REMARKS OF MR. CRISP OF GEORGIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 18, 1887.

MR. CRISP. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the report of the conference committee be dispensed with. It has been printed in the RECORD by order of the Senate, and again printed in the RECORD by order of the House. I have no doubt it is familiar to members and any gentleman desiring to do so can send for a copy in document form, and have it before him as we go on with the consideration of the bill. In the interest merely of economy of time I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of that report.

MR. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Georgia will permit me to say I do not desire to have any time consumed simply for the purpose of consuming time. But I think it best that this report should be read. It will not take more than fifteen minutes to read it.

The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Georgia asks unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the report of the conference committee, it having already been printed in the RECORD. Is there objection?

MR. DUNHAM. I do not care to have the bill read, but I think the report ought to be read. The report of the conferees is all that I desire to have read.

MR. CRISP. I do not ask to dispense with reading the explanatory statement of the conferees, but only the formal report of the committee. MR. DUNHAM. It is the detailed statement of the conferees that I desire to have read.

MR. CRISP. I have not asked to dispense with the reading of that. The SPEAKER. In the absence of objection, the reading of the conference report will be dispensed with, and the explanatory statement of the conferees will be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

STATEMENT OF CONFEREES ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE.

The House conferees on the disagreeing votes between the two Houses on the bill of the Senate" to regulate commerce,' and the bill of the House "to regulate commerce among the States, and prevent unjust discrimination by common carriers," make the following detailed statements of the changes between the House bill and the substitute herewith appended.

The action of the House being to adopt a single amendment, your committee without attempting to call attention to the precise changes made in each section of the bill, report to the House the substance and effect of the changes made, as follows:

The bill of the House applied only to the transportation of freight, and the bill as adopted embraces the transportation of passengers as well as freight.

The bill of the House was limited to the regulation of such transportation on railroads. The bill as reported provides for the regulation of the transportation of property partly by railroad and partly by water, when both are used under a common control, management or arrangement, for a continuous carriage or shipment from one State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia, to any other State or Territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia.

The bill which we report defines the term "railroad" as used in it, to include all bridges, ferries used or operated with any railroad, which is in addition to the provisions of the House bill.

The second section of the substitute bill adopts substantially the provisions of the House bill against discrimination by special rates, rebates, drawbacks, and other devices, and declares that any one making such discrimination shall be guilty of unjust discrimination, which is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful.

The third section of the substitute embraces substantially the provisions of the bill of the House, in requiring equal facilities and advantages for all shippers, without exception, and as a provision requiring equal facilities for the interchange of traffic with all other railroads for the carriage of property and passengers, and forbids any discrimination by one railroad in the facilities furnished against any other railroad. It contains a clause declaring that this act shall not be construed as requiring such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to any common carrier engaged in like business.

The fourth section adopts substantially the provisions of the House bill on the long and short haul, with the following proviso: That upon application to the commission appointed under the provisions of this act such common carrier may, in special cases, after investigation by the commission, be authorized to charge less for a longer than for a shorter distance for the transportation of passengers and property, and that the commission may, from time to time, prescribe the extent to which such common carrier may be relieved from the operation of this section.

The fifth section of the substitute bill is a copy of the clause in the House bill prohibiting pooling, with an amendment striking out the words of the House bill by díviding," and inserting in lieu thereof the words" or to divide," and with the addition of the words in line 3, after the word "combination," "with any other common carrier or carriers."

The sixth section is a substitute for the provisions of the House and Senate bills in relation to the publication of schedules showing the rates, fares and charges for the transportation of passengers and property. Instead of requiring the rates to be posted up, as was provided in the House bill, it requires that, after ninety days from the passage of the act, every common carrier subject to its provisions shall have printed and keep for public inspection schedules showing such rates, fares and charges, and, in addition to requiring the railroads to give publicity at all of the depots on their several lines, it gives authority to the commission, where it is proper and necessary to require them to give publicity to their rates to other places beyond the lines of their several railroads.

It also provides that the rates, fares and charges shall not be raised except after ten days of public notice, but that they may be reduced without previous public notice; the notice, however, shall be simultaneous with the reduction itself, and it requires that all common carriers subject to the provisions of this act shall file with the commission provided for in the bill, copies of the schedules which have been established, and shall promptly notify said commission of all changes made in the same; and that they shall file with the commission copies of all contracts, arrangements or agreements with other common carriers in relation to traffic affected by the provisions of this bill; and in cases where passengers and freights pass over continuous lines or routes operated by more than one common carrier, and the several common carriers operating such lines or routes establish joint tariffs of rates or fares or charges of such continuous lines or routes, copies of such joint tariffs shall also be filed with the commission, and made public, if so directed by the commission.

