aye, forteie stock-metering and con-
ooliietion of competing lineq, requirei railroads to nnke annual reports
to a State officer, enl iirectei the legislature to pass lees to correct
abuses ani to prevent unjust discrimination ani extortion by railroad car-
riere in the State. In fulfillment of this, are of 18?1 proviied for
:eximum fares eni freight rates, regulation of warehouses ani the trenc-
portation of grain, establishment of a board of railway anl warehouse
commissioners, eni the enactment of a general railway incorporation act.
An Illinois ect of 1373 forbade unjust discrimination and unreasonable

retee. Substantial teneltiee for extortion or for making any unjust

diecrininrticn ac to passenger or frcifht rates were proviiei. ; he

 

15. Daggett, op. cit., p. 472.

16. Puj’. O'p. Cite. p. 9.

17. 112.11., pp.=103,_103.

6.

P ilroa: uni Verokoove Con i eigyers More iirectei to *eke Feiule

‘9
{a
L b

of reeeonetle menimum rates eni fares for the trenayortetion of peas-
enoers eni freijht oer 3 Upon eezh reilroafl within the State.

In 1871 "inneeote 1: seed an act setting up freight and passenger
scheiuloe, ceclering rrilroa is to be public hi 3hmey3 ani forhiii ing die-
crininstion. The sore ycsr the office of railroad corndeeiOREP Wee creat-
ef, with po or to inrec tigzte and ire re ports. In 374 both the act
creating a railrozl 'naxiesioner ani the maximum fare legislation were
rewealefi. Ineteoi a lave etebliehin3 a railroad c maieeion of three

ue:iere to te; vrrintei r3 tFe go" ernor wre enactei. These commission-
ere were firzctefi to irew u; e eeledule of cuxi.mn1r to for esch rail-
roei in tte State. TRi: statute was regezlei in 1575 are 1 single com-
zieeionor with pcwzr to inquire eni re ort we; eufljetiti ted. Tfle sohedrle
of nexieur rates refo rrel to in the previous law was ieoe away with, but

1..

nerve: were still prrhititfii. Similar

J

unreasonable an} discriminsLory c

3 FY Iowa eni ‘ialcieifi. ani Between 1370 eni l§t9 reetrict-
13

ire railway leqialetion wze p eee.’ 1y several other Stete .

acts were peso e

As e Whole the Greece? leeieletion sough (1) to eetetlich echeiulee
of anxienm retee bv direct leqisleticn; (3) to establish a corniesion
with authority to draw co echeiulee of maximum retee; (3) to establish
neximum rates, Whether fixefi by the legieleture or by a covnieeicn, as
prire facie evidence of reasonableness before the courts; (4) to attempt
to prevent diecriminetion between places by'ggguzitg or "short haul”
cleueee; (5) to ette~rt to preserve co'retition by forbidiine consolida-
tion of rrrall el linee; (6) to prohibit grenting of free reeeee to public

19

ficiele.

These laws immediately wet oyposition crithe rert of the co panics

 

l‘. Degge ett, op. cit., pp. 473-477. Cf. Buck, 0p. cit., Ch. 4,o.
lee F.N.Thorye, "American Charters, Constitutions, and Organic
L513 . 3 , 1‘1: sea-11W: 8" .
l9. Buck, 0p. cit., p 205.

end were taught in the courts. There were two angles of attack, first,
that the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce rested with Galv-
grees. and that, since the bulk of the cameras was interstate. the feder-
el government should legislate if it was neceasary; second, it was main-
tained that the effort to regilate rates was contrary to the Fourteenth
Amendment?”

The ea-ealled Granger cases were the first to bring before the Sn-
preme Court the question of the right of a State to regulate interstate
cannerce. In the October rerun, 1878, the Supreme Court handed down to-
gether eeveral decisions of which the most important were: Mum vs. Il-
linois; Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railway Company vs. love; and
Peik vs. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company.31

he leading case on the constitutionality of the Granger laws was
that of Home. vs. Illinois. She Court stated em elaborated upou the
principle that there were certain businesses 'sffected with a public in-
tereet' which the public had a right to control. When one devotee his
property to a nee in which the public has an interest, he. in effect.
grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be con-
trolled by the public for the common good. to the extent of the interest
he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by diecontiuning the
use; but, so long as he maintains the heel he met submit to the cantrol.‘l

In the eucceeding cases these principles were applied explicitly to the caeee

 

30. ’BUIWT. Op. Cite. p. 453s
31. Buck. op. cit., p. 206. Of. 94 0.8., 113 et seq.

22
of carriers by rail.

Taking the decisions of the Granger cases as a whole t“e following
prepositions were established:

'(1) A State may, under the police power, regulate, to the ex—
tent of fixing maxinum charges, any business which is public in its nature
or WhiCh has been 'clothed with a public interest'.

“(2) The warehouse business (in Chicago) and the business of op-
erating a railroad are sufficiently of a public nature to be subject
to such regulation by the State.

"(3) .31 Lil .u_n_t__i_l_ Con-Tress 1% L11 gig ‘rez‘;

reunls e interstate commerce so is; 31.113 citizens are affected.

 

 

”(4) Althourh a railroad charter is a contract, it does not in—
terfere with the right of a State to regulate charges unless it contains
a direct stipulation to that effect, eni the charters are subject to the
reservations contained in the general laws under which they are obtained
or in the State constitution.

“(5) The courts are not conpetent to review the question of the
reasonableness of charges fixed 1y the legislature, or in other words
the power of the State to regulate rates is sub act to no restraint by
the oaurts."23

Thus at the end of 1876 there was a respectable body of State

legislation attempting to regulate the railroad companies, and the coup

stitutionality of this legislation was upheld by the Supreea Court at

 

22. Daggett, Op. Cite. pa 479s Cfs 94 UeSe, 113s
23s BuCk. 0p. Cite. ppe 211. 2120

9
the tine. It wee the Granger legislation of the 'seventies that event.

ually led to the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

10.

 

The system of State legislation failed to solve the problem of rail-
road regulation. The Granger laws hai been in effect only a short tine
when it becase evident that it was a National and not a State problem-24
In order to effectively regulate the reilroais of the United States it
would be necessary to include the official supervision of every step tak-
en, from the granting of the charter and selection of a route on through
all the financial Operations incidental to the organization of a company
and the construction of the line, and of the policy pursued by the manage-
nent after the road began to Operate. The division of power between the
State and Federal government made it impossible to secure a uniform sys-
tem of regulation. Under State regulation there was no assurance of
concert of’action among the States, or of any degree of uniformity in.the
legislation enacted.‘o Any serious attempt on the part of several States
to enforce such legislation would naturally lead to great confusion.26
Under the rule of the Granger decisions it had appeared possible for
the State governments to cover completely between them the field of both

27

intrastate and interstate railroai transportation. HOWIVGr, the

courts were from time to time pointing out the impracticability of allowa
ing each State to impose such restrictions as it pleased upon the comp
merce passing into, through, or beyond its borders and were tending to

confine the State's Jurisdiction to that commerce originating and termi-

 

24. EMmk, op. cit., p. 214.

25. Senate Report No.46, 49 Cong. l Sess., vol. 2 p.44
26. Buck, cp. cit., p. 214.

27. Daggett, op. cit., p. 484.

ll.

neting within its own borders- that which was strictly domestic.
The States were thus hampered by their inability to apply their regu-
lations directly to interstate cornerce, which comprised the greater
portion of the business carried on hy the railroads within their borders.
A great Opportunity was thus presented for the evasion of the State's
authority. There is little wonder that the various State regulations
did not accomulish whet was expected of them.28

National regulation was necessary to remedy those evils which.were
beyond the Jurisdiction of the States and, until Congress acted, were not
subject to any governmental control in the interest of the public.
Even control of the State's own.domestic commerce was frequently rendered
ineperetive by reason of its intermingling with interstate connerce and
thus escaping regulation. National regulation was also needed to sup-
plement, to give direction to, and to render State supervision effective.
It was the only method that could secure that uniformity of regulation
and Operation which the transportation system required for its efficient

29
develOpment.

 

28. Senate Report NO. 46, 49 Cong. l Sess., vol. 2 p. 45.
29. Ibid., pp. 178, 179.

12.

In investigating the constitutionality of the power of Congress
to regulate interstate conserce the Senate Committee on Transportation
Routes to the Seaboard inluirei into the nature, extent, end application
of he powers actually deleeated. In the course of their proof they
cited Supreme Court decisions to maintain the follOWing'prOpositions:
(l) The powers of Congress are derived directly from the people of the
several States, and not from the States themselves. (2) Prior to th
eioption of the Constitution, the powers now possessed by the national
government constituted a part of the supreme sovereignty which resiied
in the people of the several States. The sovereignty of the peeple of
the States over commerce was absolute. (3) The Constitution trans—
ferred whatever elenents and attributes of sovereignty which appertained
to these powers when they existed in the peeple of the several States to
the national government with the powers themselves. These powers now
exist in Congress as fully and completely as they foreerly did in the
peeple of the States, subject only to the eXprcss limitations of the Con-
stitution itself. (4) 9 . . .. The grant of powers to Congress is an
investment of power, for the general advantaqe, in the henis of agents
selectei for that purpose, enfl hence they are not to be constrié‘ strict-
ly, eni against the grantee, but according to the natural ané obvious
meaning of the language of the Constitution, taken in connection with the
purposes for which they were conferrcd'. (5) '. . . Eyery important
word in the clauses which confer the ‘power to regulate commerce among

the several states', and to 'meke all laws which shall be necessary

13.
and prepar for carrying it in o exmc mtion', has receivei Juii3ial cons
struction by the Supraze Court of tha Unitei States, ani that urier such
construction tho power of Congress to regulate interstate transnortation
by railroa.3, ani to 311 ani f3cilit3tc c :mcr:3n, 13 elaarly eatzbli3nei'.
(5) In the exercise of its daledntci powers, Conrraas v33 antfiorizai to
employ such means 33 rare appropriate and plainly ataptei to their execu-
tion, ani 333 not confinei to means woich were indispensably necessary.
The Courts wouli not injuira into the dagrae of necessity of any particu-
lar mei3or a aiopto}. (7) In the selection of means by which interstate
commerce 33311 be rogulatci, Co ngresa mig.t prescribe tbs rules by which
the instr~x:nnt3 , vohi 3133, and 33 nts engaged in transporting cmnwoiities
from one State into or trough another an all be governed, wt-ta=“ 3321

30
transportation 333 Ey lani or by water, by railroais or in 3 o3mboat3.
Fr. 3th: 333131073 of the Unitai States Supramc Court tha Gallom
Senate Co;;u.ittoe (1335) settlod thraa questions 3? ‘5 fi7um iprocinent—

ly in He iiscus ion of Con. 33 3' power to ragalata P1111313 31—3793 in

interstate corn 9r3o. What constitutes 00:33roa as the wori is usei in

 

 

the Constitution? Wat 13 int 1‘3t‘t3 COHLBTCB? That 13 meant by
r3731; .tio :1? "3133 er tab 11? tel th-3 folio in: ornwrvi M3:

 

(1) “Commerce, in tler Incaning of tfia Countitution, inziuics t‘vn trans-
portation of pergons and pronertv rem place to place by railr331.'

(2) "Commerce among the Statcs 11213333 the tranaportation of .arsons
and prepertv from a pizza in ona State to a place in another State.
Interstate commerce is all commeroa that concerns more States than one,
ani extracas all tranfiportation which begins in one State ani enis in or

passes through another State." (3) Tho power to regulate such commerce

 

30. Senate Report No.307, 43 Gong. 1 8639.. p. 80.

14.

is vestal exclusively in Congress without any lisitation as to the
31

measures t3 Te efplcyefi in its discretion far the public welfare.

 

f

31. Senate Report £0.45, 49 Cong. 1 Sess., p. 39. ( See Senate Report
No. 307, 43 002:. 1 5833., pp. 85-109; Senate Report No.45, 4“ Cong.
1 Sess., pp. 28-40 for SuPreme Ccurt citation: on these points.)

IV

Ave 9 en

Then Congress seriously set about the task of framing an act to
regulate interstate commerce there were several available preceients
which could be followei. The experience of the Granger States has al-
resdy teen diocussei. Many other States had also passed laws in imita-
tion of the Granger laws. The type of Railroad Commission set up in
Massachusetts by the Statute of 1859 received much praise and was dupli-
cated in cows other eastern States. This type of commission was known
as a week or aivisory commission when contrastsi with those having man-

3?
detory powers over reilroei rates as in Wisconsin eni Illinois.

A more important fuel of experience lay in the English situation
where coniitions paralleled quite closely those in America. The United
States was slow in departing from s poli;y of leisee" fairs to e policy
of government control by both State an? NetiOnel governments, flue to sev-
eral reasons. (1) th lclseec fairs doctrine hei been accepted as
final in the years i medic‘ely following the Civil Tar, and the first

33
section of the Fourteenth Amendment put a fitting pstone upon this
theory. ”Although this had supposedly been incorporated in the Consti-
tution to protect the negro, the increasing pressure of corporations upon

the Courts eventually led to an interpretation which went fler to restrain

the interference of the State legielaturee irzthe Operation of business.“

 

3?. Daggett, 0p. cit., pp. 485, 487.

33. '30 state shell make or enforce any law mkieh shell abridce the
privileges or inmunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, linerty, or preperty without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the efiuel protection of the laws.”

(2) It was consiierei bwi econor sic s to regal; to private ceyitel
both by the lpitslist ani the avsreg c citizen. (3) The pioneer

iniiviiualism of the frontier deennioi ccnylete freeionzof action

Leggses fqirg sni covpetition, therefore, were the orier of t;
In Englenl on the other bani the British Parliament early began to tike
an active interest in t3: evolution of the railway on! itc 99313 3rob1e.3
In 1336 the duestion of fiovcrnrent cont re 1 c,ne3refl in 3 series of reco-
lutions, introlucci into the Hones of Cowman: Ev J: on Torricon, which

propose} a kill for rsilvny eqzrtcr revisitxi~ 02' v tglr7' 19 w thin a

stctei perioi. The bill was witufirarn, howefer, becauxia of the sharp
oypccition in the Fouee. In 1333 e rsil“ y Yill wax geese? :y P31113—

ment for the conveyance of mail 371 the weewnre tfiue 3vv3 tle govern-

ment some po"er of coaguleiou. In 1310 a co :.fittee W13 3;;r mi1t-ti to

consiier t%ee ntira :‘=~tlo~ cf le3isle.tivc policy eni out or this back-

ground ewergefl several reilway ecte. The.3e Were instrumental in initiat-

in3 3 dicy cf govern,Hent 1 regulation of the Britien Teiliey System.

Thus early in t? 0 period of railway tnilfi ing En3 land committed itself in

viewing railways as pullic untilities demanding governmental supervision
35

in the inte: est of the yublic.

Acts passed in 1840, 1845, and 1863 secured stendsriiseticn of cher-
ter provisions by proviiing model clauses to be incorporated in future
Ac ts of Parliru7ent. Among other t} mi 5s tb ey requirofl that reil7ay and
canal tolls an. chcrtos shoull not oxceefi certain ststei metha, and that

they shouli be exactei ezunlly from all persons. In 1554 the Clauses

Consoliistion Acts v3 arc surnleventci by tte Railway ani Cnn"l Traffic Act

 

34. Faulkner,0p. cit., p. 515.
35. J. H. Clephaw, "A EconOmic History of Iciern Britsin— The Railway
Age, 1830.1nncn FP- 331-434,

17-
which prohib tci extortion ani discrimilation in general terms, and
reluirsd railways ani canala to afford reaaonable transportation fa-
cilities. The Interstate 30 ;2r:e Act of 1337 as eventually enacted

36
in the Unltei utltefl was of the same type although more elaborate.
In 1873 a Railuay ani Canal Ccumission was previdel to hear comblaints

37'
ani to determine centroversies arising under the earlier law.

 

36. Faggett, Op. Cite. I}. 5650
3?. Ibid., p. 488.

V

I «8, 1,»-
«hi-1+ U}

tion for ”itiziz Ccntrql
As alresiy mentioned the Granger agitation for governrent control
of rsilroais hsl not been unier way very long befora it us: batons evi-
Vient trot the problem was national in its scope, ani that even the most
irssti: State lsfiislstion coulfl not remove the evils complainefi of.
It was natural than that agitation for federal regulation to supplement
33
tte Granger laws of tho Western States should begin in Congress.
The regulation of railroai rates ly'nationsl authority was first
seriously consifierei in the second session of the Fortisth Congress
39
(1867-1868). On January 7. 1863, the Senate Committee on Commerce
was instructed by resolution Ito inquire into an} report upon the expo-
dienoy, hy‘bill or otherwise, of regulating the Various railrosls in the
United States that extenfl into, or have connections with, other railroads
n too or more States, ani particularly uniform and just rates of fare
for passengers snl freisnts by classes, and maximum.rutss by classes as
far as prsztieshle, anl s gmnersl Lexiuum for all freights not pertisup
4C 41
lsrly proviiei for." Ttis conmdttee feilsfl to retort. it the same
session tie House Cormittse on Julicisry was instructei to inquire into
sni report to the fibuse wrathsr in their orinion Congress hai the power
unier the Corstitution to regulate rates on rsilrosis engagei in inter-
43

state conserce. The Comrittse on Basis ani Canals was likewise inp

structsd "to inquire wfietrer Congress has the power uwder the Constitution

 

38. Buck, op. cit., p. 214.

39. ibido' P0 215.

