stances and conditions were one is discriminated against and another is not, where one place is broken down and another is not, where one man gets rebate and another does not; and the purpose of this bill is to prevent that in so far as we may be able to do it without crippling the commerce of the country. Does not the Senator think there is anything in it?

MR. GEORGE. I think there is a good deal in the provision against discrimination and the provision against rebates, but I think that by the construction put upon the clause as to the long and short haul the Senator has destroyed the benefit of that provision.

MR. CULLOM. The joint through rates which are made by two or more railroad companies, between points upon their respective roads, are made over an entirely different and distinct line from that over which any one of the companies individually makes rates. And they are also made under different" circumstances and conditions" from those which gov ern and determine rates over a single railroad.

The two transactions are separate and distinct, neither being necessarily governed by the other. Furthermore, the making of joint through rates is specifically recognized by the bill in the section requiring publicity of rates, and nowhere in the bill can anything be found in relation to the division of a joint rate by connecting roads. I am satisfied, therefore, that the only construction that is warranted by the language of the section is the one I have gived it, and that, instead of requiring rates to be measured by the percentage of a through rate which a road accepts, or of requiring through rates over connecting roads to be an aggregation of the local rates over each road, as some have claimed, the section as it stands simply requires that each railroad company shall observe the shorthaul principle as to its own rates, and that the same principle shall also be observed by a combination of railroads as to the joint through rates between points upon their respective roads agreed upon by such a combination.

I have received a copy of the New York Times of the 5th instant, containing a long argument against this section by Mr. George R. Blanchard, commissioner of the Central Traffic Association. Mr. Blanchard is a very able man, and has a peculiar faculty for discovering practical difficulties that may arise under this bill. If his questions can be answered satisfactorily, as I think they can be, I feel sure that the bill can stand the test of practical operation reasonably well. In this letter Mr. Blanchard addresses some questions to me, which I will endeavor to answer in order. In discussing the meaning of the short-haul section Mr. Blanchard says:

Traffic is received at Fort Wayne:

I.

From the Wabash Railway coming from Kansas City. This allows the lowest rate east of Fort Wayne.

2.

From the nearer connecting Grand Rapids road. This allows more rate east of Fort Wayne.

3. From resident forwarders. This allows the highest rate east of Fort Wayne. It is a frequent happening that there comes to Fort Wayne on the same day one car from each of these sources, none of them being handled by the railways, (because the town grain comes from an elevator), and that the three cars go in the same train from Fort Wayne to the same consignee at New York, but at the said three different rates. It is therefore all transported out of Fort Wayne under substantially like conditions. Wil Senator CULLOм kindly answer the following:

1. Would the transportation circumstances and conditions be substantially the same? 2. Is or is not the same rate required from Fort Wayne on the three cars, and if not, what difference may prevail?

3.

Does this refer to commercial circumstances and conditions by which each point of origin is to be considered as changing them?

4. His original bill defined this looseness by saying "from the same original points of departure, or to the same point of arrival." How is it to be read now?

My answer to the first question is that, in the case stated by Mr. Blanchard, the transportation circumstances and conditions would not be the same as to the three cars in question, because one shipment originated at Kansas City, another on the Grand Rapids road, and another at Fort Wayne.

The second question is: "Is or is not the same rate required from Fort Wayne on the three cars; and if not, what difference may prevail ?

In answer, I say that the same rate or charge is not, in my opinion, necessarily required from Fort Wayne on each of the three cars, because they do not pass over the same line" from point of shipment to place of destination within the meaning of the bill. The line from Kansas City to New York must observe the short-haul rule, and must not charge more from Fort Wayne than from the first point on that line west of Fort Wayne to which that particular combination of carriers makes joint through rates. The combination of carriers making joint rates from points on the Grand Rapids road to New York must observe the same rule. The shipment originating at Fort Wayne would be governed by charge made from the next point west of Fort Wayne on the road between Fort Wayne and New York. The same rule must be observed in all these transactions as to each separate line, but the differences between the amounts actually received for the haul from Fort Wayne to New York in each case must depend upon the circumstances in each case.