The section also provides that where a common carrier subject to its provisions shall neglect or refuse to file or publish its schedules of tariff or rates and fares, or any part of the same, such common carrier shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be subject to a writ of mandamus, to be issued by any circuit court of the United States, in any judicial district wherein the principal office of the common carrier is situated, or wherein such offense may be committed, requiring the compliance witht he provisions of the act.

The seventh section of the substitute bill contains substantially the provisions of the first part of the second section of the House biil, in relation to the continuous carriage of property and persons from the place of shipment to the place of destination.

The eighth section of the substitute bill contains the substance of the seventh section of the House bill, in regard to damages and counsel's fees, but expressed in somewhat different language.

The ninth section of the substitute bill is a new section, which provides that persons claiming to have been damaged by the action of common carriers may proceed for recovery of their damages either in the courts of the United States or before the commission herein provided for, as they may elect, but not before both tribunals. This section, which gives jurisdiction to courts of the United States, does not give jurisdiction in civil suits to the State courts as was provided for in the House bill.

This section of the substitute bill also provides that the courts shail have power to

compel any director, officer, receiver, trustee, or agent of the corporation or company defendant in such suit, to attend, appear and testify in such case; and may compel the production of the books and papers of snch corporation or company party to any such suit; and it provides further that the claim that any such testimony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving such evidence, shall not excuse such witness from testifying; but that such evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on trial of any criminal proceeding.

the

The tenth section of the substitute bill makes it a penal offense to violate any of the provisions of this act, and is substantially the eighth section of the House bill, except that it puts the maximum of the fine which may be imposed at the sum of $5,000 instead of $2,000, as was provided for by the House bill.

The eleventh and subsequent sections to the twenty-first, inclusive of the substitute bill, contain the substance of the Senate's bill providing for a commission, except as modified by the provisions of the substitute bill herein recited.

It provides for a commission to consist of five persons whose term of office shall be for six years, except for the first appointments, which are to be for two, three, four, five and six years. The members of this commission are to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice of the Senate. Their principal office shall be in Washington, but they may hold sessions at other places than Washington, and a single member of the commis. sion may take testimomy anywhere, as may be directed by the commission.

These commissioners have salaries of $7,500 each. The commission has the power to appoint a secretary with an annual salary of $3,500, and has authority to employ and fix the compensation of such other employees as it may find necessary to the proper performance of its duties, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

The nineteenth section of the Senate's bill, providing for a reference of the question of pooling to the commission, is not embraced in this substitute.

Section 22 of the substitute bill, among other things, provides that nothing in this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but that the provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies, with a proviso that no pending litigation shall in any way be affected by this act.

Section 24 of the substitute bill provides that the act shall go into effect sixty days after its passage, as in the opinion of your committee it was deemed best to give the railroads sufficient time to prepare their schedules and to modify their management in accordance with the provisions of this bill. The appointment of the commission, however, is to be made at once, as it has to be organized, and as said schedules of rates and charges have to be filed with said commission.

MR. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, I propose now to explain somewhat the provisions of this bill, and the action of the managers who represented the House in the conference. I am not informed as to the disposition of the House with regard to debating this report. If it were possible to have now any understanding looking to the fixing of such early time for a vote on this question as may be consistent with a proper discussion of so important a measure, I should be very glad indeed.

MR. WEAVER, of Iowa. I think it best the debate should be permitted to run on awhile, before attempting at all to limit it.

MR. DUNHAM. After the debate has proceeded for a time, we can then better see what limit should be fixed. Two hours hence we can tell better than we can now when we desire the debate to stop. MR. O'NEILL, of Pennsylvania. The Senate occupied nearly two weeks in the discussion of this report.

MR. CRISP. Mr. Speaker, in view of the suggestions of gentlemen, I shall not at this time undertake to secure any limitation of the debate on this question.

For many years attention has been directed to the practices of common carriers, transporters of commerce from State to State-practices

which have been generally understood and believed to be unjust to the public. Year after year the agitation of the question of regulating such commerce has been brought to the attention of the Representatives of the people. At the last session of this Congress, this House, by a very large majority, passed a bill known as "the Reagan bill," the purpose and intent of which was to protect the people from unjust charges by common carriers engaged in interstate commerce.