40. Senate Journal, 40 Cong. 2 8039., p. 75. Cf. Cong.Glote, p. 543.
41. Buck op. cit., p. 215. '

43. House Journal, 40 Cong. 2 8933., p. 456. Cf. Cong.Globs, p. 1632.

19
to provi e by 13" for the rerule tion ani control of reilrosis especially

those orieniing through everel state.:, so as to so Cure: 1. The

f‘

safety of passengers. e. Uniform uni equitable rates of fore. 2. Uni-

form ani e3uito {Lie cusru3~ for fro H‘;t or tfa.3 or3;ion or
4. Proper conru action with escfi other as to transgortetion of po3songers

ant freight; eni if in the Opinion of the corrittee, Conrress po3sessei

such porer, then to rcrwcrt till ". ion will secure tie forcgoinv oljccts.

haw

On June 9, late, the Pouse Cemeittoe on Fools so: Canals eulmittei
its renort; the fir3t ever sutmittel to Congress on the suljoct of rail-
4;
real regulation. The comrittoe itself was not able to agree entire-

ly ani the ninority also submitte 33 e relhort WMLi h w.s signal Ly

(Indiana) sni Barnum (Connecticut). The majority report subrittei by

7

or. Cook (Illinois), declared that Congress hal the power to regulate in-

terstate COmLCP cc on the reilroals and that such regulation 333 expe‘ient.

Tho Linority report took issue with the majority on both points claiming
that such a measure could not be constitutionally enacted by Congress,
and ought not to be entertained, and that, if the power existed, its
exercise would be inexteiient. Tue conudttee felt that they iii not
have the necessary technical inforoetion to Jraw up a kill an} tierefore
tear foilol to report Such a meesure. They prepoeei that 3 ooh iosion
45

be appointed to collect this infer ntion, but no rctlon use tale .

Both Vouscs of the Fortyofirst Conxrcsseiogtsd rlsolutitns instruct~

in: ecumitteas to investirste the sutject, snu durin" t5: seconfi so3oicn

of the Forty-sscon:1 Conr'os3 th fir3t Lille alvocsting national regula-

tion of reilrosi rites o'ere i11troiu33i into too 3013: of Ec'r oz- xttotives.

 

43. Ibi1., p. 54?. Cf. Ctno. Clerc, p. 3‘3.

43. Buck, on. cit., p. 2‘5.

45 CoHWittee Pewort Vo .57, 4C Cour. 2 $333.

45 one. Ces3., p.84,

. BUCP, on. cit., p. 2]? Cf. U0u_e Journal 41
l

“enote qg13rnel 41 C n1. § 8933.

M , 17191, 4c;
5013?. 1 0033...?131. ‘21. 51‘) .6L;~;: PO‘LIBE

4

.L’
‘36? s.,Index.

6

20.
The resolution introduced by Mr. Williams (Indians), December 20,
133?, is full of sectionsliem and throws light on the reasons for the
Granger activity concerning railroads in Congress. "Whereas it is the
duty of the Congress of the United States to afford protection to all
he iniustrial, manufacturing, and mechanical interests of the country
equally, ani whereas bv the construction eni consolidation of extensive
lines of railways extenling from he seeboari to the agricultural States
of the vest, eni exteniine through two or more States; and wrerees such
railway companies by their consolidation have become such giant monopoo
lies as to control the entire lines of transportation from the proiucing
States of the West to the Vastern markets; eni whereas bv the regulation
of freight traffics on their lines of railwevs thev have eiopted such
exorbitant, onprecsivs sni unequal rates for the transportation of the
agricultural ani other proiuctions of the west as to consume in charges
for the transit more than one-thiri of the entire value, while the manu-
facturing interests of the East are protected by a tariff . . . thereby
discriminating seeinst the agricultural sni other productions of the
Test, compelled to seek a market at the seaboard; and whereas by the
eighth section of the Constitution of the United States it is provided
. . . that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with for-
eign nations and anong he several States; and whereas doubts may exist
whether under the Constitution Congress has the power to regulate and lime
it the rates of freight on lines of railways passing and extenling through
two or more States; Therefore, Hesolvei, That the Juiiciary Conufittee be
instructed to inluire into the constitutional power of Congress to legis-
late, or to enact such laws as shall protect the great agricultural and

other producing interests of the Vest, by limiting the retes of tariff

21.
. 4?
on such prolucticne from the Test to the eeotoard. . .

During the third session of tte Forty-eezoni Congreee an attempt
was meie in the House to authorize the appointment by the preeiient of
a commission of three wurWars to co ct informrtion cone orning inter-
state railrotie. Thie connioeion "3a to investig3te tt'e earninje, ex-
peniituree, retee of charge, eni operations of railroads and tor report
to the presifient itq finiiegs, including statenente of what retee ought
to be cherged, whether they should be uniform per mile or not, ani what
legislation might be neseoeary on the subject; but the House failed to
43
pass the measure. However, the Senate adOpted a resolution for the
appointment of a so “1 3t com: ittee of seven on Transportation Routes to
43
the Seeboeri. Resolutions were also riOptei 1y the Senate which in-
etruotei its o mzitteee on Judioiery and on commerce to inquire into
and report 13 bills or otherwise upon the constitutionality enl orpeiien-
cy of legislation to regulate rates on interstate sex erce, and the
right of Congress to construct ans} o:>er3te or aut: orize th cons: ~-
50

tion of interstate railrozie. The Connittee on Juiiciary iii not re-
port; but the Coamittee on Commerce reportei Felnu31v 5?, 1E73, that
they iii not 1633 it nezeeeary at that time to thoroughly ooneijer the
constitutional 33: notion in volwei tut t‘at they h31 confine! their delib—
er3tione more to tfie e1fi .fieet of tfie exneiienov of reportin7 a bill regup
leting freighte on continuous lines through two or more fitetee; end that

the cemuitteo dii not hove the no 30533 ry information to analle the'n to

report a bill if they hai deemed it proyer to do so; an} that they were

 

47. Cone. Globe, 41 Conn. 2 Seee.. p. 239, 868. Resolution quoted in L.H.
Haney, "A Congreeeie :31 History of Railways in the United States,
1850- 188?" pg. 242; =3.

48. Bu:k,Cp.oit., p. 318. Cf. House Jon rnal, 42 Cong. 3 Seee., pp.263,
266, 275, 302; Cong. Globe, 843, 1057.

49. Buck, 0p. cit., p. 217.

50. Ibid., p. 217. Cf. Senate Journal, 42 Cong. 3 8358., pp.23,35,72,73.

22
not prepared to report favorably. A minority report from the Chair-
san of toe Committee, Hr. Vizhers (“erylené), reports? at length against

51
the constitutionality eni expeiienoy of feieral regulation. There was
no further stt: pt sale to take action.et this session. Before aljourn-
ment, howerer, the Senate Connittee on Transportation Routes to the See-
boari was incree-ei to nine members eni instructed to report at the next
52
session of Congress.

That the early period of agitation for federal regulation woe a po-
riol of doubt ani iniuiry concerning the power of Congress to regulate
railway retes was shown by the character of the resolutions aloptel.

The object of rate regulation was cheap transvortation. ani many of the
bills introiuoed durin: this period were characterized by this feature.
Several bills proviiins for e reilwey cow ission were introlazcl. These
showed clearly the influenoe of English legislation. The early period
likewise saw the introduction of some bills against discrimination a1-
55
trough the e phasis in general was placei on securing lower rates.’
An important step was taken before the climax of the eerly nove-

Tant 3313 in the Passage b! the reuse of the vacrsry Bill in 1374.

The livestock traffic of tte rsilvexs hsj become very inportent, W».

,the conflitions were bei. An act was passed which receivei Presiitnt
Grant's signature on Hersh 3, 1873, regulating such traffic in so far as
it res interstite. Toe set was far from perfect sni wee violetei on a
large scale, but its importance in Opening the field of national rogue
letion is notexorthy. "hr. Eldriige oallei it a peculiar bill so} leem—
el the porer it woull confer on Congress extraordinary; emu Hr. Casserly

sail, 'Tnis bill is a new ieparture in the poliqy of this sovernnent.

It is the first time Congress has undertaken to deal with that mighty

 

51. Senate Report no. 469. 4? Gone. 3 S~ss.
53. Buck. 0pc Cite. p. 2170
53. L.¥.Reney, ”A Congressional History of Railways, 1950-188?” pp. 283,

235. 283.

25.
pr0tlem.whe her the transportation of property upon railroads fo ming
links in communisltion let een State ani State is cotteroe within the
meaning of tLe Constitution in the firat place, an} wnother in the next
plaza, it is politi: for Congress 0 assume the exercise of thft power.
It is one of the greatest questions which has ever arisen in tViQ body.
I have heard sznatore, enl loeiing senators here, who iii not doubt the

q

congressional power, 133

f...

)FQ . . . that they shrank from the consequences

of exercisin: it '" The act was ixreiiately nais an argument for fur-

“it.

Ji.

t‘er regulation.

{0

Tte Greneer reverent W; than at its height anfi during the first
sessions of the Forty-third Congress (18?3-74) none nine different bills
ani one joint resolution 9 todying Various prepositions for the regu-

55
lation of railrcals were introducei into the House. Great interest on
the subject was felt thro gfiout the country. Chambers of Commerce, from
Saint Paul to the Gulf of fiexioo, were constantly Pgooing resolutions

asking that the country Light have more aleyuate facilities for trans-

portation, ani that they uiiht have

 

‘nsportation. Scaroely

a Legislature went through its sessions without plealing that Congress
shouli do somethinz to relieve the people. Agricultursliets throughout
the lend ploaiel for more ani cheaper facilities for trauSportetion,

\ .‘7
.' a up \n -o- . .
i-9 a" ‘Vvs-I ‘4 Jug. .;

ape

(‘3
C)

an} conventions organizei showinv tfiat the peeple

()1 4h
0:-

wera in earnest.
The matter finally gage before the Young on January 26, 1371 in the
form of a hill, wtith Kr. HcCrary introiucei by unanimous connent from

the Cowmittee on Pwilweyo an? Canola, to rafnlote cot are: t” railroad

 

54. I‘ii., pp. 26?, 268.
5. Buck,0p. cit., p. e25. Cf. Cong. Record, 43 Gone. 1 Seee., p. 783;

Romeo Journal, index 1543.
55. Conn. Eecori, 43 Cong. 1 3999., p. 2146.

24.

CD

axong tPe several tvtes. Bsfcra the bill care up for connlia 3tion
a resolution 333 aleptel hy 3 vote of 17S;€1 t%: t 11 the julg ant of

the Hou33, it W53 W

‘- JD

.3
m
t t”

thix the col litutie :31 p: r

U.)

r of Confir333 k? 133 so
to regulate commcrze 33033 the “t t3: so 33 to pretest tht ycrtlon of
the 1. crn3l c0 3:33 WF12H 3:3 axon: tte saver l St:-t-3 fro: all unjust
or Oppressiva tells, tat3tion, otstruttions, or ot“3r hurlens, W“etfier
i’posel by railrocl so jani33 or by cofilinations tLereof, or by other
comron c”rriers, wHen 3333333 33 the instruments cf 5L3% porticn of the
ccmmerce of the people; 331 that tte present confiition an} magnituie of
the Gawmersa awcnq the Statea W33 Bush as to demani the prorpt exerciaa

57
cf the pcwer ani isty 13:1:3 ..... 1n the esolutlon.

'The EJCrary E111 asserted the right 3ni duty of Congr333 tn regus
late 1nt3r3t3 ccmgerce carriei on by m€3n3 of railroads. It proviiad
two.thirgs in the nature cf regulation3; th3 t IBTSOIB ergxgui in inter-

0

state 003Lerce should be yrohlbitsl iron 333113 usr93acn.lle cr extor—

tionate chargqs, ani that tie" BECVll b3 prohibitzl frew u just iiscrim-
instion in the :zttar of chm: The bill saccriin; to Kr. K;Cr2ry
. an
9&—
333 simgly d3313r3tory of the 001:03 13? it331f. Leafilnfi feiturce

of the bill were that it provile! tht hate 3‘ cull be 3 boari of nine
cannissionsrs, conzi1tin; of One fro; 32:5 3:916‘31 circuit of tVe Uni-
tci States; that the b03r5 sficuli infititute 3 tborcuyh inv33t133t1¢n in-
to the rates of toll 3ni cowpev n33tion c“:r33l for tr; n31crt3tion of

freighte, p333engers, an“ c~r3 cvar 333% r311r03* line, 3?? into t5?

la

q
‘1

reasonablenez3 thereof, avfi s cull 33 soon

£0

3 practicable 3fter such
1nve3t1¢3ti on, prepare for the owners nnfl onerator3 of e33h line a sep-
arate scke‘ule of re 33o ble azaxiumm rates of ch3rg33, the scheiule to
be duly authorized by t‘e toard of com-;13310ners, printei, and posted

in er :h of tle oH‘fi as ani depots of tha railroad company. A cepy was

57. Forge Journal, 4- CC 3. 1 3639., p. 408.
58. Conn.P3cori, 43 CM n.t. l 3688., p. 1941.

25.
to be filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the cir-
cuit in which any part of the raierad affected might be, and a cepy
of the schedule, certified by the clerk of the court, woe to be admiss-
ible in evidence in any trial under this lam. “here the connissioners
found the rates of a corpenv already reasonable, thev could dispense
with fixing a tariff of cherpes for that conpany. Any corporation Oper-
ating a line through two or more States, which should be guilty of extor-
tion, by charging or receiving more than a reasonable rate of toll or
compensation for the transportation of freight, passengers, or care over
such line, should pay a certain penalty. It was made the duty of the
United States attorneys to prosecute all such offenses. Upon any trial
for violation of the law the schedule was to be regarded as pzigngggig
evidence that the charges therein fixed were reasonable, but the compan
nies were perfiitted to prove, if they could do so, the reasonableness
of their charges.59 The last section prohibited unjust discrimination

60
evidence in this particular.

   

~,I. .

 

but no cethoi was provilei for
The House debate on the bill was very extensive and it involved
principally the questions of contitutionslity, state rights, and eXpe-
diency. In ediition there were objections to the principle of the bill.
It was argued by some that the Rourerv Bill sought the remedy in the
wrong way and that the soy to solve the problem was by improving the ex—
isting meter routes and bv Opening up new ones in different parts of
the country. Another group clairei that the building of a government
line of railroad wee necessary. Sees who conceded the power of Coup
green to regulate railroad rates claimed that no commission, however
learned and able, could make a schedule of reasonable rates, and there~

61
fore, that the bill wee impossible.

 

59. Ibid.. p. 242 . Bill printed in fu11 pp. 1946-1947.
60. Buck, Op. cit., p. 225. Cf. Cong. Record. 43 Cong. 1 Sees., p.1946.
61. Cong.Record, 43 Cong. l Sess., pp. 1941-1947.

26.
The bill was said to create a board which was a loose and impero
feet organization, which was not a department nor a bureau, that it
would sometimes be in session and semeti as not, and that it had no
definite duties beyond those generally stated in the bill- to institute

an investigation into rates charged by railroad cOmpanies and to fix
62
schedules.
63
However, all amendments were shut off by the previous question,

and on Earch 26, 1874 the House passed the JcCrsry Bill by a vote of

 

64
121:116 With 53 not voting. The Alignment of the Fest against the west
65
is shown in the vote by sections as follows:
Yeas Nays

New anland States . . . . . . . 7 13

1113113 Atlantic States 0 e e e e 17 35

North Central States . . . . . . 64 26

South Atlantic StatSS ' g e e e 12 17

South Central States . . . . . . 17 23

Far Western States . . . . . . g 2

Totals 121 116
The bill was then sent to the Senate where it was referred to the Win-
66

dom Committee on Transportation Routes to the Seaboard. Late in

the session this committee reported the bill back with.an amendment
but no further action was taken.67

On.Decesker 16, 1872 the Senate of the United States had adepted
the following preamble and resolution.

”?heress the productions of our country have increased much more
rapidly than the means of transportation, and the growth of pepulation

and products will in the near future dernnd additional facilities, and

cheaper ones, to reach tide-water; and

 

62. Ilfid., p. 2247.

63. Buck. on. cit., p. 226.

64. Conn. Record, 43 Gone. 1 Sess., n. 2493.

65. L. h. Hacker and F.F.Kendrick, ”The United States Since 1966' p. 272.
66. Senate Journal, 43 Cong. 1 Sese., p. 383.

67. Ibid., p. 661.

27.

Whereas in his recent message_the President of the United Stet s
invites the attention of Congress to the fact that 'it will be called
upon at its present session to consider various enterprises for the more
certain and cheaper transportation of the constantly irnreesing Western
and Southern products to the Atlantic Seaboard,‘ and further says
'the subject is one that will force itself upon the legislative branch
of the Government sooner or inter, and I suggest, therefore, that im—
mediate steps be taken to gain all available information to insure equit-
able and just legisletion; . . . I would therefore suggest either a COEh
mittee or 3 commission to be suthorizei to consider this whole question,
anl to report to Congress at sole future date for its better guidance
in legislating on this i portant sutgect'; therefore

Resolve}, That s conrittee of seven be appointed, to whom shell be

referred the part of th resident‘s messecs reletins to trsnsportstion

h“)

P
8

L

routes to the seaboard."