I think Mr. Blanchard's third and fourth questions are sufficiently answered by what I have already said. In the same letter he propounds several questions to the Senator from Iowa [MR. ALLISON] which I desire to notice. He quotes the following statement which the Senator is reported to have made :

When the Boston and Albany, New York Central, and Lake Shore combine and fix a through rate from Boston to Chicago, they can not charge more between Boston and Buffalo than the aggregate charge. That gives a wide latitude. It allows a charge of as much for 50 miles as for 500, though no more.

So far as the fourth section is concerned, the Senator from Iowa is reported to have said it.

Mr. Blanchard then asks: "How can the rate from Boston to Chicago be charged to Buffalo?"

My answer is that, if the combination of carriers named by the Senator agrees upon and publishes a schedule of joint rates between Boston and Chicago, the charge made to Buffalo must not exceed the sum charged to Chicago, but it may be the same, so far as this short-haul section is concerned. The prohibition made by this section is simply against charging more in the aggregate to Buffalo than to any point beyond Buffalo on the line composed of the three roads named. The charge to Buffalo must not exceed the amount charged to Chicago; but that is not all. It must not exceed the charge to any point between Buffalo and Chi

cago to which the combination composed of these three carriers makes joint rates.

If the charge to any of the intermediate points is less than the charge to Chicago, such smaller sum becomes the maximum amount that can be charged to Buffalo instead of the Chicago charge. This is as far as the short-haul section affects the charge to Buffalo. When a question is raised as to the right of carriers to charge as much to Buffalo as to Chicago or the next point west of Buffalo, that must be determined by the commission and the courts under the requirements of the bill that all rates must be reasonable and that no unreasonable preference must be given to any particular locality.

Mr. Blanchard's second question is: "Why is it the rate to Chicago rather than to Cleveland or Omaha which may be charged from Boston to Buffalo, and why is it any of them?"

It is to be presumed that under the requirements of the bill such joint through rates as those under consideration would be established and made public by the carriers. The illustration said to have been given by the Senator from Iowa referred to shipments over a line from Boston to Chicago composed of three railroads. The charge to Omaha does not govern the rates made on that particular line, because Omaha is not on "the same line."

The charge made to Buffalo must not exceed the charge to Chicago, nor to Toledo, nor to Cleveland, nor to Erie, nor to the first point west of Buffalo on that line to which the three carriers named make joint rates. In this case the first requirement of the short-haul section is that the charge to Buffalo shall not exceed the charge to Chicago, which would be the largest amount that could be charged. But the maximum would be decreased as the charges to points between Buffalo and Chicago decreased, so that the smallest sum charged to any point beyond Buffalo would really become the maximum amount that could be charged to Buffalo.

Again, Mr. Blanchard asks:

If they can charge as much from Boston to Buffalo as three lines combined may charge from the same or further points to Chicago, why can not the charge be as much as six lines combined from Boston to San Francisco?

There is nothing in the short-haul section standing by itself that would prevent the same charge being made from Boston to Buffalo that is made from Boston to San Francisco, if we can assume that no smaller charge is made to any point between Buffalo and San Francisco. When the six carriers combine to make joint rates between Boston and San Francisco they become a different line, and not the line that we were talking about or that the Senator from Iowa is charged with having talked about, from Boston to Chicago. The charge this different combination could make to Buffalo would be limited first by its charge to San Francisco, then by its charge to Ogden if that was less, then by its charge to Omaha if that was less, then by its charge to Chicago if that was less, and finally by the lowest charge made to any point west of Buffalo to which this combination of six carriers made and published joint rates.

DEBATE ON MR. CULLOM'S REMARKS.

Mr. DAWES.-I should like to ask the Senator from Illinois for an explanation of the effect of the bill. Suppose the Boston and Albany Railroad takes freight at Albany for Boston from different lines from the West-freight from Chicago on one line, freight from Saint Louis on another, freight from Cleveland on another, and freight from Kansas City on another-if the Boston and Albany makes a different charge for the freight that it takes off from one of these lines on its way to Boston than it does from any other line, does it not subject itself to the prosecution set up in your bill?

MR. CULLOM.—I have just been discussing the very points the Senator raises.

MR. DAWES.-Probably I was out of the Senate chamber.