At the last session also, the Senate of the United States passed a bill known as "the Cullom bill," having for its object the regulation of the carriage of commerce between the States. These bills were dissimilar; they brought about a disagreement between the two Houses upon a question, which, as the votes of the two Houses clearly indicated, each House was anxious to adjust satisfactorily. In that state of the case a conference committee, consisting of three members of each House, was appointed; and those conferees, before the assembling of the present session, met in the Capitol and made an earnest effort to agree upon a plan which would afford some relief to the people of the United States. I need not say that, representing in a controversy of this kind views so different as those which had been expressed by the two Houses, the conferees on the one part and on the other had to yield something of their convictions as to what ought to be done. The result of those labors is presented in the pending report.

I feel, as one of the conferees on the part of the House, the only one of them now present, that an explanation should be made of this bill. I feel you ought to be told as to what we understand to be the meaning of any part of this bill any gentleman wants to inquire about, and I feel you ought to be informed that the bill as presented is the result of a compromise made between individuals or Representatives in Congress who earnestly desire to afford some relief to the people of the United States.

I shall not, Mr. Speaker, at this late day, in the discussion of this great question, undertake to present to this House all the reasons that exist why legislation should be had on this subject. I take it for granted that every man in the House who regards railroading as a business in which the public has an interest, understands and concedes that some regulation, some provision, some law is necessary to protect the people against the practices on the part of railroads, which have so unjustly burdened the great body of shippers, and occasioned a demand for legislation from every State in the Union.

In the arguments made by the representatives of these corporations as a reason why legislation should not be had, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, the error lies in the fact that they fail to recognize the character of the corporation which they represent. They come before the committees of the House, they go before the country making an argument in vindication of their practices, which might be, in many cases, forcible if they were talking about a private business, if they were talking about a business in which the public had not an interest, if they were talking about a business which could exist without the consent of the Government. If we will bring our minds to a recognition of the fact-because there we must at last come-that a railroad company is a corporation created by the public, for the benefit of the public, that while the corporators and owners of the franchise have a right to charge

reasonable tolls, they take that right burdened with obligations to the public which are of paramount importance and which can not be disregarded.

A railroad can not be built in any State in this Union except by the exercise, on the part of such State, of the right of eminent domain. The State can exercise that right in no case except for the public goodfor the public use. No State and no power can take from an individual property which he owns and give it to another. It can be taken by the State for only one purpose-for public use-and then only on just compensation.

These companies are chartered by the State, or by the United States. The power that grants a charter grants it, although it may not be so nominated in the charter, for the public good.

Therefore it is, Mr. Speaker, the people have rights in regard to these corporations and great transportation agencies which they would not have if it were a business conducted by a private individual.

The error, therefore, I say, in the arguments presented to sustain the present practices arises from a misconception of the character of these corporations. And I mention that now so the House and each member may bear in mind in what we propose to do we are dealing with a corporation or corporations in which the public interest is paramount. And while we do not seek, and should not seek, to deprive investors of reasonable returns for their investments, if the public interest demands it private interest must give way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having called the attention of the House to that fundamental principle, which I believe is not now disputed, I propose to invite attention to the provisions of the bill, or some of them, which we suggest for consideration. In many of the provisions of this bill, I understand, we all agree. Those provisions of this bill, which seek to enforce equality between the shippers, I understand nobody objects to. The bill provides that no preference shall be given to one shipper over another, and that no drawback, or rebate, or device shall be authorized or permitted which allows discrimination in favor of one shipper against another; that no practice shall be tolerated which permits discrimination for or against a particular locality, that no practice shall be allowed which permits a railroad company to discriminate for or against a connecting railroad or other railroad company which may receive or want to receive freight from the railroad company so carrying. The act also provides that all rates charged by the common carrier engaged in interstate commerce shall be reasonable and just.

Those provisions, Mr. Speaker, I understand meet the approbation of all. Those provisions, like some other provisions in this bill, to which I shall refer, are the provisions, as I understand it to-day, of the common law of the land where we live. I understand that each one of these provisions is maintained by the common law; and therefore there should be and can be no reason, I submit, why any member should object to this portion of the bill.

The next point to which I shall refer, and which has excited some controversy, one perhaps which has received more attention in the public discussions and in the public press on this measure than any other section, is the fourth, that referring to what is commonly called the long