Thus the fawous select convittee on Transportation Routes to the
Seaboard with Senator Viniom of hinnesots as its chairman came into ex-
istence. Later in the session (thch 26, 1872) the conmittee was an-
thorized to sit at such places as they might designate during the recess,
to employ a clerk and a stenographer, and to send for persons and pe-
pars; and to investigate and report to the Senate on the subject of
transportation between the interior and the seaboard. At the same
tine two mem»ers were added to the committee.69 The Coumittee report-
ed April 24, 1874.

The inquiries of the cemmittee in regard to railroads concerned ts-

pecially the following susjects: "Combinations between different lines;

the consolidation and analgamation of lines; fest-freight lines; the

 

 

68. Senate Report No. 307, 43 Gone. 1 Sess., p. 7.
69. Ibid.

28.

issuing of stock not representing money paid in for construction, a
device commonly known as 'stock-rstering' or capitalization of surplus
earnings; cospetition between railroads and ester-lines; the relative
cost of the various methods of transportation; the regulation or control
of existing railroads by States and by the National Government,involving
the questions as to the limitation of the powers of Congress under the
commercial clause of the Constitution; the construction of one or more
double-track freight railroads by the Government, to be Operated by it
or lessei to parties who shall Operate such road or roeis subject to gov-
ernment control; and the chartering of freight-railroads to be constructed
and menarei by private corporations, such roads to receive aii from the
Government and to subnit to governmental regulation with reeeri to their
rates of freight and the facilities which they shall afford.” The Com-
mittee dil not pretend to have exhausted the subject, but thev expressed
the hone that the facts submitted would stismlete further inquiry and
enable Congress to inaugurate messures wtieh would be proiuctive of great
benefits to the country.70 The primary object of the committee as it
lay in the minds of the President and the Senate was rather the question
of cheaper transportation than other abuses which had been revealed in
the management of the railways. The Window Report contained for the
first tire a comprehensive plan of federal regulation of the whole sub-
ject of interstate commerce.71

Tee general summary of the conclusions and recommendations of the
Committee presentei in concise form the results of their work. They
assertel the importance of the problem of cheap and ample facilities

for the interchange of commodities between all parts of the country;

they claiwed for Congress esmle power under the Constitution to regulate

 

70. Ibid., pp. 10, ll.
71. E. J. James, ”The Railway Question" p. 35. Cf.Buck, 0p. cit., p.221.

29.
interstate commerce in every respect whether by land or by water; they
allowed that a remedy for some of the existing defects and abuses
might be provided by direct congressional regulation but they rejected
this plan as being doubtful of securing facilities, sufficiently cheap
and £521; to meet the Just anl reasonable requireuents of converse.

The Committee felt the need of more definite and detailed information,
and therefore, confined themselves solely to those reconvenistions which
could be enacted with safety to secure the desired olject- ghg;g,trans-
portetion. They recon eniei for action the follOWing:

l. Publicity of all rates, end prohibition of any increase of such
rstes Without reasonable notice to the public.

2. Prohibition of the conbination and consolidation of parallel
or competing lines.

3. That all rsiluay companies transporting grain from one State
to another should be required to receipt for quantity and to deliver the
care at its destination.

4. That all reilway companies and freight organizations, receiving
freights in one State to be delivered in another, and whose lines touch
at any river or lake port, should be prohibited from chsrging more to or
from such port than for any distsnce on the same line.

5. Prohibition of stock-watering. The remedy for this evil use
said to fell within the province of the States which crested the corpo-
rations, anl prompt state action was recommended.

6. Passage of state laws prohibiting officers of railway cerpenies
from owning or holiinq any interest, directly or indirectly, in any non.
OOOperative freisht line oneretei upon their railroad.

7. That a Buresu of Commerce, in one of the Executive Departuents
of the Government, should be charged with the duty of collecting and re—

porting to Congress information on the whole subject of internal trade

30.
and commerce so as to enable Congress to legislate intelligently upon
the subject.‘ The Bureau should be clothed with the power to require
of each coopeny enraged in interstate transportation to make full re-
ports as to: (l) The rates and fares for passensers and freights,
with all drawbacks, deductions, and discriminations, (2) receipts
and expenditures, including compensation paid to officers, agents, and
employees, (3) the amount of stock and bonds issued, the price at
which they were sold, and the disposition made of the proceeds, (4)
the amount and value of anunodities transported during the year.

The Committee however were unaniuously of the Opinion that the prob-
lem of gggap_tran3portation was to be solved through QOLpetitiOB and not
by direct congressional regulation of existing lines. Railway commoti-
tion when regulated by its own laws would not effect the object, and the
only moons of securing and maintaining reliable and effective <burpetition
between railways was throuqh national or state ownership or control of
one or more lines, which being unable to enter into combinations, would
serve as regulators of other lines. They then advocated the construction
of one or more double—track freight railways to be owned or controlled
by the Government ani the construction and improvement of adequate water-
ways as the best solution of the problem of cheap transportation.72

Before the Window Committee reported, a resolution was introduced
and discussed in the Senate instructing them to report a bill creating
a commission to investigate and report as to whet leeisletion was consti-
tutional, necessary, and practicable for the regulation of interstate comp
merce. No action was taken, however. Shortly after the conndttee re-
ported, severel bills providing for regulation of interstate commerce in

73
various ways were introduced but the Senate took no further action.

 

72. Senate Report 30.307, 43 Cong. l Sess., pp. 240-243. Cf. Janes, 0p.
cit., pp. 35-37.
73. Buck, Op. cit., p. 232.

31.
The recommeniatione of the committee, however, dii serve to direct pub-
lic attention still more powerfully to the inportnnce of the queetion
74
and the necessity for some foieral measures in relation to the problem.

A lull in the agitation for foierel control of reilroeis, both in-
aile ani outsiie of Congreee, followei the failure of Congress to enact
the McCrary Bill into law. Attention eeenei to be iirectei toweri the
efforts of toe Ptates to enforce their long, but the failure or repeal of
the preoter part of tFeoo Stete nereurea naturally discouraged the advo-

75
ates of restriztive lefisletion. Railroai conditions changed greatly

0

after 1873. Transport tion retee fell rapidly over large portions of
t“e reilroei syeters, ani the ‘numerousextenoion of the lines flurinq this
period broug‘t the benefits arising from competition more eni more to tto

important shipping centers. This tended to turn the attention of the

U)

public away from the cheern so of transportation to the problem of dis-

crimination between sections, cities, and inflividuela which the new condi-
76
tione helped to increase.

TVerefore, ty 187?, when Corgress again turnei its attention to the
railway problem, the e pheeie was place} on the elimination of unjust
discrimination an} not on cheap transportation as in the previoua period.
Agitation iurinq tfie irnervol Roi never completely iiei iown, but the

' 77
bills an? resolutions introiucei had receivei little if any attention.
In the seconi eeeeion of the Forty-fifth Conqrees (1877-1976) ”r. Reagan
of Texqa, a: chairren of tHe Committee on Cornerce, renortzi to the House
a bill to regulate interstate conrerce ani to prohibit unjust discrimina-
tion. This was a subetitute for earlier bills, one introiuzei by Mr. Rea-

can.

gen ani another by Mr. vatson (Pennsylvania) both of which bore the sane

 

74. Janos, on. cit., p. 37..
75. Buck, op. cit., p. 236.
76. James, 0p. cit., p. 38.
77. Buck, p. cit., p. 227.

32.
78

title. The object of the Reagan Bill of 1878 was to prevent unjust
diecrixination by transportation companies; i. 0., that no higher rates
should be charged to one shipper than to another, uni that no aivantage
should be given to one shipper over another. One of the chief criti-
cisms of this bill Wes its verbosity and difficulty of interpretation.
In brief it exmoiied the following provieions: (l) Freirht rates and
facilities shouli be wade equal to all shippers. (2) Rebates and draw.
backs shouli be prohibitei. (3) The gross amount of charxea ahouli not
be greater for a shorter than for a longer distance on the same line of
transportation. (3) Combinations by iniiviiuals or corporations to do-
feet the objezte o? the bill were probibitei. (5) All echeiulee of
rates of freiqtt eni cherres muet be poetei eo t“:t ell whirrers might
know the rates trev were requirei to pay. (5) when the rates were fix-
ei for local com area within a State, the State rates were required to be
posted, ani the treneportation companiee were forbiilen to charge more
for interstate freights than for State freighte. (7) Provision was
mate for the efficient enforcement of the bill in the courts. (8) Penal-
ties for violation were providei.79 The bill did not atte pt to provide
what charges should be node, but only that they should be equal to all
shippers and not greeter for shorter distance than for long.80

A cougariscn of this bill with the EcCrary Bill of 1374 inflicetes
clearly the chante that hei taken place in the transportation problem.
The emphasis Wes new unlueetionably uyon unjust discrimination.01

The bill met conzilerable oyposition in the House. As alrealy men-

tionei its verbosity roe criticizel severely. Sore tankers consiiorei

it a meeeura in the intereote of the corneretions, an] 3111 e? that the

 

78. Cong. Rocori, 45 Gone. 2 8883., p. 3086.

79. Ibii., p. 3275. Bill printel in full p. EDGE.
80. Ibid.. p. 3097.

81 Buck, 0p. cit., p. 237.

33.
82
purpose accomelishei wee iirestly Opposite from that inteniei.

&

That the effect of the bill, whatever the object might be, was to aid and
83
foster monopoly. Others urgei that the bill wouli defeat campetition.

There was also the feer that the till might be so oonetruei as to inter-
84
fere with commerce waclly within a State. Ani it was claimei that

the long ani short haul clause wouli have the ease effect as a.ggg_£gtg
regulation of rates eni charges. Mueh of the debate centerei on this
feature.

The House repeateily refused to proceei with the discussion of the
bill, an! tower} tie enl of the eeeeion Tr. Reagan introiucei a substi-

86
tute wEicF went over to the next Session of Congress. The substi-

tute till woe promptly brought bezore the House in Decewler. It was
less verbose and less technical, and it embodiei a few changes. The
section which was objected to because it required that the State eche-
dulee of freight shonlfl be posted up as a means of comparison only, in
orier to prevent charging grenter rates of freight for interstate then
for State commerce was changed to a simple prohibition of a greater com-
pensation for a alerter than for a longer haul. The bill as originally
reportei conteinei no provision against the pooling of freighte by roads
running to and from the eeme terminal points. In tLe substitute a sec-
87

tion wee eified prohibiting pooling.

Er. Reagan's substitute measure was accepted by the House after a

88
brief debs e. The VQLB stooi: yeee 133, neye 1C4, with 45 not voting.

The South an} the that were new centinei against the Fast.

82. Ibid., p. 228.

83. Cone. Fecori, 45 Come. 3 5399., p. YE.

84. Buck, 0p. cit., p. 228.

85. Cone. Recori, 4% Conr. 2 €3e3., p. 3C??.

86. Bill printefl in full Cong.Reeord, 45 Cone. 3 Seee., p. 93.
87. Ibid., pp. 94-9..

88. Ibid.. Pp. 93-103.

34
89

The sectional vote orlthe bill was:

Yeas. Nays.

 

New anleni States . . . . . . . 2 21
Eiijle Atlantic States . . . . . 23 27
North Central States . . . . . . 54 $1
South Atlantic States . . . . . 18 13
South Central States . . . . . 32 10
Far Testern States . . . . . . 4 3

133 164

The bill was then 3 nt to the Sennte where it was referrel to the Com-

0

mittee on Connerce. It wee oriere} printci for the use of the Senp

'0 (1.;

ate, eni a resolution wee submittei to consiier the bill at tte earliest
peweible we eat. Later a joint resolution to proviie for a coanission
to ccnsiier and report what legislation was neelel for toe better regu-
lation of ccxrerce agong the States was submitted and referred to he
Committee on Connerce. No action resulted on either the bill or toe

El
resolution.

The Forty-sixth Congress was again floodc: with petitions, memo-
rials, and resolutions from citizens, Grangee, State legislatures, and
beards of traie for the peeeege of the Reagan Bill or some other measure
for the regulation of interstate commerce. Mr. Reagan introduced his
bill, but it along witfi eeVerel OtLere was never reported from the Corp

92
mittee. Lore bills e;i reoolutioae were reported at the next session,
'eni finally toweri the close of tte session, tie House Committee on Comp

mcrce reportei tPrce bills. One preparel by Lr. Henge. wrs eiuiler to

[hen they cane no for consiieretion, too so jcct was

9. Becker arm Kendrick, 0p. cit., p. 2?}.

O. Cone.Eecord, 4% Cone. 3 $033., p. 117.

1. Ibid., pm. 531, 1045, 118?.

Z. Fouee Journal, 4% Cone. 1,3,3, Sese., inflex. Senate Journel, 1,2,3,
Sese., index. Cf. “web, on. cit., p. 2?9.

93. Buck, 0p. cit., p. 23‘. Cf. Cong.Recori, 46 Cong. 2 Sess., no.1154,

1382, 1864, 2506-2510. Also Cong.Record, 43 Cong. 3 Sess., pp. 1?,

48, 352-366.

35
Every session of Congress was confronted with numerous bills to
regulate interstate con eree, but it was not until 1334- 335 that def-
inite action was again taken. During this time tbs final stave in the
0
evolution of the Interstate Comoerce Act of 1987 was be:un.v4 Deeevmer
3, 1884 fir. Beacon brouwbt before the Seuss a bill (V. R. 54’1) to estab-
lish s board of cornissioners of interstate converse enl to regulate such
comreree. This committee bill was not satisfactory to Hr. Reagan, and
he immeiistely proposei a substitute.95 After a long debate the House
eoeeptei the Resern substitute.95
he Reagan till provided that rates oust be reasonsble; it prohibited
discrimination ani forbade rebates, drawbacks or any other aivanteges;
there was to be no cutting of rates; it prohibited pooling or cosbinstion
agreements; it prohibited a greater charge for a shorter than for a longer
haul; proviied that schedules should be posted; violators were liable to
three times the danafes actually sustained to be recovered by the person
or persons who sustiinei the smsqe by suit in any State or United States
Court of competent jurisiiotion; ani penalties for violation of the set
L
were also proviiei.y7
During the debate on the bill the provisions of tbe Comsittee's bill
sni Mr. Feqflac's bill were oloselv comparei nnfl discusssi. Tbs differ-
ences in tbe two bills brin: out the views bell in Coneress st the time.
”be Comxittes's bill proviiefl only for level remeiies, while the Reagan
bill proviiei for botb leqel sni equitable remeiies; the Convittee's
bill did not more unjust chnrnes an offense, while the Reagan bill undo

all violations of its provisions penal; tbs Connittee's till provided for

common law dsneges, while the Regean bill proviiei for demsges equal to

 

94. Haney, 0p. cit., p. 290.

95. Cone. Record, 48 Cong. 2 8938., pp. 25,25. Both bills ere printed in
full pp. 23-3-28.

96. Ibid ., p. 295.

S7. Ibide. pp. 27. 280

36
three tiueB the ancunt actually sueteinei; the Committee'e bill did not
prohibit the railroad cempaniee from charging more for a shorter haul
than for a longer haul, while the Reagan Will fill; the Committee's Lill
Only prohibited the allowance at rebates or drewbeete and other discrim-
inations to any one person which were not allowed to any other person,
while the Regean bill prohibitei the alIOWance of rebates, drawbacks, or
advantages of any kind in all cases; the Comedttee'e bill required no
posting of schedules of its rates of charges, while the Reagan bill did;
the Committee's bill proviiei for the appointment of a reilroei commie-
sion, while the substitute 513 not since Mr. Reagan preferred to include

legislation for ejequate legal and equitable remefly which ennbled the cit-

izen to go directly to an honest court and an honest Jury rather than to

8

(D

run the risk of dealing with a dishonest commission.

In the course of the debate on he two bills, Mr. Reagan showed that
the provisions of his till were not novel and untried by legislation, but
that they were in full accord with the provisions of the most recently

C
formel State Conetitutione.vg However, the Reagan bill was denounced as
being a cast-iron measure, a harsh measure, imposing injurious restrictions
on trade, and as calculated to injure the beet interests of tee country.100

On January 8, 1555 tne vote was taken on the measure anl the bill af-
ter a few ninor amenimente hel been adiei, was passed by the Houee. The
vote, 15l:75 with 87 not voting, shows the sectional alignment of the

101
country as follows:

 

Se. 11:11 0. pp. '35-'19.

99. Ibid., p. :33.

160. Ibiau' pp. 293, 2940
1C1. Ihiio, P0 555.

37

Yeas. L339.