MR. CULLOM. However, I have no objection to the Senator asking the question, because I want to be perfectly fair about this matter. have undertaken to show that a line of railroad may be one line doing business by itself, having its tariff of rates for its own use, and it can control them, and that one road shall not be at liberty to charge more for the shorter than for the longer distance on the same line, in the same direction, and under the same circumstances, etc. Now, you can make a line of a dozen roads, for instance, as I said, from San Francisco to Boston, and the same rule applies as to that line, that it shall not be allowed to charge more for the shorter than for the longer distance, and so on, under similar circumstances. Suppose there are four roads coming into Buffalo. I believe that is the place the Senator named?

MR. DAWES.-No, Albany. I will explain to the Senator that Albany is where the Boston and Albany road begins. It is an independent line from there to Boston, and being in two States it is subject to all the penalties of your bill.

MR. CULLOM.-I understand. Suppose there are four roads coming to Albany, and each one of them does business with the Albany and Boston road. At the other end of its line, if you please, each one of them has its arrangements of through rates, by which, from Kansas City, the Wabash, for instance, carries freight to Albany, and on to Boston on that line; another road from Chicago carries freight from Chicago to Albany and on to Boston on that line; another one from Detroit carries freight to Albany and on to Boston on that line.

Each one of these different roads makes its own combination, its own arrangements with the Boston and Albany by which grain or other products are transported over its line from Albany to Boston; and the charge that the Albany and Boston road makes, or the agreement that it makes, if you please, with these different, separate lines has nothing to do with what it charges one or the other of them, and it has nothing to do with its own local rates from Albany to Boston.

MR. HOAR.-Except under the clause as to unjust discrimination. MR. CULLOM.-Except under the clause relative to unjust discrimination. As I said before, the Albany and Boston road can have an arrangement with the Wabash by which grain is brought from Kansas City to Boston over its line at just whatever rate the Wabash line can agree upon, and so with each of the others.

MR. DAWES.-And they can charge a different rate?

MR. CULLOM.-They can carry the freight as they may agree to carry it, and whatever their agreement may be, it does not affect the freight that goes from Albany to Boston on that line, its own line, according to its own published rates of freight.

MR. DAWES.-Suppose it be a different_rate from that for which it takes up freight at Albany and carries it to Boston?

MR. CULLOM.-It does not make the slightest difference in the world; it has nothing to do with it. One is a line of railroad by itself, the other is a line of railroad in conjunction with one, two, or five others, if you please, and the one rate does not control the others. In other words, as have said over and over again, the percentage that the Boston and Albany road gets for carrying the products that are brought from the far west to Boston after they reach Albany has nothing to do with regulating the rates from Albany to Boston over that road.

MR. DAWES.-Do you find that in the letter of your bill, or do you think that ought to be the construction of it?

MR. CULLOM.-I think that is a reasonable construction of the bill, and I have no question myself but that the courts and the commission would construe it that way. The letter of the bill will sustain that construction of it, I think.

MR. ALDRICH.-It is of the utmost importance that we as well as the business community should understand the construction the committee put upon this bill. I wish to ask the Senator from Illinois one or two questions in this connection, so that we may understand fully just what the committee understand to be the meaning of this section.

As I understand him, if a combination of roads agree to carry freight from San Francisco to New York at $1 a hundred pounds, that rate is the only limitation which that particular transaction makes upon any intermediate rates between San Francisco and New York. Do I understand that to be the Senator's construction?

MR. CULLOM.-Ask that question again.

MR. ALDRICH.-In the case of a contract for the transportation of freight from San Francisco to New York at an agreed rate of $1 per 100 pounds, that rate of $1 per 100 pounds is the only limitation which that transaction fixes upon any intermediate transportation or upon transportation between any intermediate points between San Francisco and New York?

MR. HARRIS.-Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to answer that particular question of the Senator from Rhode Island?

MR. ALDRICH.-I was only trying to find out whether that was what the Senator from Illinois had stated. I understood him to state that.

MR. HARRIS.-The statement of the Senator from Illinois on that point, as I understood him-and I think I understood him clearly and correctly-was this: Here are four distinct and independent lines of railroad between New York and San Francisco; first, the PennsylvaniaMR. ALDRICH.—I am talking about the same line. Take one of the lines.

MR. HARRIS.-There is a line composed of four distinct and independent lines. MR. ALDRICH.-Take one of them.