39% anlanj Statas . . . . . . . . 3 15

Kiddle Atlantic °tat=s . . . . . . SO 27
Kor11 C:ntral $1312 . . . . . . 94 7
South Atlantic States , , , , , , 19 14
SGuth Central ?L*t83 o o o o o n o 39 4
Far Western States , , , , . . . - 7 C
Totals 161 7D

 

 

Paralleling 19 action on t‘e Berg n bill in tW House tFa Senate
had been consilnring tze Cullen bill ( 8.2117) to 93123115? 3 cou:dssion
to regulate 131C: state con. :erce. This bill hni been pustponel 1n the pre-
vious 333310n aufi it in. care up for con3113r3tion early in a second

1C2

session of tPe Furry-e1rrt1 Cor 333. The fluIIOm bill proviiei for a
r311r33; canninalen of nine me3be's, 1t r 131r ad transpc ‘93 10n caitaniea
to charga reeecnable r3193 an} declare: unreasonntle rates to be extor-
tlcn 333 mis;ei-az.or. Itixgle greater 313r
another, uL3sr 9317‘ 3ntL ll 1' siuilar circup;tancas an; ccniiticns, unjus
jiscriminntion 331 a misiemsancr. In 3353 of zemylaiul agaizst any rail-
r3ai company it 1rovi3 335 that the 303;lvsion 33(311 ccnifict an investiga-
tion ani renort ita finlinys to the railrcgl 35.133fi. If regarwtions
were we;an ”919 13 net L313 ani the evil nct iifiSOfltifllfij, th31 t3? com-
nisziun ghoul? require t1? 113
The oth er prc:Vi. ions 0: t*e hill relate:
porta Ty t“e entziésiorars.
’qute 03 t3? uqqnura tha Paagfn 3113 T33 brought from
tie chné an? t3: Senate Froeealed to canaiicr it. A ccniarison of the

two bills s?;c ~ M tfat 1*cv both affirre? tke 3329 evils anfi declared the

U
'vwar of Can -;:3 to 33' txol 333 r0033 ta th? sv3333 t. The nethcls
l) c.) c .
He'vva-, d1? :33. 7‘: T vgflq Bill or« 1 to gr33llit an? punish those

 

113.5. Idis’iu f). 13:35. Bill printed in fall P. 854.

cccccc

......

.......

uvils, not on-y EV Cgéfilfl? the Filfiril Court; of the bvit:l Stgtes to
t3: aggri:vei parson, on. also 1y neling thch : yzncl c5fenme. It re-
:nirsl tie Unite? State; 313trict Attorney to prssecatc the ails. It
trougtt, therefQFC, t‘: “Hale pile? of the national govecnuemt to sustain
the inliviiual in his suit anaizst twe railrugf i; cutainir a rtiress of
any gricvfl’sa COsthtSl in violgtisr of th: 1&x. 113 LL11”. 3111, on
t a ctz=r llzi, requirzl 4 qaazi-juiicial stit chcrz t‘? :0 '1ssion and
an o ycrtunity Fe: LL? railrca} co {fay to abiie Ly it. If the company
follows} t3:*r reg: lewizticnz t‘aw it v : rcli3ve1 of any fuythar liabil-
1C4
ltT.
After a lort iefizt= 1a "Viz“ tfifi provisions of each till were COTpar-

t9

e}, £7? 39*»

The vet“ in tTS “cunt

.LLI

GHQ

'1
w

5'."
. i._: J‘

cf traie throughogt

\ ‘ 1 u .“ " u‘ ' 1
9 0n usuruary 4, 130$ flag 4g
'9 Heusa refusal to canailcr

an}

1

litl‘fl continue:
107

in nation.

the Cullom bill for the Reacan or Eouae

ysas an} 1? nays

thus a daafllock resultel.

bill.

with

the megaure when the

106
But the flood

ta pour in frog citizens ani boaris

It we; at this yoint tfiat Senator Cullcn (Illlncis) submittel a reso-

lutisn on narc‘ 3, lch, f9: tn; a;,cintment cf 5
vasti:;t3 an! rs sst u_;n t?" saLJacL o;

7 s ricslutfic: 3 :3a a? the .gllgViu .ay aft;r
injll’fi t % zu‘jfist W t‘v re x3 tirn of tr: 3 art;
‘ratsr routaa 1n sealinatiou or in co petiticn with

g
' A. '1“ . -r' - A -
liJ;Q Ca ;,-. u l».
3 . ‘ c L l. 1 h .‘ —
M ‘3 "g .- fi UL L ‘8 ‘ " " L‘ 'C.‘
- .
l c) «a: ‘ — Q 1 F." '3
‘ ‘4 ‘IL .. . - .L .

 

.~~ . ‘\ o.

”9 -t3 :0“~e;s:. The r“acrt
¥é tHu l?‘iUHiu Cf Lk3 fith

_.....1-..'- 5.: 1'
1'.'('J'.L.LK;Ll-.)n LL fwd“.

cc mittea to in—

alezt

"‘ ". .
L 3L- L-r.‘

canwerca.

‘51d_ a.unfi a so as to
sf. - ‘1‘... . “y [1,, _
uluu L; r lmrunis and

,\ _. I
b.‘;.\

passenger
t'J COL ittee W88 to

1 of Convresa 1n

"1'

 

p0 12’4“.
P.03-¢-;O
C}

at"
pp. law‘

1"
1‘5, .%

107.

2347.

0p. cit., p. RFD. Cf. House Journal, 48 Cong. 2 Sess., index.

39

The Committee as appointed by the President of the Senate consist-
ed of the following Senators: Chair on, Mr. Cullom (Illinois), Mr.
Flatt (Connecticut), Er. Hiller (New York), Hr. German (maryiand), and

108
Hr. Herris (Tennessee).

The purpOSe of the investirstion was to ascertain wont sort of leg-
islation for the regulationcof interstate corverce woulfi be for the best
interests of the country.10: The Committee devoted itself largely to
the question of whether any legilation was afivissble and, if so, what
the scope ani character of that legislation should be.110 In order to as-
certain what causes of couplaint existed against the railroads and to
determine the opinion of the public as to what remedies should be applied
by Congress, arrangements were made for the committee to visit the lead-
ing commercial centers of the United States ani take testimony. Public
notice was given of these hearings, and efforts were made to secure the
attendance of those most competent to speak as the representatives of
every interest and of every shade of oyinion. The Conndttee issued a
circular containing a series of questions which called attention to those
problems that had been most prominently discussed in connection with leg-
islative control.111 Written statements were eolicitei from localities
in all sections of the country wfiich the Committee was unetle to visit.
Any organization or person who was known to hove given Special attention
to the question in any phase wtatever was incluiei in tiis correspond-

112
once.

The Committee subnittei their reprrt to the Senate on January 18,

1886. The report first emphasized the importance of the tepic investi-

108. Senate Journal, 48 Cong. 2 Sees., pp. 515, 520. 521,524.
109. Senate Report No. 46, 49 Cong. 1 Sess., vol. 2 p. l.
110. Ibid., vol. 1 p. l.

111. Ibid. A endix . 1 2.
112. Ibid.: pgpz. ’ pp ’

4O
gstei an! of the United States Railroad System in commercial transact-
ions. Next the? took up the power of Congress to regulate interstate
commerce. An examination of the economic and social functions of the
railroads was then followed by a review of the various methods of rail-
way legislation as aJOpted in different countries. A sunmary of the
provisions of the State statutes and the work of the State com issioners
was then given. This mes followed by a discussion of the competition
between waterways ani the railways. The Committee next emphasised the
necessity for national regulation of interstate counerce, and then a sump
nary of the complaints against the railroad system was presented together
with the recOmmendations of the Committee. A bill was submitted with
the report which embodied their plan for regulation.113

The Cullom Cocndttee screed with the Windom Conndttee on transpor-
tetion routes to the Seaboard (1872-1874) in regard to the influence of
water routes on railroad charges. Their conclusion was to the effect
that water routes, when properly located and maintained, afford the cheap-
est method of transportetion and that they in turn were the most effective
regulators of railroad charges.114

The indictment of the railroad companies was especially severe. It
showed clearly the basis for the agitation for federal regulation which
was coming from all parts of the country.115

The Committee concluded that publicity, both as to the charges made
and as to the manner in which the business was conducted, was the best
remedy for unjust discrimination. They recommended the posting of rates

under the direction of a cemmission, and thev favored the establishment

of a national cosndssion with ade1uate powers to enforce whatever regula-

 

113. Ibid., _assim.
114. Ibi‘io' pp. 167-1740
115. See Appendix.

41
tion might be enactei for the regulation of interstate commerce. Any
proceedings arising unier the law should be within the Jurisiiction

116
of the Unitei States Courts.

The Congressional efforts to secure the passage of an interstate
commerce act were the result of the popular agitation for such a measure
taking place throughout the country. This moveuent was carried on
through all the known organs for eXpressing public opinion. The press
playei an important part and was continually fillei with discussions of
railroei abuses. The popular movement was especially active during the
'eeventies when the Granger state legislation was being triei ani found
unsatisfactory. The Granger movement eerly turnei to Congress for net-
iOnsl aii, anfl in eiiition severel movccents of a more national scope
were u der way. The most important see the National Cheap Transportation

117
Association organized in How York City in 1873. State organizations of
a similar nature were organizel, uni numerous conventions were hell from

118.
time to time which devoted themselves to the transportation problem.
Every session of Congress was flooisi with petitions to regulate interstate
cosmerce from citizens, Bosrie of Treie, State legislatures, Che here of
Connerce, merchants sni manufacturers' essocietions, cowmerciel exchanges,

119
Grenqes, and fermers' associations everywhere. Same organizetione
120
undertook to ineuzurste general canpsigns of petitions to Congress.

After 1850 the denani ceased to quite an extent due to s
reanrkahle change that occurrei in the attitude and direction of public
sentiment toward the railways. 18 benefits of competition hsé proved

the only real lee that had remained in force since the hasty state leg-

 

115. Senate Report No.46, 49 Cong. 1 5639., p. 182ff.
11?. Buck, Op. cit., p. 218.

118. Ibii.. pp. 219, zoo.

119. See House Journal , Index.

1230. Buck, op. cit., p. 228.

42
islation demanded by paeli: impatience had failed. Competition had done
the very things the Granger laws attempted ani couli not accomplish.1&1

”The Nation“ eXpressei its View on the Reagan Bill of 1385 which
was then peniing in Congress as follows: ”The Interstate Centerce bill
now engaging the attention of Congress, is occupying time which might
more profitably be spent upon somethinq else. Hr. Heasan's measure had
its beginning at a tine when tFe railroai problem was a very different
thing from what it is nOW. Connlaints of excessive sharpen and unjust
discrimination were tten frequent sni, perhaps, well founded. They were
dealt with in an imperfect way by the States, and the resulting crop of
Granger legislation was not satisfying. . . . Meanwhile coupetition has
accomplished most of the ends which Grengeriem aimed to secure. It has
reduced the rates of transportation for persons and property far below
the dreams of the Grangers themselves. . . So far as the Reagan Bill has
this end in view, it will be as superfluous as an attempt to supplement
the ocean tides with a squirt gun . . .‘162

The findings of the Cullom Coundttee also brought out the fact that
the strength of the Opposition to railroads had modified considerably.
Public sentiment was dir cted sore towards local discriminations and
abuses; the peOple ~antel reasonatle rates and no discrimination. They
were willing that the railroad snouli have a reasonable profit because
they realized more and sore their dependence upon the railroad systems.

heir chief complaint was against tte injustice arisinq free the prac-
'11
tics of charging more for a shorter than for a lenser haul.1uu Al-

though the demand for regulation hsi largely changed from general Oppo-

sition to loeal dissatisfaction tke rspert of the Cullen Committee

 

121. Nation, vol. 40 p. 437 (may 28, 1885).
23. Nation, vol. 39, p. 539 (Dec. 25, 1884).
1:5. Senate Report No. 46, 49 Cong. l Sess., vol. 2 pp. 616,617,785,686
703,754,886,887,952,976,1002,1051,1070,1102,ll31,139l.

443

showei that all classes- merchants, manufacturers, farmers- were insist-
13-1.
ent upon t’r-e national regpsletion of railroads.

 

124. BECK. 0P. Cite. p. 2:30.

 

Contrary to the usual Opinion, the force of the State Granger laws
was gradually broken down by a series of court decisions which culminated
in the Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. Vs Illinois decision in
1836. Only one year after the Granger decisions the issue was again met
in the case of Fall vs. De Cuir ( 95 U.S., 455), which involved an act of
the State of Louisnne prohibiting discrimination by common carriers of
passengers between persons of different race or colors The terms of the
not applied to carriers enraged in transporting passengers from State to
State. The court declarei th- not veil as an interference with inter-
state comserce, even if construed to be liuitei to that part of the car-
riage within the State. The court snii:

”while it purports only to control the carrier when engagsi within

he State, it must necessarily influence his conduct to sons extent in the
nenagenent of his business throughout his entire voyage. His disposition
of passengers taken up ani put down within the State, or taken up to be
csrriei without, cannot but affect in a greater or less derree those tek-
en up without and brousht within, and sometimes those taken up end put
down without. . . . It was to meet Just such a case that the commer-
cial clause in the Constitution was adopted."

In the case of Kaeiser vs. Illinois Central Eeilve' Company, Judge
thrary of the Un tel States Circuit Court in the suit broug.t ‘:der the
Iowa statute to recover damages for overcharges upon freight shipped from
points in Iowa to points in Illinois and Wisconsin, said:

"It seems very obvious that the regulation of the transportation of

45
merchaniise over a line extenling, it may be, from the Atlantic to the
Decific Ocean, is a sutjoct which is in its nature national. It is so
because it necesscril; concerns the people of the whole country and is
beyonc the legislative gower of any State. . . .;nl since no State law
can have any extra territorial force, is it not clear that the attempt
to enforce the statutes of each of the several States, in so far as the
carriage within such State is concerned, woulj leai to conflicts and dis-
putes which no State authority would be competent to adjust an: deterb
mine? These consileraticns, I think, leai inevitably to the conclusion,
not only that such commerce is the subject only of national control and
regulation, but that env attempt to devolve upon a single State the posh
or to regulate it in part would necessarily give to such State the right
to discriminate against other States of the Union.”

The ease attituie was taken by a Unites States circuit court of
Tennessee in the Louisville ani Nashville Railroad Company vs., the
Railroad Commission of Tennessee)“;5 case to test the validity of the
statute enacted in that State for the regulation of railroads. Certain
provisions of the act were held to be an attempt to regulate interstate
commerce .

In Horan vs. Nev Orleans (112 U.S., 69) a municipal ordinance of the
city of Row Orleans, which directei a tax to be collectei from persons
running tOWhtosts to enj from the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans, was held
to be a regulation of interstate cOmmerce anl therefore unconstitutional.

Further evidence is founl in the case of the Gloucester Ferrv Com-
pany vs. Pennsylvania (114 0.9., 196) decidei April 13, 1985. The case
.srose {row an attenpt of the State to collect taxes uporathe csnital stock

of the company, which Operatei a ferry across the Delaware River between

1

{‘0

5. 19 Feiercl, 679.

46
Gloucester in New Jersey ani Philiielphis. Mr. Justi<3 Field ioliver-
ei the opinion an? said that the subjects of regulation upon which the
power of Congress might be exerted were of infinite Variety. While with
reference to sons of them, which were local and limited in their nature
or sphere of orerction, the States might prescribe regulations until Con-
gress intervenei eni assumed control of them, yet, “when they are national
in their character anfl require uniformity of regulation affecting alike
all the States, the power of Congress is exclusive. Necessarily that
power alone can prescribe regulations which are to govern the whole coun-
try. Ani it neeis no argument to skew that the commerce with foreign
nations and betneen the Stat-s, which consists in the transportation of
persons ani property between then, is a subject of national character and
requires uniformity of regulation. Congress alone, therefore, can deal
with such transportation; its non-action is a declaration that it shall
remain free from buriens ivposefi tv State lenisletion."

The declaration of tte court was even more explicit in the case of
Brown vs. Fbuston (114 U.S., 632) decided May 4, 1385. Speaking for a
unanimous bench, Kr. Justice Bradley said:

”The power to regulate commerce among the several ststes is granted
to Congress in terms as absolute as is the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations. If not in all reapects an exclusive ower, if, in the
absence of Congressional action, the States may continue to regulate met-
ters of local interest only incidentally effecting foreign and interstate
commerce, such as pilots, wherves, harbors, roads, briiges, tolls, freights,
etc., still, sunording to the rule laid down in Cooley vs. Board of can.
done of Philadelphia (12 Rowers, 299), the power of Congress is exclusive
whenever the matter is netiOnsl in its cheracter or admits of one uniform

system or plan of regulation; anj is certainly so far exclusive that no

State has power to cake anv law or regulwtion which will affect the free

4?
ani unrzetraix~3 into.oogrse 3n; treie between the Ptatas, e3 Gangrene
has left it, or which will impcse any discriminating hurion or tfx noon
the citiZenw or prolucte of other Ftatee canine or brouzht within its
juris‘iotion. . . . So lonu as COngreos Goes not past any 1e" to regulate
cemreroo even? t‘e several States it thereby iniioetee ite will that that
conneroe 3.2‘1 be free and untrammeler, ani any regulation of tho sub-
Jeot By the @tatea is repugnant to such froeflom. This has frequently
been lei} diwn a3 law in the judgments of this court. . . . In short,
it may be laid down as the nettloi doctrine of this court at this day
that a State can no more regulate or impede commerce among the several

126
States than it can r gulate or impede commerce with foreign nations.”

The decision reniarel in the webash, St.Louie, anj Pacific Railway

\d

Cemrany vs. Illinois ‘awe, fleciied October 25, 1835, was not, therefore,
a sudlen revereel of policy but one gralually built up during the inter-
val between 1573 ani 1533. It appears that it never was the deliberate
Opinion of the court that a statute of a State we oh atte.ptel to regu-
late the fore; an} charges of railrozi ooayeniee within ite borlere, for
a transportation whiol oonetitutei a part of interstete commerzo, was a
127

valil lar. The decisions of the Grenger cases were definitely revers-
ei ani the attefipts of the State governments to regulate interstete oom-
;eroe were at an eni.

An Illinois Statute 3311 that if any reilroai corpeny stonli within

tie State, stereo or r>oeive for transporting geoserrere or freight of

the same ol

EU

53, tte ears or a greater sum for any distance than it did
for a longer iietenoe, it slouli be liable to a penalty for unjust dio-

oriminetion. The Watesh, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Corpeny made

 

125. Senate Report No.46, 49 Cong. 1 3933., pp. 34-38. Of. 118 0.8.,
557. See also Telegragh Company vs. Texas, 105 U.S., 460; Mobile
V3 Kimball, 102 U.S., 651; Piokerd vs. Pullman Southern Car Com-
pany, 11? UoSo' 3".

127. 118 U. 8., 557.

48
sulh 3 lis:riaoim1etion in r,3ell to goois tr. suortei over tno Sena line
from Peoria nni fPOm Gillan, tote in Illinois, to He? York. xore was
ohargei for the saga 01433 of gooie carriei from Gillan than frog Peoria
which is 83 uilea fart}; r from Nee York than the former. The difference

153
wee in the lenzth of the line within the State of Illinoie.

The Supreme Court of Illinois renieroi if: iecieicn on the gronni
that tie trinexortetiou anl elm race were ex: Msively State "or'crco, but
the? conceiei that it mirbt be e ce se of interstate connerce1rti§h Congreae
woull have hat the right to regulate if it hel attertei to do so. They
argued that this statute belonrei to that class of co “merciel regulations
which riqtt be estatliehei by -tate 199 until Congress ghoul] legislate
on tfie sulject. The Illinois celrt ireiete d that it Her not regulating
commerce within the meaning of the Constitution of the Unitei States.

To support their conclusion they cited the cases of Munn v3. Illinois;
Chicago, Burlington, ani Quincy Railway Company vs. Iowa; and Peik vs.
Ch cage an} Nortnioatern Rwailde y Company.

In presenting its decision tie court said: ”Of the justice or pro-
prie tv ‘tlie principle whiz .liee at the founiation of the llinoie
statute it is not the province of this court to Speak. A3 restricted
to e trenenortationw #:iox bo1 ne anl enie w thin the limits of the State
it any be very Just anl e1uitahle, ani it certainly is the province of
State legislation to determine that queetion. But when it is atterpted
to apply to transoortetion through an entire series of States a principle
of this kiui, erfl each one of the State: shall ette~nt to eetctlieh its
own rates of tranerortation, itq own methois to prevent diecrinlnetion
in rates, or to per it it, t‘ue deleterious influence upon tie freeiom of
comxeroe "on" tte “tetee ani upon the transit of goods throu 2h those

States cannot be over estimated. That tflifl 3P83133 0f? etion 13

128. Ibii.

49
one wtizh meet be, if oetabliehel at all, of a. ganer e} eni national
character, ani cannot be safely anfi wisely permittei to 13331 roles and
13331 rogusations, we think is clear . . . The regulation zen only ap-
preprietely exist by gamer 31 rules and prinoiglos, wt eh,den3nj that it
stoull 0e lone by toe Cengrees of the United States unis? the cornerca
clause of the Coneti noise."

The oiurt definitolv revereoi ite previous decision and hell that
want it‘zten: ill, what T43 Bali in tea Granger cases, a etatute of a State,
ieteqlei ta regulete, o: to tax, or to i ::o33 eiy otugr reetri3tion ujon

the tranawieeion of perec:s or prepertv or telegraphic meeee3ee from one

U)

tat to another. W13 not Within that olaee of leuialgtion wvizh the

'3)

Statea might enizt in the aheenee of congr anional 13 hi lation. fiuzh
stet.1t3e were veil even 33 to that part o“ t. 3 tr3n3 .ieeio :3 W 133 11?
23
1*»'it".-i’:1 tte State.
The significen3e of he ease liee in the fact teat it culminated

the series of oozrt decisions which were setting aeiie tho inliViiual

State regulations of interstate cemmerce ani put a definite an} to the

State atte pte to rerulam sue o mTerze. Nine tentl.1e of all the exist-'
130
ing reilrxy rate 1333 were swept away. The case came Juet at a time

when the agit ;.tien for regulation both within and outeiie of Congress we

especially strong, ani the decision served to focus attention more than

ever on the problem. Si 33 the Stetea “rte to regulate interstate
om eroe were an: netitntionil feierel renget ion became more i;peretive

than ever, an? the iecioicn threw the int? of reguleting inieretate commere

unzuestionably upon Congreee.

 

139. Ibid.
130. Netion, vol. 43, p. 515. (Fee. 23, lLES).

50

VII

t f 1887

Interstate Cow erce A

U

The Senate bill to regulate cemmerce which accompaniei the Cullom

Committee Report was recommitted, and on February 16, 1886, Mr. Cullom
1

reported a substitute bill ( S. 1532) from the committee.IUI The pur-
pose of the bill was to stamp out unjust discrimination. It appliei to
both freight ani passenger service by railways, and water-ways when usei
in connection with a railway for continuous shipment. The various forms
of discrimination between persons, commodities, kinds of traffic, and be-
tween places were specifically prohibited and declared unlawful. There
was a limited long ani short haul clause. Publication of rates was re-
quired ani it was declared unlawful to charge more or less than the pub-
lic rates. Shiaments were to be consiierei continuous free the place of
shipment to the place of destination. Any combinations to evade the
provisions of the act by breaking of bulk, carriage in different cars,
trans—shipment, or other devices were prohibitei. Ary'violation of the
provisions of the act was to be consiierei a wisdereanor ani penalties
were proviiei. The remainder of the bill was devotei to tbe organiza-
tion of a connission of five members eni to the details of its operation
as a means of securinn the enforcenent of the act. Two courses were
Open to tbe aggrievei shipper, the regular recourse to the comnon law
or arbitration of the controversy by the commission. The letter meth-
od, in tre event of a favorable finding by the commission, would free
the shipper from any expense of investigation and enable him, if necessa-

132
ry, to go into court with a‘pzigaufiggig case already established.

 

131. Cong. Record, 4% Cong. 1 sess., p. 1464.
132. 11311., p. 34.71.

51
The provisions of-tbe bill followed closely the recormenistions and
findinrs of the Cullen Interstate Converse Committee.

The chief criticism of the bill one based on the week lone and
short clause. It was cleimei that it did not go far enough to provide
against the eVils of discrimination c0"plained of by shippers all over
the country. The limitations and provisions were said to destroy its
force eni value.133 After a long debate the Senate passed the measure
by a vote of 47;4 and it was sent to the House.104

When the bill reached the House it was referred to the Committee on
Commerce which reported it back with an amendment in the nature of a sub-
stitute.1db The substitute was the House or Reagan bill which was then

pass in lace of the Senate bill by a vote of 192,41, with 82 not vot-

I»)-
'd

)

I.
.1 ‘1)

er
1.
ing. A camparison of the two bills showed that they differed in scone

in that the House bill did not apply to passencer traffic, nor did it
cover traffic by water. The chief points of difference were;
(1) The House bill definitely prohibited pooling, while the Senate bill
pronosed inquiry by tthe commission. (2) The House bill was plain and
epecific in its long and short haul clause; the Senate provision was weak
.and might be set sells. (3) The House bill required that all rates
should be posted; the Senate bill only those which the Commission deemed
practicable. (4) The House bill did not provide for a sonndssion but
left the enforcement of the act to the courts; the Senate bill provided
for a commission.

The theory of the two bills was also different. The Senate bill
was based on the theory of securing a detailed regulation of freight and

passenger rates though it neither fixed any rate nor’authorized the con»

 

1-33. Ibid., p. ‘
134. Ihii., p.
135. Ibid., p.
136. lbid., p.

Lao:
. 0

Q #- rfh' (,1
«18 w: 0!
0‘ "J 0‘4
O
0

Ln] 3.
e

52
mission to do so. It propossi to enforce the provisions by burssu
orders ans the proceslinqs of courts carbined. The House bill proceed-
el on the theory of abrilging the monopoly peters of the rsilroei cow-
penies, and of prohibiting the greater and more manifest violations of
right by them. without attempting a detailed refluleticn of freight rates
It providoi for th: enfor s:eent of its orovis i: no throc:h oriint ry courts},

157
whizh were Within the convenient re:3ch of th people.
On the motion of Lr. Reagan the House requested a conference with
133
the senate upon the auenimsnt to toe bill. Then tire see-ire reac hei
the Senate, on the motion of Ar. Cullen, it diurcrcj to the substitute
1;:
an? agreed to the conference asked by the chse. The Conference Com-
mitt=3s 'ials than rs?ointel and consisted of th: following Fons? nLnagers:
140
3r. E 23:3. Hr. Crier. and Fr. Weaver (Ysbrsstalo Th3 r it? 3P.'01nt‘
el Hr. Cullo Hr r. Oliver 7. Flatt, ani Kr. Varris.

The comrrozise involved four vain issues: (1) a commission, (2) an
anti-rebate provision, (3) an anti-poolins provision, an l (4) a long and
short haul clause. In the debate on the interstate converse bills the
Senate had favored a feds el covndssion anl tie permission of re il sy
poolinz. They tole rs ctel a r.ess long ani short haul clsu.;e an? an anti-
retste provision. he House {adority on the other hen: were opposed to

Q

a commission, pooling, an: rebe ting. They favored e rigil long and short
14?
haul clause.

The conteren:e re gcrt Was male at tLebeginning of tea 3 send session

0f til

(0
OP
(0
f?
L“
O
O
3
01 J
'1
,‘
L”
Q)

sni the passage of the amenlsi bill was recommended

cf

both Houses. TL: alenirent iiffe ed little from the Senate bill;

 

1J7. IL .. pu. 7570-7; ‘cC

133. House Journal, 43 Corr. 1 See”., p2. 2333, 2%21.
1 9. Con; Recorl, 4’ Cone. 1 See 3. ., p. 7813.

14“. I“ 4., p. 73fla.

lel. lio so JoLr rn=l, 4? Cong. l 3939., p. 2470.

142. Fe W, Cy. cit., p. L39.

53
the 3312? skin 2 lay in thr aiflition of tug yrovision pro.i Eitinf pooling.
Ot¥er ch2n as in tie Sprat2 bill were t‘zt ”tho Fiqtrict of Colquia w:
incluiei in its 53952, 22? t‘n tern rrilway w22 refine? to inclufio el
t“e r0313 in u22 1y 2:? COPCOTCthfi orerztirr s ruilrcez, wkether owned
or overstei ubier a Pontrvct, arreewent or 12222 (9. l). Proviaions
ccnwerrinq dsra222 were tskcn out anfl certinefl in a new section with an
eiiitionel provisiov allowitq a reasonable counsel's or attornpy's
fee in 2222 cf rVTCVBTy (SF. 2, 3, 4). The section requiring carriers
to furn19h r222c; "2‘ 3 ani prayer facilities was ameniei to rcquire proper
223 93221 facilities (3. 3). A change in the long-ani-shfirt-haul clause
V3 3 consi*erei t; be of 30:5 i: {on3 c e. The woris of the Senate bill,
'from t*e 8148 origin: 1; :oint of arz ival' were stricken out ani the formu-
la, 'the shorter being incluisi wi thin the longer distance,‘ 223 insertei.
522 grovisior authorizing t12 032212213n to mgke exceptions to the clause

W22 also sligfit y n'iifioi with t‘& 1382 of granter rigility. Section

(V

i
w-
P4
H

five of the Fen2t was replccei lJ Section six of tie confsrenca bill
vfijmizmas a comfi nation of t?e Faun? an} Ser2te provieions 2.2::rninr pub-
licity of r tea. The new section not on}? jirec 23 tle oon~ienicn2rz to
nature pullizity of r t32 over etch roilwsv anfi connectirw 11222, but al-
143
so requirei e23» railm2y to pulliak r2t92 b2tween 211 paint: on ita line.
Tie "0222 ccnrerenée, an tie oth2r h2n4, li2tei g gr22t2r numker of
concesaiors. Tfie V0322 bill k2? appliei cnlv tn frsifht; th2 bill 24
a 22323 enbrscei p2rsen¢er service 22 well. T‘e Hou29 bill 11 ith it-
self to r2ilr2sfl tranapcrt2tion; the other inclufled transrortation partly
t7 water when hotE were uzei under a comfion control, unnpgetent, or arrange-

ment for a continuous interstate carriage. A proviso was aiied to the

House 102; as? short h;u clruse to tha e?f¢ct that ugon pyli31tion to

I

113. 1211., p2. 3€.€.JGO. Cf. Cong.Peoord, 49 Cong. 2 Sess., pp. 171-173.

54

the commission it might in special cases make concessions. The House
bill hai reiuirel rates to be postal up; while the Conference bill requir-
efl cannon carriers to keep printed scheiules for public inspection. A
new section was aidei which proviiei that persons claiming 3223223 might
proceei for recover? either in the Unitei States Courts or before the
Commission, but not before both. The House bill hsi not proviici for a
commission, while the conference till containei the Senate provisions
in this respect. It will be seen ttat the Fouse provisions in regard
to iiscrimination by special r tss, rebates, drawabecls, an] other devices
were reteinei as Well as those requiring equal facilities on? eivantages
for all shippers without exception. The House provision prohibiting
pooling was incorporated into the Conference bill.14t

It appears on the whole that the Reagan bill was the more radically
aneniefl, but the Cullom bill had already received previous modification
in the iirection of the House bill.14J

The composite nsture of the bill had resulted in a measure that no
one reallylwanterif4o yet when the vote was taken both Houses accepted it.
The Senate vote 229 43;15, with 17 not voting; and the Ecuse vote 219g41
with 53 not voting.147 The sectional character of the House vote, although

not as pronounced as previous votes on the question, 13 shown as follows:

Yeas. have

New anlani States . . . . . . . ll 10
flidile Atlantic States . . . . . 4O 10
Iorth Central States . . . . . 90 10
South Atlantic States , , , . . 3O 2
South Central States . . . . . 43 5
Far Western States . . . . . . 5 4

219 41

The pronress of the Heaven-Cullen Interstste Corverce Bill trrouqh

 

124. Conc. Recori, 49 Cone. 2 5685., p. 779.
145. Haney, op. cit., p. 301.

146. Cong.Reccrd, 49 Cong. 2 8933., p. 844.
14?. Ibid., pp. 665,881.

55
Congress was practicallv free from partisanship. The issue was purely
economic eni both parties Joinoi in securinq the pascege of an inter-
state commerce act. On the other bend this was not true of some of the
other attecpts to secure regulation. For example the ScCrarv Bill of

148
1874 wee resicte by the Democrats on the old State Rights' doctrine,
and an analysis of the vote on the Reagan Bill of 1885 shows that most of
the Fepublicans with the exception of the Western members, voted aqainst

149

the measure While the Democrats supyorted it.

Senator Cullom was the chief advocate for the bill's passage in the
Senate while Senator Plait led the ooposition. The discussion was nar-
rowed to two major issuet, the long ani sfiort haul clause and the prohibi-
tion of pooling. Senator Plett was Opposed to both provisions as found
in the Conference report, eni as a mentor of the Conference Cou.ittee he
hai refusei to sirn the report. Fe ettachei the molificetion of the
long so! short haul clause but he Opposed in psrticuler the absolute pro-
hibition of poolinv. Fe refused to surrenier the provision of the Sen.
ete Bill directing tie com'iseion to cake en icwediete investiretion of
pooling and to rerort their reconnenietions to Coneress. Fe fc=red
that the absolute prohilition of pooling would break up at once every
srrenqenent by which the interstate commerce of the country was conduct-
ed, en] result in an imteiiete rete war by all the railroads of the
United States which wool] be more injurious to the business of the coun-
try t7sn any wtich might exist under pooling contrects. On the other

150

points of the till he agreed. Senator Platt based his arguments on the

testimony taken by the Interstate Comcerce Committee. It wee h13 con-

 

lee. Itii., p. 634.
149. Ectroit Free r
150. Cong. Record, 4‘

56
clueion that a vert majority of those who really understood the railroad
problem desired legalized pooling. fie maintainei that before Congress
shouli prohibit the methoi by wtich the reilroa} companies hai resorted
to prevent unjust aiscriminetion, it aficuli be grown trat the practice

a

was inherently veroni_2'..lw1

Er. Cullcm interpretei tre till fliffqrently. ”e 9311, "One of the
purpoees of tre bill itself ry requiring publicity of rates eni prevent-
in: cienee of retes to a hivher scheiule, except on ten days' notice, is
to bring about that stability of rates whish the railroai commanies them-
selves are a oeelin? to us to have brought about, because under the system
of poolinn they h:vc not been able to bring it about . . . . Every one
knows that the reilreafi conveniee themselves have finally hegeme recon-
ciled to sore national legislation, because they have not been able to
protect thenselves one from another, and I think that the provisions of
this bill in relation to publicity, and the other provisions to guard
against various wrongédoinx on their part, will have very great force and
effect in bringing about that s rt of stability which it has been the

{’8

ostensible purpose, at least, of pooling to secure."1v

Senator Boer ( assachusette) said that ttere were four graft objects
which the bill accomplished; First, it exteniei the corron 12m to inter-
state commerce eni it establishei the greet principle of reasonableness
to be enforcei bv law; Recorfily, it estetliehei a cowmieeion- a constant
supervisory National authoritv; Thirilv, it requirei putlicity and this
let in "the daylight on ever? transaction between the carrier ani the one-
tower;' Fourthly, it prohibited unjust discrimination. These provis-
ions he was in fTVOF of but he objeztei to tFe long and short haul clause

eni the prohitition of pooling. He regarded them as an attempt to strike

151. Ibid., p. 773.
152. Ibid., p. 171.

 

rul-
Jul
,1
('9
\+
J
D
c:
:5
p
r?
U)
an
L1
('9'
p:
d-
(J
(R
’J‘
,J
1.1:
(‘0‘
J
1..)
0

down healthy campatitian. He asserted

best, cheapast, ani gout ccrwenient railroafl service on th? face of the

‘

gloce, ani claizci that the ch2:1nesa of t is trz. ns ortation wouli be

0"

igstroysd. He dcslaxzi th=i t aprohiblt 1021 of TOOliTg WCtll feztroy
tn: stauJinssz of business by puitiflg it out of the power of the rail-
roais to prevent railrcai wars 331 that csnscart fluctration was the

153
instruction of all traie. Fe therafcre f: -vor61 reco: 11t31 cf t‘e bill.

Hr. Sherman (Ohio) fears} that tfie Ion» ani 3*ort haul clause would

flestroy the export tr€*e of th? corntrr 1y div3rtinj t‘s a3a-trale, mwich

foun? its course 1rcv Ania to Purflpe by t“e trsns-coutinnutal r3333, to
at er routes ens) aa the ?uez Canql, 0333 Porn, Pars a, or Canaia. ”So
grett was tfie corretiticn for tkat traie that it car}! he iiv¢rtei by

even apebkle, much more bv such a greot restriction as the till prepoqed?”

We su~~33teie discrimingt ion in favor of t‘e foreign tr? e. T113 was
154

the only rezscn he maul? vote to recommit the bill.

Fr. Firvnis (Verront) erguei in favor of the Conference chmittee Re-
port. Fe clai~e3 that, aa to the long and short haul clause, he can»
mittee haj merely m}anéei t'e phraeeolOgy of tne bill as 37,3931 by tne
Senate withcu changing the meaning. He defenie* the prohibition of pool-
ing w}i:h he 3131135 W"3 just another phase of the courinstion of corporate
monOpolies. Kr. Izgallfi (Kansas) sail the bill was to regulate commerce,
not to VTSCK, ruin, ani destroy it. Be rsweried the purycre of the bill
as benet'icent tan4 in t“e interests of tke pro:3ucer: of t*e carntry. The

155
efftrt to r330: it the till failej.
I: tHe Woman t5: fiehztc liknrisa 33nt¢rai 0% t‘? pr3$111ti¢n of pool-

ing eni the Ion? 931 skcrt rail cléuqn. "M9 pogition a? the majority

of t?e Vanna on th?ae two provision: hqi alr9diy bean ghown b" its action

 

5:. 1312., pp. 534-863.
154. Ibid.
155. Ibidc

Jillilullllllr .II

f-
35
|- ‘ a A . Y, ‘ n 4 . a 1-. 3 #1:, -., I. ,:-~ . 3 ..
On to: Delgan #1113 to rsthcto inqpffiir‘g cc: arse. In allitio? t c

provicionc creatinc c corticricn were criticitei. It was claimci thet
a Political tceri wouli he crostei one that the rsilroniq would be thrown
into politics. The rajoritv, however, euppertei the till. Hr. Bur-

n,” :3.

5‘)

peach in favor of the rangers, 9513;

y:-

roms (“ichirsnl conclni
"The chief *erit of this till after all . . . is to my mini its moieretion.
It is not a raeh mecnvre; it is not an extreve measure; and it is fortu»
note that thie is so. It is well in taking possession of this new field
of fictional occu“ancy that we move with extrene caution. We are on the
borler of an unexplcroa territory an* every step is fraught with momentous
coneeiuences. Vast irtereets are involvei. In reire"3ing wrongs we
rust invaje no rioht, but eivance with such prudence chi coneileration
that in the eni our national domination over this great question will he a
135.

national bleeeinr.“

The Interstate Commerce Act woe the recult of a popular mcvcflcnt

which hei tech in yrorrcce nearly tweet? veers, yet all cocticnn were not
ontisfiefl. The objectiore accorlir? to Senator Boer ill not co'e from

the railrocfl wen, Who vantei to put up rates, but fro" t‘e Gusto or who
wertci to put t”?~ 3o"r on! who corli not 79‘ alcr’ unleaq the? were kept

flown. The Unitei Trrrejorioticn Conmitfce repreaentirf the various booi-

noes associations of the city of Boston claired the bill would seriously
a?f9ct the tusincsfi interacts of Boston. The Chcmler of Commerce feared
the flectrtcticn of the city's foreign shipfiing business. The Peoria,Board
of Trafle while arprovin: nest of the provisions protected against the long

anl sVort haul clauae. They believei it would u nettle all business in-
terests throughout tHe Vest, depreciate the value of all farming lands

west of the Middle States, anfl work directly in the interest of the lake

153. ILii., pp. 806-832, eta-869.

59
ports, lake transpcrtation linen, Ceneiian lines, anl twe ngtern former.
The Finneapolis Boeri of Trele wfiile coproving the general principle of
the bill nrotestci egniret the look en3 e”ort haul elapse eni file prohi-
bition of pooling. Speakine for tfie proiutere an? shippero of the North-
west t??? feerei~tfiet these PPOVieiono woull be ”sotrrctire to tto inter-

157

eets of tte iistinctively acrictltvrvl sectiore of tFe reentry.

The content of so e of tle 193 it? no we r.re o? the tire on tte bill

153
is paarticc larl y sidnificont. The War :inoton Critic (In3.) wtile the
conference reoort was still tefcre Conrreee eeii, ”Thoever loos not help
to trinc it no every 43 W“cevor being to . eh it agile after an tovr'e
. O ..

perfrrctory oretory, . we or fails to be its urg out, constant ani inror-
tunote frienfl, must loo? her e ftar to the rcilvey corpor -tione for lie
support, ani expo ct to be orpoeei by the people.”

The comxent of the St. Louis Republican (Dem.) wee “. . . the chief

c Mnsi ereti on in its tivor is tlet it is the beginning of a national rail-

road policy which bee alrecdy beer too lone delayei. The trouble baa

been pert ted to harass u; too long. It ought to have been settled ten
years ago. It incrnzwee cxery y

The New York Tribune (Zen.) roe not so favoretle to the till.. It

sail, "7h? erouli vectors of Conqreee vote for a till to era

53)

tion ewonc railrce‘e? The more t3» Intereteta Co““orce bill is examined,
the more ttie it founi to to ite character. It in fer Fro“ the purfioee
of t531= r~"-ore wlc hove most zealowoly favorei the Pill to euroreoe that
co petition wEich hoe so gro=tly rniuce? rnteq for t~anerortztion within
the pqgt twenty vqirg. _ . ani tHqu co mvmgfiieg whizH wonll have the least
chance to proener in an era of co tition for the favor of the public

are beginning to hepo that the bill nay page. . . Is it deeireeble to

co getition which has wrong ht these ma.rvelous chances? It has

.3. -
158. P1122115 Opinion, vol. 2 pp. 242-251.

60
been possible for r0333 to transyort at such low rates ani live, only
because they hal been able to reluce rates less between nonacompeting
points, ani by competition to wrest a great part of the through traffic
from the Canciicn rcaic an‘ the water routes.”

The Cincinnati Commercial Gazette (Rep.) was esgecially bitter.

"The teniency of cheap long hauls is to bring into play the resources

of the w“ole country- to aloliah provincicliswp to put 23139 the priie of
presumptuous ignorance in insignifictnt localities. Vs in not contend
tbct tb,re are not porrlsr wronrs connectei with the reilrcsi lusiness,
but we feel free to assume,at least, tbst the rsilrcqi men act upon busi-
ness principles t‘at arc tbe crrqrowth of enlirbtenei selfishness.
Congress, with its horizontal and arbitrary methods ani its clumsy bold
upon the details of large transactions, has been feelinfi for sore tire
that it has a call to meldle, and it therefore mudiles. The purpose is
to cater to He prejujices that are held to be popular against railroads.
Tbs result will he, if the bill becomes a law ani it is seriously enforc-
e‘, to vastly dininish the internal comnmrce of the country. It will
drive trains from our transcontinental roafis, as ships have been driven
frOm the case. It will discriminate in favor of the roads of Canada

. . . It woull stop tne passage of freight between Asia an} FurOpe across
the American Continent.”

The Portlnni Orcgonicn's (1nd.) ecuments were: "Of the necessity
of a fefieral law to suprlenent the efforts of State legislsticn tberc is
increcsinq evidence everv yesr. The interest of slippers en? of invest-
ors in railrocls alike neei protection. It is new in tbs power of a single
convany or sindle frcirlt agent to precipitate a wtr tbet mesns the masta'
of millicrs of revenue. r1"be iifferenca in freight rgtes which one mer—

chant or manufacturer may gain over his connetitor is otten eunuch to set-

61
tie the question of the succesq of one or tWa failure at tFe otFer, and
suck afi enormcuc pcwer i3 fiurc t: 13 ou.rav:cu:1y exarzfsei i? left With,
out 39-3 rtanonaitie, irrzrtivl r9~v3qtinh "*1?“ 1w“ fil’te iawrvt 11 its
t0 t3 arrliérticn. . . . for t”? prbt°2tinn O? t*% “3‘21: a~~ith the
con9@~“or1'a 0’ r°to war? 75% irterstrte 30‘ki12tirnz c” rsil"n?7, coal
an‘ Ci? roroncliea tkere i: 3 cryinq nezi of Féieral regul7tisn."

The Pichwcri State (Per.) luypcrtei the measure. ”The neefl o?
the horr is suefi legislationas #111 not perfiit railroai ccwraries, on the
one hen‘, to itnore their duties an cnmfion carriers ani will tani to preo
vent mvch of their unjust discrimination; but will not cater, on the othp
er hand, to tkat short-sightefl devagogry wfiich, in attemptinc to ane'er

repuler clawor, wouli do serious injvrv to the railrosis by trying abso-

r9

lutely to central .heir business, ani which would only eerve t0 provoke
at last snrh a re?c.ion a cng a iisfcstei'peoyle $5 wow}? iefer indefinite-
ly the attlewewt o? owr nrfizert flifficultifig, 92? leave “Folly unchecked

tHa encroachmenta of powerfnl corpnrations for wrn? yszra ta :0 a. Let us,

than, avoi‘ too little letislétion 71 Well ac tno Tush 1-'

( a
1
p
Q
t-J
)
c‘?
,Jo
O
'3
O
H:
p.
g
I

in: jnct relief ifi the ifi+ar9tnte car"?r¢? $111 new ba?3r¢ Ccrfir:*s.

T*3t wedatre in for the in’firefit o? t”? :30 1? c” Virriw :. . ."
The ”Filrielp%12 “ecori (Pav.) ". . . “Ti‘c flfirjwrsa fielavs ari

the 30“? 1rtri*fi°~, t“c fi‘fi“1fiity for tFn héaafiffl o” t‘ia Vfissuré be-
cOfiez TOT? nni ”era afinnrént in t“? tintinusi extortion ani f:vcritism
of the railrnwi cnrrarira, an! in t3? incarecity of tP? Statzs t3 i?a1
Wit“ dvc~tior3 c? inttrstzte traffic."

The New Ycrk Sun (32%.) expressed the viefi éf ”all Str?ot.
"0n the wrcie, “hll Street sears to h9v3 31:93 this hill u“ pretty accu-

ratsly in c-n21uiin7 thrt it will not reiuce railroafi r°ceipt9 nor injure

railroai securities. Our ajvice to everybody is to accept the law in

62
good faith, if it bitfimeg a lam, ani eijunt freight ani passenger tariffs

at ones, as n arly in azcordanaa witn ita provisians as possible. A

I'l
‘0

3031 deal ofr zzlity will; ixajq ear with 9? at t r= t s snfi rzte cutting;
mts‘ money wfiizi no" 3035 tg pool counisaioners ani m; r‘rs will be saved:

the puElic will be nor? fiirlv scrvzi, gnu tha stockhali:

u-

r3 will get much

mare rele;r, if n;t lzrtzr divilealw. Lat tit till p?3§.‘"

‘ H- - D C . “.0 ‘-‘ -A n . , 7.: +‘- O. ~" , a .- ' l r
merge 11" is rm .za; 1; t4« 33,y;ny. It is a $1u-Br 0. i1' Jrlif ixpor-

,. ‘- Iq A-J ' . ' ‘ r I, ‘l l ‘ 2.. r "- . .q <~, A .‘u ‘, ‘
tlncl, an! it, «zinc ”'ts tcs 191_ 49l~ 9‘ :lrfi-iv, are»)? n-“ .2 post-

‘0ned to anatfirr afiiaiofi :3 Cfin~rfc¢. $23“ ln~111atigt will b rilv be
perfact st flrzt. It it nfith~~rrv to ‘*TT ~ berinriér, to 1;? a founian

tion. The Cullen-gfifiiqn bill is pfirPunfi 3*?fiir a maaxure at gouli b0
tram i for a ha*iiflifi" in tFia kini of ledinlatian. If it shall bacona
a law ant go into oyerati:n i 3 m9rit anl its defects will soon baccva
apparent, an] the letter dam be carrectei by proper amenlments."

The Cir cinnati TitIBS-S+?r (Ini.) eXpressed itselfa as follows:
fir. Reagan wauli sacrifice the commercial intereats of the entire wast in

order that Galvcstan mizh

Cf

roll in.high clover. H3 13 a pétriot, perhaps,
'but his patriotic zeal flows in a narrow channel. If he hrn bezq mis-
gad in ttiq tusincsa, it is no bett er for his reput 3ti nn. Assuming
that Hr. Reagan lasts only to the general welfare, it 58313 anyt ‘.ing but
craditable ts him tfizt aftnr 33 13:; an exwarienca in the fisli of practi-
1 to hOpe that the b;si;333 sens a of a majority or 00;:r 3251 will de-

3: anl rejact tt; thzl fallacy of the let: an? sVort haul i‘«3rermod-
133 in tea Rc.,tA~C¢llou bl‘ ll.’

The Nashville Union (Dem.)° also ODHOHzéi t 6 hill '9 pt=~aare,

We can.n0t helirva attor stuiyin: tfiia hill, With 3 via" 0” Tirinr it a

63
fair eni correct interpretation, and especially with the View of seeing
what effect it is to have on our own section of the country, that any
memher of Congress free Tennessee, Alabama, or Georgia, familiar with its
provisions will vote for it to hecose a law. Thenever he does he signs
the death warrant of his section of the country.‘I

The Detroit Tribune (Rep.): “Since the original Cullom bill could
not be agreed upon, it appears to be clearly the duty of the Congress
to pass the bill now before it. The people want only what is fair as
between themselves an? the railways, but they do want that much, ani it
is high tine that Consrese ievisei so 9 means to that enl.“

The Poston Transcript (Ind.): "Such a hill looks like an atterpt on
the part of Western eni Southern Confiressren to appease their constituents
by a show of legislation that in reality will accomplish nothinu definite.“

The New York Grephic's (Dem.} brief but sharp criticism was: "The
passage of the bill wouli be a public calamity instead of a 'benefit.‘I

The attituie of one of the leading railroei men- James J. Hill-
to srd the act was particularly significant. He felt that it would ruin
the country, alt‘ough the railroads might survive. He predicted that
Congress would be called into a special session to repeal the act.159

The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was not applicable to traffic
*wholly within one State. It defined the term “railroad“ to include all
‘briiges and ferries usei or oyeratei in connection with cry railroad, and
also all the road in use by any corporation Operating a railroai, whether
owned or Operated under a contract, agreement or lease. The term “trans-
portetion" as used in the act was to incluie all instrumentalities of
shipeent ani cerriace. The provisions of the act were as follows:

‘

3159. E. F. Huurhrey, "An Vcononic History of the United States” p. 358.

64
(1) Charges must be reasonable. (3) Special rates, rebates, etc. were
prohibited. (3) Uniue preference to persons, localities, an! traffic
was denied. (4) The charges for a shorter distance were not to be more
than for a lonser with the proviso that the commission might authorize
exceptions. (5) Pooling of frsiqtts ani earnings was prohibitei.
(6) Common carriers must print eni post scheiules and eivances were not
to be meie until after ten days notice. Reductions however, could.be made
without notice. A copy of the schedule rates was to be filed with the
Comnission, ani any deviation free the scheiule rates was illegal.
(7) Combinations to prevent a continuous carriage of freight to its
destination were prohibited. (8) Liability arising from violations of
the act was to be the full amount of damages sustained plus a fee for coun-
sel or attorney as set by the court. (9) Persons demagei might make com-
plaint to the Commission or sue personally. (10) Violation of the act
see a misdemeanor ani the maximum fine was set at $5,000. (11) An
Interstate Conuerce Cosmission, consistinq of five memters, was to be ap-
pointed by the Presiient with the eivice ani consent of the Senate. Not
more than three members couli belong to the same political party. Their
term of office Wes to be six years with the exception that the first com-
missioners were to be chosen for two, three, four, five, sni six years
respectively. The Cornission hai the authority to inquire into the man-
agement of the business of all common carriers subject to the act, and it
was to keep itself informed as to the manner ani method in which they were
coniuctei. It hai the right to obtain from the csrriers full and com—
plete information necessary to enable it to perform the duties ani carry
out the objects for which the Commission was created. Petitions as to
the violations of the law were to be made to the Commission which would

then forward the charges to the c rrier. In case the complaint was not

65
satisfied within the tile efiecifiei an investigation was to be made. Re-

cords were to be kept of all complaints, ettle.ent3, ani investigations.

It was the iutr of the Can iseioc to file a petition for proceeiing in he
circuit courts for violations of the set or refusal to obey the orler of the
Commission. The Unitei ftatcc Eistrict Attorney wee to prosec“t3 the

T7 :

csse. no written re crts or tne Com: ssion were Q‘Vittei as rri"s

 

‘

s evidence in all juiiciel procceiin s. Vverv sets on: set of the

Ho

f_c

H)

 

Comtiseion must be réccrisi cut its proceeiiur‘ uric ru‘li: uvor the re-
quest of either psrtv interestsi. The salary of be Cox issioners see
to be $7,VCC per yes? sn? anv expenses thev misht incur during tie con-
duct of their business were to be paid. The principal office woe to be
n the Citv c Vsshington but they couli hcli sessions enyrhere in the
Unitei States when necessary. The annual reports to the Connission from
the connon carriers were to include the amount of capital stock izsued;
t’e enounts peii therefor, sni the manner of payment; the diviienis paii,
the surplus funj, if any, sni the nunmer of stockhollsrs; the funied and
floatinr debts ani the interest pail thereon; the cost ani vslue of their
preperty, franchises, anl equipment; the number of enployees eni the sala-
ries p811 each class; the a cunts eXpenJci for i groverents each year,

Q H
‘

nos expenie , en? the c.; . the i nrovements; the earnings and
receipts for each branch of business an“ fro: all sources; the operating
ani other expenses; the balance of profit and loss; sni a on vista exhilit
of the financial Operations of the carrier each year, ncluiinv an annual
balance sheet. In silition the resorts shouli contsin such information

in relation to rates or rcvuletions concerninc fares or freirh‘e, or agree—
ments, errsncewents or contrscts with other neuron carriers as the Conmiss-
ion night require. The C~rniesion was to submit an annual report to the

Q

secretary of the Interior. The set ~res to take etfect in sixty fisys and

180
the conmdssion was to be appointed ani organized at once.

On fierch 22, 1387 President Clevelani appointed the following Inter-
state Genre ce Conadssioners: Thomas I. Cooley, of Michihsn, for six
years; fiillian;B. Morrison, of Illinois, for five yesrs; Augustus Schoon-
maker, of New York, for four yesrs; Alisoe F. ValVer, of Vermont, for
three years; on! Yelter L. Bragg, of Alabama, for two years. Public re-
action to the appoint ents on tte whole was verv favorable although.there

1

was consi’eraole regret in the $ést that there was no memter froulwest of
151
the Xississippi River.

 

—,——

160. Unitei States Statutes at Large, 49 Gong. 2 3888.. vol. 49 Chap.104.
131. Putli: Orinion, vol. 2 p. 537. ”The Interstate Conneroe Com issioners.‘

67

VIII
mm

At the time when Congress peseei the Interstate Connerce Act there
probably had never been in the history of the government a bill under
discussion which inevitably effected, either directly or renotely, such

,-

greet financial ani iniustrial int rests. The effect or the provisions

of the act roacnei every iniustry, every hanlet, ani every laboring man
162
in the Unitei States. In fact toe operation of the law was even more
than interstate; it was international. It directly affectei the trans-
continental Oriental tre e arfl forcei the issue whether certain commodi—
ties on the other eifla of the glote wouli no to market west ty wey of
163

San Francisco, or seat by wey of the Suez Canal.

?he Inter-atate Commerce Act was the response of Congress to the
reeds of toe ti e. Tfie economic causes which hsi given rise to the public

‘

deren] for national rEIulation hfid rzsulted in a steajily increasing prea-
srre upon Congnecs. During t?» reriol that the problem‘was before Con-
gress the popular denund hai chanced from general Opposition to the rail-
roads and the desire for cheep transportation to resentuent against unjust
discrimination. The main purpOSe of the Interstate Commerce Act, there-

‘."i~‘l "In-1. wn-u
1.. ’U 2.1.: gt"; .‘3 o n

fore, was to do away w tn ouch ape:

la

The Houxe hai been arick to reaponj to the pepular reqxest for regu-
lation while the Senate dii not show much intercst in the eaEFy Efforts

of the Hence to secure requlation. It was more deliberative ani business-

like in t3 mothois. The investifiztione it coniuctei w ich reenlted in

‘\ -‘- r3

iue.Conz. Pecori, £9 Conv. l 8333., p. 393
163.8t.Louis Reputlican quoted in Public Opinion vol.3 p. 14.

68

the Windom ani Cullom reports were of inestimable value to the ultimate
success of the act as finally evolvei. The findings of the Cullom.Inter~
state Conemrce Coundttee in particular furnished the basis for the Cullom
Interstate Connerce Act.

The impetus to the necessity for regulation furnished by the Wabash,
St. Louis and Pacific Railroad Company vs. Illinois decision served to
unite the Opposing forces in the House and Senate and a co promise nea-
sure was accepted ‘y both groups. Althonch the act as passed was not
exactly satisfactory to anyone, it was a beginninq. The foundation had
been 131% for future leuislation. The provisions of the Act showed that
neither the radical nor the most conservetive elevent Eel triumphed, but
that a moierqte courae had been taken. The Interstate Cornerce Act showb
ed the influence of the Granger State legislation, the nrevious bills in-
troduced into Congress, and the English legislation. In fact its pro-
visions were not new but had already been tried in many States. The act
climaxed the whole movement for federal regulation of interstate commerce
anl it represented the honest effort of Congress to deal fairly with the
problem.

On the whole the Act was quite favorably received. A typical Opinp
ion was expressed by the Detroit Free Press in an editorial on.January
22, 1887. ". . . The bill which has . . . been passed is not wholly
satisfactory to the memhers who have labored most assiduously in its be-
half and who have Fiven.mmch tine ani thought to the very comrliceted
questions involved. That there is need of Federal legislation on the sub-
ject ai its of no doubt. The constant complaints of unJust railroel
discrimination and the inability of individual States to afford a remedy
show this. Whether the measure, «Wish now lacks only the approval of the

president to Lacese the law of the land, will be effective or will accom-

69
plioh erg Fool con only be learnofl ty experience. It is necessarily
experimental, but it will furnish a basis for future legislation. . .
Experience will no doubt stow that there are many defects in the lawn
for a perfect measure, without previous legislation as a guifle is an im-
possibility. The effort on the part of Congress to frame a law that
will be a pullio benefit was an honest and an earnest one, 221 it is to be
hopei that the 122 'ill prove sulstantia 11y successful. "

T12 first annual report of the Interstate Cetmorce Com lesion con—

firred tfia i preseion of the puilio that the Operation of the act on the
164

w :ole ha i be :n beneficial. It hal coral a gooi many Lsro evils than it
hai or? tel. The lot and start haul clause from w 13% so much harm was

eXpeotei dii not yieli tho be; regulta tkat hai been gregiottg. The rule
hai been ienerally ostauliahofi t‘et 2 higher ch2rr2 2 11 not be mal efor
a s‘orter th;n for 2 longer iistmjn .e wh-n t 2 shorter was incluiefl in the
longer, an? it “so comglie? with almost without ex option ttrouihout large
sections of the country. Other important effects noticed were that throng
rates .2re lower; that rates were mor ejust all proportional than formerly;
t1et op2oial rates, seore et ret;2, or rebates we: 9 n2 lohrer giV21n to fav-
ors: iniiviflualo; anl that the pooling of freights emf railroai earnings

1!

ha1 cone to an onfl when the act took effect. Complaints of unjust dis-
crimination and the giving of uniue and un easonable preference by the
open rates were still fre quent, bu ova so the good effocts of the law
were manifest. For 22.1y the c.‘ .rriers wade discriminations at pleasure,
While tncse now cowglainod of "are such as the carriers understood that
they M1,;Lt h.We to 2212 ml. Carriers coupliei quite well with the pro-
visions for filing an} pullishiu; 23 ‘1212168. There Was, :cwovor, no

general uniformity, either in form or £3-3r211L3t1101 ox pr; .gL: 2tion.

The public thus was confueoi by the different metbofis of givirg information.

 

154. Ration, Vol.42, p. 454. (322.8, 1 7.

a r
u s»

7C
and in some cascc misled. The lack of uniformity in freizht classification
gave rise to a demani For fofloral regulation of freiqrt claaaitication
since the chargés were nottfla sans in all oections of tfie ccuntrv. The
tenfiency of rctes W3. lounwari, EL: no ieptructivo rate waro occurred as
was fecred. The stalilitv of rrtcc rcactel tc“ari qsnorrl stability in
busincsq. Since Peat lineq uttecptai to canyly with the law tkere was
as

much greater unifortity t‘av existel lcfore tXe act to: paccci.

The Cow ission aioptcj the wise policy of grciual reform rztfier than
hustv chang=3 wlich cirht prove disastrous. Uyon this roint they said:

”The act to regulate commerce was not pacsed to injure any inter-
ests, but to conserve and protoct. It hal for its object to regulate a
vast busincas aocorlinu to the requirements of Justice. Ito intervention
was supposel to to callel for by the existence of nuncrous evils, anl the
commission was created to aid in brinéing about great and salutary measures

concerns Ehd citizen intiuute-

c?

of improveuent. The Lusixcas is One tho
ly in all the relations of life, an? sullen changes in it, through in the
iirection of improvement, might in their icmodiate consequences no more
harmful than beneficial. It was much more important to move safely and
steidily in the iiroction of reform than to move hastily, regarfiless of
consequences, ani perhaps be compelled to retrace important stews after
great and possibly irremeiiable mischief had been done. The act was not
pancei for a day or a year; it had permanent benefits in V138, ani to ac-
complish these with the least possible disturbance to thc immense interests
165

involved seated an obvious dictate of duty.”

The act cperotel directly to increase railroai earnings, especially

those on interstate passenger traffic through the abolition of the free

 

165. Report of thc Interstate Commerce Commission, 1887. Senate Executive
Document No.48, 50 Cong. 1 5633., 101.1, ad paseim.
165. New York Post. Quoted in Public Opinion 101.4, p. 206.

71
pass syntax, an? on the frei;tt business by putting an end to rebates,
drav:ha3 M 3, n1 eyeciul retee. The gublic beren to deve lOiJ confilenc :in

the reilroe3e 323 t: s resultei int tern in an inst

(D

eeel a ount of freight
traffic. The pullio seemed to 15: that tte lays of relates ami special
rates were euiei an? tget eye: rates on an 37;:31 hfisis :ere cf erei to

all skinnere. The e aunt o: railroa? cotetru3t
this Wee reiarlei as oily & teqpcrerv coalition.

h

Crelit fer the tenetizieet reaulte must in no small way 6 to tie

3W
’3‘.

war} of tVe Interetate Conmeree war iaoion. The chairman, Julgo Cooley,
of Ann Arbor, Kietiqu, was an able jurist ani one that was trusted by all
ee
parties ooncernel. J The éeeieions of the Commiwsion formed an irportant
holy of new law that was generall; oteyel. A. T.Hedley writing in Jan-
uary, 1833, eeii, "Thus far the career of the Commission has been a bril-
liant success. Ill stead of nullifying the la 3w, they have male it enforce-
able. The? have oiven it a construction ani an application which really
159

mean something."

As time went on, however, the deficiencies of the law became more ap-
parent and the pm a otieal results ae1i evei were a diseteoiotuout. The old
evils reappearei a.l tge railroal celeaaiee saeael to vie with each other

in evading he previeions of tne law. fievertheleee, tize Ac t pave d tile
way for future regulation anl lei to a better uidereteuding of the trans-
pertation proulem.

The significance of the law itself ha3 an it»e“*fint bee‘ine on the
future policy of the Netienal government. It markei the beginning of the
policy of Jetionel regulation; enl, as tte Granger laws hefi markei the

passing of t e lo

 

re doctrine ir the States, the Interstate Coup

 

1 5. Senate Exeeative D3:r.rent R .43. 50 Can,: . 1 $959.. a3 weenie.
168. W. 7. Ripley, ”Peilroai Rates and Eegmlations" p. 456.
15;. Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 2, p.162. ”The werkinqe of the

Interstate Conmerce Law' A. T. Hadley.

72
merce Act of 1837 markel the passing of that theory as a policy of the
fietionel government. We might designate the Cullom Interstate Converse
Act as the Hagne Certa of the reform of uncheckei iniivilualiem and
leieege fairq in tfie conduct of big business. When the country became
more aecueto.ei to governmental interference in Questions of & eoeial
are econoniz nature, adiitions were male to the original act which tended
to exteni eni strengthen its seepe. The Interstate Com erce Act marked
the beginning of the career of the Unitei States government in social
legislation-which ultixately lei it into every field of private endeavor.
The movement tower} social control may be sail to have begun with the

passage of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1867.

 

The causes of complaint against the railroad system of the
Unitefl States as expressed to the Cullom Senate Committee were
snflmerizej as follows:

"(1) That Ice 31 rs tes are unreasonably high, comosrsi with
thr oug'h rate 3 .

(2) That both local eni throuph rates are unree somebly high at
non-competing points, either froszabsence of cosmetition or in conse-
quence of pooling greements that restrict its Operation.

(3) That rates are esteclishe1 witnout apparent re :cri to the
actual cost of tie service periorued, and are based on “'33et treffic
V5111 bear."

(4) Trrt ung ustizistle discrixA.stions are constantly m3ie be-
tween individuals in tea rates chsm M ior like services unier simila
circuustances.

(5) Waist irmroie r disc rinine tions 3‘s made between articles
of freitht anfl branches of the busirnss of a like C37.re er, enl between
dii‘ferert quantities of the same class 0t‘ freignt.

(6) Tlet unreasonetle discri3 n;tiors are c333 between loneli-
ties sinilerly situatei.

(7) hat the effect of prevailing policy of rsilroed manage-
ment is, by an elaborate svsten of secret special retes, rebates, drew-
bscks and concessions, to foster monopoly, to enrich fevcrei shinuers,
arfi to prevent free conpetition in menv lines o? treie in which the
item of transportation is an important factor.

(8) That such feveritism sni secrecy introiuce an elevent of
uncertainty into legitixeste business that greatly retards the devel-
Opment of our iniustries and commerce.

(9) That the secret cutting of rates ani the suiien fluctuations
that constantly take place are demoralizing to all business except
that of a purely specu uletive character, ani frequently occasion greet
injustice eni heavy lo oeses.

(10) That, in the absence of national and uniform legislstion,
the rsilrosjs are able by various devices to avoid their responsibil-
ity as carriers, especially on shipments over more than one road, or
From one state to another, and that shippers find greet difficulty in
recovering ianeges for the loss of preperty or for injury thereto.

(11) That railro is refuse to be bound by their own contracts,
ani arbitzsrily collect large suns in t?- shape of overcharges in el-
dition to the ates agr«ei noon at the ties of stigment.

(13) That railrosis often refuse to recognize or to be respon-
sible for the acts of dishonest agents acting unier their eutiority.

(13) Ttst the cannon 13w fails to afforf a rcxs‘v for such griev-
ance, ani that in cases of disguts the shipocr is coupellel to suhmit
to the decision of the raieral menswer or pool cornis3ioner, or run
the ris} of incurring further losses by gr; ter discrimin7tions.

(1;) That the differences in the :flassificaticns in use in va-
rious parts of the ccuntrv, sni sowetires for shirnents over the save
rosis in diffcrent iirectlons, are a fruitful source of misunierstsnd-
inrs, eni are often flsie a means of extortion.

(15) That a privilenei class is created by the granting of
passes, ani that the cost of the passenger service is largely increas-
el by the extent of tfiis abuse.

(16) Tbst the capitalization ani bonded indebtedness of the
reels largely exceei the actual cost of their construction or their
present vslue, sni that unreasonable rates are charged in the effort
to,pay diviiends on watered stock and interest on bonls i properly

1 3 sued. 0

(17) That rsilroad corporations have ixpr0porly engegei in lines
of business entirely distinct from that of tran portetion, ani that
uniue adventures hove been afforded to business enterprises in which
reilrosi officials were interestei.

(13) That the management of the railroad business is extravagant
snl wasteful, snl that a needless tax is 1130391 ugon the shiyping and
traveling public by the unnecessary expenliture of large :uLs in the
maintenance of a costly force of agents sugared in a reckless strife
for the competitive business." (1)

 

(1) Senate Report No. 45,490n3. 1 Sess., mp. 180-182.

5

FIELIW$78PVY

 

Unitsi Statos Congressionrl Tocumentg an? Conrt vs

Congressionél Q1919:
40th Congress 2n8 Session (1887-1838).
42ni Congress 2nd Session (1871-1872).

42n1 Congress Eri Session (1873- 875).

n “ession 1 Peggy}:

43rd Congress lst Session (1873-1374).

ééth Congress 2nd Session (1877-1375).
45th Congress 3ri Session (1878-1878).
43th Congrsss 2nd Session (1879-1330).
48th Congress 3rd Session (1880-1881) .
43th Congress lst Sgssion (loss-158;).
43th Congress 2ni Session (1884-1385).
49th Cortress lst Session (1335-1885).

48th Congress 2nd Session (1836-1837).

 

40th Congress 2nd Session ( 857-1883).
slot Congress 2nd Session (1869-1878).
42n1 Congress lst Session (1871).

3nd Congress 2nd Session (1871-1872).
42nfl Congress 3rd Session (1872-1873).
4Eri Congress lst Session (1873-1874).
45th Congress 2nd Session (1877-1878).

45th Congress 3rd Session (1878-1878 .

46th Congress,

45th

Congress,

45th Congress,

4:31.33;

41th

0
4§tn

A, 1.". 1- '~

0-d-

Congress,
COeress,
Confirsss

3
I

Confrcss,

lst Session
2nd Session
Sri Ssssion

0v ~Q.
-.'-?-":31:.13n

 

‘\ Q
A "J t v“
.. L . L

filtfi

orts

40th

43rd

44 t1;

45th Congress,

,_. .J.__.'..

Consrsss,

Conqross,

Congress,
Congress,

Congress,

«3‘ waflw- T‘ ,Qov-A 1*.

-" l-JJ-l 71. 1." S: ', :4 .. 8:“. -?=
a

47t1 Consnsss

1st Sossion

2nd Session,

lst Session,
lst Session,
2nd Session,

nxsggtivg :3. ; ;*:
1- n. -\ q u w M
Sc L}i \JQI: r333' lstl SN ‘; 1- 1'

élst
43nd

43ri

43th

46th

Conflrsss,
Confross,
Co Q'frDSS,
Congress,
Conrrsss,
Congress,
Congress,

Con7ress,

Congress,

Sri Soosion
lst Session
Eni Session
3rd Session

: a
.A‘V .

(1879).
(1879-1880).

(1883-1381).

43.

(1387-1333).
(1869-197i).
(1273~1S73).
(1373-1874).
(1977-1879,.
(187g_187g).
(1879).

(1879-1838).

(1880-1881).

Congrsss,
Convrfisr,
Confrsss,

Confirsss,

sion (1883-1384).

H
U)
a-
' D
I J
{I}
'1

‘3
J
-1
C")
'0
vi
I
p-
3

(1334-188?)-

111 “fission (183i-1ESC).
2111 Session (1888-188?).

0 . .--.L "1 A11» r~_«--.. t- «nnr- :13!
L 811,383 .- 33.1.: ;.-1’1::~;‘v'j_ Q‘Z‘hi'n u.

0 7‘-"-F.t.3 D7“

LJ’Q-x; 5Lv.

:rt

34'

éCni Congrsss,

43

fl

fi- .- _ A
Llw'rif PC: '33 ’

and Session, No. 3.

5

_“__. 3&7." _

 

49th Congress, 233 Session, Vol., 49 Ho. 1C4.
7.: 19 0 .1..- e.,..¢.o 9",.... Y~.,..-. 8,.
L’F‘tl'ii J.) (4‘53 13.3.. Fr. 3'1. \JOIJI ti if, " rug.

.‘.- 1n-~.~ ”C.
1.4 T3‘31-L]. 6(4'.

95 U. 8., 435.
112 U. S., 8:.
114 U. 8., 13:.
114 U. s., 638.

118 U. 8., 587

Eggkg

Bogart, F. L. "?3on.m13 Historv of tfie United States" (133?)

B"3k, S. J. ”Th3 Grunfer 30v3went" (ISIS)

Clapham, J. Tr. “A8 T333331: “ictsry of HQIern Sritfiin- T"3 P91188y
#92, 1833-1880" (133:

Pagrett, Stuart "Pr1311y138 cf Inlzni Tranaportation” (1928

FauIVner, F. S. "A erizzn Economi: History“ (1”3;)

Hailey A. T.M1'11rc d Tr: as or tation: Its History anl it L:'s' (18% 6)

V33FQr, L. I .anl Keniriz V 3.3. "The Unitai States Since 185:.5' (1932)

Hgnay, L.E. "Congrcs 510321 History of Railfi3ys in tha Ufiit: lStates,
1858-133?" (1916). (Uhiversity of Wisconsin, Bulletins,
F3uno 133 an] Politic31 Sc 13 ence Sm r138, v1. no.1).

Hurphréy, F. r. ”An F3c3o is Fistory of tha Unite} Statea" ( Sal)

.0

anes, F. J. "Th3 T3ilr38fl c,t1.. (133?) (?ubl cations of the

‘

Averiz3n 733no$133 Association, vol. L,1L337-:)

r. 1 “N” 'n -. \
Eiegel, -. F. "The Stcr" 3: the .33tern Hailroaia” 1132;)

Einjwalt, J. L. "Zevslop ent of the Transyortntion Syat3ts o? t“:

Ln :8: “tJtes' (1333)
91 la", 3. 7. "1841r~-i v t88 881 82-81 +1888" (131*)

v!-
135931fi33.

Atlantic chtVIy, vol. 63, p. 76. "Dean 1t Solve th3 3J813884 Problen”
7. A. Crafts.

Fem mm, vol. 11, p. 53%. "Operation of the Interstate Commerce L33"

Nation, V31. 3?, p. 539 ”The Interatats Commerce Bill” (Dec.2', 1984).

htion, vol. 8%, p. 437 "Railrcal Legislation" (may 28, 18%3).

 

 

 

 

 

 

1? tion, vol. 4-, p. 513 "The Igterctatc Corzercc B111” (Dec. 33, 1886)
Nation, v01. 45, p. 434 "Ike Lever: 01 the IHLUPStdté Cannerca Co mission,

“1"‘731
Lg!

Public Opinion, vol. 2. p. 21C "The Int3r3tate Cc:n¢r;3 sill"

Pullic Oyinioa, vol. , p. 557 “The Igtzrstite 00‘harce Ccnaisziun"

Quarterly Journal of YJGHOJiZS, v51. 2, p. 132 "$1? "orliire cf tfia Inter-

7n3rter1y Journrl c” FCGnOgiCfi, v01. a, p. 173 "Failrca" Puaifieas Un4er

Hemannnerfi.

”,1

Detroit Freq Press, January 9' 152;.

.7. (Taitorial)

‘
D

V”
{‘1

Detrcit Free Press, January 33, 1

:1.— -_,r--—— a m.” u- ...-..—.... -_.—. --.-,,_ u‘ A ....~

-m a.

. .Ifll

‘..—‘\‘T '

 

WH,=HIH

grainy .AVPIU

. . Lk‘mHsM .

 

.. .1 In”. - VLIII . .. .IELAILP I .

 
       
  

44 4 ,. .- - ' WWW: . "RWY?- '
‘ fififix‘zgmm ,,s;§t\g4gt.,, .4...?:‘ ,3 4J4; If:
15 - _-'..-': ‘ 4 '.-.“'.,'~'.‘4',‘, 424'

       
  
      
     
   
     
   
     
    
 
 
  
   
     
         

 
  

‘_'." It! I - ..r o_ 7 - . ,I 1', '. . .
.‘ . ‘. - c a ,' -. r' . . . . V . I
Q n." I. l"-‘ ‘1 ' k "1‘ (C' u‘1'4-i:'-" O’l,‘.'.‘.;" I
"._ s". 43$; K .. ,' ’. -"‘l ". ’.- '1'3' "' ;‘I '
’(:' t. . 3 ' f” .‘o‘ 71“: I.". '., ‘uL "Y”O l,
“;7 ‘ 9‘ ": {.4 ,3J\ A .‘E‘ ..’-”',4‘('. 1%.
" "mu 4 3473'? - 14. AWE--441.
.32“: J‘ - .' . ' " ‘44:. _ VJ“. nIo ' 'I 4' ‘

 

‘ ‘ . I “I ..' _
1,), . “A“. h‘ 4 P M! P I f ‘ s I 4 , '
‘ L . c '- . 0:..1'. T, l ‘ -. ,4 - . u
. . _ . , "."I‘ ‘ ‘ 1' ”(1"4.“ , ‘ .' . . ..‘ . _, . .
.r ' s" - . w 4. . . UV“! - . - 4‘ I ‘ 4‘ 4 '
(05".; ‘L 44 f 4-4!" .u' .1 ' I ' 4. ‘i ". - I'. ‘ 4 It - "

.J 1‘" [,5 1" z_, 3, ,‘ 2‘!va .-:". I "I ' .' . ' , J ' ' ,. .

I}. __.‘ fl, I..- flip-1.0, .21 .. ,7 4“. ‘L . '44‘L“.- o , ‘ ‘ .‘4 ..‘. _ ‘
'—l_, (:Jfi" '4- ' ‘- "- . \ \ 4~" II. ,1 , .'I .".

.4. ‘0' 1' .‘_l . ‘ \ , [0", . L .(M _ . ‘ ‘ n‘ .. , ‘ .

‘, ‘I- 4f: "I.".“:' ‘l ”I. .47 '..' " r! ' .'.~- I I ',‘ I ’ ..v_ .

5.5 _
‘21
3
.:""
V
M L"
.44 '-
.0- '2‘ .
. _.' 3-
5’9
-. 4:551 .‘.
t’. 2:?
’x
‘1:-
-.-
. .
4%
.1
l
I

~
\
1-5
1-}
V ’l
7‘
C’
{Av-r.
.1' n «- 4-
it." . -
’o’x 5.
I
‘I
) .
:U"
_.
U
3‘
:.
‘
.
..'
m
’0

   

- f'.
. .50
3.- ‘4. 3 3..
l'..." L410.
}.°-
W
t '

  
 
 
 

 

' , . ' r ' -.|‘ '.
_ ‘1'? I. I4": 7‘ ""'1’..‘ a \ ' h 1 "I . _';I:‘
_ I , ‘ ‘ V i I '1 .
, .24 f ‘r : ' I 44' ‘J}'|.‘V..
,. “(34).. 4 _ ‘ ' ,.

i" .

. ‘,s .5‘ I
. 334‘, M5 ‘ -

. f’i‘fit‘jfii.

if «2’1 '4: ‘

w .‘ ‘ "'I A

" 4 I

V .

. w
”4.4
It

  
 
 

 

u}
" 4 ' I "u
'4 ‘4 - I ‘.‘ ‘ . r-.
, ' - . 4. 5‘ b w . 5‘ .
... ‘.‘. ' ‘ ’ ,1- r I” I "~.» . N \4 ‘y‘ 4. .4' ‘4- , n L H‘ '. " .' '
. . . . -- . t, .‘, I: . ‘ w - I... - , .44.: 4, 4 4 - ,J 4 .4r- . .4i.
t ..‘ ‘ ..‘ 1 \ s o. I c' ' (:‘U 4' "47"" ‘ "I ‘ e“;- \“Wi’r‘A‘ ’5‘" 94.) ”Huff? .45” 3-! I 7 ' " ~ 3"}: F f4
I a 1-,! 1‘4“ . -4‘.“'- 4-79. ,g . 4"4z' 3 : NW. .zk'I." c‘. 114-: 7’». .z-r' i . ~‘ 4.'.n4"4~‘.‘.'-4~’ n‘ .14 ‘ ' 4 I:
I h r. "f ‘v‘L‘_ ‘9‘”, .‘\ .-I::- ., ,,‘ k));—‘;L .'O- f' \ 5.1... 1.‘ ,2 ..JJ" ‘€!_ . I.“ ; .‘..l.‘i'.I{'I.”'7‘ . . r, ..‘. “-‘l.r'.~_-‘
'4...»- 4 «cf. '4‘?- .4 r .4.44 . -I-.4 I - .44 .4— 4 .44) 4, -. .4».4- rm, «4-. I"?
4 . . a. 4 . .4. A- 7-4/4 vi,“ -4 _, , .u a . p In“ _ , . .9. , ‘? .- ‘ ~ ' a
', "5'". 9“ \‘" 5! 51.43 4‘ 4" .‘g‘; ..- 'L -‘ "4f? - " 0:. ‘ ' 4 4 0:"4 I ..~.. 1' .’ .‘n 55. ' ’. If , 4h, 11'. g 1'..- }_
_ ' "o. ’ , _ .D' n_ .- o" : a , ,' ‘ ',' 4T- “I... ,_.',*. ' , ' -_. ‘ .. i-' o . ..’-.7“;
" ' I" 3:282. ' IL" ;‘ t” ’23 ..‘fl' :I‘l' I'.I)I“r+‘1 ‘ '5: ’ .‘ ‘ ’j’ .i<1'*'.:.‘""; 2.‘ ' (’1') ‘ b ' '4 ' "- (LY. It"! ' ’I
A“ 31 '1. If "t ' ' ¢.'\.- -- f. ‘ .-.' 14.}; .."J I" ..-}.,~ r\ . 'x - "4-,. :4, '_ 4. In _4'. '44 .; , , .4 ,‘4' ., . ' -,.‘-. _ ‘-_ rU
.' n ‘ 4",. "I I fi' , n ,- .' ‘ u ‘. I 1. . i ._ Iv ! v f . ,. f . , fl
--I .‘L .' I“) . 'm‘ . . -r.-o .).- . c4. *4 4. . , ,. . ., \ 4.. . -,4. .‘ .-
5 -v . 5 ,4‘- \Oglp' I ' ‘V -' 1‘. \ , A. . v .' .. .- v , l,‘ w i 4 , .. .U.
. "' ’2. 9..‘. ’1'? x: .. '9‘" "1 l" #3:!" t “‘F" ltd l \. 1- " A}'\ ? o. ‘60.. ,i . ‘ , ‘ol. 4 g , . ‘ r- ' " . "’
l. o - . 4 ’ ‘ 'A I . - ‘-, , . ‘ -‘ \v ' I ‘ _ .,' 'I
“1"&’.Ll' \. u¢ “(YH ‘1' ' 'l‘ ' ‘4'.’ I" '1 l’- r‘J a ‘/ 1‘ T. 4 '3. \~’ 33". ‘ ‘ '2'? ) ,"H ' ‘ ‘ i "' J fi'
4 1- ,: - . ' . ..‘, ‘ I a ‘ ' ‘. ." . '.
u 4 . ,Y . 4 . '

    

-. f4 . . ' “I '45:.‘74’45'44 . . ‘ ~41 ~44- . 4.1 f 4444‘: ~ 1 4 A... l.‘ 4 '- - .
(5') ,J‘flk. a... I. 4'3 .- .41. "‘ ‘?‘c; y“ 1’: (',--',‘ ‘ 4| '1 ..': “f ,_,-_, "~51" 4"4.{3 \.4. I_",,‘ (1'4 win." ‘ -._' {r ““4; . ”.4- -
44 4’... ,. 4 v . -4.‘ "14474" '44‘- ..4‘424>..-4 .4 -. .4.“ 44- ‘ 4 . ~ 44 ,r.“ --4.~44(4.-:;..(4r.4 “. 4- !, genus,» , 4..” ,4 4’.4 .
9. .,4 ‘ ;. ,,.~ . .\ ‘11-'j.-.').Q"..,A ‘ “.14 ' ', .,1 ';,-.,-.x'_ 3:4 ;- 4.3545“: j' '-._,.4: I: ."1-":‘.4.4"..5"; .,}('.'L ' z-' 4. ,' ..,".4-,' ' ‘5‘. '. .'.

3" - (”- ' '3’, ' -' " "“494 3 '. ~, ‘:~ . I4 '- ‘\'. -4i-.’4‘, ‘ .- '4’ " \ "..z‘f‘S-j». T 4' ‘5 ‘ ' i4 ".‘r'. "d' f F ' 'I-IE’".

‘ -‘ f ' - , 4 . - .40" r\6,_ -“' ‘.’ 'a: V «:4 14.1)}. I g. .-
" 'l'!‘ r. ‘ L ‘1‘” 4 . -J’ “ ' ‘(Ir ’
, 44-.4--:444.'4.4 u-M ,.
' ‘:': ' ‘m'w ' ‘M

$ Eff; ' 4x.“ I}. " ,4. f4"(' ' ..q ;' 4' 11",45'1}? ...'_' ' 4. '_ 4 .
Ann}; ‘1' -“ xv t “4.91;“? 9%“). "3‘3"???" ’ 4 ‘ -‘
, fl . h H, ._J . . A ‘1 ‘3 ‘. W'V 1'1 ‘. . . a ‘
."' at‘I‘R-W‘wugvgr-n . "y 44 4 Jam. J H
. . .I-mu .44 ..-_ ..‘...mmnm. 4-“ .413 ..— -

 

mII"ml“WMujmryumwmymm